Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumDoes the Second Amendment belong in the Bill of Rights? Why or why not?
Writings to consider:
32 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes | |
29 (91%) |
|
No | |
3 (9%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
ileus
(15,396 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Just an observation.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...of the right to life. Any living thing will naturally defend its own life. Prohibiting the use of a tool for self-defense is counter to nature.
Ensuring that right is proper.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)A well regulated militia is necessary for a free state.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)If so, which one.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)can you show me a SCOTUS decision that said you had to be a member of one? IIRC, I'm still in the IRR for another two years.
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)The unorganized reserve for a few more years and the retired reserve for the rest of my life.
I am also a member of the people so I am covered under both the prefatory clause and the operative clause.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 11, 2012, 07:25 PM - Edit history (1)
as defined in Md. Code. Ann Pub. Safety § 13-202 and § 13-203
EDIT: As for "well-regulated," is that defined somewhere? Is there an objective standard, or could our NG components also be disarmed if the Congress deemed them "not regulated well enough?"
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
ileus
(15,396 posts)The government?
The people?
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)Pick me, pick me,
Would it be.............the people?
ileus
(15,396 posts)SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)me and the wife are packing up the horses and heading to the mountains today for some back country riding.
Have a good day and will be back on in about 6 or 7 hours.
Peace.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)A horrible thought to transpose into the modern day but nonetheless it was certainly in the Framers' minds. That being said I can't imagine them arguing the militia was for the sole use of the government.
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)The French-Indian War leaps to mind. George Washington's initial combat experience was in this war.
I an sure there are even earlier militia battles.
Regarding the 2A, you are spot on.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)They issued me 'arms' whenever they wanted me to have one. Since I was a carpenter that wasn't very often.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)If our founding fathers didn't mean for it to put limits on gun ownership?
If they believed in the unfettered right of the people to own whatever weapons they wanted for whatever reasons they saw fit; the easiest way to accomplish that would be to simply say that. Yet, they put a qualifier right up front.
They must have had a reason.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)but my personal interpretation is that the prefatory clause is used as a primary example of why they felt the RKBA was important, without making the right dependent on serving that particular purpose. I have asked quite a few times now for an example of a law that would violate the 2A, assuming it was applicable only to militia service, and have never gotten a half-decent answer. I'd love to hear any you can think of.
Anyway, if the purpose of the amendment was to grant government power instead of guaranteeing individual liberties, then it is very much alone in the Bill of Rights, and EXTREMELY awkwardly written for that purpose.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)I disagree. The 10th amendment specifically grants rights to the states (or the people).
Yes, the purpose of the bill of rights is to restrict the power of the federal government over the people, but it recognizes that there are lower forms of government and grants them rights.
I don't see anything awkward about it.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)They aren't the federal government's to confer -- like every other item in the BoR, it removes authority from the central government. If the intention was to limit the RKBA to that subset of "the people" who are in the organized militias, then it was written very poorly for that purpose.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)i.e people in organized militias. My claim is that they were granting the right to 'the people' to regulate their own militia; not granting the right to the militia itself. It was written to prevent the federal government from passing a law to prevent citizens from protecting themselves against enemies of the state. In some cases that may be an individual right (sparsely populated areas for example), but in some cases (i.e. Inner cities) the best protection for a people may actually be to remove some of the arms from some of the people. Hence, a well regulated militia providing security to a free state.
It makes perfect sense that the framers were granting smaller government entities the right to protect themselves from an outside threat. What doesn't make sense is that they would be removing the right to protect themselves from an inside threat in the very next sentence. (OK, after the comma; not necessarily the next sentence)
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)I still can't go along with this interpretation, though. If the intention was to reserve a right to the state governments, that's what the amendment would have said. When they meant "the states," they wrote "the states." When they meant "the people," they wrote "the people." If they had meant to say what you read into it, they would have made it something like this:
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the states to regulate the possession of arms shall be inviolable."
But that's not what they wrote, and it's not what they meant.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)and it is on the fly, but I appreciate your well thought out ponts in the discussion.
Unlimited gun ownership doesn't make sense to me, and there are exceptions. Convicted felons can't own firearms and the reasoning behind that could extend to limiting gun ownership to others that are a threat to 'the people'.
I just don't think we have a strong enough majority in this country willing to restrict gun ownership.
A friend once explained to me that once a law is passed requiring gun owners to have insurance, and those insurance rates reach a certain point; it isn't going to matter whether we have a right to own guns. The only thing that will matter is whether you can afford to own a gun.
That's how I expect this debate to end.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Most of the civil rights we cherish the most have boundaries, and they should. 1A doesn't protect me if I send violent death threats, 4A doesn't protect me if I'm caught in the act of murder, and 2A doesn't protect me if I want to tow a machine grenade launcher into an elementary school parking lot. Win or lose, I'm looking forward to courts fleshing out the boundaries of this right, since then we can move on from there.
