Right to keep and bear arms

[CARLHAYDEN]

The responses of a couple of posters in subjects which indirectly involved the right to keep and bear arms illustrate something I have seen for a long time.

Opponenets of the right to keep and bear arms make assertions which are flatly incorrect.  When their errors are pointed out they merely become very emotional.

More and more I am convinced that opponents of the right to keep and bear arms are suffering from hoplophobia.

[frenger]

The responses of a couple of posters in subjects which indirectly involved the right to keep and bear arms illustrate something I have seen for a long time.

Opponenets of the right to keep and bear arms make assertions which are flatly incorrect.  When their errors are pointed out they merely become very emotional.

More and more I am convinced that opponents of the right to keep and bear arms are suffering from hoplophobia.

Raging Against Self Defense:
A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

A pretty insightful paper on teh irrational fear of firearms.

[MODU]

Second Amendment:

"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."

The second amendment provides protection for people to own weapons to maintain a state militia.  The armed forces of the US at this time was very small and disbursed, so it was necessary for individuals be armed to protect the country from future attacks, be it from Europeans or Native Americans.  The amendment has nothing to do with people owning guns for recreation or personal self-defense, since the state militia roles were taken over by the state national guard units.  Additionally, it doesn't say anything about the government not having the rights to limit the number or ban particular weapons. 

It's one sentance.  Believe what you want.

[frenger]

Second Amendment:

"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."

The second amendment provides protection for people to own weapons to maintain a state militia.  The armed forces of the US at this time was very small and disbursed, so it was necessary for individuals be armed to protect the country from future attacks, be it from Europeans or Native Americans.  The amendment has nothing to do with people owning guns for recreation or personal self-defense, since the state militia roles were taken over by the state national guard units.  Additionally, it doesn't say anything about the government not having the rights to limit the number or ban particular weapons. 

It's one sentance.  Believe what you want.

"A well informed electorate, being necessary to the well being of free republic, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Would this mean only voters would have the right to own books?

[Jim Valvano]

"A well informed electorate, being necessary to the well being of free republic, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Would this mean only voters would have the right to own books?

All the same, I'd feel loads better if those stupid founding fathers had just left out that darn preamble from the amendment.

[frenger]

"A well informed electorate, being necessary to the well being of free republic, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Would this mean only voters would have the right to own books?

All the same, I'd feel loads better if those stupid founding fathers had just left out that darn preamble from the amendment.

Just goes to show that it'd have bene better if the articles had just been ammended to prohibit teh states from levying tariffs upon each other.

[A18]

A reason is not a condition. Not hard to figure out, really.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I support the reading of the second amendment that prohibits all restrictions on any type of weapon.   If it were interpreted that way it would probably be repealed.

[David S]

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.  Thomas Jefferson

[Platypus]

The responses of a couple of posters in subjects which indirectly involved the right to keep and bear arms illustrate something I have seen for a long time.

Opponenets of the right to keep and bear arms make assertions which are flatly incorrect. When their errors are pointed out they merely become very emotional.

More and more I am convinced that opponents of the right to keep and bear arms are suffering from hoplophobia.

Raging Against Self Defense:
A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

A pretty insightful paper on teh irrational fear of firearms.

I actually read this, Bono, and you should be ashamed of posting such idiotic right wing tripe, as bad as anything jfern posts.

[KillerPollo]

Why doesnt anyone realize that if they take away our rifles, we still got Bows and arrows, crossbows, swords, machetes, and such to defend ourselves with

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Why doesnt anyone realize that if they take away our rifles, we still got Bows and arrows, crossbows, swords, machetes, and such to defend ourselves with

Because those can be outlawed as well - and if guns are outlawed you can bet those will be as soon as someone uses them. Besides, you try taking the time to get skilled enough with such a weapon to defend yourself - it'll take you a long while.

[frenger]

Why doesnt anyone realize that if they take away our rifles, we still got Bows and arrows, crossbows, swords, machetes, and such to defend ourselves with

Because those can be outlawed as well - and if guns are outlawed you can bet those will be as soon as someone uses them. Besides, you try taking the time to get skilled enough with such a weapon to defend yourself - it'll take you a long while.

Yea, they are already wanting to ban knives in britain.

[Andrew]

I'd just like to point out that every time the Constitution refers to individuals--every time--the word persons is used.

The Second Amendment uses the word people.  It doesn't refer to individuals.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

I'd just like to point out that every time the Constitution refers to individuals--every time--the word persons is used.

The Second Amendment uses the word people.  It doesn't refer to individuals.

The father of the Constitution and the man who wrote the second amendment seems to disagree.

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison

"Suppose that we let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal: still it would not be going to far to say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to repel the danger...half a million citizens with arms in their hands" - James Madison, The Federalist Papers
 

A few others:

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms .To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . " - Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

"The said Constitution be never construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

[frenger]

I'd just like to point out that every time the Constitution refers to individuals--every time--the word persons is used.

The Second Amendment uses the word people.  It doesn't refer to individuals.

Fourth Ammendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

does this mean there is not an individual right to be secured against unreasonable search and seizure?

[ATFFL]

The responses of a couple of posters in subjects which indirectly involved the right to keep and bear arms illustrate something I have seen for a long time.

Opponenets of the right to keep and bear arms make assertions which are flatly incorrect. When their errors are pointed out they merely become very emotional.

More and more I am convinced that opponents of the right to keep and bear arms are suffering from hoplophobia.

Raging Against Self Defense:
A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

A pretty insightful paper on teh irrational fear of firearms.

I actually read this, Bono, and you should be ashamed of posting such idiotic right wing tripe, as bad as anything jfern posts.

Well, he did put a smiley on it.

[Andrew]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . does this mean there is not an individual right to be secured against unreasonable search and seizure?

Of course there is.  This is why the word persons is used when explaining that right:

. . . no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . does this mean there is not an individual right to be secured against unreasonable search and seizure?

Of course there is.  This is why the word persons is used when explaining that right:

. . . no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Well it's pretty hard to violate the security or seize all the people at once. Your argument on this is piss poor - if the people doesn't refer to all individuals, then what pray tell does it refer to?

[Andrew]

. . . if the people doesn't refer to all individuals, then what pray tell does it refer to?

It refers to the body of citizens of the U.S.--a group of people.  The wording of the Constitution is very consistent on this--when referring to a group, the word people is used; when referring to individuals, the word persons is used.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

. . . if the people doesn't refer to all individuals, then what pray tell does it refer to?

It refers to the body of citizens of the U.S.--a group of people.  The wording of the Constitution is very consistent on this--when referring to a group, the word people is used; when referring to individuals, the word persons is used.

A group of people...who are all individuals. This has to be the single most assinine argument on the Second Amendment I have ever heard - it clearly means that every individual has the right to bear arms. 'The people' isn't some organized group, so how then could 'the people' have the right to keep and bear arms if the individuals comprising that group did not have the right to keep and bear said arms individually?

[Andrew]

. . . how then could 'the people' have the right to keep and bear arms if the individuals comprising that group did not have the right to keep and bear said arms individually?

They could (and do) have the right to bear arms as part of a militia.

Bear arms, by the way, is a military term that has nothing to do with individual gun ownership.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

. . . how then could 'the people' have the right to keep and bear arms if the individuals comprising that group did not have the right to keep and bear said arms individually?

They could (and do) have the right to bear arms as part of a militia.

Bear arms, by the way, is a military term that has nothing to do with individual gun ownership.

Main Entry: bear
Pronunciation: 'bar
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: bore /'bOr/; borne /'bOrn/ also born
transitive verb 1 : to physically carry (as an object or message) <the right of the people to keep and bear arms —U.S. Constitution amendment II>

I urge you to back up your claims - so far you've only given. I've provided evidence that the founding fathers meant for individuals to have the right to bear arms, because it is the individuals who comprise the militia - in particular the unorganized militia. If indeed all individuals comprise the unorganized militia, every single individual has a right to keep and bear arms even by your logic.

"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."

Further, your logic that they MUST be part of a militia is wrong. Note that there is a seperation between 'a well regulated militia' and 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' is seperate. Nowhere does it state that the people must be in a regulated militia to keep and bear arms.

[Andrew]

I urge you to back up your claims . . .

These are not new ideas.  Here's a link to an article by Akhil Amar, Yale law professor and author of America's Constitution:  A Biography, that discusses both of these ideas (and some others as well):

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/65LCPAmar

[frenger]

I urge you to back up your claims . . .

These are not new ideas.  Here's a link to an article by Akhil Amar, Yale law professor and author of America's Constitution:  A Biography, that discusses both of these ideas (and some others as well):

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/65LCPAmar

I understand his big legal experience as a consultant for The West Wing makes him qualified to invent some run-of-the-mill new "interpretation".