- This topic has 25 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
It’s pretty vague. If you were in charge of editing and rewriting the Constitution in accordance with proper style and grammar (and your own values), how would you phrase it?
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Why is the first part needed?
Repeal it and move on.
It isnt vague
It clearly refers to a well regulated militia.
I suppose they could have put the initial clause in bold/highlights/underline and all caps. Though Idont think it would help. People read what they want to read.
Maybe changing “The people” to “those people” ?A WELL REGULATED MILITIA being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of those people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What type of arms are there besides for military arms? The military has weapons ranging from tanks to knives?
The original language, back in 1775, was that all free Protestants belong to the state church and loyal to the king were allowed to bear arms, and could be called upon to defend the king and country when necessary. Everyone else was subject to gun control, the better to know their place in society. Owning firearms was a privilege for the “right people”. People like us had to whine and sue (and in fact the first civil rights case in what is now the United States involve a Jew wanting the right to bear arms).
When some fool wants to tamper with the Bill of Rights, you should see what life was like before they were enacted.
The English language has evolved from the time the Amendment was written through today.
Sorry Joseph but I don’t believe that the amendment should be repealed.
lowerourtuition11210: I respect your right to disagree.
It relates to understanding the original meaning of the Amendment.
Bearing arms isn’t tznius especially womens military arms.
I think a big part of the debate is. Was the amendment meant for people to fight back against a corrupt government. Or perhaps guns weren’t are powerful, accurate, fast as today and maybe we only have the right to muskets.@akuperma
‘the original language back in 1775’ You need a course in Constitutional Law…I’ll be teaching one this coming spring semester.REALLY?????????????
The Constitution was not drafted until 1787 and ratified by 1789. The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) date from 1791.
Certainly, the Quakers of Pennsylvania did NOT belong to the State Church and support the King of England, the titular head of the church.1. according to the supreme court in DC vs. heller, the militia clause has no bearing on the keep and bear arms clause.
2. “a nutritious breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day; the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed”
Who has the right to food? breakfast or the people? the militia clause is the reason for the right to keep and bear arms.
3. even assuming only militias have the right to arms, a militia is by definition a loosely organized group of private citizens.they had a rifle at the time of the revolution which jefferson at least was aware of called the girandoni air rifle. it could shoo 20 rounds from a magazine accurately at 100 yards and was semiautomatic, similar to many modern rifles. the founding fathers also knew technology would advance, and therefore the 2nd amendment was not only about muskets.
Under the previous laws, enacted by Parliament to make sure the militia wouldn’t self-mobilize and overthrow the government (as had happened relatively recently, and which the powers that be didn’t want to happen again), only those trusted politically could bear arms. And distrusted group was disarmed. Having the right to bare arms meant you were truely FREE and not a second class citizen.
The experience of the previous 100 years it what motivated the Congress in 1791 to create a right to bear arms.
If the “CT” in your user name refers to Connecticut, you probably know that in New England, and much of country (outside of one colony, Pennsylvania, which was owned by a Quaker) Quakers were regarded as quasi-criminals and could be expelled, or worse (and that most of what is now the United States was officially Judenrein.) To understand the American constitution you need to understand the laws governing this country for the 170 years prior to the revolution, . American legal history did not being in 1776.
NOYB
1. “according to the supreme court in DC vs. heller, the militia clause has no bearing on the keep and bear arms clause.”
well they (ie 5 ) of the justices got it wrong Its not like they have some kabal ish mipi ish.. Heller was a landmark decision as it was the first time the Supreme court interpreted it that way. See for eg US v Miller (1939):
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”2. “a nutritious breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day; the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed”
Absolute best argument I ever heard. thank you.
I dont see how a reasonable person can use your amendment as a right to eat lunch or junk food.
The introductory clause was intentionally written. Its not like they found a scrap of paper that already said some stuff about militia so they figured lets just stick this in.
Much like your amendment preemptively defines what it is discussing a. nutritious not junk food and b. breakfast not lunch.
So to the second amendment it discusses a. well regulated (we can quible what that means, I would argue background checks and registering of guns would keep things ” well regulated” and b. militia.
This is the introductiry clause abotu which it says “the right of the people…”3. “…a militia is by definition a loosely organized group of private citizens.”
Yes, so we keep track who is in the milita and they can keep guns its not some hefker wild west. See “well regulated”“the founding fathers also knew technology would advance,”
where they neviim?The interesting thing about the Miller decision was that the Court erred in stating that short (less that 18″) barreled shotguns were inappropriate for “military” use. In 1835, the US Army issued Baker double-barreled shotguns to Cavalry troops. The Baker had 12″ barrels.
How about big guns like they have on tanks or the ones ships? An we have those?
@akuperma
I understand the British legal system that existed in the colonies.
Your post did not refer to that but the ‘original language of the Constitution in 1775’ which is why I called you out.
I know all about the Articles of Confederation and other documents that predated the Constitution. They contained no 2nd Amendment.There were Jews in New Haven Colony….my birth town from the 1600s, the same in the Colony of New York.
No Colony was owned by a Quaker. The Colonies were owned by the Crown, Charters were issued to individuals, such as the Quaker in PA.,“militia”, by definition, consisted of all FREE (as opposed to slaves, serfs, indentured servants, Jews and in some years other religious dissenters) MALES, who could be called to defend the kingdom, put down rebellions, etc. The right to bear arms goes along with being FREE. Those who couldn’t bear arms, were un-free.
One could argue that the 2nd amendment protects the rights of all citizens to be in the militia (cf. the Asher Levy case), butr that issue has never been litigated
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.