Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Calling all scholars

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    http://www.telegram.com/article/2007...712090616/1052

    The article itself is rather well done but he first and only comment at the time of this post is a rather excellent counter from the anti crowd.

    I would very much love to see someone with a more complete knowledge of this portion of law/history than myself, attempt to refute it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.telegram.com/article/2007...712090616/1052

    HISTORY LESSONS: The oh-so-controversial Second Amendment

    When the Bill of Rights was ratified this week (Dec. 15) in 1791, the Founders never dreamed that centuries later the Second Amendment would become so controversial. To them, “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” was fairly straightforward language.

    How wrong they were, as evidenced by the Supreme Court’s recent decision to rule on whether Washington, D.C.’s strict firearms law violates the Constitution, “a decision,” The Washington Post wrote, “that will raise the politically and culturally divisive issue of gun control just in time for the 2008 elections.”

    The main controversy is over the phrase “A well-regulated militia,” and its relationship to the statement “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Gun-control advocates believe this language means that if you don’t belong to a “regulated militia,” your right to own a gun can be “infringed.” Gun-rights advocates counter by noting that the amendment does not grant a right; it recognizes a right already granted. The amendment does not say, “The people have the right to keep and bear arms.” It says, “the (already established) right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” And they have a point. As even the Supreme Court has acknowledged, the right to own firearms precedes the Bill of Rights.

    Gun advocates also note that because the amendment gives the right to bear arms to the “people,” not the states, claiming that this right is dependent on anything the states do or don’t do — including forming militias — is ludicrous. After all, the Bill of Rights mentions no specific rights that the states possess, but several the people do.

    Two additional points: In 1791, most state militias did not give guns to militiamen when militias were formed. Militiamen brought their guns with them — from home. Indeed, the amendment says they can “keep” their firearms, not merely “bear” them during military service.

    Finally, (my hero) James Madison’s original Second Amendment language was as follows: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country.” Written that way, he is saying that if the people don’t have the right to arms, there can’t be a militia. That Congress reversed the order does not change Madison’s intent.

    Granted, all constitutional rights, including free speech and gun ownership, are subject to reasonable restrictions — you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and felons can’t possess firearms. But the general right to own firearms is constitutionally protected. We will see what the Supreme Court thinks.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    'Jack Weaver's comment is idiosyncratic and not in the mainstream of even anti-2A thought.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    'Jack Weaver's comment is idiosyncratic and not in the mainstream of even anti-2A thought.
    Odd or not, I thought it was well reasoned even if not sourced properly.

  5. #5
    Regular Member AtackDuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    King George, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    214

    Post imported post

    thorsmitersaw wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    'Jack Weaver's comment is idiosyncratic and not in the mainstream of even anti-2A thought.
    Odd or not, I thought it was well reasoned even if not sourced properly.
    Well written, yes; well reasoned, no. He uses obfuscation and misleading quotes. Notice that he uses alot of proposed ideas from thetime of the founders, but then doesn't say how the ideas were rejected and not used because they did not conveywhat the Constitution was supposed tobe.The17 word concientiousobjector phrase was rejected for the 2nd Amendment and leaves Weaver's argument about amilitaristic meaning,swinging in the breeze.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •