.jpg)
There's been a lot in the news lately about the Obama Justice Department supposedly wanting to take away peoples 2nd amendment rights. And the issue of illegal guns going to Mexico and contributing to the gang violence has brought up discussions as to whether actions proposed by the Justice Department might be violating 2nd amendment rights. Obama in his recent press conference with the President of Mexico, in answer to a question about banning assault weapons said he thought they could do it and "still respect the 2nd amendment right to bear arms".
And just the other day the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case involving Alameda County in California that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals.They were wrong.
Every so often the discussion of the 2nd amendment crops up as it's doing now and the same people make the same mistake and show the same ignorance regarding the 2nd amendment.
Publicly there are few politicians or people in the news media well versed enough in the Constitution to get it straight. That and the fact that most of them are afraid of getting a lot of angry letters from people who don't want to hear that truth or politicians who are afraid that speaking the truth will cost them votes and typically politicians and journalists always take the cowards' way out. But the plain truth is, once and for all, the 2nd amendment has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with an individual's right to own a gun. And never did. There is no Constitutional right to own a gun.And there never was.
Not that I'm a proponent of confiscating people's guns. Or banning them. I'm not. There is not a shred of evidence anywhere to show that guns owned and registered by law abiding citizens are any threat at all to the public welfare and most statistics prove it. Drunk drivers are literally hundreds of thousands of times more dangerous and more of a threat to public safety than anyone legally owning a gun. But for gun enthusiasts and politicians to keep trying to hide behind the 2nd amendment doesn't do anyone any good. It just promotes the kind of dishonesty as well as public ignorance and pandering by politicians that most citizens are tired of. It also shows an unwillingness by politicians and the press to simply be honest.
Whatever laws we have in this country governing guns is and always has been the result of political will and acts of congress, not the 2nd amendment. This is why the NRA has a very effective lobbying effort. If the 2nd amendment had anything to do with an individual's right to own a gun they wouldn't need lobbyists and would save a lot of money. But political will is also why Congress will never pass a law banning individual ownership of guns. There is no political will by any political majority to do so and probably never will be.
The fact that Obama "agrees" with a 2nd Amendment right to own a gun just shows again, how either Constitutionally ignorant or willfully ignorant politicians can be, which is an utter disgrace considering their position. As far as most citizens are concerned, they simply believe what they read or what they are told. It's not up to them to be researching the Constitution to learn what it really means, but it is up to someone like the President and other members of Congress who swears to uphold and defend it to know what they are talking about. Which they clearly don't.
People ignorant of the Constitution which unfortunately includes the President, along with many members of Congress and the press, seem to refuse to read the 2nd amendment as it was written. And to acknowledge that the Constitution and the people who wrote it and founded this country were the greatest collection of geniuses in the principles of self government this country ever had at one time in one place. When you acknowledge that, then you take the words they wrote and argued over, debated and ratified in the Constitution seriously. And you don't try to pretend they mean something they were never intended to mean to suit your purposes. They knew what they were doing. They knew what they were saying. And they knew what every word of that amendment meant ( as well as everything else in the Constitution). And every word in the 2nd amendment means the same thing today that it meant in 1789 and in all the years in between.
The fact that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with an individual's right to own a gun is not a secret. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, Chief Justice during Nixon's term wrote that "the idea that the 2nd amendment has anything whatsoever to do with an individual's right to own a gun is the biggest Constitutional hoax ever perpetrated on the American people".
And if you don't want to take Burger's word for it, there is one other important group that knows the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun. The NRA knows it. More about that later.
There is a philosophical approach in applying the constitution that ironically enough is the conservative approach and it's called "original intent". Where the original intent of the framers is known and is clear, where their words and what they meant and intended are clear, there can be no other interpretation of a particular clause, provision, article or amendment other than what the framers meant and intended. Nowhere is that clearer than in the second amendment. And while there are many, many ways to prove the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with an individual's right to own a gun (all of which I will provide), all it really takes to understand the amendment is what you were taught by Mrs. Applecheeks, your 4th grade English teacher when you learned how to conjugate a sentence with a subject and a predicate.
But the first thing you need to know about the 2nd amendment is something very few people know: it was written,rewritten and revised 7 times. That's right, 7 times. There were 7 versions of the 2nd amendment, and they are all available to be seen in the Library of Congress.
The 2nd amendment is only one sentence yet the Founders took the time to debate every word.and revise it seven times. And so, as a result of their debates and a desire to be abundantly clear, they changed a word here, another one there, added and deleted, until they arrived at the final version, to make sure its meaning was crystal clear and would endure. And so as a result of their debates they revised it seven times until there was unanimity. They did not rewrite it seven times so people could pick and choose what words they wanted to hear and ignore the rest. Or make them mean what they wish they meant.So keep in mind that every single word was important to the Framers and what they intended. Every word.
The 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".
Read the whole sentence not just part of it and go back to your fourth grade English class and how to conjugate a sentence.The subject of that sentence, and therefore the amendment, is " a well regulated militia" not "the right to bear arms". The subject is the militia and the modifier is "necessary to the security of a free state" which is the purpose of the amendment.
The 2nd amendment is about giving the states an absolute right to have their own armed militias which today has been transformed into the National Guard.It also guarantees that the states have the right to have the same weapons as a federal army, a right in existence today and has always been, since the National Guard of every state does have most of the same weapons that the Federal army has. National Guard units have tanks, they have fighter jets. They have bombers.And it's why National Guard units have been fighting in Iraq since 2002. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the states to have them. It is also what allowed the states of the Confederacy to have the weapons to fight a Civil War.
If you think the amendment gives an individual the right to have those weapons try putting a tank in your backyard.And keep in mind the entire amendment wasn't written so that it could be diced and sliced with words ignored to suit someone's purpose. The amendment means what it says.
The next line refers to " the right of the people...".
For those who don't know there are two types of rights enumerated in the Constitution, states rights and individual rights. As any Constitutional scholar will tell you, when the Framers were referring to a state's right they used the term "the people:". When they were referring to an individual right, they used the word " person".The 5th amendment is a good example. It begins with the words, "No person shall..." and lays out guarantees, among them, double jeopardy and that no person in a criminal case shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Once you understand who the Framers are referring to when they say "the people", which is a collective for the individual states, and not referring to an individual right, it's time to deal with the most misused and misunderstood part of the 2nd amendment - the words "to keep and bear arms".
Unfortunately for President Obama, Lou Dobbs, Joe Lieberman and others in congress and the media who badly and ignorantly misuse the phrase, "to keep and bear arms" doesn't mean the right of an individual to own a gun.At least not in terms of the Framers intended with the 2nd amendment. It doesn't mean the right to go hunting or take target practice or to shoot an intruder. It has nothing to do with an individual's right of self-defense (though it doesn't speak against it either). And it didn't mean the right to strut down the middle of Dodge City wearing six guns. If it did Wyatt Earp wouldn't have been able to arrest anyone who did and confiscate their guns because Earp banned them from Dodge City and no one ever accused Wyatt Earp of violating the Constitution.
First the term "arms" meant something very specific to the Framers who wrote the 2nd amendment in 1789 and it meant the same thing to them as it means now and that it has meant all through history.
The word "arms" in the 2nd amendment means one thing and only one thing. And it doesn't mean the right to have a gun you have in your house. It means weapons of war. Military weapons of war.
The "right to keep and bear arms" means that the Constitution is guaranteeing the states not only the right to have their own militias or military, but the right to "keep" their own weapons of war. "Arms" didn't just mean guns. It meant cannon. It meant swords and bayonets, cannon balls, powder, even war ships. "Arms" meant anything that could be used as a weapon of war. And it guaranteed the right of the individual states to have any weapons they wished, including the same military weapons as the Federal army. That guarantee is made clear in the last clause. As everyone knows there is a big difference between someone who owns a gun store and someone who is an "arms" dealer.And arms dealer is in the business of selling military weapons.
But the meaning of the word "arms" isn't the only thing in the 2nd amendment that people get wrong. They also don't know the meaning of the term " to bear arms" which also had a very specific meaning to the Framers in 1789.
"To bear arms" didn't mean to show them off. It didn't mean to go hunting or to use them to defend against a burglar despite what Lou Dobbs,President Obama and some Constitutionally challenged Congressmen think. "To bear arms" meant only one thing to the Framers It meant to go to war.
The Founding Fathers in the 2nd amendment guaranteed the right of the individual states not only the means but the right to go to war and defend themselves both against the possibility of a future President deciding to become a tyrant and using military force to give himself dictatorial powers, or to defend themselves against a foreign enemy that might invade the shores of New York, Massachusetts, or New Jersey. It guaranteed that the states had both the means (" the right to keep...") and to use them, (to "bear arms",)to defend themselves without having to depend on a Federal Army to do it for them or against a Federal army itself if that became "necessary to the security of a free state".
If the Founding Fathers had intended the 2nd amendment to be about the right of an individual to own a gun they would have said so.And they didn't.
The final clause could be the most important because it impacts every gun law on the books. The clause says the right granted in the 2nd amendment "shall not be infringed".
"..shall not be infringed" means just that. It doesn't mean " shall not be infringed except sometimes..": or "shall not be infringed unless we want it to be", or "shall not be infringed unless we decide there is a good reason to infringe upon it". It means the right granted in the 2nd amendment cannot be diminished, restricted, reduced, or encroached upon in even the smallest way.
We all know what "fringe" means and where the fringe is -- on the outer edges of something. And the amendment makes clear you cant encroach upon the right granted in the 2nd amendment even there, on the fringe.
The 2nd amendment is only about a state's right to have its own army and for that army to have any weapons it chooses, and that the Federal government cannot interfere with that right in any way. And that has been the case since 1789.It has never applied to an individual.And was never intended to.
If the 2nd amendment had anything to do with an individual's right to own a gun,the clause. "shall not be infringed" would make every single gun law on the books, and any restriction of any kind unconstitutional. The NRA knows this and knows both the "infringement" clause and the entire amendment has nothing to do with an individual's right to own a gun. Otherwise they would have challenged gun laws a long time ago on the grounds they violated the "infringement" clause of the 2nd amendment.
New York city's concealed weapon law is a perfect example. You cannot carry a concealed gun in New York city unless you are issued a permit by the police department. Just the requiring of a permit would certainly be an "infringement" of a 2nd amendment right "to keep and bear arms" according to the Constitution if it related to individuals. But even more than that, 90% of the people who apply for the permit get rejected. You don't get the permit unless the police department decides you can have one. And they decide most can't.
That doesn't sound like a Constitutional right "to keep and bear arms" that hasn't been infringed upon to me. And no one knows this better than New York Giants former star receiver Plaxico Burress who is was arrested, arraigned and is now looking at a 3 year mandatory jail sentence for accidentally shooting himself in the leg with a concealed hand gun he was carrying without a permit. Burress certainly has the financial means to challenge the law on Constitutional grounds and he certainly has the money to pay good lawyers but no one has even remotely suggested that they will challenge the New York City law on 2nd amendment grounds or that the law is a violation of the "infringement" clause. And for good reason. They would lose.
So the NRA and their very smart lawyers have never brought suit against any state or municipality or against the Federal government challenging any restrictive gun law on the grounds that its unconstitutional and violates the rights granted in the 2nd amendment or the " infringement" clause in particular.
And if you are thinking "what about the DC gun ban and the Supreme Court decision", even before it had been decided, constitutional experts and lawyers knew it had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment because DC is a special case and whatever the Supreme Court decision was going to be, it wouldnbt impact the 2nd amendment debate. DC is not a state. DC is essentially funded by Congress. They don't even have a say in the election of the President. They stand outside anything that refers to states rights in the Constitution because it is not a state and the 2nd amendment is a states right issue, not an individual rights issue. The DC ban against hand guns ( which Obama was for before he was against) didn't decide any 2nd amendment issues.
The last thing to keep in mind with regards to "original intent", is to understand America in 1789 which is something Justices do when they are deciding a constitutional issue where the legislative history isn't known.They take everything into account to try and ascertain the intent of the Framers and the context in which the Constitution was written.
America in 1789 was 90% rural. And in 1789 America just about everyone in the Colonies owned a firearm.They used them to hunt. They used them to defend themselves against Indian attacks. They were a tool as basic to American life in 1789 as a lawnmower is now to the suburbs.
Owning a gun in 1789 America was common. It wasn't controversial. And you can be sure that the greatest minds in self government the country ever had didn't spend all that time debating and rewriting an amendment 7 times that gave people the right to own a lawnmower.
Again, this has nothing to do with taking away people's guns. There is no reason to. The problem in this country isn't guns owned by law abiding citizens, its illegal guns that do the damage and laws need to be passed to address that, not restrictions on citizens who obey the gun laws already on the books.There should be some mandatory gun training on how to use a gun for anyone who wants one, just the way you have to pass a drivers test to get a license to drive to cut down on accidents and other public safety issues. But the gun problem in America is illegal guns.
And an illegal gun means just one thing -- a stolen gun or a gun obtained fraudulently.
There should be laws requiring a gun owner to report a lost or stolen gun within 24 hours to local law enforcement and any gun owner who has a gun lost or stolen twice in a year should have their licenses revoked. Mandatory security measures for gun dealers and shops could also be initiated to cut down the frequency of stolen guns.And additional jail time, stiff jail time should be imposed on anyone in possession of an illegal gun.
If politicians who are Constitutionally challenged would stop misusing phrases like" to keep and bear arms", clearly not having the slightest idea of what the clause really means,and what the Framers were talking about, maybe more time would be spent dealing with the real problems posed by illegal guns instead of hiding behind the charade of what they think the 2nd amendment means.
As far as the recent decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Alameda County in California, that ruling should come as no surprise. And it is not definitive. The 9th Circuit is the most liberal court in the country and only the most liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment, one that completely disregards the original intent of the Framers and what the words actually mean, could choose to give the term " to keep and bear arms" such a broad meaning and one completely unintended by the Framers. In fact the only way to apply the words in the 2nd amendment to an individual is to completely disregard what the words were intended to accomplish, which is what conservatives usually complain is legislating from the bench.
There is talk of appealing the 9th Circuits ruling to the Supreme Court. But anyone can challenge any gun law in the United States as being unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates both the second amendment and specifically the "infringement" clause if they think the 2nd amendment applies to individuals.
They can start with New York City's concealed gun law. If they are right, the law will be struck down and every gun law in the U.S. will get struck down with it and the matter would be settled once and for all. And if not then the country can move on and focus on the real problem which is illegal guns.
Copyright 2009 Marc Rubin
Comments
"And just the other day the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case involving Alameda County in California that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals.They were wrong."
Do you know how to read? The 2nd Amendment clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This make it a right as equal as free speech or the right to a jury trial.
Still not convinced? Read the opinion from the US Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller which guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm. The opinion cited countless examples throughout early American history of how an individual had a right to own a gun. I guess you know the Constitution better than a Supreme Court Justice, huh?
It's obvious you're trying to write some shock piece to get page views.
Growing up on a Kansas farm I was raised with guns (hunting to eat and plinking just for the fun of it) and to this day still shake my head in disbelief every time gun control advocates quote the "well regulated militia" to justify their desire to regulate/confiscate guns of higher power than they deem "necessary".
I don't know if this will help anyone but here's what I use when confronted with such "enlightened" ones.
First, I find that most have very little actual knowledge of the American Revolution and what really transpired during that time and even fewer have even heard of The Federalist Papers, let alone read them.
Second, I have to educate them on Washington's most constant battle and at times worst nemesis. It was not the British Army. It was the Continental Congress. They are amazed that Washington had to constantly beg for pay and supplies from this first group of politicians just to keep his Army in the field and their hope of liberty alive.
Those first patriots, those farmers, merchants, fathers and sons had but only one thing in common: They owned their own military assault rifles of the day (muskets).
Congress couldn't even find the will or the money to send blankets, shoes and food to a starving army at Valley Forge let alone supply an "army" with guns. If it wasn't for the fact that the "people" already had their own most important part of the "militia" (the firearm) we'd all still be bowing to the Queen and singing Hail Brittania instead of quoting Francis Scott Key.
Many say today that those muskets of yesteryear and assault rifles of today are no longer needed as we won the Revolution and instilled the democratic government they fought and died for.
It can be made a valid debate point, but has no business in the 2nd Amendment debate.
The current events of the day when the 2nd Amendment was drafted were that without "individual" persons, people, whatever, owning their own arms and then being able to assemble into a "well regulated militia" using those same "individually" owned firearms, there never would have been the need for a 2nd Amendment becuase there never would have been a victory in the war. The British Army would have quickly quelled the ill equipped Congressional "non" supplied army if not for those now famous "militiamen".
It was in that context that the 2nd Amendment was born and it is in that context that it should remain. Not just as a "right" for me to own the guns of my choice, but as a "duty" of every citizen to ensure "the security of a free state" against all enemies.
Whether they be the British of old or Congressional Democrats of today, the premise be the same. The British/Dems wanted/want power consolidated in the Crown/Congress, the true patriots instead believe it is just fine with the descendents of those who have fought and died for it for over two hundred years: The People.
And in closing, if all those who are trying to redefine the 2nd Amendment for these "modern times" would put forth just half as much effort into getting the current laws on the books actually ENFORCED they would do far far more good and see a much larger reduction in crime and violence.
But that would mean admitting the Founding Fathers and the Framers were right and they with all their "enlightenment" are wrong. And that is something I have yet to ever see a liberal admit: being wrong.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Thomas Jefferson
"The great object is that every man be armed...Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry
"Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe... the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee
From the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v Heller
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
The complete text of the decision is here:
www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf
The 9th Circuit is merely following the law as handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
You say: "The 2nd amendment is only about a state's right to have its own army and for that army to have any weapons it chooses, and that the Federal government cannot interfere with that right in any way. And that has been the case since 1789."
vs.
The Constitution says: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
You fail.
The Bill of Rights is composed entirely of INDIVIDUAL rights. Otherwise, by your...huh...logic... the right of free speech is only granted to state sponsored organizations?
When the founders meant "States" they used the word "States". When they meant "people", they used the word "people".
If you think the subject of the sentence is "A well regulated militia", then I suggest you go back to High School English. The subject of the sentenc is "right" as in the the right of the people. The "well regulated militia being necessary ... " is what is known as a DEPENDENT clause
Keep means it's mine and you can't have it.
Bear means it is right here with me, on my belt.
Shall not be infringed means "Don't Tread on Me"
That article is a great example of how a person can parse words and ignore blatant facts in order to protect their own reality. It should be in a textbook. Agendas really pervert some peoples perceptions.
The right of the People to Bear Arms, and the language surrounding in in our Bill of Rights, clearly dates back 1689 to the British Bill of Rights.
Sir William Blackstone explored this at length at this time, and it was, and remained, clearly defined as not only a right of the people -- but a right defined as fundamental.
Fundamental rights are individual rights.
The forest you are missing for the trees, is the fact that that framers who wrote this very rhetoric used their own individual, personal rifles and their own individual bodies and blood to overthrow the state.
It would be incomprehensible that they would mean to take the individual sacrifices, and the gains made by individual arms, and turn them back over to the state.
There is, on this aspect, no sensible debate possible.
It is an individual right, and a fundamental right. As Jesus told individuals in Luke: He who has no sword should sell his cloak and buy one.
Cheers.
All good replys but one important point is not being answered
The second ammendment was re-written those seven times because in order for "the people" to be "secure in there person and affects" "the people" needed to be able to defend themselves from the government as well as the evil-doers. Therefore the 2nd was written to ensure the individuals lawfull right to life, LIBERTY and the persuite of happinesss.
This has to be a joke,right?Give up Mr.Rubin you are presenting debate already heard by the United States Supreme Court.(just so you know,your side lost)Find something you like about this Mr.Rubin,we are a nation of patriots and will stand in the face of the ignorant who defy what our forefathers fought for!
This piece was published Apr 22, but it must have been written Apr 1.
Being originally from Lexington Ma where the Milita first fought and died for your freedom, I can assure you that the Miltia was NOT a division of the state and never was, it was individual citizens who grabed the guns they privately owned to stand against agents of a tyranical government. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution to assure that individual citizens could do it again if needed. (article 10 of the NH state consitiution) The number one problem with Liberals is they have no sence of history.
Wow, a great piece of fiction, which is what we all know you write.
Stick to movies and TV, and leave the Constitution to the "people" and by people, I mean the whole of the individuals of the United States.
What a self involved moron, to think that he knows more about he Constitution than everyone else.
Even if the 2nd Amendment was never meant to guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, there are 80 million gun owners with 250 million firearms in this country. Most of them plan on keeping and bearing those firearms regardless of what 2nd Amendment means.
Re: "Once you understand who the Framers are referring to when they say "the people", which is a collective for the individual states, and not referring to an individual right, it's time to deal with the most misused and misunderstood part of the 2nd amendment - the words "to keep and bear arms"."
I guess the 1st and 4th amendments apply only to the states as well, since they use the term "the people."
Also, the author, despite claiming intimate knowledge of sentence structure, fails to realize that the independent clause contains the subject and verb, and can stand on its own. In the case of the 2nd amendment, the portion after the comma is the independent clause.
Those two examples right there eliminate any overall credibility the author might have, making examination of other arguments made in this article moot.
The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of individual rights, not state's rights. The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been very much infringed, and that needs to be corrected. It isn't burglars we are defending - the police do most of that. It's liberty, and that job cannot be safely delegated.
Note that the historically recent disarming of UK citizens was followed by a surrender of a great deal of their liberty to an unelected European government - and that most UK citizens resent that but are disarmed an powerless to oppose it.
Now look at the proposed formation of the North American Alliance. The pattern repeats, but we still have arms. They are a formidable obstacle, so we expect a rash of attacks on the right to keep and bear arms.
You've chosen to argue on the wrong side, sir, and if you are sincere, you will re-examine your arguments. A lot of well informed people have written their comment here. Read hem carefully.
"The 2nd amendment is only about a state's right to have its own army and for that army to have any weapons it chooses, and that the Federal government cannot interfere with that right in any way. And that has been the case since 1789.It has never applied to an individual.And was never intended to."
What a ludicrous statement. In reading your article, it looks like you started with this statement... and then through a series of mental gymnastics and fabricated grammatical assessments... "proved" your perspective well enough that a reader with no knowledge of the Constitution (or the constructs of the English language) might actually believe you. How very dangerous and irresponsible of you... lame.
A very good article, Mr. Rubin.
Americans of the Second Amendment framing era understood the words "bear arms" to be a reference to military service, unless some other purpose for the arms was specifically stated. Militias were drawn from "that body of the people capable of bearing arms." That body of people was made up of men who were physically and by age qualified for militia service under state militia laws.
The military meaning of "bear arms" is shown in another early statement of the people's right to keep and bear arms -- one which Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Melancton Smith, and the majority of delegates agreed to at the 1788 New York convention on ratifying the Constitution:
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
No American militia ever included that body of the people capable of CARRYING arms -- a body of the people that would would have been enormous and would have included some very old and some very immature persons.
The intended meaning of the New York declaration of right no doubt was this:
"That the people as a political community have a right to keep arms and maintain a militia; that a well-regulated miltia, including the body of the people capable of military service, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state."
Former Chief Justice Warren Burger was right.
You argue about the definition of every word, except "regulated." The modern usage of the term is vastly different from the original usage of the term. Whereas "regulated" now means "regulated by the government," it use to mean "skilled or disciplined."
A common phrasing of the time (seen in the Articles of Confederation, the Virginia Constitution, etc) was "well regulated and disciplined."
A "well skilled militia" can only occur if the members - who are drawn from the public - have the opportunity to keep and bear their own arms. In fact, the sentences sounds totally bizarre and unwieldy with the prefatory clause read in modern language... unless you substitute "skilled" for "well-regulated," and it suddenly makes perfect sense.
Perhaps leftoids like Mr. Rubin might read Halbrook's "The Founders' Second Amendment" before trying to tell the rest of us what the original intent was.
Got mine right here, Rubin. Molon labe.
Rubin has clearly shown that he has no concept of inherent, inalienable rights. The Constitution does not declare (grant) rights of (to) the people, the individual; it secures individual rights by limiting government entities.
The "states" are the people, not the government elected by the people, as "states" are those people living in a given area with common interests, mores, etc. Government entities in their official capacities have no rights. They are supposed to be the most regulated people on earth with NO justification for interfering with human rights.
Although a book could be written showing that Rubin does NOT understand the Constitution, freedom, or the purpose of government (to defend individual's rights secured by the Constitution), a final comment is that rights existed before man could write. Thus, all regulating of individual rights - our inherent, inalienable rights - is unconstitutional. You see, inherent rights cannot be affected by legislation or the vote
That is the longest, and perhaps the most poorly-reasoned Examiner article I have ever read.
I can't speak for Mr. Rubin, but I am glad this issue has already been resolved ... and resolved in a way that favored personal freedom.
So, Marc, you spend a great deal of time talking grammar, specifically the "subject" of the sentence of the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment is not a simple sentence (subject verb object). It is what is known to most third-graders as a compound-complex sentence (specifically, a prefatory clause and an operative clause).
When you diagram the sentence (another trick most third-graders would know) you find that "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is the prefatory clause. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is the operative clause. Let me break that down for you... the operative clause is the one that actually means something.
But far be it from me to assume that someone who would write a pages-long article attempting to prove that something means what it doesn't would apply logic and reasoning to that subject.
Or that he would bother reading the Supreme Court decision that currently stands a
Marc,
What do you think of the fact that Madison originally proposed the Bill of Rights amendments be placed interspersed in the appropriate sections and the 2nd was slated to go under Article 1 Section 9 instead of Section 8? This would indicated it was a personal right.
Also, since you are such a strict reader of text, what do you make of the fact that the First Amendment starts "Congress shall pass now law..." Wouldn't that seem to say that the First Amendment only constrained the US Legislature and not any other branch of the Federal Government nor any State or Municipality? Where's your textualism now?
Hahahahahahahaha!
Dumbass.
What a laugh.
I'm sure glad this joker has set us all straight. I'm mean, after all, we wouldn't want to rely on the Supreme Courts' Heller decision now would we.
I notice the Heller court didn't reference Justice Burger. Wonder why? Could it be that it was because Burger never authored a law article on the 2nd, nor participated in a 2A case? btw, you idiot Marc Rubin, an article in Parage Magazine doesn't count as a scholarly work.
If that is evidence of your ability to research a topic, gun-owners have nothing to fear from you. But, you probably shouldn't be allowed to own a gun - you'd probably kill yourself with it. At least when you write all you hurt is our funny bones :)
Oh Marc, you hypocrite!
First you state to "keep in mind the entire amendment wasn't written so that it could be diced and sliced with words ignored to suit someone's purpose."
Then you go ahead and dice and slice with your own interpretation...
"Once you understand who the Framers are referring to when they say "the people", which is a collective for the individual states, and not referring to an individual right".
Would've also been a good idea for you to take English past 4th grade.
God, please bless this country! Oh how we need it!
> The subject of that sentence, and therefore the amendment, is "a well regulated militia" not "the right to bear arms".
Um, no. The subject is "the right to bear arms." This grammar in the first half of the 2nd Amendment is unusual these days, but it's pretty common in Greek and Latin. There it would be called a genitive absolute or ablative absolute, respectively. It's a dependent clause; it cannot contain the subject.
If the author can't analyze a sentence, why should we trust him to analyze our Constitution?
Okay, Marc. By the numbers. (1)The National Guard is a part-time componet of the US Army, not a State Militia. If what you say were true, the US couldn't call 'em up for federal duty. (2) "well regulated" meant organized and trained,something militia memberes did on thier own time. (3) everywhere _else_ in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution the term "people" is used in reference to the whole population of the nation, i.e. "the people".The writings ofthe Founders amply prove this to anyone with eyes to read and wit to comprehend Jefferson; "As to exercise, I reccomend the gun." Madison; The goal is that every man be armed." Just a few, casual reading of theFounders will reveal many more. Fortunatly for you, we live in a nation where you have a right to be wrong. Have a nice day.
dude, how long did you spend cutting and pasting decade old dribble of the Brady Campaign (to ban guns)? I hate to break the news, but the Supreme Court already declared that the 2nd Amendment applied to the individual. Yep, your a day late and a dollar short.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you wrote except for one teensy-weensy part.
The whole "'the people' == states' rights" part.
You, see, if the term "the people" refers to states' rights, then what does the first amendment mean? The right of the states to peaceably assemble? How does a state go about peaceably assembling?
What about the tenth amendment? How could the powers not delegated to the United States be reserved to both the states and the people if "the people" is referring to the states? Do states thus have powers reserved to them twice? This is nonsense.
"'the people' == states' rights" is absurd to the point of risibility.
That said, you are absolutely correct about everything else. whatever entity the second amendment is referring to, it is absolutely sensible that the words mean what they say they do — that any and all laws to restrict the right (no matter who the right is actually reserved by) are patently unconstitutional. Thanks for helping
Please read The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms. This explains what the second amendment means when it was written. Not using a modern day interpretation of it. You are way off base.
Ammendment 10 states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Clearly, "the people" doesn't mean the sate as suggested by Marc Rubin, otherwise this would be redundent. Do some research on the Framers instead of just writing what you want to believe they thought.
I have noticed that many opposed to any kind of gun restrictions use sarcasm and insults. I have been called irrational, ignorant and much worse because I believe in regulations of firearms. If there were a practical way to eliminate all weapons except in the hands of law enforcement or the military, then I would be all for it. But it’s too late.
The Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with an individual’s right to have a gun. The purpose of the Amendment was to make certain that the individual states could prevent an overpowering despotic National government, a real fear in the late 18th century.
I could offer a suggestion that the “gunnies” might find acceptable. Any person who commits a crime (of any kind) with a weapon should, upon adjudication of guilt, be sentenced to life imprisonment, without possibility of parole. To make room in our already overcrowded jails and prisons, release everyone incarcerated for marijuana-related crimes or drug possession.
Ask those who gave us the 2A!
Thomas Jefferson stated once about the Second Amendment: "The strongest reason for the "PEOPLE" to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect against tyranny in government."
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
I'm sure they would agree with the BS Marc is trying to feed us! NOT!
Roy Copperud disagrees with your analysis of the grammar and wording of the Constitution.
He's a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus."
He was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus," has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
Mr. Rubin:
"For those who don't know there are two types of rights enumerated in the Constitution, states rights and individual rights. As any Constitutional scholar will tell you, when the Framers were referring to a state's right they used the term "the people:". When they were referring to an individual right, they used the word " person".The 5th amendment is a good example. It begins with the words, "No person shall..." and lays out guarantees, among them, double jeopardy and that no person in a criminal case shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."
I urge you to go ask your Constitutional Scholars to show you where the erm "States' Rights" is used anywhere in the document.
It isn't. Governments, Federal and State have "Powers"...only Citizens have "Rights".
The Constitution was NOT the government telling citizens what rights they could have, but rather the Citizens telling the Government waht powers it could exercise.
Sloppy research yielded a sloppy a
Quote:
"For those who don't know there are two types of rights enumerated in the Constitution, states rights and individual rights. As any Constitutional scholar will tell you, when the Framers were referring to a state's right they used the term "the people:"."
So then when the First Amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That means the individual states have a right to free speech, to assemble, and to petition the Government, and individuals do not.
The Bill of Rights was passed after the Constitution, to assure the colonists that their individual rights would not be infringed by a large powerful, central authority.
If you want to divine the founder's intent, read The Federalist Papers, don't just make them up.
Marc Rubin wrote:
For those who don't know there are two types of rights enumerated in the Constitution, states rights and individual rights. As any Constitutional scholar will tell you, when the Framers were referring to a state's right they used the term "the people:". When they were referring to an individual right, they used the word " person".
If that is correct how do you explain the use of the word "People" in these Amendments?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble…
or
Amendment IV
The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…..
Is it that only the States have the right to peaceful assembly, or that only the States have the right to be secure in their homes?
I think not.
This is simply amazing that this writer, who obviously is educated and articulate could offer such nonsense as the truth
OK, so let me get this straight.
The British conquered other societies and once conquered stripped that society of its rights to bear arms. That meant denying the very means of it's people to defend themselves against the aggressors and by stripping that right meant no way to fight back, to up rise and reclaim your personal freedom your country or taxation without representation. This follows history before and after the forming of America. So the founders of America knew history and what total power to any system or person does and put in checks and balances. They knew to defend themselves against FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC the "people" would need to be armed. It is TOTALY Illogical to think that a people that fled tyranny, fought oppression and died for freedom would put the power in a militia controlled by a state or federal government that could become corrupt and AGAIN REPEAT HISTORY!
Apparently you don't even realize that Washington DC has electoral votes in presidential elections. And you think that the first amendment protects the rights of states to assemble and to petition the feds and not the right of individuals. And the 4th amendment protects the right of states to be secure in their persons and in their homes. And the tenth amendment was just repeating itself when it said that all unenumerated rights are reserved to the States or to the people.
I take your analysis of the 2nd Amendment in light of your obvious ignorance regarding the status of Washington DC and your knowledge of the rest of the Bill of rights.
We have a protected right to own and carry military weapons which shall not be infringed.
Your point about the NRA is wasted because the NRA wasn't even a political advocacy organization until the 70's, and even so, they are more pragmatic than principled.
The 2nd Amendment protects the government from us, and not us from the government. Without the 2nd Amendment they might be tempted to test us.
Incorrect-period.
Unfortunately, alot of people will belive this to be true.
FAILED
1. When the framers meant state, they said state. When they meant people, they said people. 1, 2, 4, 9, & 10 all apply to the people.
2. The federal definition able-bodied males between 17 and 45 are members of the militia. Also, females who are members of the National Guard are considered part of the militia:
Title 10 of the US Code:
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Milit
The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
what part of SHALL not be infringed do you not under stand, enjoy your aids
when there are this many ignorant he-man gun toters...you'll get nothing but ridicule and rhetoric...it's their only form of comeback. intelligence flys out the window as per most political debates..I w\onder how many of the scoffers are registered republicans...hahahahaha.
they'll be the first to sue mcdonalds over a hot cup of coffee....common sense and the way it IS WRITTEN defines it all.....but they need to justify their living in FEAR.....why else do you need a damned gun!
they're probably quite rascist also..tho they'l get a cheap illegal immigrant to mow their yard , build their house,wash their car, etc etc ..bigoted rednecks.....and we wonder why the U.S. is going to hell in a handbag!
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!