Quote:
Originally Posted by Iriemon  I wasn't trying to misstate the meaning of Adam's proposal. |
I certainly take your word for it, but what was between the elipses was extremely important given your argument. I doubt the founders left the "who are peaceable citizens" out of the Second Amendment because they rejected the notion of depriving criminals guns, so there goes the "was not adopted," part of your argument right there. Also the First Amendment part of Adams, "the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience," must in your view be "directed at the US Congress...Regulation could be done by the states."
1) The First Amendment says, "Congress," and that Amendment is not attached to the others with a semicolon, so in law only the First Amendment out of the first two applies only to the Federal Government--a future Islamic Republic of Illinois may forbid the publication of pornography "free speech" of the MohamMAD pedophile screwing a piglet, and not be misinterpreting the Constitution like "liberals" consistently do. Since the word "Congress," which is NOT in the Second Amendment, is defined in Article 1 Section 1, therefore, the Second Amendment is NOT "directed at the US Congress" and was directed at both the Federal and State governments (which have a right to a militia, with good ole Southern Red Neck officers of their choice), both of which cannot infringe on the right of the people to be armed.
2) The Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with the part of Article 1 Section 8 having to do with the standing army: "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy;" In fact the quote you used of Adams clearly indicates a standing army is possible, and envisioned as possibly being necessary: "or to raise standing armies,
unless necessary for the defense of the United States"
The founders did not legislate from the grave, an indication they understood things change. To assume the founders did not know weapons improve, and would improve, ignores much of the literature of the period. All of the lessons of technology and war were discussed in the Decline and Fall, and I would assume our founders were literate. There is nothing wrong with the way the amendment is worded, it provides protection for States (republics) and for the people who may need to overthow a usurped republic. What weapons the people may have for a successful insurrection against an oppressive Federal or State government is left for interpretation, and that is why there is a Supreme Court.
The "guns commonly owned by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes," such as magizine fed hunting rifles with scopes, and multiple shot handguns which would make a Prussian army proud, are fully capable of a successful insurrection by the whole of the people against an oppressive minority government. A delicate balance of power between the whole of the people and their armed government requires that all eventualities not be articulated in a sentence such as 2A.
When the government makes this military flashlight common for police duty, the people will seek to own such a flashlight:
Belton flintlock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia