PsychoSword
Moderator
Yup, yup.
Keyes: Constitution protects machine gun ownership
- Thread starter MicroBalrog
- Start date
Yup, yup.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
Since every group has been victims at one time or another in history, reparations (machine guns) all around! Everybody gets an AK wit da switch!
The principle which undergirds the Constitution of this nation is that individuals have soverign power, and power flows from the people to the governments to which they delegate that power through their own consent.
This turned the traditional model of government, where power was vested entirely in a monarch and the citizens of a nation were subject to the whims of that king or queen and his aristocratic cadre, on its head.
If the United States government has the power to build and own atomic bombs, warships, fighter jets, and the like, that power has, by definition, its origin in the individual citizens of this nation.
This turned the traditional model of government, where power was vested entirely in a monarch and the citizens of a nation were subject to the whims of that king or queen and his aristocratic cadre, on its head.
If the United States government has the power to build and own atomic bombs, warships, fighter jets, and the like, that power has, by definition, its origin in the individual citizens of this nation.
All rights have limits but we'll see...
I believe that charting the limits of what is protected by the 2nd Amendment is a useful exercise. We do not neccessarily have to agree on every point and quite frankly I am not always sure of my position on these rather esoteric issues.
The Second Amendment is unusual in the sense that it provides a concrete reason for our right to keep and bear arms. In short, the Founding Fathers did not regard RKBA as being as self-evident as say, freedom of the press. This is probobly not because the Second Amendment was somehow less fundamental than the other provisions in the Bill of Rights but rather that it was novel in in being articulated and thus required explanation.
I do not subscribe to the "collective rights" argument or to the notion that the militia is either outdated or that our only right to keep and bear arms exists within the context of National Guard service.
Instead, I believe that the statement on a militia, reflects the need for citizens to be privately armed and capable of coordinating resistance with those arms as the ultimate check on government power. The militia was the manifestation of that capability in the 18th century.
In this century, given that the militia is no longer need for defense against external enemies it does not need to be well organized. But the fact remains that it is a latent force always ready to reform and rise up in this country's our of greatest need. As the Japanese who qualied at an invasion of the mainland United States put it "There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
Obviously the right to self-defense is the bedrock of the 2nd Amendment and that Amendment is intended to afford us arms for that purpose as well. Given that the new United States was situated on an opening frontier the need for personal protection was indeed too fundamental to be articulated.
But we ignore the first part of the 2nd Amendment at our own peril. If we don't understand it and properly interpret the liberals will continue to do it for us and in a way we don't like. Well, I'm proud of the entire 2nd Amendment and not just the most easily understood part.
I believe that charting the limits of what is protected by the 2nd Amendment is a useful exercise. We do not neccessarily have to agree on every point and quite frankly I am not always sure of my position on these rather esoteric issues.
The Second Amendment is unusual in the sense that it provides a concrete reason for our right to keep and bear arms. In short, the Founding Fathers did not regard RKBA as being as self-evident as say, freedom of the press. This is probobly not because the Second Amendment was somehow less fundamental than the other provisions in the Bill of Rights but rather that it was novel in in being articulated and thus required explanation.
I do not subscribe to the "collective rights" argument or to the notion that the militia is either outdated or that our only right to keep and bear arms exists within the context of National Guard service.
Instead, I believe that the statement on a militia, reflects the need for citizens to be privately armed and capable of coordinating resistance with those arms as the ultimate check on government power. The militia was the manifestation of that capability in the 18th century.
In this century, given that the militia is no longer need for defense against external enemies it does not need to be well organized. But the fact remains that it is a latent force always ready to reform and rise up in this country's our of greatest need. As the Japanese who qualied at an invasion of the mainland United States put it "There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
Obviously the right to self-defense is the bedrock of the 2nd Amendment and that Amendment is intended to afford us arms for that purpose as well. Given that the new United States was situated on an opening frontier the need for personal protection was indeed too fundamental to be articulated.
But we ignore the first part of the 2nd Amendment at our own peril. If we don't understand it and properly interpret the liberals will continue to do it for us and in a way we don't like. Well, I'm proud of the entire 2nd Amendment and not just the most easily understood part.
Agreed! Useful, but not difficult. It's really pretty simple.
First of all, the presence or absence of the rationale (the 'militia' clause) makes not one bit of grammatical difference to the meaning. It's interesting in an historical sense. It tells us WHY they thought it necessary to articulate the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, but it in no way circumscribes that right.
Secondly, the meaning of the words is quite clear unless we force an interpretation (the militia limitation) that is not there. They used very ordinary words, with very ordinary meanings. For example, "arms". It simply meant "weapons", no more, no LESS. This can be shown from common usage at the time, including writings on this very subject by the people involved in ratifying the bill of rights. It did NOT mean "hand carried weapons commonly used by individual militiamen". It is a much broader term - as broad as the term "weapon". Any argument for a limitation on it based on the militia clause is grammatically and historically indefensible.
Any argument for a limitation on it based on the characteristics of modern military weapons is deserving of contempt, as is any attempt to re-write the Constitution. That argument is not one bit different than the liberal 'living document' tripe.
I don't think that's a given at all. That we have not used it does not show that we do not need it.
Interesting, yes, but sometimes folks get a little focussed on the Second Amendment to the exclusion of the rest of the Constitution.
For example, back in 1934, when Congress at least still had a token respect for the Constitution, they realized that they had no authority to ban guns. All they could do was tax them if people wanted to move them between states. (You didn't need to buy a tax stamp or register the gun just to own according to the NFA; only if you wanted to cross state lines with it.)
Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the right to ban the ownership of any weapon, and all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government by that document are retained by the various states, or the people.
Well, alright...and good point Tamara
Well, I still have trouble believing that the "well-regulated militia" preface to the 2nd Amendment is an effectively meaningless add-on. Believe me though that's what I want to believe and I can even countenance the view that it does mean something but while meaning something that something does not limit the arms to be kept and borne by citizens as a matter of right.
I do believe that militia is not needed to defend the United States against external enemies (internal enemies may be a very different matter). This does not mean that needs do not change or that one should regard the militia as non-existent because it is not currently needed. My statements assume otherwise. But to suggest that a well organized militia is not, at this moment in time vital for external security reasons is scarcely heresy. If conditions change or I am presented with better evidence then of course I might change my position on this point.
In any event, except for personal ownership of warships and similar (for the time being at least) largely academic issues my conception of what the militia is or isn't does not effect my views on gun rights. I clearly believe that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and that one of the important aspects of this is the right of the people to revolt against domestic tyranny, a basic right embodied but not created by the Declaration of Independence.
At any rate I am not unsympathetic to your positions. I just do fully subscribe to them at this time.
Tamara is right to point out that many of our problems as gun owners and citizens stem from the fact that the federal government has increasingly lost respect for the clear limits placed upon its power. The Constitution was pretty much written in a way that said unless the federal government is authorized to do something by the Constitution then it can't do that thing because that power is retained by the states and or the people. The Bill of Rights (the 10th Amendment in particular) is the capstone of this.
As for the "necessary and proper" clause often misnamed the "elastic clause" one must remember that the 10th Amendment acts upon and forces that clause to conform to it (as does the 2nd Amendment). What is more, one must ask "How can a law be "proper" if it violates the seperation of powers laid down within the Federal government and between the federal government, the states, and the people?"
If a law is truly "neccessary" then it will be enacted by the competent jurisdiciton.
Well, I still have trouble believing that the "well-regulated militia" preface to the 2nd Amendment is an effectively meaningless add-on. Believe me though that's what I want to believe and I can even countenance the view that it does mean something but while meaning something that something does not limit the arms to be kept and borne by citizens as a matter of right.
I do believe that militia is not needed to defend the United States against external enemies (internal enemies may be a very different matter). This does not mean that needs do not change or that one should regard the militia as non-existent because it is not currently needed. My statements assume otherwise. But to suggest that a well organized militia is not, at this moment in time vital for external security reasons is scarcely heresy. If conditions change or I am presented with better evidence then of course I might change my position on this point.
In any event, except for personal ownership of warships and similar (for the time being at least) largely academic issues my conception of what the militia is or isn't does not effect my views on gun rights. I clearly believe that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and that one of the important aspects of this is the right of the people to revolt against domestic tyranny, a basic right embodied but not created by the Declaration of Independence.
At any rate I am not unsympathetic to your positions. I just do fully subscribe to them at this time.
Tamara is right to point out that many of our problems as gun owners and citizens stem from the fact that the federal government has increasingly lost respect for the clear limits placed upon its power. The Constitution was pretty much written in a way that said unless the federal government is authorized to do something by the Constitution then it can't do that thing because that power is retained by the states and or the people. The Bill of Rights (the 10th Amendment in particular) is the capstone of this.
As for the "necessary and proper" clause often misnamed the "elastic clause" one must remember that the 10th Amendment acts upon and forces that clause to conform to it (as does the 2nd Amendment). What is more, one must ask "How can a law be "proper" if it violates the seperation of powers laid down within the Federal government and between the federal government, the states, and the people?"
If a law is truly "neccessary" then it will be enacted by the competent jurisdiciton.