Posted on 03/30/2007 11:21:52 AM PDT by neverdem
If nothing else good comes from this war, at least we have a fresh bunch of young, combat experienced veterans to keep the Feds from getting too frisky with their 'search and seizure tactics'.
Semper Fidelis
Ah. Straightforward and easy to understand. In that case, I've found the right person to ask.
When the second amensment was written, who were "the people" they were referring to in the second amendment?
"We the people of the United States..."
Everyone? In 1791?
Come now. With language that is so straightforward and easy to understand, certainly you can do better than a cryptic "We the people of the United States". Can't you?
To use the language of the Constitution:
The citizens of the various states.
Basically in 1780 this included most white adults, some blacks (most blacks were considered property, not citizens), and older children (12-13+), but excluded indians, unsupervised children, and others considered a threat to public safety.
If the Bill of Rights is a statement of rights not ceded to the Federal Government, and the 2nd amendment is repealed, the right to arms would still be retained via the 9th, wouldn't it?
It would take more than repealing the 2nd amendment. There would also have to be affirmative language denying the right to arms, too. However, I think that would be out of character with the rest of the Bill of Rights, and most of the rest of the amendments. The Bill of Rights is a list of rights not ceded to the government by the people, it is not a list of infringments on the people. The 18th amendment was an infringment on the people, and that was repealed a few years later.
-PJ
"Its not an absolute right, of course."
What does "...shall not be infringed" mean? If the 2nd Ammendment means just what it says, the an individual has the right to own a gun, then how can that right be infringed when the Ammendment says it cannot?
Perhaps states protected the individual rights of others to own firearms. But the second amendment did not.
The Second Amendment - Commentaries
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1016481/posts
-PJ
Don't forget the citizens of the USA residing in territories of the USA.
Basically in 1780 this included most white adults, some blacks (most blacks were considered property, not citizens), and older children (12-13+), but excluded indians, unsupervised children, and others considered a threat to public safety.
Good, detailed answer; -- is this cited somewhere in our founding documents? -- I've never seen quite that list before.
Naturally, the real reason this is even of any interest is ~why~ such a list would exclude some people from constitutional protection of an inalienable right.
-- Majority rule type gun-grabbers claim that the mere fact that there ~are~ exclusions prove that our right to own & carry arms is ~alienable~ & infringeable, -- by the 'will of the people'.
Weird people, socialists..
"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
The U.S. Constitution referred to human beings using different words, depending on the subject. Look at just the amendments -- in the 1st and 2nd, it's "the people". In the 3rd, "the Owner". The 4th, "the people", "the persons". The 5th, "person". The 6th, "the accused". Etc.
Article I, Section 2 says:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States"
Who were "the people"? All individuals in that state? Hardly. The only ones allowed to vote at that time were white male landowners. So, in Article I Section 2, the people at large were white male landowners. Follow?
Why would the second amendment only apply to "the people" collectively? Does Article I Section 2 only allow for the "the people" to vote collectively or individually, regardless of the meaning of "the people?"
-PJ
The first amendment is referring to "the group of people who are allowed to assemble and only for the purpose of assembling" may do so as individuals.
The second amendment is referring to "the group of people who are allowed to keep and bear arms and only for the purpose of forming as a Militia" may do so as individuals.
(By "allowed" I mean their right is protected.)
Using the phrase "the people" allowed the framers to refer to a group of certain individuals, yet not every individual. And, that group could be composed of different people depending on the right being protected.
For this discussion, I am saying that the Bill of Rights is not granting rights to the people, it is stating what is not being ceded away to the Federal Government.
If, as you say, the 2nd amendment says that the people do not cede the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a civilian militia, and there isn't anywhere else in the Constitution that forbids the people to have arms, then the 9th amendment still allows the people to keep arms whether or not they are a part of a militia.
Would you agree with that?
-PJ
I have no illusion whatsoever that I would be the only man that would fight to the death to protect the 2nd Amendment...
Six Amendments to the Constitution
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1809847/posts
"-- The basic issue here -- between the first two answers (both of which appeal to principles of natural justice) and the third (which denies such principles) -- is the deepest, most long-standing issue in jurisprudence or the philosophy of law: the issue between naturalists, on the one hand, and positivists or legalists, on the other. --"
"-- The positivists hold that might is right. --"
--- The real issue is between those of us who live for the liberty to own & use property as we see fit; --- and those who declare they have the power to prohibit any property they see as 'unfit'.
The prohibitionists hold that gov't might is 'right'. -- The 2nd holds that an armed people are right.
Oh, I suppose you could try. You might find this to be interesting:
BEYOND THE SECOND AMENDMENT: AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO ARMS VIEWED THROUGH THE NINTH AMENDMENT
That's not precisely my position. In the event of any elimination of the Second Amendment protection of those rights, my position is that the entire constitutional agreement between governed and government is then forfeit, negating the legitimacy of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government as well; if the rights of the people go, it is not only they who suffer that loss, but so too do those who have usurped authority not granted to them by that constitutional contract.
Accordingly: if the Second, or any other amendment goes, so too does every political office and power granted by the constitution; it is thereby moot and abrogated, and no longer applies in any way.
Neither can it be restored with a simple restoration of the portion so insulted; it would then become necessary to again undergo the entire process of constitutional convention and ratification, which I doubt could be accomplished in such a fouled climate.
I also have little doubt that you and I would not find ourselves on opposing sides. So long as the constitution remains in effect, so too is my oath to protect and defend it valid; but that oath does not apply to an edited or altered constitution that does not guarantee the people their rights under that document's authority.
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.