A Faulty Rethinking of the 2nd Amendment

New York Times ^ | May 12, 2002 | JACK RAKOVE

[ICE-FLYER]

Wow,what a whiner this writer is. The real translation of this text should be:
"Waaaaaaaa, for 60 years we have been playing fast and loose with a 1939 decision that did not address the individual right aspect of the 2nd Amendment and we were praying to our god that no one would think that the precedent is actually an individual right. Now look, dang that Ashcroft for asserting what the constitutional framers really meant."

[William Terrell]

There it held that the Second Amendment was designed to ensure the effectiveness of the militia, not to guarantee a private right to possess firearms.

Do these newpapers hire based on ignorance? The "militia" was all males 18 to 55, and now, with the 19th amendment, also presumably females 18 to 55. That makes up essentially the entire adult population of America, therefore the "private" population.

Did the author of this piece mention exactly what the militia is, or did I miss it?

[The Raven]

>> Michael Kinsley ... concluded that the 2nd Amendment gave individuals the right to own virtually any weapon they choose.

Yes, and he said if the libs would read the 2nd Amendment as they do the 1st, they would conclude the same thing

[The Raven]

>>What does THIS have to do with the price of tea in China? His statement is ludicrous simply because it doesn't address the question surrounding what the Amendment SAYS. He's trying to argue his point by arguing a different point; the two are unrelated. Whether or not there is a militia or a standing army does NOT change the wording of the Amendment, that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms may NOT be infringed!

Right.....and if they meant something else, they would have said it.

[PLMerite]

Perhaps, one day they will "read into it" that a social dictatorship solves all their problems.

I remember hearing/reading some Congress-critter saying something to the effect that "The Constitution strangles democracy," to whit - whatever they can convince the mob that it wants.

If anyone can put a name to that quote, I'd appreciate it.

[Landru]

"The amendment refers to the right of the people, rather than the individual person of the Fifth Amendment. And the phrase 'keep and bear arms' is, as most commentators note, a military reference."

This filthy America-hating communist found itself the platform from which It could spew this bullshit where all *good* America-hating Socialist-Communists invariably do.
The New York Times; again.

Although let us all agree; this question is only moderately more complex for these Socialist-Communists at the Slimes (& within acadamia) than was determining the meaning of, "is."

Plus I just cannot tell y'all how fuzzy I'm left feeling, too; knowing our constitutiion's plain English is now being parsed, hacked, & mashed by this ilk of freak??

...Socialist-Communist, "commentators" interpretting our constitution's origninal meaning, eh?

[The Raven]

I will trade the second amendment for an immediate end to socialism and a return to (very) limited government. But that won't happen.

Whatever problems the 2nd amendment provides society...it doesn't come close to the harm an armed government can do with an enslaved people.

[michigander]

United States Code
TITLE 10
Subtitle A
PART I
CHAPTER 13
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes

(a)

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)

The classes of the militia are -

(1)

the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

---

TITLE 32
CHAPTER 3
Sec. 313. - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a)

To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

(b)

To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must -

(1)

be a citizen of the United States; and

(2)

be at least 18 years of age and under 64

[PhilipFreneau]

No wonder that after a revolution one the first groups to be silenced or destroyed by the winners are the so-called educational elite.

[weikel]

No it started with Wilson and perhaps earlier with the William Jennings Bryan commie progressive movement.

[weikel]

Wow Michael Commie said that.

[weikel]

bloggerjohn

member since May 12th, 2002

[blackie]

Stop the attacks on our God given Rights by the extreme wacko left !!

Guns Save Lives !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!

An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!

No Guns, No Rights !!

Molon Labe !!

[PhilipFreneau]

The court last examined this issue in 1939 in United States v. Miller. There it held that the Second Amendment was designed to ensure the effectiveness of the militia, not to guarantee a private right to possess firearms.

Miller argued that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed; that the said National Firearms Act is in violation and contrary to said Second Amendment and particularly as charging a crime against these said defendants, is unconstitutional and therefore does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime under the statutes of the United States.

The SCOTUS, after hearing only the government's arguments (Miller's attorneys were not present), determined that, without evidence to the contrary, a sawed-off shotgun was not a military-style weapon, and, therefore, was not protected by the 2nd Amendment. The court did not challenge the notion that Miller was in the militia, even though he clearly was a private citizen with no connection to the National Guard..

Let's assume the Miller ruling was correct. If so, then all of us are in the militia, and all of us have a right to keep and bear an M16.

[mondonico]

Once again, the Left is using the Big Lie to distort the issue. Interpreting the Second Amendment to protect individual rights is NOT "re-thinking"--it's what the think has been all along. The Founders, historians, and, yes, even the Supreme Court (I wonder if anyone at the NYT has actually READ US v. Miller), have always recognized that the amendment means what it says--that the right of the people to bear arms refers to the right of, well, the people. Even Larry Tribe, constitutional scholar of the Democrat party, agrees. The only people who have attempted to twist the meaning are some activist LOWER courts (but see US v. Emerson and many state supreme courts, which have upheld the original, plain meaning), and the MEDIA.

Enough with the lies, already.

[mondonico]

Thank you for setting out the TRUTH with respect to US v. Miller. The Left has misrepresented this decision for decades.

[in the Arena]

A totally disorganized bunch of people with guns isn't going to withstand a tyranny.

John, do you remember a couple battles that took place at Lexington and Concord ? A disorganized bunch of people lead by Captain John Parker ?

They stood up to tyranny and many, many paid the ultimate price. They fought for a way of life, a life of freedom not servitude. They were out manned, out gunned and out organized by the standing armies of Great Britain. But they were not out classed.

The disorganized bunch of people at the birth of our nation had just as much to lose as we do today. They risked all and in prevailing they designed a government of checks and balances to prevent tyrannical rule.

But even they had the foresight to realize that governmental rule is imperfect and through enumeration in the Bill Of Rights, "the disorganized bunch of people", were guaranteed their inalienable rights. One of which the supporters of tyranny keep trying to alienate from us.

If the supporters of tyranny achieve their goal and disarm "the disorganized bunch of people", what's next ? Will we then start burning books that the tyrants don't agree with ? Will we be required to support one religion sanctioned by the tyrants ? Where is the line drawn ?

I make a lousy orator but possibly you can find some answers in the words of Patrick Henry.

"... it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."

[William Terrell]

Thank you. Even more population than originally defined are the militia, courtesy of the feds. However, the feds can't redefine the militia to obscure its purpose: to defend oneself, one's family and country at the grass roots level with force of arms. To that end everyone capable of using a firearm must have one.

Why can't government obscure basic human unalienable rights? Because human beings can exist without government but government can't exist without human beings. I hope ours, unlike those in the past, don't have to learn that the hard way.

[in the Arena]

Bang ! Another misguided op-ed...

[Polonius]

The Bush administration has found a constitutional right it wants to expand.

What a snotty, biased lead. Par for the course, I suppose.