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

Skip to comments.

A Brief Inquiry into the Nature and Value of the Second Amendment(FL)
naplesnews.com ^ | 26 October, 2011 | J. Patrick Buckley

Posted on 10/27/2011 6:58:16 AM PDT by marktwain

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
To: marktwain

Well reasoned, well researched and generally excellent. Wasted, of course, on those who wish to see us disarmed, helpless and enslaved. They can be persuaded only by the last argument of kings.


21 posted on 10/27/2011 8:55:19 AM PDT by Noumenon (The only 'NO' a liberal understands is the one that arrives at muzzle velocity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: misterwhite
But the author is wrong when he assumes the second amendment was written for personal protection. If it was, there was no need to mention militias.

I disagree. A militia is merely a group of individuals acting in concert against a common threat.

22 posted on 10/27/2011 9:00:39 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: misterwhite
True. It's key because it reads "the people" -- not "all persons" or even "all citizens".

Who were "the people" for whom this right was protected? If you get that answer correct, then you're on your way to properly interpreting the second amendment.

Sniff, sniff...

Robert Paulson, that you?

"misterwhite" since 2011-10-17

23 posted on 10/27/2011 9:12:06 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: misterwhite

152. See Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90 (1822).

If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.

This is from The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century by David Kopel

http://davekopel.org/2a/LawRev/19thcentury.htm#N_153_


24 posted on 10/27/2011 9:35:05 AM PDT by marktwain (In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Does this mean we can own tanks and aircraft, maybe have our own armies and navies?

If you don't have a right to own tanks and aircraft, armies and navies even, then you can't delegate that right to the government.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

25 posted on 10/27/2011 9:43:03 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

If that were the case, how would someone execute a Letter of Marque and Reprisal?

They wouldn’t.

They would need the equivalent of what in today’s world would be a battleship.


26 posted on 10/27/2011 9:47:45 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

How do the people of a nation receive this right?


27 posted on 10/27/2011 10:03:17 AM PDT by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
They would need the equivalent of what in today’s world would be a battleship.

True enough. Did the Founders consider the Second Amendment to protect one's right to own a battleship? I've no opinion one way or the other... I think a review of the correspondence of the day might shed some light on the issue, however.

28 posted on 10/27/2011 10:04:54 AM PDT by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: misterwhite
Sorry. I'd rather accept established U.S. Supreme Court cases when it comes to constitutional interpretations of the second amendment.

How did ya like that Kelo decision?

Shoo, troll.

29 posted on 10/27/2011 10:07:32 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Rush Limbaugh = the Beethoven of talk radio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

It was not the standard at the time of the founding. There was privately owned artillery, war ships etc. etc. The 2nd amendment means exactly what it says.


30 posted on 10/27/2011 10:12:58 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

We can own tanks and aircraft. We can’t own armies and navies as those are made up of people and slavery is abolished per the 13th amendment. Though I’m not sure what owning people has to do with your point...whatever that might be.


31 posted on 10/27/2011 10:16:00 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

At least one person has written that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


32 posted on 10/27/2011 10:19:21 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Durus

To defend ourselves.


33 posted on 10/27/2011 10:21:24 AM PDT by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

I would imagine so. A2 specifies “arms”, not “arms portable by an individual”.

Privately-owned cannon were not uncommon in that era.


34 posted on 10/27/2011 10:22:50 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
"A militia is merely a group of individuals acting in concert against a common threat."

A militia is merely a group of individuals acting in concert to protect the country against a common threat. And, according to the constitution, the militia was to be led by officers appointed by the state.

If they're leaderless and acting in concert for individual gain, that's nothing more than an armed mob.

35 posted on 10/27/2011 10:27:54 AM PDT by misterwhite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

How are the inalienable rights other than those 3 listed, determined?


36 posted on 10/27/2011 10:28:06 AM PDT by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
To defend ourselves.

What do you mean with this comment? Was it a question? A statement? It doesn't appear to be apropos of anything...
37 posted on 10/27/2011 10:28:42 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: misterwhite
Your opinion is at odds with the founders expressed opinions and at odds with the consititution as written.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." -- Tench Coxe, 1788.

38 posted on 10/27/2011 10:33:20 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: misterwhite

Isn’t it ‘...necessary to the security of a free State...’?

“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.”

That means we have to define ‘State’ and ‘infringed’, doesn’t it?


39 posted on 10/27/2011 10:37:10 AM PDT by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
"How did ya like that Kelo decision?"

How do I "like" it? I don't understand.

Oh, wait a minute. I get it. You think unpopular Supreme Court decisions are wrong and the decisions you agree with are correct.

Well. That's certainly an interesting interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Juvenile, but interesting.

40 posted on 10/27/2011 10:39:20 AM PDT by misterwhite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 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