An article in the New Yorker. Very interesting historical context.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...amendment.html
Printable View
An article in the New Yorker. Very interesting historical context.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...amendment.html
Interesting! Thanks for that link.
Why depend on a modern-day opinion of what the amendment means when we have the founders and their contemporaries thoughts on the subject? Here are a few for consideration:
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])
You could also take a look at the analysis contained in the recent US Supreme Court discussion of the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Me, frankly, I don't care about the Second Amendment. I think I have a fundamental right as a human being to defend myself from harm. And I don't think anyone has a moral right to use force to prevent me from using effective tools, as long as I am offering no harm to others.
From the article:
"...the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon."
The writer of the article makes the point that the Supreme Court et al frequently bend to the prevailing winds of politics, which is supposedly what happened in the seventies. I don't dispute that. The absurdity of the above quote makes the case most convincingly since it, was what was decided by the Court.
The Bill of Rights of the constitution was ratified in order to restrict or restrain the power of those in the Federal government because it was, and is, subservient to the states i.e. the sovereign nations which formed it (see Cooperative Federalism pdf). The Bill of Rights, if you notice the language, cannot confer rights, they acknowledge pre-existing rights and restrict those with whom some authority was not conferred, but delegated.
As I understand it, the constitution was drafted in the context of a largely self-reliant citizenry. They grew their own food, built houses, made clothes and protected their property; with deadly force if necessary. They did that against the British by forming militias. People = militias.
Isn't that very clear? Does it take a legal scholar to see this?
Local groups of responsible firearms owners acting in mutual cooperation were the fundemental front line against tyranny. Today the context has changed and Americans are frequently petrified at the sight of a gun, however the principle hasn't changed.
Interesting to note that even Gandhi opposed gun control.
And I'm sure Gandhi would also approve of hundred-round magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and fully automatic weapons whose only purpose is to kill other human beings.
It may be surprising to note that many Americans are not opposed to citizens owning a weapon for the procurement of food or for their own reasonable protection. I am a gun owner, responsible and educated, and a damned good shot to boot. It's the bastardization of this "right" that has created the insane gun-worship we live in currently, and creates the climate of fear we live in. Have a gun - protect your family if you feel you are threatened -- kill your food. This is our heritage. But those who collect numerous lethal weapons, who take time to research every gun-supporting quote on the internet, who lobby for the right to have more and more weapons, all they might desire, no matter their killing capacity, no matter the fact that they already have more than enough firepower in the closet to kill a hundred invaders?
These people are mentally ill, and it's time decent intelligent people called them out as such.
Xmas, you're a smart person. Rather that parroting the "gandhi opposed gun control" squawking so prevalent among the lovers of these devices that kill other human beings, you might want to dig deeper than just kneejerk protectionist propaganda to what he really said, and the historical context in which he said it. The quote gun-lovers go all a-tingle over actually refers to his objection to the British disarmament of the Indian Army. Gandhi never advocated the individual right to bear arms, let alone the NRA's obsession with legalizing any and all arms, as many as possible, and as lethal as possible. Nor did the Dalai Lama, another gross untruth the gun lobby loves to quote.
Does it take a historical scholar to see this?
No, they aren't ill. They are just different from you. Fun to label and dehumanize people though, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by puglogic
Quote from article.
And this is exactly where handguns should start, and end, in the home, not strapped to the belt-sides of every US citizen (while out in public).Quote:
Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home
At any rate, just heard via the news (radio), that Joe Biden, has been appointed by President Obama, to lead a gun-control task force to implement new gun-control measures. About time!
Adding, the National Rifle Association, finally broke its silence on the school shootings Tuesday, with a statement that said, "it is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
Empty and meaningless words, from an empty and meaningless organization.
You know I've been called a lot of things on this forum over the years but I think your "mentally ill" label is a first.Quote:
Originally Posted by puglogic
Now, off to find a shaking my head in sorrow emoticon.
I wonder if his views have changed since 2008?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs-M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...;v=XcyLeOm6yGc