Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Teaching the Second Amendment
SierraTimes.com ^ | July 13, 2006 | Jennifer Freeman

Posted on 07/13/2006 12:51:11 AM PDT by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351 next last
To: robertpaulsen; I got the rope
Thus the very importance of the rights protected by the First and Second Amendment was used as the basis for the argument that they did not apply to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. In later opinions, chiefly Presser v. Illinois 61 andMiller v. Texas 62 the Supreme Court adhered to the view. Cruikshank has clearly been superseded by twentieth century opinions which hold that portions of the Bill of Rights — and in particular the right to assembly with which Cruikshank dealt in addition to the Second Amendment — are binding upon the state governments. Given the legislative history of the Civil Rights Acts and the Fourteenth Amendment, and the more expanded views of incorporation which have become accepted in our own century, it is clear that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to be and should be protected under the civil rights statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment against infringement by officials acting under color of state law.

For those who want to infringe on my natural rights, I got the rope.

51 posted on 07/13/2006 11:44:44 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Federal law applies immediately.

But Amendments are special cases apparently. There are no "collective" Rights as the numerous quotations by the Founders have proven time and time again. No where else in the Constitution, or historical documentation, is the theory of "collective Rights" espoused in any manner.

Only in your liberal court decisions designed to REMOVE the protections for the Rights that stand in the way of a collectivist State is such a fiction found.

And you cheerlead this fiction. This makes you a troll in my book and not worth conversing with.

52 posted on 07/13/2006 11:48:12 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

You've got rope. I've got a tall tree and your back if need be.


53 posted on 07/13/2006 11:51:00 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

"The 2nd amendment is 2nd because it is the 2nd most important right to ensure an enduring democracy"

Sorry, it has been shown many times that the numerical order of the first ten amendments to the U.S. constitution is entirely random.

The First is not "More" important than the Second, Fourth, Eighth, or Tenth.
It is NOT a list of descending priorities.

All are equally important, all were required for the Constitution of which they are an integral part to be ratified.

In order to fully regain our republic we must support an UNABRIDGED constitution and B.O.R.


54 posted on 07/13/2006 12:17:31 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"it is clear that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to be and should be protected under the civil rights statutes and"

"meant to be" and "should be" is a far cry from "is".

You want to exercise your natural rights? Fine. Then go live above the tree line with the rest of the mountain men. You want to live among a civilized society? Then you'll follow societies laws.

55 posted on 07/13/2006 12:18:35 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse; robertpaulsen
paulsen:
I'm saying Emerson was the only case heard at the federal circuit court level that said the second amendment protects an individual right.
Every other federal court,
especially the 9th circuit, has ruled it protects a collective right in every case they heard.

There are no "collective" Rights as the numerous quotations by the Founders have proven time and time again.
No where else in the Constitution, or historical documentation, is the theory of "collective Rights" espoused in any manner.
Only in your liberal court decisions designed to REMOVE the protections for the Rights that stand in the way of a collectivist State is such a fiction found.

And you cheerlead this fiction. This makes you a troll in my book and not worth conversing with.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well said DC. Perhaps there should be an alert:

---Caution--- This is a 'Collective Rights and Majority Rules' cheerleader speaking.

56 posted on 07/13/2006 12:21:59 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"But Amendments are special cases apparently. There are no "collective" Rights as the numerous quotations by the Founders have proven time and time again. No where else in the Constitution, or historical documentation, is the theory of "collective Rights" espoused in any manner."

The RKBA protected by state constitutions is an individual right. If the Founders, or any others, were talking about individual rights, they were referring to their state.

The second amendment only applies to the federal government and the laws Congress writes. The second amendment has nothing to do with individuals' RKBA. That right is protected by your state constitution.

"And you cheerlead this fiction"

Nope. I merely state the facts. You don't like the facts, and would like to stick with your fantasy.

You would have the people just sit back, telling them the second amendment will protect them. You're more dangerous to gun owners than Sarah Brady with that ignorant thinking.

57 posted on 07/13/2006 12:27:47 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Your fantasy":

The second amendment only applies to the federal government and the laws Congress writes. The second amendment has nothing to do with individuals' RKBA.

Cheerleading for Collective Rights and Majority Rule.

58 posted on 07/13/2006 12:48:13 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
You want to exercise your natural rights? Fine. Then go live above the tree line with the rest of the mountain men. You want to live among a civilized society? Then you'll follow societies laws.

Senator Vitter To Force Vote Prohibiting Future Gun Confiscations

I wonder why more states are passing laws like that too.

59 posted on 07/13/2006 12:54:00 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The RKBA protected by state constitutions is an individual right. If the Founders, or any others, were talking about individual rights, they were referring to their state.

Which is an outright lie according to every historical source on the debates of the issue. One you should know better by now than to try and repeat. We point out that the Founders meant "no free man shall be debarred the use of arms" and you come back with some crap about the States being able to ignore the Constitution that they are subject to.

You are the one upholding the Brady logic used by the Courts to restrict RKBA.

60 posted on 07/13/2006 1:22:39 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"Which is an outright lie according to every historical source on the debates of the issue."

Fine. Give me a link to one source that says the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to protect this individual right.

You can't. All hat and no cattle. That's you. See ya later.

61 posted on 07/13/2006 1:37:19 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Elliot's Debates in the First Congress...

I recommend you start at the beginning and read the early purposed drafts and how the wording barely changed at all from Pickney's initial draft of the Constitution through subsequent revisions.

62 posted on 07/13/2006 3:08:11 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Here's what South Carolina talked about:

Pretty similar to what Virgina and New York had to say as well. But I'm sure all that "delegating authority" to the FedGov and accepting Federal limitations on what were State powers under the Confederacy were just things that they needed a Judge to explain to them... All that talk about "Citizens Rights" in the individual tense was just them not realizing that the very system they were talking about was merely protecting a class of "collective" Rights.

Yeah right... sure they were.

63 posted on 07/13/2006 3:18:39 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"I recommend you start at the beginning and read the early purposed drafts"

No, I recommend you point out where the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to protect this individual RKBA.

64 posted on 07/13/2006 3:32:05 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Wow. Thanks for the link. I'm still reading and catching up on this thread.

Everything so far seems pretty clear to me...we should have a restriction on the number of lawyers we create in this country per year.

We should also have a three year waiting period for those that enter law school. We could call it a cooling off period.


65 posted on 07/13/2006 8:49:23 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The Founders never once speak of Rights being anything other than individual.

Speech given as a preamble to introducing one of the final forms for the Constitution, complete with "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Note: It doesn't say sh*t about "the Right of a State to keep and bear a militia". It doesn't say the "right of a community to regulate firearms ownership." It clearly states the "right of the people".

And in the State debates it was worded thusly:
Mr. Wythe:
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Still other variations of the Amendment read like this:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

You don't have to like it Bobby, but you will not be allowed to get away with such outrageous lies.

In the New York Debates, they worded it this way:
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
That the militia should not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion, or insurrection.

In Delaware they capitalized "People:
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.

But otherwise the same...

When Vermont sent their ratification in, they included this:
Do, in virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, fully and entirely approve of, assent to, and ratify, the said Constitution; and declare that, immediately from and after this state shall be admitted by the Congress into the Union, and to a full participation of the benefits of the government now enjoyed by the states in the Union, the same shall be binding on us, and the people of the state of Vermont, forever.

Or do you think John Adams didn't know what they were signing on to when he penned "the same shall be binding on us, and the people of the state of Vermont, forever"...

You are delusional.

66 posted on 07/13/2006 9:56:05 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Here's another little tidbit from The US House from June 28th, 1856. Discussing the governing principles for new Territories:

"Sec. 16. And be it further enacted, That no person demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments in said Territory; that the inhabitants of said Territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, of trial by jury, of proportionate representation of the people in the legislature, and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable unless for capital offences, where the proof shall be evident or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate, and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted, No person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land; and should the public exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to take any person's property or demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And in the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared that no law ought ever to be made or be in force in said Territory that shall in any manner interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements bona fide and without fraud previously proved. And the people of said Territory shall be entitled to the right to keep and bear arms, to the liberty of speech and of the press, as defined in the constitution of the United States, and all other rights of person or property thereby declared and as thereby defined.

But, how could this be if as our anti-gun troll asserts, that those Rights do not apply to the States nor to individuals. Unless, of course, our resident anti-gun troll is a completely clueless liar more concerned with propping up Brady Bunch legal fiction being used to ban firearms and severely restrict what should be an uninfringable Right.

67 posted on 07/13/2006 10:04:57 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Now, it could very well be that all these lower federal courts are wrong, and that one day the U.S. Supreme Court will set them straight. But, given that the U.S. Supreme Court USES these lower court decisions to make their decision, I wouldn't count on it.

One lower court decision, I think it was Toft, quotes from the syllabus of the Miller decision. The portion of the syllabus quoted does not, in fact, match what Miller actually says. The other lower-court cases in turn cite Toft.

Counting on a court to do anything right while people like Ginsburg are on it would be unwise, but a reading of what Miller actually says (joined with an understanding of what terms like "judicial notice" and "remanded" mean) makes clear that it doesn't really support the anti-gun position. If it did, why did the government offer Miller's co-defendent (Miller was deceased) Jack Layton a plea bargain for time served instead of prosecuting him?

68 posted on 07/13/2006 11:02:29 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
I think the whole debate over the definition of "militia" is playing into the hands of the totalitarian leftists. The "milita" phrase is clearly an explanitory phrase meant to indicate the importance of the main restriction of the amendment. It isn't a phrase written to be a modifier.

The purpose of the "militia" clause is to make explicit that the right to keep and bear arms is not about "hunting or sporting purposes".

69 posted on 07/13/2006 11:08:59 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: blackie

LB ping;-)


70 posted on 07/13/2006 11:22:46 PM PDT by HangFire (I'm only wearing black until they come up with something darker...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"The Founders never once speak of Rights being anything other than individual."

Baloney. The "freedom of assembly" is a collective right. I can even argue that the "freedom of the press" and the "freedom of religion" is a collective right -- can I form the individual Church of Robertpaulsen and not pay taxes?

"Rights" secured by what entity? The individual state? If so, then I agree. I have no qualms with rights secured by the individual states being individual rights.

The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution (which Madison didn't even think was necessary and added it later under pressure), as written, only applied to the newly formed federal government. All it said was that the federal government could not infringe on these rights. So, the second amendment, whatever it protects, protects only from federal infringement. The state were, and still are, guided solely by their state constitutions when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.

As you are aware, the model for the U.S. Constitution was the Articles of Confederation (ratified in 1781). That document did mention a Militia, but did not mention a right to bear arms -- meaning any such protections would have had to come from state law. From the Articles of Confederation:

"No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

In my opinion, the second amendment was more about the argument against a standing army than one of an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers were in favor of the federal government "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". The second amendment was to secure the right of the state to form and maintain a state militia, however they saw fit to do so.

All of the lower federal circuit courts (save one, in one case) have interpreted the second amendment as protecting the rights of the people, collectively, to keep and bear arms as part of a Militia. Don't shoot the messenger here.

Do you really want the federal government protecting your RKBA? Do you really want five liberal justices on some future U.S. Supreme Court interpreting the second amendment -- defining "arms"? Defining "keep and bear"? Then applying those interpretations to all fifty states?

Or do you trust your state to protect your gun rights?

71 posted on 07/14/2006 6:18:17 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Baloney. The "freedom of assembly" is a collective right. I can even argue that the "freedom of the press" and the "freedom of religion" is a collective right -- can I form the individual Church of Robertpaulsen and not pay taxes?

The Freedom of individuals to come together in groups? That's your example of a "collective" right? Your first example is pure spin.

And no, Rights secured by compact with government. In this case, by the US Constitution whereby the individual States ceded authority, and submitted themselves to the authority, of the FedGov in specifically defined areas.

You are so off base with regards to the purpose of the Second Amendment it isn't even ridiculous any more. All those past quotations from the various Founders purporting the individual Right, even going as far as calling it a Duty, to keep and bear arms and you STILL think it only applies to the FedGov and that the States can just strip us of that Right by simple law...

The second amendment was to secure the right of the state to form and maintain a state militia, however they saw fit to do so.

Ah... the Brady Logic for supporting gun control. "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms" is what they explicitly meant though and not your twisted 20th Century legal fiction.

Ask the folks in California, Illinois, Maryland, ect... how their "unalienable" Right to keep and bear arms is doing. You are WRONG there are well. No State may exercise a power given explicitly to the Federal Government as they ceded that authority via ratification of the Constitution. They are also bound by every other prohibition and limitation therein. Including the Rights so protected by the BoR.

Look, I know you want to retain the twisted legal reasoning that will allow you and your pals in the Brady Bunch to strip us of our Rights. But I gotta tell you, countries have fought wars over less.

72 posted on 07/14/2006 6:35:15 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: supercat
"One lower court decision, I think it was Toft, quotes from the syllabus of the Miller decision. The portion of the syllabus quoted does not, in fact, match what Miller actually says. The other lower-court cases in turn cite Toft."

I can't find this anywhere, so I really can't comment. If you have a link, I'd appreciate it.

"but a reading of what Miller actually says (joined with an understanding of what terms like "judicial notice" and "remanded" mean) makes clear that it doesn't really support the anti-gun position."

I agree. Once remanded, I believe the lower court would have found that a sawed-off shotgun was indeed "part of the ordinary military equipment" and allowed by the second amendment. As to whether Miller and Layton were "enrolled for military discipline" is questionable -- they may not have had standing to bring a second amendment case.

"If it did, why did the government offer Miller's co-defendent (Miller was deceased) Jack Layton a plea bargain for time served instead of prosecuting him?"

Frank Layton pleaded guilty to the charge of transporting a sawed-off shotgun (after the Supreme Court decision) and was placed on five year's probation by Judge Heartsill Ragon on January 8, 1940.

73 posted on 07/14/2006 7:24:59 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: HangFire

What happened to my ping, ya big dope?


74 posted on 07/14/2006 7:38:52 AM PDT by Feiny (Now go bang your heads on your desks until something useful comes out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"The Freedom of individuals to come together in groups?"

Now you're trying to argue that the freedom of assembly is an individual right because an assembly consists of individuals? Get a grip. You keep up this childish nonsense and I'm outta here. I really don't have time to play these 3rd grade word games with you.

"and you STILL think it only applies to the FedGov and that the States can just strip us of that Right by simple law..."

I THINK it applies only to the FedGov?? No, I KNOW it only applies to the FedGov and can back that up with probably a dozen federal circuit court opinions. You, on the other hand, cannot cite one source that demonstrates the second amendment appling to the states. That does not stop you, however, from holding your breath and stomping your feet and making that claim post after post after post, ad nauseum.

And no, the states cannot "just strip us of that Right by simple law". The states are guided by their state constitution.

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms" is what they explicitly meant though and not your twisted 20th Century legal fiction."

Those were Jefferson's words to the Virginia legislature as a suggestion for inclusion in the Virginia State Constitution. It was rejected. Instead, the legislature adopted, "A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State."

If Jefferson couldn't even sell that concept to his own state, I highly doubt your claim that the Founding Fathers "explicitly meant" that to apply to the second amendment. You just make this $hit up as you go along, don't you?

"how their "unalienable" Right to keep and bear arms is doing."

Your RKBA is not an unalienable right.

"No State may exercise a power given explicitly to the Federal Government"

States retained their police power.

"the twisted legal reasoning that will allow you and your pals in the Brady Bunch to strip us of our Rights"

Once you understand who's actually protecting your RKBA, the better you'll be able to do something about it. If you continue to believe that the second amendment, Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court is protecting your RKBA, your rights will be gone before you know it.

75 posted on 07/14/2006 8:03:04 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: HangFire
Hi HangFire!

An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen!

The Second Amendment...
America's Only Homeland Security!

Be Ever Vigilant!

76 posted on 07/14/2006 8:04:42 AM PDT by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
and can back that up with probably a dozen federal circuit court opinions.

But not one quote from the Constitution or a Founder. Typical.

Also, I've cited several sources, you just refuse to read them. I can't force you to stop being stupid. You either read what the Founders wrote, or you can continue to push your leftist court rulings.

You ignored this one for instance:

US House from June 28th, 1856
And the people of said Territory shall be entitled to the right to keep and bear arms, to the liberty of speech and of the press, as defined in the constitution of the United States, and all other rights of person or property thereby declared and as thereby defined.

And you ignored the various letters included from the State Conventions when they responded back to the Continental Congress about ratifying the US Constitution. Stuff like this:
Do, in virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, fully and entirely approve of, assent to, and ratify, the said Constitution; and declare that, immediately from and after this state shall be admitted by the Congress into the Union, and to a full participation of the benefits of the government now enjoyed by the states in the Union, the same shall be binding on us, and the people of the state of Vermont, forever.

Sounds like Vermont knew it was giving up power to the FedGov. Specific and limited. That it would accept the limitations placed on it as a member State.

You further completely ignored this:

Keep ignoring the facts. It makes you look like an utter idiot to continue to quote Brady Logic.

77 posted on 07/14/2006 8:15:22 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"Also, I've cited several sources"

You cited a 400 page BOOK and suggested I read it. You couldn't even give me an excerpt.

You ignored this one for instance: US House from June 28th, 1856

Uh, yeah I ignored it. I don't consider something from 1856 as supportive of what the Founding Fathers meant by the second amendment.

"Sounds like Vermont knew it was giving up power to the FedGov"

The U.S. Constitution is a contract between the states and the newly formed federal government. Vermont was simply saying that it recognizes the contract to be binding on both parties.

"You further completely ignored this:"

How would you have me respond to a white box with a red X?

78 posted on 07/14/2006 8:38:46 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Hhhmmm... this seems germaine to the discussion.

The Conclusion is certainly dead on.

VI. Conclusion

The second amendment to the Constitution had two objectives. The first purpose was to recognize in general terms the importance of a militia to a free state. This recognition derives from the very core of Classical Republican thought; its "constituency" among the Framers was found primarily among conservatives, particularly Virginia's landed gentry. Indeed, prior to Virginia's proposal, no federal ratifying convention had called for such recognition. The second purpose was to guarantee an individual right to own and carry arms. This right stemmed both from the English Declaration of Rights and from Enlightenment sources. Its primary supporters came from the Radical-Democratic movement, whether based among the small farmers of western Pennsylvania or the urban mechanics of Massachusetts. Only by incorporating both provisions (p.60)could the first Congress reconcile the priorities of Sam Adams with those of George Mason, and lessen the "disquietude" both of the Pennsylvania and Massachusetts minorities and those of the Virginia and New York majorities. The dual purpose of the second amendment was recognized by all early constitutional commentators;[264] the assumption that the second amendment had but a single objective is in fact an innovation born of historical ignorance.

The distinction between the second amendment's purposes enables us to avoid the pitfalls of the collective rights view, which would hold that the entire amendment was meant solely to protect a "collective right" to have a militia.[265] The militia component of the second amendment was not meant as a "right", collective or individual, except in the sense that structural provisions (e.g., requirements that money bills originate in the House, or military appropriations not exceed two years) are considered collective "rights." Indeed, the militia component was meant to invoke the exertion of governmental power over the citizen, to inspire it to require citizens to assume the burdens of militia duty. In this respect it differs radically from any other provision of the Bill of Rights. To read what was a recognition of an individual right, the right to arms, as subsumed within the militia recognition is thus not only permitting the tail to wag the dog, but to annihilate what was intended as a right.[266] As the one (p.61)provision of the Bill of Rights which encourages rather than restricts governmental action, the militia component's terms were necessarily vague and its phrasing a reminder rather than a command.[267]

The right to arms portion of the second amendment, in contrast, was meant to be a prohibition, as fully binding as those in the remainder of the Bill of Rights. Madison intended that the second amendment be read as incorporating the individual rights proposals put forward by the Pennsylvania minority and by Sam Adams and the New Hampshire convention. Judging from contemporary discussion in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, he succeeded.[268] If either clause can be accorded primacy, it is the right to arms clause; only in Virginia, at the eleventh hour of the ratification process, was a militia clause appended to a federal bill of rights proposal.

