The Most Important Amendment

Townhall.com ^ | January 28, 2013 | Rich Galen

[Kaslin]

We all know the term "The Bill of Rights" which are the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution although few of us (including me) could name them.

Hint: None of them start "Thou shalt not …" Rather they tend to start "The Government (or Congress) shalt not …" Keep that in mind.

The First Amendment is a catch-all of rights upon which the Congress may not trample: It protects an individual's freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and to petition the government.

The American press corps is very, very focused on the First Amendment and will go to great lengths to make sure that right is not diminished.

Similarly the Fifth Amendment is often a show stopper. The money clause in the Fifth Amendment is, of course the clause against self incrimination.

In practice, according to Black's Law Dictionary, the Fifth Amendment "requires the government to prove a criminal case against the defendant without the aid of the defendant as a witness against himself."

The Tenth Amendment, in total, reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This was dropped in to protect the notion of "Federalism" and might have been attempting to strike a balance between an all-powerful central government (read, George III) and a totally useless central government (read, Articles of Confederation).

The Amendment that is on everyone's lips these days is, of course, the Second: 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.

We walked through those to show the vast range of protective language the founders found necessary to include even after they had finished the body of the Constitution itself.

There are no unfettered rights. As we have discussed many times, the First Amendment does not protect your right to "falsely shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" (as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is often quoted has having written in U.S. v. Schenck).

Anyone who as ever watched more than a few frames of a CSI episode knows that the Fifth Amendment prohibition against self-incrimination can be overturned by almost any judge issuing a warrant that allows the police to take a cheek swab to get your DNA.

The Second Amendment doesn't mean that any device that fires a projectile through a barrel as the result of a chemical reaction (known in higher scientific circles as "going boom") is protected.

Howitzers, for instance, are not protected. Nor are .50 caliber machine guns, among others.

Watching cable news chat shows tells us how important that Freedom of Speech thing is. The ownership of a network might, under public pressure, remove a host for what it considers to be egregious speech, but the government can't do it.

In the early days of the Iraq War a Country group called the Dixie Chicks publicly denounced the war in general and President George W. Bush in particular leading to radio stations around the country to stop pushing their songs and former fans to stop attending their songs.

You didn't have to like what the Dixie Chicks said, but you were limited in what you could to do express that dissatisfaction. Demanding the government toss them in the slam is not among them.

Compare and contrast to Vladimir Putin's reaction to a girl group in Moscow having put on an impromptu concert in opposition to his government. Into the Slaminski they went.

The battle over the Second Amendment will, in spite of a well-orchestrated effort to diminish or remove it by the American Left, end the same way the battle over the First and Fifth Amendments ended during the "Hollywood Black Listing" days of the late 1940s - early 1950s in spite of the overwhelming desire for the American Right to limit them.

When it comes down to it, the most important Amendment in the Bill of Rights is any Amendment with which you, or I disagree. That means someone else's rights are being protected - against you or me

[stuartcr]

I had a discussion the other day with someone who is very anti-gun and of course the 2nd Amend came up. We were at odds as to what a well regulated militia really is. Which article in the original constitution is the 2nd amendment actually amending? I’m not a constitutional scholar, so I couldn’t answer. I’d appreciate some freeper inputs.

[arthurus]

For argument’s sake, how about a nuclear weapon? If anyone can afford one, is it their right to privately own one?

Absolutely Yiu react with horror at the thought of your neighbor possessing a 50 megaton nuke but how likely is it? The market works here. And, thinking extraConstitutionally, how likely is it that an incredibly rich man would want a nuke? How likely is it that, outside of comic books a potential Joker would be able to control enough assets to buy a Bomb? Well, Hitler did the equivalent in his day, I suppose, but then, he got himself a State first. No laws would stop that guy if he arose in the USA because he takes control of the government before he gets the WMDS. His talents are political, not financial and rely on the destruction of constitutions for which no wording of an Amendment would be effective.

Those who could acquire Bombs by their wealth can better attain their desires, material and political, with the use of that wealth financially as with George Soros et al.

[DCBryan1]

You sure can....want to buy a 57mm Anti-tank gun right now?

[arthurus]

The need of a ‘well regulated militia” is a justification, not a limitation. That is the plain English of the statement. Ut does not modify the essential statement at all, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

[Kaslin]

If you have $37,000

[stuartcr]

Thanks. What is a well regulated militia? Is there anything that can be used for definition or comparison? Well regulated makes it sound like something that is organised.

[Trailerpark Badass]

The BOR are not amending anything other than their lack of inclusion originally.

You really don't know the history of the BOR?

Not sure I'd admit that, in public.

You've never read the Militia Act(s)?

Did you go to public school?

[central_va]

The 2nd amendment was probably one of the least controversial amendments at the time of the Bill Of Rights inception. Now it is the most controversial...

[Trailerpark Badass]

I would argue no, because the right is an individual one. As such, it would only seem to apply to weapons employable to positive effect by individuals.

Most crew-served weapons can be operated by a single individual, and they can certainly be possessed and stored safely by an individual. And while leftists use made-up fantasies of being threatened by their neighbor having a belt-fed MG, they would only be in danger of its use, not its mere existence. The same can't be said for nuclear weapons.

Now, if one says we might need one to fight against an oppressive power, then the Constitution is pretty much moot at that point anyway, so use whatever you can get.

[Trailerpark Badass]

In my OED, "well-regulated" means, in reference to troops, "properly disciplined."

The militia itself is, basically, the citizenry.

[stuartcr]

Sorry tbAss, but I have no problem admitting something I don’t know that much about, that’s why I ask questions.

[Ancesthntr]

There are no unfettered rights. As we have discussed many times, the First Amendment does not protect your right to "falsely shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" (as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is often quoted has having written in U.S. v. Schenck).

Actually, this is not correct. We all DO have the right to shout, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. There can be no prior restraint - i.e. they can tape your mouth shut or remove your tongue before you enter a movie theater, just because you **MIGHT** shout, "FIRE!"

Oh, by the way, if there actually IS a fire in the theater, there can be no punishment. However, falsely shouting, "FIRE!" when, in fact, there is no fire and you know there isn't, has been properly judged to be a violation of the rights of others because it is likely to cause a panic (given human nature) and thus injure or kill some of your fellow movie-goers.

But they can't legally prevent you from saying ANYTHING...and in the same way, prior restraint on the 2nd Amendment by limiting (uh, err, INFRINGING upon) your right to buy a particular rifle or some accessory necessary to make it function properly (like ammo and magazines) should be illegal as well. Punishment after misuse is a different story.

FYI, I'm sure everyone knows the apochryphal story of a Marine Corps general who was asked about limiting the right to bear arms ("after all, general, they're equipped to be murderers")...to which he responded, "well, young lady, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but no one has a problem with you walking around scantily clad."). It isn't a true story, but its a good line. By the way, for any male over the age of 12 or 13, you're equipped to be a rapist...and I think that any calls for "prior restraint" of the type that the gun-grabbers would like for the 2nd Amendment would be met with "resistance."

[CodeToad]

“You mean a private person can own one of these”

Yes. They owned such equipment in 1776 including warships. You really don’t get the purpose and intent of the 2nd Amendment, do you?

[TXnMA]

In 1840, Texas Senator, Robert Potter, author of the Texas Declaration of Independence, had a "cannon" in his home, "tied to the table, and aimed at the door". Since Potter was also the first Secretary of the Texas Navy, the "cannon" was probably a naval "swivel gun":

Swivel guns were commonly mounted on the rails of ships to repel boarding parties. Potter's was reportedly loaded with rifle-ball-sized shot, (making it a huge "shotgun") and it was intended as the last line of drfense if hostile Indians breached the door.

At the time, such private defense artillery was not uncommon -- even for folks who were not public figures.

So, the idea of the right to "privately-owned artillery" extended well beyond revolutionary days.

[TXnMA]

Other synonyms are, “well equipped” and “well supplied”, “well trained”, and “well prepared”...

[Kaslin]

I just did a search on What does keep and bear arms mean, and the best answer I found was this one

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

"A well regulated militia being nessesary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

It means we the people have the right to own and carry firearms, knives, swords or whatever weapons we want. The founders of this country believed that the people should possess the arms so they could defend their liberty from oppressive government. They were brilliant - they knew that government cannot be trusted. If only the government had weapons then they could push us around and there wouldn't be anything we could do about it. With arms we are citizens, without them we are subjects.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and the keystone under independence." - George Washington

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more
propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

~Patrick Henry June 9, 1788, in the Virginia Convention
on the ratification of the Constitution.

Source

Now I like to see you carry one of these around

Or even one of those

What I mean is that I think there is a limit

[Dead Corpse]

Howitzers, for instance, are not protected. Nor are .50 caliber machine guns, among others.

Yes. Actually, they are.

Unless you think the Founders, who hired FULLY ARMED merchant ships as battle ships, wouldn't want the common folk to own things like field artillery.

[CodeToad]

You are one superficial thinker to believe a simple five second google search means you now have all there is to know on a subject.

Try researching just who owned the warships of the Revolution. Go ahead. Spend more than five seconds this time. While you are at it, since a cannon is an image you posted, go ahead and research for once in your life Lexington and Concord and just what where the British after the day the Shot Heard ‘round the World happened. (Hint: Cannons.)

[arthurus]

It doesn’t matter to the RKBA what a “well regulated militia” is. It could say “For an improvement in nutrition, the RKBA shall not be infringed,” and the meaning for possession and carrying guns, knives, brass knuckles, RPGs, etc, would be precisely the same.

[Gritty]

Well said!