As for cost, that's one thing that really ticks me off. If the right exists, it should be accessible to whites, blacks, rich, poor, Democrat, Republican, urban, rural, athletes, the handicapped, and...Methodists!! Anything that creates an unreasonable financial burden on exercising the RKBA is no more defensible than poll taxes, in my opinion. There's no justification for exorbitant FOID fees, carry permit fees, insurance premiums, background check fees, notary fees, fingerprint fees, or any other tax on a civil right.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)They must have had a reason.
The second 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.
Firstly, the preamble does not say that the only reason the people shall keep and bear arms is for use in a militia. It merely states a reason, probably the reason of overriding concern for the founders - that the people shall be armed so that they can serve in a militia.
We can be fairly certain that the founders did not intend this to be the only reason to keep and bear arms, as one of the initial drafts of the amendment read "keep and bear arms for the collective defense", and this draft was struck down.
We also can be fairly certain of the founders' intent because if the intent was just to serve in a militia, why would they not reserve the right to keep and bear arms to the militias, or to the states? If militia use was the sole idea, then surely it would have made more sense for the arms to be in the hands of the state.
So being able to serve in a militia is but one reason why the people are to be armed. But it's not the only reason.
Secondly, the second amendment is almost universally considered to be speaking about small arms appropriate for infantry use. It is not about "whatever weapons they wanted for whatever reasons they saw fit". It is about arms that enable a single man to serve as an infantryman. Today such a weapon would generally be an assault or battle rifle and handguns.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)It explains the reason for the right and does not limit it.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)But 'separate but equal' changed meanings in front of the supreme court. Perhaps 'well regulated' will change meanings one day.
So that it means something close to 'well regulated'.
The founding fathers gave the right to 'the people' not to each person. There are instances (in the bill of rights) where rights are granted to a 'person' and the second amendment is not one of them.
The fact that the second amendment gives the right to 'the people' to keep and bear arms with the 'explanation' that free people need a 'well regulated militia' doesn't seem like a personal right at all, rather a states right (or smaller government entity) so that a group of citizens can protect themselves, rather than have to wait for federal troops.
Conceptually, this makes sense. Interpreting this as a right for urban dwellers to protect their home from burglars; does not. IMHO.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...justices of the SCOTUS acknowledge that the 2A protects an individual right. Are you one of those that think collectives like corporations have rights?
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Of course corporations have rights. Should they be treated as people? Not really the same thing.
Corporations serve a purpose. Just because the situation is being abused doesn't mean we should eliminate them. Regulate them a little more perhaps, but that's not what we were discussing.
I don't care how the nine justices feel about the 2nd amendment; just like I dont care how the 7 justices felt who thought separate but equal was equal. Wrong is wrong.
Right now there is a huge difference in how people (mostly depending on whether they are rural or urban) feel about whether there should be an individual right to own guns without registering them.
I think it is a right granted to governing bodies (not collectives) to form their own defense. I believe it is worded such that the governing body can 'regulate' gun ownership (require registration, training etc). The idea that the 2nd amendment gives a person the unrestricted right to own whatever weapons they want is not consistent with my personal opinion.
But it is only my personal opinion.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...to continue for a number of reasons. I detest equating corporations with people. NEVER can a right be described as something that has been "granted".
However, you "...think it is a right granted to governing bodies (not collectives) to form their own defense" and I vigorously disagree. The 10A reserves to the states the power for example to form state guard units and police agencies.
I must also confess that I don't much care how anyone, rural, urban or SC Justice "FEELS" about gun ownership. The fact that precedent now exists as settled law acknowledging gun ownership as an individual right is something I respect. States are free to define what is and is not legal behavior with a gun. Personally, if I was a legislator, having taken an oath to support and defend the US Constitution and in light of Heller and McDonald, I'd be awfully careful about which bills I supported.
Don't let the gun-religionists confuse you. The only SCOTUS that has said the 2nd Amendment is NOT about collective rights is the current super-conservative one. They overturned decades of precedent from previous liberal & centrist courts that said the 2nd Amendment is mainly NOT about individual rights.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)All of the ones Brady and others drag out before courts are best described as right-wing pre-incorporation "states rights" nonsense like Cruikshank.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> All of the ones Brady and others drag out before courts are best described as right-wing pre-incorporation "states rights" nonsense like Cruikshank.
LOL! Now you're trying to label Liberal positions as "right-wing", and right-wing positions as "liberal". Too much!!!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Cruikshank as it applied to the 1st, 2d, or 14th Amendments.
hack89
(39,171 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)with no mention of any court cases? Did you realize just how aligned your philosophy is with Ronald Reagan?
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)I thought i was missing something. Not many people argue their case by showing how the people they are opposed to created the policies the poster supports.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Guess you glossed over the parts about how the NRA has turned into, basically, a fascist right-wing organization. And your gun-religion blinded you to the fact that the points about raygun was talked about because it is so atypical of repigs.
You gun-religionists never, ever, ever fail to make me
hack89
(39,171 posts)not how you identify with Ronald Reagan's gun control laws. Show me all those supreme court cases that show centuries of precedent of the 2A not being an individual right. Even your article discusses how the writers of the 14A saw it as an individual right.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)By and large, your rhetoric is losing the day in lawmaking and courts.
Carry on with failing, bongbong.
The arguments don't lose, but entrenched repigs & conservatives controlling the judicial does.
Conservatives love guns because it reinforces the "individual" mindset, and helps destroy gov't services & other Democratic ideals.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Do you mean government services like the protection of individual rights? Aren't those Democratic ideals? Exactly which government services and Democratic ideals do guns "help destroy"?
How far into the bilge did you have to go to find this stuff?
I read through the whole article and for the life of me, I can't seem to find any mention of a court ruling that supports your position.
What? did you think we would be fooled?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Do you gun-religionists think I jump when you say to?
You should try to read my post before responding to it. Let me know if you see a subject or body that says anything other than "gun-religionists hate this article".
Oh, you gun religionists just jump so quickly to defend your poor widdle defenseless guns. It really is a spectacle to see. Lots of laughs for me, at your expense.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)You just keep on acting like a spoiled little kid while the rest of us have grown up conversations.
I think you don't know how to handle not being able to stop the pro gun movement so instead you resort to your mantra of calling us gun religionists, like you think thats an insult while all the time all we are doing is LOL at your antics.
But, by all means, keep up the rants, they are entertaining and we'll just keep on getting pro gun legislation passed like we've been doing for the last 15 years.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)is a collective instead of an individual right?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)"In the battle of gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there is no resolution in sight." It kinds of shits on both sides doesn't it?
Kind of like this one:
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/second-thoughts-about-gun-control
hack89
(39,171 posts)restrictions"
hack89
(39,171 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)era veteran
(4,069 posts)Couldn't be two first Amendments.
Sheep go to slaughter but the specter of an armed citizenry keeps the wolves at bay.
Not too many free societies in history were not armed.
The anti propaganda is a scary thing....
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)But as we accept some restrictions on speech, we accept some limits on gun ownership, for the good of society.
petronius
(26,602 posts)be as narrowly-tailored as possible to serve a defined and substantial societal need - the default goal should be minimal interference - but I think it's generally accepted that all Constitutional rights are subject to reasonable controls.
The trick of course, which keeps judges gainfully employed, is figuring out 'need', 'minimal', and 'reasonable'...
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Before we can discuss such restrictions, we have to agree on what the intent of the amendment was, so that said restrictions don't compromise that intent.
Gman
(24,780 posts)as we don't keep mlitias any more. The National Guard in addition to the US Armed Forces makes the second amendment obsolete.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)What do you think this is? An issue like gay marriage,
Last edited Sun Jun 10, 2012, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A militia is handy, but not necessary for the keeping and bearing of arms, the right of which is given to people. You know - citizens. Human beings. Not legal constructs or associations like militias.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Right now some people get the militia part confused with only the government being allowed to own firearms.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)when the middle class utopia they're living in collapses under the weight of their blinkered ideology.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the National Guard and large active duty army makes the MIC possible, which is why the founders wanted a Swiss style militia. We should dismantle the empire and do the opposite of what you suggest.
SlimJimmy
(3,180 posts)Good luck with that.
Gman
(24,780 posts)Whatever gave you that indication? I just stated a fact that the second amendment is obsolete. Gun nuts generally are not literate enough to understand the written word and are among those and Fox News that have made it cool and ok to be stupid. Hence the myth that the second amendment serves some illusion of a purpose. Why would I want to waste my time beating morons with a petition drive? So you say, "good luck with that.". I rest my case as illiteracy and stupidity no doubt triumph, as they now do in American politics.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)most antis seem to lack the critical thinking skills enough to look up what the current laws actually are.
Most gun nuts are quite literate. While Faux made it cool and OK to be stupid, it does not mean they have a monopoly on stupidity.
Clames
(2,038 posts)...between the words "fact" and "opinion". I guess you found the dictionary obsolete too.
Spoonman
(1,761 posts)Then let's scrap the 1st amendment as well!
Why would I want to waste my time beating morons with a petition drive?
It would be a waste of time, because you would not find enough idiots to sign it!
I rest my case as illiteracy and stupidity no doubt triumph
What, are you having trouble reading the Federalist papers?
SlimJimmy
(3,180 posts)strong statement. That you would call anyone that supports the US Constitution illiterate, a moron, and stupid, speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.
Gman
(24,780 posts)Hello kettle.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)If you arbitrarily throw out one amendment, then you've thrown the whole thing out. Unless every article, every section, and every sentence is treated as binding law, the union's charter is just a souvenir in a glass case.
Gman
(24,780 posts)Or did you think of that before you posted? Do you know what I'm referring to?
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Okay, I was being a bit dramatic, but hopefully you understand what I mean. When I say "the Constitution," I am referring to every section which is in force, not every word which has been retained for consistency since 1787. Prohibition, senate elections, suffrage, all these things have been changed legitimately and by the book.
SlimJimmy
(3,180 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)The whole constitution gone in an instant.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Existing law must be observed until it is repealed.
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)is the 18th A changed the Constitution per the process laid out in the Constitution itself.
The country did not wake up one day and say, hey, prohibition is a dumb idea, let's just forget it.
It took the 21st, following the same procedure to again change the Constitution and repeal the 18th.
Gman
(24,780 posts)What you should have answered was that the first 10 amendments were put in place as part of a deal to ratify the rest of the constitution. The FF wanted assurances that the abuses of the past would not happen again. So the first 10 amendments guaranteed those protections.
Including the second
OTOH the 18th was an addition to the constitution. Just as valid, but not created by the founding fathers.
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)although none of the original 10 have ever been restricted by any further amendment.
it is not possible to just say it's obsolete so we can ignore it, without an amendment.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...to repeal the 2A would be evidence "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." period.
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)"May you live in interesting times"
SlimJimmy
(3,180 posts)for the 18th. I say GO FOR IT buddy. Take the plunge, start a web page, stir up the grass roots, get a petition started. Don't just bloviate about it, do something. Anything else is just trash talk.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)it all starts with the private citizen. you can not have the one without the other. or either explain to me how it is possible to do otherwise.
Gman
(24,780 posts)There might be something to what you say.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the government hands out select fire assault rifles.
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)not that they are required to.
Also it does not state that the government may not give the people (militia) arms.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)the constitution is one of the Most Radical Experiments ever undertaken in the history of the Human Race as we know it.
our forefathers are rolling in their graves at the sheeple that are their offspring.
Life Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness. A1 is nothing without A2 -- that is why they were written back to back.
Government is OF the PEOPLE, FOR the PEOPLE and, BY the PEOPLE.
WHERE DO YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT GOT THE MONEY TO BUY THE GUN IN THE FIRST PLACE??? FROM TAXATION OF THE PRIVATE CITIZEN...DUH!!!!!!!!!
Gman
(24,780 posts)There is so little hope
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)so pitiful. you think 200 years was SO long ago. blink of an eye as time goes.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)This is precisely why the right to keep and bear arms was reserved to the people, and not to the state or the militias.
The people are the final bulwark against tyranny, regardless of what happens to the state and/or its institutions.
The Dick Act usurped the power of the state militias and turned them from being balances to federal military power to instead being adjuncts to it.
petronius
(26,602 posts)they concluded that an armed citizenry, competent in the use of arms, is a last defense against internal or external threats. It's probably a less effective defense all on its own than it once was, given the evolution of modern technology, and the circumstances that would require it are exceedingly unlikely, but the presence of that potential balance against overthrow remains essential.
Secondly, it seems that individual liberty and self-determination is one of the core principles of the BoR. Self-defense (although not explicit in 2A) should be part of that, so the BoR is substantially strengthened by preventing interference with citizens' access to the most effective tools for self-defense...
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)expert on Federalist Paper #29 when we need him.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117231141#post12
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)You mean this one?
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."
Just in case you gun-religionists missed it - well, you did - I'll repeat a part of it:
"and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections" ----- as in "Well-Regulated" ----- as in "trained like an army".
What a bunch of loony toons gun-religionists are! Even their "rebuttals" are just more verification of what I've said!
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)by SCOTUS decisions. We are the ones laughing at you. Name one significant piece of gun control legislation passed in the last 5 years.
Laugh all you want, meanwhile pro gun legislation keeps marching on. . See, I can do it too.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)The only SCOTUS who said the 2nd Amendment WASN'T a collective right was the super-conservatives on the current court with Heller. They overturned decades of precedent and previous SCOTUS decisions that stated the 2nd Amendment is about a group.
Isn't documented history annoying to non-right-wingers???
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)it was a collective right either. Not even Miller in 1939.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)You can try to change what decades of precedent, stated in fixed documents, says but it won't work. repigs are masters at revisionism; I thought Democratic people didn't do that!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Pre incorporation "BoR limits congress but not states" yes, but I'm waiting for the collective right decisions.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)I'll give you a history lesson.
ITS THE PEOPLE.
You are making this too easy.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...I call your attention to the fact that 500,000 citizens is more than half of all of the full citizens. While it is a rather shameful fact, it is true that only white males of age were accorded the full rights of citizens. By numbering the "militia" as he has Madison implies that this same number maintain their own arms and ammo, and that they are both expected and free to do so.
The only conclusion possible is that all full citizens of age are part of the militia, the "unorganized militia" if you wish to make the distinction.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)I've got this linking thing figured out. Thank you TA.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Man, that was a gem I plucked out of that thread. Good one.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)meaning I'd like certain restrictions and I may disagree with some people as to how exactly the second amendment should be interpreted, it absolutely belongs.
Look at every single other one of the first ten amendments. People constantly make the case for limiting various ones of them, and it's thanks to the Bill of Rights that we have so much of what we have today. They are probably the most genius part of our entire Constitution.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Saying that any of the statements in the Bill of Rights names something other than a right is kind of an oxymoron.
I don't subscribe to the view that groups (like corporations) have rights.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)you have a reasoned approach to our BoR.
safeinOhio
(32,686 posts)"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched; who ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before."
Thomas Jefferson
Add to that, the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such constructions were widely used elsewhere. So, the right to bear arms is different than all the others rights and therefore can not be compared to the others that do not have a prefatory clause in them.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)... of the Founders and their numerous works yield any wisdom in excess of those Revolutionary thinkers who made provision in the Constitution for its modification and within the Declaration urged that government counter to the interests of the people be altered or abolished.
We have in the past conflicted over the nature of the 2A. It seems unlikely that either of us has new information to share.
While I respect this as your opinion, I disagree.
safeinOhio
(32,686 posts)I can imagine this argument will continue for the next 100 years with both sides having victories.
You may say the comma means nothing or you may say it only means a pause for a breath. Either way, it remains the only Amendment that includes a prefatory clause, making it different from all of the others.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)The same "people" mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendments.
Oneka
(653 posts)clause, remove the restriction on government from infringing, on the peoples right to keep and bear arms?
Or does the prefatory clause, invalidate the later statement, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
The prefatory clause is not a limiting factor on the restriction, of government power.
safeinOhio
(32,686 posts)No other Amendment does that. That makes it different than all the others.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It gives the federal government a boundary though.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)"Let me give you another contemporary (to their time) construction in a similar vein.. Rhode Island's constitution- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject.." Would you assert that the only freedom of the press applies to topics dealing with security of freedom? Or only for purposes dealing with security?"
And as X-Digger also pointed out, if one were to say, "I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the store.", it would not imply that buying soda is the only reason to go to stores, or that stores only sold soda.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Stevens, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER
on writ of certiorari to the united states court ofappeals for the district of columbia circuit
[June 26, 2008]
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.
The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a collective right or an individual right. Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) , provide a clear answer to that question.
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislatures authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.
. . . . . .Miller, 307 U. S., at 178 The view of the Amendment we took in Millerthat it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislatures power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weaponsis both the most natural reading of the Amendments text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.
Since our decision in Miller, hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there;2 we ourselves affirmed it in 1980. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 , n. 8 (1980).3 No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.
The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons. Unable to point to any such evidence, the Court stakes its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the Amendments text; significantly different provisions in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in various 19th-century State Constitutions; postenactment commentary that was available to the Court when it decided Miller; and, ultimately, a feeble attempt to distinguish Miller that places more emphasis on the Courts decisional process than on the reasoning in the opinion itself.
Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself, see Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600, 636 (1974) (Stewart, J., dissenting), would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law.4 As Justice Cardozo observed years ago, the labor of judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be reopened in every case, and one could not lay ones own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him. The Nature of the Judicial Process 149 (1921).
In this dissent I shall first explain why our decision in Miller was faithful to the text of the Second Amendment and the purposes revealed in its drafting history. I shall then comment on the postratification history of the Amendment, which makes abundantly clear that the Amendment should not be interpreted as limiting the authority of Congress to regulate the use or possession of firearms for purely civilian purposes.
The text of the Second Amendment is brief. It provides: 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.
Three portions of that text merit special focus: the introductory language defining the Amendments purpose, the class of persons encompassed within its reach, and the unitary nature of the right that it protects.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
The preamble to the Second Amendment makes three important points. It identifies the preservation of the militia as the Amendments purpose; it explains that the militia is necessary to the security of a free State; and it recognizes that the militia must be well regulated. In all three respects it is comparable to provisions in several State Declarations of Rights that were adopted roughly contemporaneously with the Declaration of Independence.5 Those state provisions highlight the importance members of the founding generation attached to the maintenance of state militias; they also underscore the profound fear shared by many in that era of the dangers posed by standing armies.6 While the need for state militias has not been a matter of significant public interest for almost two centuries, that fact should not obscure the contemporary concerns that animated the Framers.
The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expresslyprotect such civilian uses at the time. Article XIII of Pennsylvanias 1776 Declaration of Rights announced that the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state, 1 Schwartz 266 (emphasis added); §43 of the Declaration assured that the inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed, id., at 274. And Article XV of the 1777 Vermont Declaration of Rights guaranteed [t]hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State. Id., at 324 (emphasis added). The contrast between those two declarations and the Second Amendment reinforces the clear statement of purpose announced in the Amendments preamble. It confirms that the Framers single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.
The preamble thus both sets forth the object of the Amendment and informs the meaning of the remainder of its text. Such text should not be treated as mere surplusage, for t cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 174 (1803).
The Court today tries to denigrate the importance of this clause of the Amendment by beginning its analysis with the Amendments operative provision and returning to the preamble merely to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose. Ante, at 5. That is not how this Court ordinarily reads such texts, and it is not how the preamble would have been viewed at the time the Amendment was adopted. While the Court makes the novel suggestion that it need only find some logical connection between the preamble and the operative provision, it does acknowledge that a prefatory clause may resolve an ambiguity in the text. Ante, at 4.7 Without identifying any language in the text that even mentions civilian uses of firearms, the Court proceeds to find its preferred reading in what is at best an ambiguous text, and then concludes that its reading is not foreclosed by the preamble. Perhaps the Courts approach to the text is acceptable advocacy, but it is surely an unusual approach for judges to follow.
The right of the people
The centerpiece of the Courts textual argument is its insistence that the words the people as used in the Second Amendment must have the same meaning, and protect the same class of individuals, as when they are used in the First and Fourth Amendment s. According to the Court, in all three provisionsas well as the Constitutions preamble, section 2 of Article I, and the Tenth Amendment the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. Ante, at 6. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a subset significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendment s; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment , the Court limits the protected class to law-abiding, responsible citizens, ante, at 63. But the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendment s is not so limited; for even felons (and presumably irresponsible citizens as well) may invoke the protections of those constitutional provisions. The Court offers no way to harmonize its conflicting pronouncements.
The Court also overlooks the significance of the way the Framers used the phrase the people in these constitutional provisions. In the First Amendment , no words define the class of individuals entitled to speak, to publish, or to worship; in that Amendment it is only the right peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, that is described as a right of the people. These rights contemplate collective action. While the right peaceably to assemble protects the individual rights of those persons participating in the assembly, its concern is with action engaged in by members of a group, rather than any single individual. Likewise, although the act of petitioning the Government is a right that can be exercised by individuals, it is primarily collective in nature. For if they are to be effective, petitions must involve groups of individuals acting in concert.
Similarly, the words the people in the Second Amendment refer back to the object announced in the Amendments preamble. They remind us that it is the collective action of individuals having a duty to serve in the militia that the text directly protects and, perhaps more importantly, that the ultimate purpose of the Amendment was to protect the States share of the divided sovereignty created by the Constitution.
As used in the Fourth Amendment , the people describes the class of persons protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by Government officials. It is true that the Fourth Amendment describes a right that need not be exercised in any collective sense. But that observation does not settle the meaning of the phrase the people when used in the Second Amendment . For, as we have seen, the phrase means something quite different in the Petition and Assembly Clauses of the First Amendment . Although the abstract definition of the phrase the people could carry the same meaning in the Second Amendment as in the Fourth Amendment , the preamble of the Second Amendment suggests that the uses of the phrase in the First and Second Amendment s are the same in referring to a collective activity. By way of contrast, the Fourth Amendment describes a right against governmental interference rather than an affirmative right to engage in protected conduct, and so refers to a right to protect a purely individual interest. As used in the Second Amendment , the words the people do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well-regulated militia.
To keep and bear Arms
Although the Courts discussion of these words treats them as two phrasesas if they read to keep and to bearthey describe a unitary right: to possess arms if needed for military purposes and to use them in conjunction with military activities.
As a threshold matter, it is worth pausing to note an oddity in the Courts interpretation of to keep and bear arms. Unlike the Court of Appeals, the Court does not read that phrase to create a right to possess arms for lawful, private purposes. Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 382 (CADC 2007). Instead, the Court limits the Amendments protection to the right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Ante, at 19. No party or amicus urged this interpretation; the Court appears to have fashioned it out of whole cloth. But although this novel limitation lacks support in the text of the Amendment, the Amendments text does justify a different limitation: the right to keep and bear arms protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia.
The term bear arms is a familiar idiom; when used unadorned by any additional words, its meaning is to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight. 1 Oxford English Dictionary 634 (2d ed. 1989). It is derived from the Latin arma ferre, which, translated literally, means to bear [ferre] war equipment [arma]. Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 19. One 18th-century dictionary defined arms as weapons of offence, or armour of defence, 1 S. Johnson, A Dictionary of theEnglish Language(1755), and another contemporaneous source explained that y arms, we understand those instruments of offence generally made use of in war; such as firearms, swords, & c. By weapons, we more particularly mean instruments of other kinds (exclusive of fire-arms), made use of as offensive, on special occasions. 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794).8 Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase bear arms to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as for the defense of themselves, as was done in the Pennsylvania and Vermont Declarations of Rights. The unmodified use of bear arms, by contrast, refers most naturally to a military purpose, as evidenced by its use in literally dozens of contemporary texts.9 The absence of any reference to civilian uses of weapons tailors the text of the Amendment to the purpose identified in its preamble.10 But when discussing these words, the Court simply ignores the preamble.
The Court argues that a qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass. Ante, at 15. But this fundamentally fails to grasp the point. The stand-alone phrase bear arms most naturally conveys a military meaning unless the addition of a qualifying phrase signals that a different meaning is intended. When, as in this case, there is no such qualifier, the most natural meaning is the military one; and, in the absence of any qualifier, it is all the more appropriate to look to the preamble to confirm the natural meaning of the text.11 The Courts objection is particularly puzzling in light of its own contention that the addition of the modifier against changes the meaning of bear arms. Compare ante, at 10 (defining bear arms to mean carrying [a weapon] for a particular purposeconfrontation), with ante, at 12 (The phrase bear Arms also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight or to wage war. But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition against. (citations and some internal quotation marks omitted)).
The Amendments use of the term keep in no way contradicts the military meaning conveyed by the phrase bear arms and the Amendments preamble. To the contrary, a number of state militia laws in effect at the time of the Second Amendment s drafting used the term keep to describe the requirement that militia members store their arms at their homes, ready to be used for service when necessary. The Virginia military law, for example, ordered that every one of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. Act for Regulating and Disciplining the Militia, 1785 Va. Acts ch. 1, §3, p. 2 (emphasis added).12 [K]eep and bear arms thus perfectly describes the responsibilities of a framing-era militia member.
This reading is confirmed by the fact that the clause protects only one right, rather than two. It does not describe a right to keep arms and a separate right to bear arms. Rather, the single right that it does describe is both a duty and a right to have arms available and ready for military service, and to use them for military purposes when necessary.13 Different language surely would have been used to protect nonmilitary use and possession of weapons from regulation if such an intent had played any role in the drafting of the Amendment.
* * *
____________________
Those who are not throwing up by now, may read the whole work at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
Hopefully the 5 right wing Justices will fade away in time, unless the NRA, right wing gun groups, right wing gun owners, and the like keep bigoted, callous, right wingers in office.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)overturning their own decision ain't going to happen, Justices are loathe to overturn settled law no matter what they think of it.
I hope your not pinning your hopes on that, actually I hope you are.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)They'll revisit it, when the make up of the Court changes.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)They are not going to revisit it, but if you want to hang your anti gun hat on that happening, be my guest. Meanwhile, gun rights just keep marching on.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)All Miller decided was that there was no evidence that a short barreled shotgun had no military use and was not a protected weapon. Both sides claim it as their victory, but
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)I have read the dissent by Justice Stevens a few times. I do truly have respect for his opinion.
I will explain my issues:
First, Justice Stevens makes the point that "...It (the 2A preamble) identifies the preservation of the militia as the Amendments purpose...". I believe most everyone accepts this as a purpose of the 2A, I and maybe many others do not constrain a right to keep and bear arms to that purpose ONLY.
I consider the effort of interpreting the actions of the founders and ponder not only scope and goal of applications of the 2A but also the problems of the day that compelled the Founders to write it as they did. The new federal government was viewed with suspicion as were the governments of other nations. Kings, along with their supporting governments, were viewed as tyrants. A federal government was a compromise to be controlled and restrained.
Second, Stevens writes, "The Court also overlooks the significance of the way the Framers used the phrase the people in these constitutional provisions...". While Marbury v. Madison establishes that each clause within the Constitution has significance, I have not seen compelling argument that individual terms and phraseology can held as overly limiting to an expressed thought. Marbury v. Madison does not ascribe to single words the basis to reinterpret a clause with meaning beyond a single purpose within the Constitution. If we accept that the purpose of the 2A is to "...preserve the militia..." how is it reasonable to infer that the RKBA, which in Heller, the entire court has unanimously accepted as an individual right, has entirely as its purpose, the preservation of the militia?
In almost all circles people accept that the Bill of Rights enumerates and protects certain rights. The very nature of the 10A acknowledges that the BoR is not and should never be construed as limiting of rights. How is it reasonable to expect that the 2A defines completely the scope of the right and not just the scope of the amendment?
Finally, THANK YOU again, in capital and bold font for this exchange.
Have a great day.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)I genuinely appreciated the impetus to reread the Stevens dissent.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Even Stevens agrees that the second amendment is an individual right. But of course, he really had no other choice. There is no right that can be exercised collectively that cannot also be exercised by an individual.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Militia. But, that might be the only "right" you have with respect to guns. READ IT CLOSER, and more than one sentence, or the right wingers' home schooling interpretation.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but not a limit. The BoR is a set of negative rights. That means it tells the government what it can't do, not what the people may do. The first clause simply gives a reason why the government may not.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I believe the amendment specifically mentions arms in the plural. Also I don't see anything about storage. And of course I am in the militia, but we all know that militia use is not the only use for keeping and bearing arms.
If I say, "I am out of soda, I am going to the store", it does not imply that stores only sell soda, or that the only reason I would go there is to buy soda. It merely implies that stores sell soda and it is a good reason for going there.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)The 2nd Amendment, starting in the latter half of the 20th century, became an object of much debate. Concerned with rising violence in society and the role firearms play in that violence, gun control advocates began to read the 2nd Amendment one way. On the other side, firearm enthusiasts saw the attacks on gun ownership as attacks on freedom, and defended their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment just as fiercely. If the authors of the 2nd Amendment could have foreseen the debate, they might have phrased the amendment differently, because much of the debate has centered around the way the amendment is phrased.
Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm?
Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, "Yes." The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.
Today, the state militias have evolved into the National Guard in every state. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government. No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation (though the US Code does still recognize the unorganized militia as an entity, and state laws vary on the subject [10 USC 311]).
more at link:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html
Loudly
(2,436 posts)Then it doesn't present any problem.
As it stands, however, it threatens to dispose of all your genuine rights with extreme prejudice.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)on a website, get out there and get a petition going to repeal the 2ND Amendment.
Keep us informed on how well it goes.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)Get real.
We just need a SCOTUS enlightened enough to drag society kicking and screaming into modernity.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)All the justices interpreted the 2ND Amendment as an individual right, and further, the SCOTUS are very loathe to reverse themselves, especially with settled law. Don't hang your hat on it being reversed.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)I would not have lived to see Brown v. Board of Education.
But reverse they did. Eventually. For the good of the country.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)but the 2A is an enumerated right and despite your fondest dreams, it will never go away.
Make all the arguments you want, it don't mean squat.
There are far too many of us and we will fight you and your kind unceasingly.
So go out there and get started trying to get a gun ban.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)can't withstand scrutiny by a civil society rushing toward the tipping point of gun violence.
A- civil society has been backing the loosening of gun laws
B- gun violence is still trending downward
B.1- if it was so bad that we were reaching a "tipping point", that would be a very good argument for having a gun
C- am I imagining the BoR?
Loudly
(2,436 posts)is no way to move the nation forward.
It's not progress.
Why promote it?
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)not always the best tool, but nontheless, nothing more than a tool. I will always promote the the right to keep and bear arms and also promote the safe and proper use of firearms, and also promote shooting sports and promote the right to self defense.
Don't like it, well, I can't help you out.
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)despite the fear mongering there is less and less violent crime.
If we were going towards the blood in the streets criminals run wild, then we would be regressing. The country would be out of lawful control. In that case you would have 2 options. Hope for the best and wait to be prey or arm yourself and be prepared.
Moot point since the country is under lawful control. What we need to do is determine what limits there are on the right acknowledged in the BoR will further reduce violence and crime while not unduly hindering the option of the majority of the population to exercise said right, if they choose to do so.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)It's like saying forks as a solution to obesity.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)It's not progress.
Why promote it?
Because when you are presented with an aggressor armed with a weapon, it almost always best to meet that aggressor with similar or better arms.
This has been true for all of recorded history. When the first cave man picked up a stick to use as a club, the man he was beating likewise picked up a stick to defend himself.
Whether with sticks, stones, bronze, or iron, mankind has always stood up to bad people by equipping himself with similar or better arms when he could.
It is thus ridiculous to think that guns are not a solution to guns. When you are presented with an aggressor armed with guns, what else would you confront him with? If there was a better portable solution, you can bet the police would be carrying it.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)is no way to move the nation forward.
But where's your point system? Let's discuss the ethics of zombie posting.
hack89
(39,171 posts)you do understand that murders and manslaughter have decreased by 50% in the past 30 years? Tipping point implies that things are getting worse.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Some "tipping point".
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)I gotta admit, you do have some humor.
You just keep believing that the 2A is imaginary, meanwhile those of us that live in the real world will keep possessing our firearms.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You just may, in the fullness of time, figure out that Harry J. Anslinger and Fredric Wertham were not prophets but well-connected fear mongers...
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-dec-2011
Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the nation reported a decrease of 4.0 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for 2011 when compared with figures reported for 2010. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Collectively, the number of property crimes in the United States in 2011 decreased 0.8 percent when compared with data from 2010. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2011 indicate that arson decreased 5.0 percent when compared with 2010 figures.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"kicking and screaming into modernity"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=%22kicking+and+screaming+into+modernity%22&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&sa=Search%21&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en
Just can't resist, can you shares.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...refers to "arms" rather than swords and muskets, it is anything but an anachronism.
The statement: "As it stands, however, it threatens to dispose of all your genuine rights with extreme prejudice." is entirely without foundation. I was hoping for meaning in the discussion rather than wistful verve.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)The founders wanted the people to be armed as the final arbiter of tyranny.
How is this concept anachronistic?
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)The problem is people forget that with rights come personal responsibilities.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...some remember but just don't trust anyone but the government. Some of us remember that it's smarter to trust an unknown stranger than it is to trust the government.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt