6. Hell no
Yeah, God forbid the 2nd Amendment's text actually be accurate to its intent, thereby keeping Americans from continuing with the gross misconception that this amendment is their free pass to own a gun.
I disagree that such was the original intent of the second amendment. At the time the militia was cumpulsory and there was a long history of such local militias being a check on the power of the national authority.
I am fairly certain they were cumpulsory and it is undeniable that the Kings of England made certain decisions based on the size of the militias and the reluctance to tangle with them at a time when the Army was rather small. It still happened of course but it was a limiting factor nonetheless.
Also the militias served to check the ability of the English to enforce the Intolerable Acts and until Lexington and Concord, the British actually would actually avoid conflict. Is that not a limiting factor?
Hell even back in the days of England, they operated as such particularly with the army typically being tiny in comparison to their navy prior to the 1700's. If the national authortiy could disarm them, it would lose such effect and thus considering the circumstances it is hard to believe they anticipated it as being anything other then a means by which to avoid the Feds from doing just that. Its not like such militias organized themselves into what certain folk would label a terrorist cell fully willing to wage war on the nation's own Army not more then two decades prior.
Have you read the Riot Act?
With every right comes certain responsbilities, hence why I support background checks. There has to some limiting principle, but in general though the right is guarranteed to protect people from being disarmed by the state. My point was to bring up the context to illustrate what their contemporay history was at the time.
I guess I must have dreamed up Lexington, Concord, the ensuing hand to hand fight stretching all the way back to Boston and Bunker Hill (Breeds Hill to be more precise as to where the fight happened).
This is the perfect time for you to bring up the Boston Massacre.
Actually no. The examples citied, involved the militia units turning their weapons on the state. Two decades later, it is enshrined in the Constitution that for the sake of such existing, the people shall not be disarmed. In both MA 1774 and 1775, as well as in England under James II, the national authority tried to disarm the militias.
Somehow I have my doubts that a group of [people] thirteen years later would somehow have forgotten that event or the those meeting just a year or two after the Glorious Revolution would approach it with that view in the light of their own contemporary history.
Ask yourself this. What was the Bill of Rights designed to do in terms of original intent?
Limit the power of the federal government.
OF course, we are making some progress I see.
It did not seek to bestow freedom on people (remember we are talking original intent as you framed it as such) and in fact its applicabliltiy to the state level was not even established until the 20th century in most cases with a few in the 19th. The founders believe god had given such to the people and that it was responsbility of gov't to minimize the infringement of those liberties in the quest of achieving security for their people and their liberty.
Many founders only believed in "god" in the abstract, and when they spoke of it all they really meant was that these rights were naturally endowed in civil society. If they saw modern America they would never have used the word "god" because they've seen the consequences.
Incidentally, did you intentionally not capitalize "god"?
Same idea basically, the government didn't distribute freedom that was natural. Its job was to secure its people and in the mode least detrimental to those freedoms.
I frankly didn't consider the matter and was in hurry at the time. My expertize is not in religion by any means.
The Bill of Rights was "intended" by them to protect the people from excesses of the Federal Government.
For the record I got that question right without cheating!
It was a rhetorical exercise anyway?
Ask yourself this, who were they concerned about depriving the militias of the right to bear arms? Why does a gov't empowed to raise and quipt an army under Article I need to protect its units being disarmed with an amendment? Why does a state need to be protected against the same when it can do anything the constitution of such allows (and remember the Bill of Rights did not apply to states back then). What person could possibly disarm the state military and what person or state could possibly disarm the US Army? If not the federal gov't depriving people of their right to arm themselves, what mysterious force is it protecting against from their perspective?
Who were not even realyl covered by the Constitution at all save maybe with regards to treaties an such forth and thus the second amendment hardly protects against them taking someone's weapons from them.
If what you say is true, then the second amendment as intended is the most redundant and pointless amendment ever. It is neither, it was adopted, drawing from a similar vein stemming from English history and in both cases, the state was not preserving the right to arm itself, but for its citizens to not be disarmed by the state.
I don't believe that what I said contests this.
Good to know.
Edit: And before anyone assumes otherwise I urge you to recall my support for Manchin-Toomey, its disappointment when it failed, general support for background checks and lack of concern about Romney having once supported Brady.
Knew you would appreciate that. Our difference is philosophicla and I am nothing if not pragmatic.