Arms and the Right

The Nation ^ | 4/17/08 | Daniel Lazare

[kiriath_jearim]

Like the Third Amendment against the peacetime quartering of soldiers in private homes, the Second Amendment used to be one of those obscure constitutional provisions that Americans could safely ignore.

Legal opinion was agreed: this relic of the late eighteenth century did not confer an individual right "to keep and bear arms," only a collective right on the part of the states to maintain well-regulated militias in the form of local units of the National Guard. While a few gun nuts insisted on their Second Amendment right to turn their homes into mini-arsenals, everyone else knew they were deluded. Everyone knew this because the Supreme Court had supposedly settled the matter by unanimously dismissing any suggestion of an individual right in 1939.

[Cicero]

“used to be”? When was that?

Probably not back when almost everyone in the country had a gun.

[stubernx98]

Wrong again

[DBrow]

“Legal opinion was agreed: this relic of the late eighteenth century did not confer an individual right”

Except for Cruikshank and several other opinions.

[DBrow]

“unanimously dismissing any suggestion of an individual right in 1939.”

Funniest thing I’ve read all week. This is revisionist propaganda. Teh author must have researched this deeply to tell so many lies.

[VR-21]

"But they are; and if ever there was a Churchillian "riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma," the Second Amendment is it."

I wouldn't waste my time pointing out the Federalist Papers, or the many writings on the subject by the Founders to this fool.

[ladtx]

...local units of the National Guard.

Hmmm. Must be in the super-fine print.

[joe fonebone]

"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. "
....Note the word "Free State"....the purpose of this amendment is to allow the citizens to be able to overthrow a rouge government, in the event that this happens...therefore, ANY weapon that our military possesses, civilians not only have the right but the responsibility and duty to possess......

[rellimpank]

--Everyone knew this because the Supreme Court had supposedly settled the matter by unanimously dismissing any suggestion of an individual right in 1939.--

--as far as one needs to waste time reading The Nation--

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Legal opinion was agreed: this relic of the late eighteenth century did not confer an individual right "to keep and bear arms," only a collective right on the part of the states to maintain well-regulated militias in the form of local units of the National Guard.

All the other nine amendments in the bill of rights refer to individual rights, but everybody knows that the second amendment was an exception.

[Katya]

I’d recommend clicking on the article and reading it as a whole. Good news for individual liberty!!! And it seemingly is frightening to the left who seem to read it as some sort of form of 18th century civic repulicanism...lol

[wideawake]

Legal opinion was agreed

I had no idea that The Nation was trying to spice itself up with alternate history fiction pieces.

[goldstategop]

Its obvious the Second Amendment was intended to constitute a guarantee the God-given rights of the people were enforceable. As we have seen in despotisms around the world, where the people have no means to resist the usurpations of their rights, they in truth, have no rights at all. The Second Amendment is more than just about preserving the right of individual self-defense; it legitimizes the collective right of the entire people to resist tyranny and oppression and to retain, with the help of their own arms, their freedom. Which is the natural state of Man. That is why the Second Amendment occupies such an important place in the Bill Of Rights.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[scooter2]

The author must subscribe to the following:

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
when first we practice to deceive,
but when we've practiced quite awhile,
how vastly we improve our style.

[bereanway]

The Nation

OK, that explains it. I was kinda worried there for ‘bout a millisecond before I realized the source.

[wideawake]

I have to see a scholarly article on the anti-Second Amendment that focuses on the true origin of much postbellum anti-self defense legislation: i.e. the desire by state governments to legally prevent black men from exercising their Second Amendment rights as new citizens.

That's what began the new-fangled regime of permits issued to individuals meeting qualifications, etc.

[atomicweeder]

I like to think of the Second Amendment as the enforcement clause for the other nine.

[JohnD9207]

No offense but ‘The Nation’ is my bird’s favorite cage liner.

[atomicweeder]

I agree we should have the right to any weapon.

But, we at least can use our Glocks and Brownings to seize National Guard armories, if a tyrannical govermment ever took over.

[MtnClimber]

Colorado Constitution, Article II, Bill of Rights:

Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

It seems that in 1876, in Colorado the RKBA was NOT viewed as a collective right.