Rewrite the Second Amendment?

Magic City Morning Star ^ | Jun 2, 2004 | Richard D. Skidmore

[tacticalogic]

I dismiss it because it gives one man's opinion of how the Commerce Clause can be used, not what it is, or how it should be used.

A disingenuous argument. The one man is the author of the clause - the one person who should be considered most authoritative on it's meaning and use. As far as the rest of it goes, insisting that there is nothing there concerning it's purpose and intent is your opinion, which I find to be little more than an exercise in willful ignorance.

[robertpaulsen]

Hey, it's your cite. You thought it was important enough to post.

Is there something there to illustrate "it's purpose and intent"? Care to highlight what you think is relevant?

[tacticalogic]

1. The meaning of the Phrase "to regulate trade" must be sought in the general use of it, in other words in the objects to which the power was generally understood to be applicable, when the Phrase was inserted in the Constn.

2. The power has been understood and used by all commercial & manufacturing Nations as embracing the object of encouraging manufactures. It is believed that not a single exception can be named.

I think those are very relevant, in that they illustrate the very purpose of the power being granted. I have yet to see Congress explain what manufacture they are encouraging by banning the posession of rifles with bayonet lugs, and it appears to have the exact opposite with regards the the manufacture of such rifles, as well as bayonets.

[robertpaulsen]

"I have yet to see Congress explain what manufacture they are encouraging by banning the posession ..."

Well gee, if you put it that way, then I'd have to answer "none".

Do you believe that the sole purpose of the Commerce Clause, as defined by Madison in his letter to Cabell, is to encourage manufacture?

Well, there you have it. Straight from Madison's mouth, compliments of tacticalogic.

[tacticalogic]

Do you believe that the sole purpose of the Commerce Clause, as defined by Madison in his letter to Cabell, is to encourage manufacture?

"Without exception" seems to be a rather exclusive term. The Founders were somewhat prolific writers, do you have a reference from Madison, or any of the rest that would indicate it is not?

[A Navy Vet]

"original intent"

I was wondering when someone would bring that up. Differing perceptions of legalese and punctuation can be argued all day, but the numerous essays, letters, and publications of the day by the FF's repeatedly addressed the right to personal defense. I used to have a bookmark that quoted dozens of such remarks, but is no longer available. Anyone can do the research and see there was a duel "intent" for the 2nd Amendment - one to form trained (well regulated) militias and the other for personal self-defense for life, liberty, and property.

There is no mystery here other than the courts refuse to "incorporate" INTENT. If only the document was written with the word "and" or a semi-colon in place of the comma, there would be little to question.

[A Navy Vet]

HERE are just some of the quotes of the FF's and their "intent" regarding personal gun ownership.

[robertpaulsen]

Just leave out any reference to the militia. None is necessary.