Quote:
Originally Posted by DivineComedy  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." |
that is an interesting point. The 2A as written says "the people" and if you take that to mean an individual right, there is no exception for criminals to have guns as well. You'd have to presume that when they wrote "the people" in the 2A they were assuming that it would be understood that criminals (or loons, I suppose) are not "the people".
More likely is that they presumed the states would regulate who could have guns as part of the well regulated militia (or otherwise) to pass laws that infringed up the right to keep and bear arms so that irresponsible people could not have them.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Until the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights was deemed to be a limitation on the powers of the federal government, not state governments, I believe.
Quote:
|
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"
|
Agree, but we were discussing Samuel Adam's proposal. His proposal would have prohibited a standing army except in times when necessary for the defense of the United States.
I guess with that loophole, Congress could have decided to have a standing army whenever it wanted, though that is contrary to the intent expressed in the preceding language saying that Congress could not raise a standing army, unless conditions applied.
Quote:
|
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.
|
If you are going to say the founders passed the 2A to provide a means for insurrection against the Govt, the Heller decision is inconsistent with that purpose.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Those kinds of small arms didn't prove effective against Hind helicopters in Afghanistan.