Skip to main content

View Diary: Try saying it out loud: "We should repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment." (w/ RASA poll [70%: yes!]) (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't see how the second amendment (4+ / 0-)

    until those "non" judicial activists says anything about an INDIVIDUAL's Right to own a gun.

    •  "Right of the people" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Otteray Scribe, FrankRose, PavePusher

      means the same thing in the Second as it does in the Fourth.

      •  Kestrel (6+ / 0-)

        There are three different ways (pre Chicago) of interpreting.

            The first, known as the "states' rights" or "collective rights" model, was that the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals; rather, it recognized the right of a state to arm its militia.

            The second, known as the "sophisticated collective rights model", held that the Second Amendment recognized some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by members of a functioning, organized state militia while actively participating in the organized militia’s activities.

            The third, known as the "standard model", was that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

        Under both of the collective rights models, the opening phrase was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.[108] These interpretations held that this was a grammar structure that was common during that era[109] and that this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty.[110]

        I agree with John Paul Stevens Not Scalia:

        When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. 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 Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens
        If you look at the history they clearly did not intend it to apply to Individuals non Militia:
        On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

            [E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[91]

        •  Most of the States have Consitutional protections (7+ / 0-)

          for RKBA, many of which are unambiguously in favor of an individual right.  PA, my home state:

          The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
          Rhode Island and Maine (hardly bastions of right-wingism) are plain as day:

          RI:

          The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
          ME:
          Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.
          So, even if we accept your analysis of the 2nd Amendment, which many would dispute, it's a moot point because the vast majority of the States (45 of 50) have similar protections in place, many of which are stronger than the Federal guarantee.

          Could the Feds overrule these protections?  I'm not certain what section of the US Constitution grants the Feds that authority, unless you're going to lean on the oft-abused commence clause, which is always a handy go-to for those who seek to expand Federal power at the expense of individual liberty.

          There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

          by Crookshanks on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:58:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm at a loss for how, like a mushroom (8+ / 0-)

          a firearm would miraculously appear, unless borne as the fruiting body of spores, planted some 6 months prior:

          shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder;
          .

          Would it not stand to reason that "provide himself" is vastly different than:
          "take from stores"
          "be so equipped by his company quartermaster" or
          "issued from armory upon reporting for duty"?

          Thus the presupposition was the militia member, shall provide from his private stores, a suitable firearm when called for service.  This was the crux of the unchallenged suppositions made to the SCOTUS in US v. Miller.
          The same premise put forth in regulating "Saturday Night Specials" out of importation, and manufacture.
          Small caliber, small handguns are of no militia purpose, and thus not protected as a suitable arm for Second Amendment purposes.

          As to Stevens, the political expediency of ensuring certain members of the public remain at disadvantage was the foundation of a great deal of stare decisis, and frankly I'm surprised where Stevens held.
          I'm not certain Harry Blackmun nor Thurgood Marshall would have shared in his dissent.

        •  If history were only as you present. It is not. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tom Seaview, ER Doc, PavePusher

          The English Bill Of Rights of 1689 enumerates this right.  This right was common knowledge to them.

          The Ratification Documents submitted by the majority of
          States enumerates this right as an individual right.

          In fact, The First Debates In Congress on this specific amendment repeats this historical fact and point of view.  

          Then we have the Common Law cases that have reiterated this actual historical fact.  

          You see, our Constitution does not grant any American anything, it grants limited authorities to our Central government.  We have a Common Law system not a Napoleonic Code.

          With this understanding in focus, we then can actually understand the wording of the 2nd A, as it was meant to be understood.  It grants one time when the right to keep and bear arms can be abrogated by our created government, DURING MILITIA SERVICE, not before or after. And not for any other person not so defined as in the Militia Act you reference.

          And sadly, your misdirection ignores how said government and the American people acted after the Bill Of Rights were added to the Constitution or why they demanded said additions.

          If I'm to believe you, then show me your history, please.

          I'll show you my historical references for your timely review.

          ----

          Now, you are more than willing to make your arguments today and present them as a valid topic for discussion to confine and frame this issue, sobeit but to attribute these positions to our Founders is intentionally misleading and inaccurate.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 05:57:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  But I Think If You Go Down That Road, Don't the (4+ / 0-)

      police and the national guard satisfy the militia clause of the Amendment as written, without any civilian private ownership at all?

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 06:52:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site