BS: The Second Amendment

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:21 AM

Like I said, Jack... You can't... But, fortunately, that is out there in Boss Hog's mean world and, for the most part, not here... Yeah, we get some very dogmatic people here now and then that are absolutely unwilling to discuss issues in a reasonable manner but they are a tiny minority...

BTW, when I was a member of the NRA and on one of the NRA shoot teams it was a much different time... Back then the NRA was into gun safety... Now they couldn't care less... All they want is sales, sales and more sales for their dealers... Gun safety is no longer of any importance to them or they would be all over 30 round magazines for 9mm Glocks...

I mean, I have a long history using guns and still keep up my skills but I have fired a 9mm semiautomatic and after the first round, if it is being fired rapidly then unless you are very highly skilled the target seems to be the safest place to be... I mean, this gun cannot be used safely by someone with average skills in a rapid fire situation, which BTW, these things like happened in Tucson was... Throw in the adrenalin and the 9mm becomes more of hand*grenade* than a hand*gun*...

But the NRA doesn't care...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:17 AM

... The Federalist Papers (generally assumed to have been written by Alexander Hamilton)

Assumed by the ignorant, perhaps.

The Federalist Papers were a series of articles written under the pen name of Publius by James Madison, and John Jay and Alexander Hamilton.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 09:20 AM

Bobert, how can you have a rational discussion who tells you he believes this..

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

is actually this..

The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 09:15 AM

Well, one thing that the NRAers don't want, art, is ***any discussion*** about guns!!! Zero!!! Zippo!!! Nada!!! None...

End of conversation...

This is the problem I have with the people on the right... They simply do not want to discuss anything that might either require them to think or, horrors, to compromise... They act like spoiled crybabies and they own the media and have enough $$$$ behind them to have it their way...

The problem with that is you can only oppress people but so long and then you have what we are seeing in Tunisia, Egypt and other middle easter countries...

The left was severely silenced in the 60's and and been given occasional reminders that the right is heavily armed and perfectly willing to kill progressives... I mean, we had the Greensboro Massacre in '79 which was a major reminder... Then every couple years someone who works at a women's clinic is gunned down... Now a congresswoman...

So, we here in Mudville can have this conversation because most of us, if not all of us, are not shills for the NRA or Boss Hog, Inc. but having an adult conversation in the real world not only is not possible but one that the NRA won't permit...

That is the sad reality...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 09:09 AM

>>2. The definition of the militia at the time was essentially the entire free, adult male population. But in any case, according to the rules of construction, which were well understood at the time, the preamble, while giving a reason for what came afterward, did not in any way define or limit what came afterward. So the bit about the "well regulated militia" doesn't have to be interpreted, because it doesn't affect the main body of the amendment.<<

We have your say so about having "studied constitutional law."

What you have written make it very difficult to believe that your study was at an institute of higher learning. Was it at an NRA seminar?

Lets look at the second amendments.

As passed by the Congress:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Obviously for one who is able to read English, the "well regulated militia" is the reason given in the amendment for the necessity of enshrining the right to bear arms.

It is, as Bobert pointed out, ONE sentence with two clauses, That 'bit about the "well regulated militia"' is literally half of the amendment, there is no "main body" separate from that part.

If it doesn't have to be interpreted why is it there?

There are obviously at least to current versions of the second amendment in circulation the one that is part of the actual constitution and the one seen by those wearing Tea Party blinders. The one that simply says.

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Of course you won't change any minds with that kind of bull crap. I also don't expect you to change your mind once your bull crap has been pointed out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 08:53 AM

As already noted, we are not going to change anyone's mind by rehashing this topic here yet again. To me, the position taken by some (and I don't want to use a label) that the Constitution is locked in concrete forever, and we are forever bound by the attitudes of people who were writing 220 years ago, is simply wrong. By that, I mean that the interpretation of what is written should be in the context of contemporary (i.e., right now) society - I'm not forgetting about the amendment process.

What I've always found interesting about 2nd Amendment discussions is that people get all wrapped around the axle about subordinate and independent clauses, which are entirely modern grammatical concepts. This discussion is always based upon where the commas were placed in this very brief sentence. However, it is well known that multiple copies of the proposed Bill of Rights were circulated to the states for ratification in 1791...and they were hand-written and not identical. Various versions of that one simple sentence had anywhere from one to three commas in it. (More here, from a pro-gun site.) Some people cite The Federalist Papers (generally assumed to have been written by Alexander Hamilton) in order to derive the "proper" understanding of the statement. Again IMHO, since the Federalists were a political party, anything written by them can only clarify the party's position and can not be used for grammatical clarification.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 11:12 PM

Actually, Bill, far from being standardized the weapons of the US Civil War were anything but. Both Union and Confederate soldiers used the .58 caliber Springfield, the two-band Enfield, the three-band Enfield, the musketoon, and worse. Neither, at the beginning of the Late Unpleasantness, had enough arms on hand and spent several millions of dollars buying whatever they could get from Great Britain and across Europe.

At the time of the Spanish War in 1898 the US military had standardized on the .30-40 Krag Jorgensen rifle, but it was found to be far, far inferior to the Mauser-actioned rifles the Spanish used. In fact, the soldiers often preferred the .45-70 "trapdoor Springfields" used by the militia units. The reasons for this are complex and I shan't go into them here.

Suffice to say that the Krag gave way to the .30-03, which was quickly euthanized and the .30-06 (03 for 1903, 06 for 1906, the year the cartridge was introduced) became "standard" until about 1956, when the .308 Winchester (7.62 x 51 NATO) became the "standard" rifle. Unfortunately, as late as 1970 the US Rifle, Caliber .30, Model of 1903 and Model of 1917, not to mention the venerable M-1, were still in use even though the Army had switched to the US Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M-16 (and its variants in that caliber).

And if you think the rifles were bad, peek at the US military's pistols from the USCW to the present....

Let me give you a simple illustration. In 1968, my National Guard unit was ordered to federal active duty. At the time we were armed with the US Carbine, Caliber .30, M-1 (which is NOT the same weapon OR cartridge as the M-1 rifle). Since we entrained (literally!) "under arms" our carbines were taken from us and we were issued US Rifle, Caliber .30, M-1 (the M-1 rifle of WW2, etc.). Then THESE were taken from us and we were issued US Rifle, Caliber 5.56mm, M-16A1. When I got to Korea I was issued an M-16A1, which I never saw, and then it was taken and I was issued a US Rifle, Caliber 7.62, M-14 (which I never saw). The ammunition of each of these were ONLY usable by the weapons within the same group. The reason that I didn't see or fire my weapons in Korea was because I was carrying an unauthorized .45 pistol (M1911A1) or a Colt's revolver in .38 Special (a caliber the US Army retired from general issue in 1911, except where it didn't).

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:59 PM

One can study Constitutional Law until the cows come home, Tac...

I mean, lets get real here... Obama taught Constitutional Law and the Tea Partiers "shellacked" him in the midterms because they convinced the people who voted that they knew more than the Constitutional Law than the professor???

Okee dokee???

In the words of Sarah Palin, "WTF???"...

But here's the real deal here... There are 27 words in the 2nd amendment and it ain't a menu of several sentences to choose from like at the local Jeri's Ice Cream so ya' get to pick 'cause it is a long ramblin' sentence... That means only one period so if I have my grammar hat on I say, ahhhhhh, this stuff is inter-realted... Basic grammar...

So I have two problems here... No, actually three...

First: Why is it that gun-rights people do not have an inkling that they are cherry-pickin' the 2nd amendment??? I would bet my farm that if you were to set up a foldin' chair at any of the Virginia gun shows and ask people if they could recite the 2nd amendment that you wouldn't find one single correct answwer... Not one!!!

Second: The "BIG LIE" that is spreading thru *Redneck Nation* that "Obama is gonna ' take yer guns"!!! What a crock of shit... I mean, anyone who believes this is on the IQ south side of a box of animal crackers... OPbama has his hand full, folk, in case ya'll hadn't noticed...

Third: I'd like to see any definition in any dictionary that defines militia as one man...

Okay, thems is jus' fir starters....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:52 PM

"National Guard (which has been pretty much USURPED [caps mine] by the Federal government from its State roles since the end of the draft)."

Interesting choice of verb.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:51 PM

It is true that that 'answer', by itself, will not change many opinions, but it is at least a clarification of certain aspects of history...although I rather doubt the part about... "the Second Amendment was understood, when written, to be a guarantee of the preservation of the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms."

PRE-existing right? Perhaps some understood it that way...perhaps some did not. I'd have to read more.


It is obvious (to me, anyway) that the Constitution needs to be updated and clarified in this matter. In 1780, everyone KNEW what a militia was and what 'bearing arms' to defend the country meant. But those who wrote the document and the amendment had no concept of either the state of the world in 250 years or the advancements in firearms.
   I sincerely doubt they would have been so brief and vague had they known.

No one is arguing whether the Constitution says "right", or that some of it was directly inspired by the attitude of English kings, or that some uses of firearms have been beneficial.....

I AM saying that the **USE** of 'right' in the 2nd amendment to refer to "bearing arms" is a different sense than that of the right to 'freedom', and that it OUGHT to be understood as a 'privilege'.
Now...if I am going to make such a claim, I ought to back it with something more than a 'feeling'....right?
   Ok...when the Bill of Rights was written, everyone knew what a 'militia' was, and that in times of crisis, men might be called on to defend their state or country against something like....well, England deciding to re-take the 'colonies. If they WERE called, they would have been expected to bring with them the weapon(s) they commonly used for hunting and self-protection against various dangers. You know what these weapons consisted of: mostly non-standardized rifles with various firing mechanisms. This continued up about time of the Civil War, during which many changes in firearms were occurring.

   Fast forward a couple hundred years....if the country is threatened or needs to go to the aid of allies, the 'militia'...now known as the Armed Forces, would NOT expected to bring their own weapons. In fact, I doubt they would be allowed to...for various reasons. (standardization...etc..) Also, by this time, the country, most states & even down to many small towns had codified and instituted a trained and paid set of officials and/or soldiers so that it was not necessary to issue general calls to the citizens when help was needed! In special times, a draft was put in place, and the resultant 'militia' was ISSUED arms BY the government....for very good reasons.

So...MY basic feeling is that those who cling to the most literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment are simply ignoring history in order to not upset their personal habits and obsessions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:40 PM

Yes, the Bladensburg Races. Nearly as much fun as the Battle of Stillman's Run.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: EBarnacle
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:36 PM

Actually the rationale for the militia was brought into large disrepute during the War of 1812 when the militia's defense of Washington was termed a race after they ran away in great disarray from the well regulated and disciplined British army.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:31 PM

Let me also hasten to point out what others here already know: I own and shoot firearms. My wife owns those left to her by her late father, who was both a lawyer and a retired Colonel.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:29 PM

Yes, I read all of this in my wife's book on Con Law when she was in Law School. But in 1789 there was great antipathy towards a standing Army, the feeling being that the State Militias would be sufficient (given a cadre of professional soldiers to guide them) for the defense of the country -- which is what happened at the beginning of the US Civil War, and which the US Civil War showed would no longer work. Nonetheless, Congress continued with the idea and it still continues as the National Guard (which has been pretty much usurped by the Federal government from its State roles since the end of the draft).

Subject: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Taconicus
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:13 PM

Someone asked me to respond about this topic, but I'm posting this in a new thread because the conversation about the Second Amendmentwas taking place in some old thread about rabbis and Glenn Beck.

I studied constitutional law, but the issue is too complex for me to want to go into an argument about it, which I know would never end on this forum. I'll give you the nutshell version and then I'll shut up about it.

1. The answer first: the Second Amendment was understood, when written, to be a guarantee of the preservation of the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), commenting on the Second Amendment, wrote, "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
2. The definition of the militia at the time was essentially the entire free, adult male population. But in any case, according to the rules of construction, which were well understood at the time, the preamble, while giving a reason for what came afterward, did not in any way define or limit what came afterward. So the bit about the "well regulated militia" doesn't have to be interpreted, because it doesn't affect the main body of the amendment.

3. In 1789 the incorporation doctrine did not exist because the post-Civil War amendments did not exist. Accordingly, at the time it was written the Second Amendment prohibited only the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The states, which under the Constitution were considered sovereign nations, still had the general police power and could prohibit or regulate arms if they wanted to. However, practically all of them had in their state constitutions provisions almost identical to the Second Amendment guaranteeing the individual right of the population to keep and bear arms.

Will what I wrote change anyone's mind? Of course not.