Subject:
|
Re: Description vs. argument
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:55:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1392 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > Words change meanings, but to understand the 2nd, you have to know what
> > militia meant to the founding fathers, and what they meant when they said
> > it. Intent is difficult to judge but I tend to go by the claimed intent
> > described in the Federalist Papers, not with what some random lying around
> > the house (or Random House) dictionary has in it.
>
> You make good points, both for the importance of meaning and the difficulty
> of determining intent. As I understand it, the term "militia" as it applies to
> the 2nd has never come before the Supreme Court, so there is no "final"
> definition to be applied.
I am not sure if it is what you are after, but if you scroll down to "THE
SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE COURTS" at
http://www.handguncontrol.org/facts/ib/second.asp
You'll find:
"Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice
more, upholding New Jersey’s strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding
the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore,
twice -- in 1965 and 1990 -- the Supreme Court has held that the term
"well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard."
> On the plus side, that allows the average joe to own
> weapons (not simply to overthrow the gov't, but--as someone pointed out in a
> previous debate--as a demonstration of The Constitution's trust in the citizen
> to possess such freedom). On the down side, there's no ironclad,
> Constitutional means to deny gun ownership yet still keep within the
> resuirements of the 2nd.
> Random House--or even the OED, which I'm sure some reader of this message
> will cite--has no special wisdom regarding the interpretation of Constitutional
> matters, other than in providing basic foundation definitions.
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Description vs. argument
|
| (...) You make good points, both for the importance of meaning and the difficulty of determining intent. As I understand it, the term "militia" as it applies to the 2nd has never come before the Supreme Court, so there is no "final" definition to be (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