Reading the entirety of the second amendment as militia-related, based upon some contemporary references to the need for constitutional (p.62)recognition of the militia concept, confuses the purpose of one provision with the text of another. The second amendment, in short, cannot be explained simply as a last avowal of the classical ideal, as "the last act of the Renaissance."[269] Rather, it is a bridge between the decline of that ideal and the rise of the liberal democracy. Part of the second amendment looks backward to the worlds of Polybius and Machiavelli; but part looks forward, to the worlds of Jefferson and Jackson. Only a recognition of the dual nature of the second amendment will enable us to give meaning to the aspirations of Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams as well as those of George Mason.[270]

79 posted on 07/14/2006 8:39:13 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
And still more...

"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." -- Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825

80 posted on 07/14/2006 8:46:42 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Actually, there is more than one volume. 5 in fact.

Better start reading now. You've got a long way to go before you have anywhere near the historical perspective you ought to have to even be educated enough to make a lick of sense. Your Brady Bunch reasoning is getting a bit much to take.

Also, that snippet from 1856 was about applying the Constitution to the new Territories. This was to illustrate the view our government had up until just recently when gun-banning folks like yourself decided that via judicial malfeasance you can make a "living Constitution" mean anything you want it to.

Your "incorporation" doctrine is the last gasp of a dying mindset. One that is trying to preserve some imaginary State power to ignore basic human Rights and institute tyranny at the State level. This is as wrong headed legally as it is philosophically. Neither the State, nor the FedGov has the power, nor the "right", to infringe on our Rights as Individuals.

Not without suffering the consequences at least...

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson, 1787

81 posted on 07/14/2006 8:58:51 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"Also, that snippet from 1856 was about applying the Constitution to the new Territories"

Yep. Just as the Constitution applied to the states. So?

It said that "the people of said Territory shall be entitled to the right to keep and bear arms ... as defined in the constitution of the United States". And that definition was that the federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a Militia.

"This was to illustrate the view our government had up until just recently"

Up until just recently? United States v. Cruikshank was an 1875 case where the U.S. Supreme Court found that the 2nd Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government".

They even went further by saying that NONE of the BOR applied to the states:

"This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State Government in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone."

82 posted on 07/14/2006 9:15:26 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
And that definition was that the federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a Militia.

Bullsh*t. In the First Amendment, it says "Congress shall make no law". This does not carry over into the Second that clearly states "shall not be infringed" and makes no distinction as to who may not infringe on said Right. In fact, the Constitution explicitly state that the "Supreme law of the Land" and "laws of any State notwithstanding" are subject to "shall not be infringed". Your mindless maundering notwithstanding, it means exactly what it says.

Your Cruickshank argument has been refuted how many times now? Do we really need to rehash it again?

You don't seem to like people having Rights very much. Are you SURE you are on the correct website? Your logic would go over a lot better on DU.

83 posted on 07/14/2006 9:28:36 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse; tpaine
Well, tpaine, robertpaulsen is right again. Let's examine the quote.

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
-- William Rawle, 1825

So, California can't disarm the people, eh?

84 posted on 07/14/2006 9:30:11 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Typical. Underline one part and ignore the next...

But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." Let's see... you don't like guns. You don't like any of the post Civil War reforms meant to apply Rights to freed slaves. You prefer legal alterations of meaning instead of the plain language used. You seem extraordinarily dogged on the subject.

Do you want a return to the pre-civil war days? How many slaves do you want to own? Or do you just want to keep those other races fro mriding your bus or drinking from your water fountain? What other kinds of abuses or individual freedom would you like to see enacted at the State level? Are you a fan of using emminent domain to transfer private property to private developers as well?

Bobby... you just ain't too bright are you boy...

85 posted on 07/14/2006 9:34:25 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"In fact, the Constitution explicitly state that the "Supreme law of the Land"

Gobbledygook.

Article VI states that This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land -- no matter what had existed before -- and the states and the federal government are bound by it.

It does NOT say that EVERYTHING in the constitution applies to the states.

Haven't you ever, in your life, signed a contract that specifies your responsibilities and the other party's responsibilities? Come on.

86 posted on 07/14/2006 9:40:52 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
and the states and the federal government are bound by it.

And by any restrictions placed on general government to protect our Rights. It was the entire PURPOSE of having a Bill of Rights in the first place. That because some States were ignoring some Rights seen as essential, and because there was worry that a strong central authority was seen as dangerous to individual liberty, that they put those restrictions on legislative and judicial action at the highest level they could where they would apply to ALL US citizens.

But some folks don't like that very much. It ruins their chances of passing local ordnances or State laws that can be used to remove those Rights and keep the public in check.

Folks like you apparently.

87 posted on 07/14/2006 9:45:10 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Personal attacks. That's all you got left?

Fine. See you on the next thread. I'm done with you on this one.

88 posted on 07/14/2006 9:45:14 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Personal attacks? Try "accurate description". If the shoe fits, wear it.


89 posted on 07/14/2006 9:46:18 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Bookmarking: --- paulsen's 'collective rights' manifesto.
90 posted on 07/14/2006 9:55:45 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"Baloney. The "freedom of assembly" is a collective right."

The "freedom of assembly" is a collective right? Baloney!


91 posted on 07/14/2006 9:57:31 AM PDT by Panzerlied ("We shall never surrender!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"Fine. See you on the next thread. I'm done with you on this one."

Thank God!


92 posted on 07/14/2006 9:58:57 AM PDT by Panzerlied ("We shall never surrender!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: supercat

We are saying the same thing. I am doing it by explaining the plain english structure to the clause rather than just maintaining the interpretation you state plainly. Those that can understand the plain sense, already do. Those that can't or won't must be led to do so by clear reasoning and understanding.


93 posted on 07/14/2006 9:59:08 AM PDT by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
e

Well, tpaine, robertpaulsen is right again.

Amusing that you think so robert.

Let's examine the quote.

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
-- William Rawle, 1825

So, California can't disarm the people, eh?

Well, if CA [or the feds] "-- in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this [2nd] amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. --"

That's what Rawles wrote bob, yet you imagine he didn't.
Your mind is playing strange tricks on you if you think the quote above backs your position here:

Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms.
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen

94 posted on 07/14/2006 10:39:02 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Panzerlied
"The "freedom of assembly" is a collective right? Baloney!"

It is a right assigned to a group -- the assembled. Defend how it is an individual right.

If you were to assemble by yourself on a streetcorner, you'd probably get a ticket for loitering or vagrancy ... or solicitation. I'd love to see you in front of a judge defending your individual "right to assemble".

You guys are funny.

95 posted on 07/14/2006 11:25:37 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"It is a right assigned to a group -- the assembled."

Defend how it is a collective right.

Your logic is funny.


96 posted on 07/14/2006 11:33:14 AM PDT by Panzerlied ("We shall never surrender!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Yes, they MAY appeal to the second amendment. And the U.S. Supreme Court MAY overturn it. Then again, some future liberal U.S. Supreme Court may NOT overturn it.

But nowhere does the author say that California cannot do it.

I was right. And as House would say, "Now there were three wasted words".

97 posted on 07/14/2006 11:45:12 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Panzerlied
Defend how it is a collective right."

It's a right only held when one is a member of a group.

How can "freedom of assembly" be an individual right?

98 posted on 07/14/2006 11:53:50 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

It's the Right, for a bunch of Individuals, to form groups. Your attempts to ascribe a varient meaning are beyond the pale.


99 posted on 07/14/2006 11:56:05 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"It's a right only held when one is a member of a group.

How can "freedom of assembly" be an individual right?"

I believe you are confusing the act or condition of assembly with the individual right to assemble. Acting in concert with one or more individuals in the expression of an individual right, does not create a collective right.

It is, perhaps, a subtle point; nonetheless it is important.

I leave you with the following question (Posed by Professor La Paz in Robert Heinlein's novel, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) to ponder: Are there any group or collective rights that are not individual rights as well? (my paraphrase)

This assignment is for the entire class, not just Robert! :>)
100 posted on 07/14/2006 12:22:33 PM PDT by Panzerlied ("We shall never surrender!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson