Beowulf right to Leave the SL

Tenshinai wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:The question of whether or not the 2nd Amendment protects an individual or a collective right — that is, whether it refers to individuals’ right to be armed or only to the creation of a “well regulated militia” — has been especially vexatious in the US since 1939 but was largely a nonissue prior to that time.

And that´s one reason why USA seriously needs to get a new constitution. Which is of course an impossible ideal.

Anyone neutral in the question, with halfdecent linguist/English skills will state that 2nd amendment refers to militia rights, as the USA was originally meant to not have any army at all(as that was seen as leading to imperialism and foreign ventures), with individuals forming a militia replacing that, because not reading it like that makes the text itself nonsensical and internally inconsistent.

Even with modern language, it´s clear, but once you look at it based on the time it was written, it´s blatantly obvious.


And maybe i should have started with whatever closer to ontopic i was going to write, because now i´ve forgotten what that was...

If it were that cut-and-dried the issue would not have arisen. The Founders based a lot of their political thought on their understanding of the British Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights of 1689. The latter, among other things, specifically deprived the Crown of the right to deprive citizens of arms (I believe there was an "appropriate to their class" limitation, but I'm not sure without looking it up) for the purpose of self-defense and also to assist in the maintenance of public order.

The actual text of the 2nd amendment reads "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," and the problems in interpretation hinge upon what "a free State" is, who "the people" are in this case, and what "shall not be infringed" means.

If "the people" are, indeed, simply the organized militia(s) of the United States, then the notion that arms are necessary to "the security of a free State" depends upon the coercive government the Founds most feared not having a monopoly on force; i.e., the militias, as state/local organizations would present an armed deterrent to a tyrannical ventral government that would trample on their rights and freedoms . . . which was precisely how the Rebels had regarded the government of George III. In other words, the militia(s) were the mailed fist that was supposed to be the ultimate guarantor of federalism. Unfortunately for this interpretation in modern terms, the Civil War pretty clearly showed that it didn't work (from the South's perspective) and the Federal government's willingness (and ability) to federalize the national guard --- as Eisenhower did in Arkansas in 1954 --- sort of erases the rganized militia"/national guard as a deterrent (for good or ill) on Federal authority/overreach (definitions of which are which will vary).

If the original notion that the militia was to provide the deterrent to federal tyranny, and if the federal power can federalize the militia when it chooses to do so, then the deterrent has to be vested somewhere else or abandoned. There were, of course, other reasons for the Founders to favor a militia system over a standing army, but it's clear from their correspondence that they were most concerned about the potential for "tyranny" (a word they used a lot) of a central government with a monopoly on armed force. Arguments can certainly be made for abandoning the "deterrent to tyranny" argument entirely; arguments can also be made against abandoning it, however.

Moving beyond the notion of restraining the federal government, however, brings us to the "arms for self defense" argument which was an explicit part of the Bill of Rights of 1869 and (in my opinion; others may vary) clearly implicit in the 2nd Amendment. If self defense is a part of the right, then it must clearly apply to individuals, not simply organized militias, and the general view in the US prior to the 1939 court case I referenced earlier was that it did. That position has now been (largely) reinstated, but in the context of the passage of another 70-80 years.

Which brings us to what "shall not be infringed" means. Does it mean shall be absolutely unrestricted, in which case I can park a nuke in the basement and carry Sarin gas in my car? Does it mean only small arms, or are crew-served weapons covered, as well? Does it allow the government to theoretically allow its citizens to be armed while hedging the weapons with which they may be armed with so many restrictions as to make them effectively useless?

I tend to come down on the side of the Framers' intention having been, first, to prevent a federal monopoly on force, second, to provide for local defense in situations in which the federal forces could not respond in a timely fashion, third, to require the federal government to summon the militia if a need for armed force arose as a means of restraining adventurism, and, fourth, to allow individuals the means to defend themselves and their families against attack. The first three are all sort of rolled together and subsumed in the existence of the militia; the fourth is related to but separate from it. If, therefore, the national guard continues to fulfill the function of the militia for peacekeeping, local security, rescue, etc., and we are going to decide that its function of preventing "federal tyranny" is no longer applicable, then the "right of the people" to be armed in self-defense becomes the focal point of the debate. Personally, I believe the Founders intended for US citizens to have that right for that purpose. Others clearly disagree, which is their right. It is also my right to vote for or against candidates on the basis of how they feel on this issue, and I intend to continue doing so.

In any case, the interpretation is not nearly so cut-and-dried as your summation suggests and the argument in question has been going on for over 300 years now.

I don't expect it to end tomorrow.

Tenshinai,
I usually agree with you, but in this case it seems that
you overlooked the clause in Article 2:
"The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army
(and the Navy)"

This shows (to the standard you are arguing by) that
the USA was indeed intended to have an Army.

HTJM

Tenshinai wrote:
[snip - htm]

Anyone neutral in the question, with half-decent linguist/English skills, will state that 2nd amendment refers to militia rights, as **the USA was originally meant to not have any army at all** (as that was seen as leading to imperialism and foreign ventures), with individuals forming a militia replacing that, because not reading it like that makes the text itself nonsensical and internally inconsistent.

[snip - htm]

HB, if you are not going to use the standard "ACW" name
for that war, then please call it by its Truename:
"The War For Slaveholders Privileges."

HTM of Philadelphia Pennsylvania

HB of CJ wrote:
[snip - htm]
... the War Between The States...1861 to 1865.

[snip - htm]
HB of CJ (old coot) Lt.Cm. born in Big Lick VA.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Tenshinai,
I usually agree with you, but in this case it seems that
you overlooked the clause in Article 2:
"The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army
(and the Navy)"

This shows (to the standard you are arguing by) that
the USA was indeed intended to have an Army.

HTJM

I could be wrong, because I am going back quite a few years of compounded history lessons, but the militia were to be semi-permenant standing forces, similer to the national guard, to defend local areas. There was to be no standing army, and the militias were to have been organized into 1 large army in the case of invasion and common defense, which is whi the 2nd article says comander in cheif of the army.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:HB, if you are not going to use the standard "ACW" name
for that war, then please call it by its Truename:
"The War For Slaveholders Privileges."

HTM of Philadelphia Pennsylvania

I am sorry to disagree but the Civil War, and it should always be called the Civil War, was fought more for the right to choose rather then the right to slavery, however slavery was made the hot button issue due to the turmoil it was causeing in the minds of the population. I am not saying many people didn't fight to keep slaves, but that was not the idea behind the Confederate Government. Many slaves actually fought for the South, to obtain their freedom. There were many more fighting for the North, but there were some.

See reasons for right to choose below.

HB of CJ wrote:Thank you. I think the Honorverse reality would mirror United States History before, during and after the War Between The States...1861 to 1865. Many Southern American states seceded from the Union. The US Constitution had no real language keeping them in the Union

The driving force of the War Between The States was probably emotional and highly economic. Big egos and bigger potential war profits drove logic from the minds of those on both sides. History shows us how THAT ended up. The South lost and we still experience the after effects.

Sinp

Just me. HB of CJ (old coot) Lt.Cm. born in Big Lick VA.

It was about Federal Government exercising authority and control over the states that it actually did not have. The 10th amendment, as prevously stated, gave the power to the states to succeed from the Union, since that right/power was never strictly forbidden by the Consitution. The Federal Government said no. Was the catalyst to succeed from the Union due to the Southern States wanting to maintain slavery? In alot of ways yes, but again, not because all them wanted to own slaves, but because they believed they had the right to determine if slavery should be legal. If you read Robert E. Lee's history, while he came from a slave owning family, he may of actually married ito it, cant rememebr off-hand, he himself disliked the whole notion, but sided with Virgina because he was standing by his state.
War profits had very little to do with the Civil War being fought. Egos? sure, on both sides but, the right to leave the Union, and yes to choose whether or not to have slavery, was the true cause of the war.

RunsforCelery,
I want to quote your whole statement and point out every point that I agree with and re-interate how I agree. but I won't. Instead I just ask, RunsforCelery, have you ever thought of RunningforOffice?

Curses, I said I'd stay on topic in this discussion and now I haven't. I feel justified though, RunsforCelery continued the fight . I have your back on this one, and I am sure many more

Since the dreaded "2nd amendment" topic has come up, I've got a few things to say, grammatical, political and pragmatic.

First: grammar. The text of the amendment is what's called a "short passive," that is, it has no by-phrase to indicate who isn't to infringe the right to bear arms. Since it's an amendment, it doesn't fall in the neatly separated lists of things the federal government is or isn't allowed to do. Are we talking about the federal government, the states, the Southern slaveholders? If the latter, I can assure you their slaves would have wiped them out.

Second: political. This is an amendment, it is not in the text of the Constitution proper, so to say that the framers wanted it this way is simply wrong. I find it difficult to believe that nobody in the Constitutional Convention thought of the issue, so the fact that it isn't in the main text says something. Exactly what, I'm not sure.

Third: pragmatic. At the time the amendment was framed and voted on, the typical hand weapon would have been a club, knife or sword. Pistols of the era were single shot muzzle loaders. Breach loading rifles did exist - the Ferguson comes to mind - but they were still single shot. The modern cartridge hadn't been invented. Anyone who invokes the framers in the argument is talking intent, not the text. The framers of the Constitution are, of course, all safely dead and unreachable to join in the discussion. I, however, seriously doubt that they would have agreed that fully automatic machine guns were appropriate weapons for self-defense.

I also notice that a lot of the discussion seems to ignore Article I, Section 8, paragraphs 10 through 16:

U.S. Constitution wrote:10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Finally, another political point: the higher the population density, the more government is needed. This seems to be a pretty consistent rule throughout all of the history I'm familiar with.

JohnRoth wrote:Third: pragmatic. At the time the amendment was framed and voted on, the typical hand weapon would have been a club, knife or sword. Pistols of the era were single shot muzzle loaders. Breach loading rifles did exist - the Ferguson comes to mind - but they were still single shot. The modern cartridge hadn't been invented. Anyone who invokes the framers in the argument is talking intent, not the text. The framers of the Constitution are, of course, all safely dead and unreachable to join in the discussion. I, however, seriously doubt that they would have agreed that fully automatic machine guns were appropriate weapons for self-defense.

So how come the phrase "the people" refers to individuals for the first and fourth but somehow mysteriously refers to states only here? Or are you arguing that only states have a right to assemble and be secure in their persons and houses?

It was expected that people would have the kind of weapons that were in common military service. This was known to include cannon and privately owned warships.

Commodore Oakius wrote:I am sorry to disagree but the Civil War, and it should always be called the Civil War, was fought more for the right to choose rather then the right to slavery, however slavery was made the hot button issue due to the turmoil it was causeing in the minds of the population. I am not saying many people didn't fight to keep slaves, but that was not the idea behind the Confederate Government. Many slaves actually fought for the South, to obtain their freedom. There were many more fighting for the North, but there were some.

Can you show me where "the right to choose" is enumerated in the South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession? I can tell you what is enumerated there, and it's slavery.

JohnRoth wrote:Snip
Second: political. This is an amendment, it is not in the text of the Constitution proper, so to say that the framers wanted it this way is simply wrong. I find it difficult to believe that nobody in the Constitutional Convention thought of the issue, so the fact that it isn't in the main text says something. Exactly what, I'm not sure.
Snip

Actually, the Bill of Rights was written at the same time. Many of the founding fathers wanted them included in the Consitution, however there was enough opposition that a compromise was created. They were transfered into was was known as the bill of rights and it was agreed that they should be added after 10 years. This is where I may be off, but I believe the 10 years was to give the people time to live with out them, then decide if you wanted them. Many of the Bill of Rights were modeled after the British Documents like the Manga Carta and the British Bill of rights, ideals that the colonists felt the parliment had taken away from them.

JohnRoth wrote:
Third: pragmatic. At the time the amendment was framed and voted on, the typical hand weapon would have been a club, knife or sword. Pistols of the era were single shot muzzle loaders. Breach loading rifles did exist - the Ferguson comes to mind - but they were still single shot. The modern cartridge hadn't been invented. Anyone who invokes the framers in the argument is talking intent, not the text. The framers of the Constitution are, of course, all safely dead and unreachable to join in the discussion. I, however, seriously doubt that they would have agreed that fully automatic machine guns were appropriate weapons for self-defense.

As was mentioned by RFC, one of the biggest fears was the rule of tyranny.

kzt wrote:[It was expected that people would have the kind of weapons that were in common military service. This was known to include cannon and privately owned warships.

This is required that we can access more powerfull weapons to withstand tyranny from modern forces, should such tyranny arise. Not say we should have privately own warships or rocket launchers, but that we should have the ablitiy to stand against mondern military units, and a double-barrel shotgun is not enough to stand against M-16s.
And you are right, I am arguing the intent of the law. There is now way for them to have known how our weapons have developed, and since they aren't around for comment, we must discern as best we can what they meant, as RFC states, we wont solve it here.

JohnRoth wrote:
I also notice that a lot of the discussion seems to ignore Article I, Section 8, paragraphs 10 through 16:

U.S. Constitution wrote:10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Actually I addressed this :

Commodore Oakius wrote:I could be wrong, because I am going back quite a few years of compounded history lessons, but the militia were to be semi-permenant standing forces, similer to the national guard, to defend local areas. There was to be no standing army, and the militias were to have been organized into 1 large army in the case of invasion and common defense, which is whi the 2nd article says comander in cheif of the army.

And lastly:

JohnRoth wrote:Finally, another political point: the higher the population density, the more government is needed. This seems to be a pretty consistent rule throughout all of the history I'm familiar with.

Larger government bodies to represent the increase population? Maybe. Mort government controls? NO! Nazi Germany, USSR under Stalin. The Facists under Musselini in Italy. North Korea Under Kim Jung Il. China under Mao. Cuba under Castro... Need I go on? More and more Government control leads to opresive government, because they control all and everyone chafes against control, and the governments spook about so much chafeing and the crack down.

kzt wrote:Can you show me where "the right to choose" is enumerated in the South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession? I can tell you what is enumerated there, and it's slavery.

Right. They wanted slaves, so they left. The north didn't say, you cant have slaves come back here so I can punish you, they said, you cant leave the Union, come back and free your slaves.
They choose to leave to keep slaves.

I guess I am going to have to weigh in on the other side. I have no desire to deny constitutional rights.

As for the right to seceed, that is now settled, not with legal arguments but in blood at places like Gettysburg, Shiloh and so on. Consequently there is no right of sucession, whatever the framers might have intended to start with.

As for the gun arguments, ccould we please have some practical sense? No one, least of all me has any particular objection to guns in the possession of responsible people, but look at what we actually have:

1.criminal gangs in some our cities who actually outgun the police who are trying to apprehend them.

2.Deranged individuals who wander through college campuses and yes, even grade schools shooting kids...easy access to guns guaranteed.

3.people who live in dangerous neighborhoods afraid to let their children out to play for fear they will be shot.

Gang, the way we tolerate this crap is both outrageous and stupid to say nothing of morally reprehensible. On a personal level, I find it offensive when the pro-gun people talk like their right to bear arms is more important than my right to walk down the street without the fear of getting shot.

Don

It is more complicated than that. Some of the framers though including a bill of rights was redundant, mostly because the individual states had bills of rights.
Consider what the Federal government can do under the constitution, as originally written.
1. Regulate interstate commerce
2. Handle matters of state (diplomacy)
3. Handle matters related to international trade and the seas (This includes the Navy)
4. Regulate the training of the militia
5. If needed raise armies on a temporary basis
6. handle the settlement of the lands outside the states. (which was actually an inherited responsibility)

Most of the right established under the Bill of rights were mostly non issues until after the 14th amendment was passed, which meant that the states were now subject to the bill of rights and federal review, remember that the federal government is supposed to defer to the state if practical.

It was actually one of the scholarly objections to DoMA, that the federal government actually has no jurisdiction over what constitutes a marriage directly.

Commodore Oakius wrote:
Actually, the Bill of Rights was written at the same time. Many of the founding fathers wanted them included in the Consitution, however there was enough opposition that a compromise was created. They were transfered into was was known as the bill of rights and it was agreed that they should be added after 10 years. This is where I may be off, but I believe the 10 years was to give the people time to live with out them, then decide if you wanted them. Many of the Bill of Rights were modeled after the British Documents like the Manga Carta and the British Bill of rights, ideals that the colonists felt the parliment had taken away from them.