In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
shall not be infringed?
Mr. Perfect
Member, Moderator Posts: 66,260 ******
Perhaps the most common misunderstandings of amendment 2, is the answer to the question "by who". Though the amendment is written in plain enough language, it does not specifically state the "by who", such as was incorporated into amendment 1.
Discuss.[:)]
Discuss.[:)]
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Comments
Perhaps the most common misunderstandings of amendment 2, is the answer to the question "by who". Though the amendment is written in plain enough language, it does not specifically state the "by who", such as was incorporated into amendment 1.
Discuss.[:)]
Well Sir, I also think "infringed" gives people pause, as well. While you can own a handgun, you can't own a nuke, I read somewhere. This CLEARLY "infringes", but the Supreme Court allows this dichotomy as NOT being unconstitutional. There is an INTENT in the law/amendment/constitution. And the Supreme Court is charged with determining that intent.
Does the constitution mean we can keep and bear ANY and ALL arms, or just some types of "arms"? Most of us here would agree that ANY arms, at ANY time, should be allowed by US, but we don't want nukes in the hands of the OTHER guy.
Obviously the founding fathers didn't have to worry about nukes...so the constitution AS WRITTEN didn't address them. The Supreme Court has to make that call...and they have. As a result, other weapons not available in the founding father's time, such as machine guns, heatseeking missiles, grenades, etc. also are up for discussion by the Court. Unfortunately, you could also say that the 1911 and the modern revolver also fall into this category.
Does this mean that these types of modern arms are not covered by the 1st amendment, because they obviously weren't ADDRESSED by the 1st amendment? That's up for interpretation, of course. (I don't believe so, but some would argue this.) And the body charged with that interpretation is the Supreme Court.
That's my initial input to the discussion. Good question!
As ...sign of the times.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Perhaps the most common misunderstandings of amendment 2, is the answer to the question "by who". Though the amendment is written in plain enough language, it does not specifically state the "by who", such as was incorporated into amendment 1.
Discuss.[:)]
Well Sir, I also think "infringed" gives people pause, as well. While you can own a handgun, you can't own a nuke, I read somewhere. This CLEARLY "infringes", but the Supreme Court allows this dichotomy as NOT being unconstitutional. There is an INTENT in the law/amendment/constitution. And the Supreme Court is charged with determining that intent.
Does the constitution mean we can keep and bear ANY and ALL arms, or just some types of "arms"? Most of us here would agree that ANY arms, at ANY time, should be allowed by US, but we don't want nukes in the hands of the OTHER guy.
Obviously the founding fathers didn't have to worry about nukes...so the constitution AS WRITTEN didn't address them. The Supreme Court has to make that call...and they have. As a result, other weapons not available in the founding father's time, such as machine guns, heatseeking missiles, grenades, etc. also are up for discussion by the Court. Unfortunately, you could also say that the 1911 and the modern revolver also fall into this category.
Does this mean that these types of modern arms are not covered by the 1st amendment, because they obviously weren't ADDRESSED by the 1st amendment? That's up for interpretation, of course. (I don't believe so, but some would argue this.) And the body charged with that interpretation is the Supreme Court.
That's my initial input to the discussion. Good question!
I agree that we shouldn't allow every TOM,DICK and Harry to possess
Nukes. But when the 2nd Amendment was written, the government decided that the PEOPLE could possess the very same weapon that the GOVERNMENT possessed.
They couldn't foresee the power of today's weapons,but they saw fit to allow their citizens bear weapons of equal power. This ensured that the GOVERNMENT couldn't easily suppress it's MASTERS.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Perhaps the most common misunderstandings of amendment 2, is the answer to the question "by who". Though the amendment is written in plain enough language, it does not specifically state the "by who", such as was incorporated into amendment 1.
Discuss.[:)]
Well Sir, I also think "infringed" gives people pause, as well. While you can own a handgun, you can't own a nuke, I read somewhere. This CLEARLY "infringes", but the Supreme Court allows this dichotomy as NOT being unconstitutional. There is an INTENT in the law/amendment/constitution. And the Supreme Court is charged with determining that intent.
Does the constitution mean we can keep and bear ANY and ALL arms, or just some types of "arms"? Most of us here would agree that ANY arms, at ANY time, should be allowed by US, but we don't want nukes in the hands of the OTHER guy.
Obviously the founding fathers didn't have to worry about nukes...so the constitution AS WRITTEN didn't address them. The Supreme Court has to make that call...and they have. As a result, other weapons not available in the founding father's time, such as machine guns, heatseeking missiles, grenades, etc. also are up for discussion by the Court. Unfortunately, you could also say that the 1911 and the modern revolver also fall into this category.
Does this mean that these types of modern arms are not covered by the 1st amendment, because they obviously weren't ADDRESSED by the 1st amendment? That's up for interpretation, of course. (I don't believe so, but some would argue this.) And the body charged with that interpretation is the Supreme Court.
That's my initial input to the discussion. Good question!
Again, you err in the belief that the court is empowered to interpret the constitution. Aside from that, I appreciate your input.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Perhaps the most common misunderstandings of amendment 2, is the answer to the question "by who". Though the amendment is written in plain enough language, it does not specifically state the "by who", such as was incorporated into amendment 1.
Discuss.[:)]
Well Sir, I also think "infringed" gives people pause, as well. While you can own a handgun, you can't own a nuke, I read somewhere. This CLEARLY "infringes", but the Supreme Court allows this dichotomy as NOT being unconstitutional. There is an INTENT in the law/amendment/constitution. And the Supreme Court is charged with determining that intent.
Does the constitution mean we can keep and bear ANY and ALL arms, or just some types of "arms"? Most of us here would agree that ANY arms, at ANY time, should be allowed by US, but we don't want nukes in the hands of the OTHER guy.
Obviously the founding fathers didn't have to worry about nukes...so the constitution AS WRITTEN didn't address them. The Supreme Court has to make that call...and they have. As a result, other weapons not available in the founding father's time, such as machine guns, heatseeking missiles, grenades, etc. also are up for discussion by the Court. Unfortunately, you could also say that the 1911 and the modern revolver also fall into this category.
Does this mean that these types of modern arms are not covered by the 1st amendment, because they obviously weren't ADDRESSED by the 1st amendment? That's up for interpretation, of course. (I don't believe so, but some would argue this.) And the body charged with that interpretation is the Supreme Court.
That's my initial input to the discussion. Good question!
Again, you err in the belief that the court is empowered to interpret the constitution. Aside from that, I appreciate your input.
Wow, you're so full of it I wonder how you can stand. From the website of the US Supreme Court:
"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
I thought we might have a civil discussion here...but you won't allow that I guess. Good night to you.
also the blanket statement "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is a lot more powerful, covering a lot more ground, than people give it credit. not everybody cares to, but are there a lot of people bearing arms? that is, are they walking around in public with their swords, guns, belt knives, slingshots, clubs, nunchaku, etc? do they own full auto assault rifles? do they own switchblades? no. of the ones who want to, why not? because they aren't allowed to. but doesn't the second amendment say that one's right to own and carry arms shall not be infringed? yes. anything that keeps someone from doing something, even simply making it more difficult for them to do it, is an infringement, isn't it? yes. therefore their rights are being infringed upon.
the law is not being upheld. people's rights written in plain ink right there on the constitution are being denied.
if it does not say infringed "by who", then simply not infringed. by anybody. if they were to say "by who", then might not some other oppressor have an argument that the 2nd amendment does not keep them from infringing on your rights?
also the blanket statement "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is a lot more powerful, covering a lot more ground, than people give it credit. not everybody cares to, but are there a lot of people bearing arms? that is, are they walking around in public with their swords, guns, belt knives, slingshots, clubs, nunchaku, etc? do they own full auto assault rifles? do they own switchblades? no. of the ones who want to, why not? because they aren't allowed to. but doesn't the second amendment say that one's right to own and carry arms shall not be infringed? yes. anything that keeps someone from doing something, even simply making it more difficult for them to do it, is an infringement, isn't it? yes. therefore their rights are being infringed upon.
the law is not being upheld. people's rights written in plain ink right there on the constitution are being denied.
Then why, I wonder does Amendment one clarify that?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
"By whom" is not the operative concept in play most of the time; "shall not be infringed" does not need that qualification, stemming from the natural law both to property and self defense, in society. God's law in this matter needs no qualification, I presume.
The key to the concept of TRTKABA is the term "infringed".
Infringed is never used in a positive sense, it necessarily imposes the concept of an improper limitation.
That is the function of language, to draw proper distinctions through accepted and plain definitions.
So that in reading, the right to keep and bear arms is not to be improperly limited by anybody, and more specifically, the federal government, and through extension, neither by the states.
Otherwise, you end up with confusion.
Which is not too uncommon, at times.
perhaps then because the term "infringe" is so broad that it goes beyond merely laws, such as what congress may establish?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
"By whom" is not the operative concept in play most of the time; "shall not be infringed" does not need that qualification, stemming from the natural law both to property and self defense, in society. God's law in this matter needs no qualification, I presume.
The key to the concept of TRTKABA is the term "infringed".
Infringed is never used in a positive sense, it necessarily imposes the concept of an improper limitation.
That is the function of language, to draw proper distinctions through accepted and plain definitions.
So that in reading, the right to keep and bear arms is not to be improperly limited by anybody, and more specifically, the federal government, and through extension, neither by the states.
Otherwise, you end up with confusion.
Which is not too uncommon, at times.
perhaps then because the term "infringe" is so broad that it goes beyond merely laws, such as what congress may establish?
The construction of the second amendment differs from that of the first in that a particular application of the universal right is first identified, and then given as the rationale for both the defense and recognition of implicit appropriate limitation of both the right, and limitation to it's proper boundaries.
In the first, it may be noted that there is no hint of any restraint by the federal government. In many of the states' organic and enabling acts, the terminology often used is a guarantee of the the "free and perfect" liberty of conscience and speech (thought). Not even criminals or non-persons such as women and slaves are ever prohibited that liberty. Not so in the second.
Naturally, the principle of non-contradiction must lay behind any construction and understanding, and so both the several states as well as men must take up the task of restricting human sacrifice, shouting "fire", establishing standards of "fighting words", pornography, and the like. In accordance with natural law, and the laws of God.
I think the second is second, as it is necessarily subordinate to the first. the second is second, as it notes, being necessary for the protection of a free state.
A free state where citizens enjoy free and perfect freedom of speech and conscience.
Could you explain what you mean in red above?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
if it does not say infringed "by who", then simply not infringed. by anybody. if they were to say "by who", then might not some other oppressor have an argument that the 2nd amendment does not keep them from infringing on your rights?
also the blanket statement "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is a lot more powerful, covering a lot more ground, than people give it credit. not everybody cares to, but are there a lot of people bearing arms? that is, are they walking around in public with their swords, guns, belt knives, slingshots, clubs, nunchaku, etc? do they own full auto assault rifles? do they own switchblades? no. of the ones who want to, why not? because they aren't allowed to. but doesn't the second amendment say that one's right to own and carry arms shall not be infringed? yes. anything that keeps someone from doing something, even simply making it more difficult for them to do it, is an infringement, isn't it? yes. therefore their rights are being infringed upon.
the law is not being upheld. people's rights written in plain ink right there on the constitution are being denied.Then why, I wonder does Amendment one clarify that?yep...
quote: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.it doesn't say anything about state or city governments making such laws. what is there to keep them from doing it?
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
if it does not say infringed "by who", then simply not infringed. by anybody. if they were to say "by who", then might not some other oppressor have an argument that the 2nd amendment does not keep them from infringing on your rights?
also the blanket statement "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is a lot more powerful, covering a lot more ground, than people give it credit. not everybody cares to, but are there a lot of people bearing arms? that is, are they walking around in public with their swords, guns, belt knives, slingshots, clubs, nunchaku, etc? do they own full auto assault rifles? do they own switchblades? no. of the ones who want to, why not? because they aren't allowed to. but doesn't the second amendment say that one's right to own and carry arms shall not be infringed? yes. anything that keeps someone from doing something, even simply making it more difficult for them to do it, is an infringement, isn't it? yes. therefore their rights are being infringed upon.
the law is not being upheld. people's rights written in plain ink right there on the constitution are being denied.Then why, I wonder does Amendment one clarify that?yep...
quote: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.it doesn't say anything about state or city governments making such laws. what is there to keep them from doing it?
I suppose because at the state and local levels, laws which contradict Federal laws are invalid? Not the right legal terminology, but I believe that has something to do with it.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Perhaps the most common misunderstandings of amendment 2, is the answer to the question "by who". Though the amendment is written in plain enough language, it does not specifically state the "by who", such as was incorporated into amendment 1.
Discuss.[:)]
Religious and cultural norms differed significantly amongst the 13 colonies, and in 1791 the Federal Government's power to influence this was restricted by Amendment 1. State religions were permissible until the 1st was incorporated upon the states.
Amendments 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were incorporated upon the states upon ratification as they specifically address the rights of individuals and thus restrict any and all governing bodies. Our history obviously reflects the corruption of this intent almost from the beginning, particularly with regards to the 2nd.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Perhaps the most common misunderstandings of amendment 2, is the answer to the question "by who". Though the amendment is written in plain enough language, it does not specifically state the "by who", such as was incorporated into amendment 1.
Discuss.[:)]
Religious and cultural norms differed significantly amongst the 13 colonies, and in 1791 the Federal Government's power to influence this was restricted by Amendment 1. State religions were permissible until the 1st was incorporated upon the states.
Amendments 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were incorporated upon the states upon ratification as they specifically address the rights of individuals and thus restrict any and all governing bodies. Our history obviously reflects the corruption of this intent almost from the beginning, particularly with regards to the 2nd.
When/how was that accomplished? Please excuse my ignorance on that.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Religious and cultural norms differed significantly amongst the 13 colonies, and in 1791 the Federal Government's power to influence this was restricted by Amendment 1. State religions were permissible until the 1st was incorporated upon the states.
Amendments 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were incorporated upon the states upon ratification as they specifically address the rights of individuals and thus restrict any and all governing bodies. Our history obviously reflects the corruption of this intent almost from the beginning, particularly with regards to the 2nd.
When/how was that accomplished? Please excuse my ignorance on that.
The 'State Religions were permissible' comment is probably a bit of hyperbole as I do not believe any of the States chose to establish one. A proper reading of the 1st Amendment however, does not eliminate the possibility.
The following wanders a bit, but follows my thinking in the previous post, regarding the 1st, though I believe it does not adequately address the differences in wording between the first and the other Amendments noted above. Madison, after all, strongly believed that the Bill of Rights should have been incorporated upon State Legislatures from the get-go.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall98/original.html
From the link:
The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. * * * If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states.22
For over one-hundred and fifty years, this was the original intent regarding the scope and jurisdiction of the Constitution, the national government and the Bill of Rights.
However in 1947, the Supreme Court, in Everson v. Board of Education,23 used Jefferson's Danbury letter as a pretext to disregard centuries of legal tradition in the common law, the Declaration of Independence, the writings of the founding fathers, the notes and records of the Constitutional Convention and over a century of American constitutional jurisprudence. With the stroke of a pen, the Court created a new "law" by incorporating the Fourteenth Amendment (which dealt exclusively with specific State powers) with the First Amendment's federal provision against an "establishment of religion".
The result of this legal hocus pocus was devastating: first, the Court reversed 150 years of Constitutional precedent which limited the First Amendment's application to Congress, i.e., the national government; second, the Court declared that federal courts were now empowered to restrict not only the religious activities of the national government, but the religious expressions of the people and the States as well. Five years later in Zorach, the Court tried in vain to resuscitate the First Amendment's original intent:
Brad Steele
Perhaps the most common misunderstandings of amendment 2, is the answer to the question "by who". Though the amendment is written in plain enough language, it does not specifically state the "by who", such as was incorporated into amendment 1.
Discuss.[:)]
Taking into account the follow up posts - if not by the court, who would you have interpret the 2nd?
What is the legal definition of "infringe" with respect to the 2nd? Is it similar to infringe, as in a copyright infringement, which is to say may be slight or is it nearer "prohibition"?
The conventional wisdom (advanced by Mr. Justice Black I believe) is the BoR was originally intended to restrict Congress only and not state governments - since passage of the 14th Amendment we've seen most amendments applied to the states. A currently contrary interpretation is that since the founders wrote "Congress shall make no law" regarding the 1st had they meant the remaining amendments to not apply to the states they would have said so - making the incorporation aspect of the 14th not needed.
I think plain language can be very complicated, or made very complicated. I wonder why the framers used "infringed" regarding the 2nd and "abridged" regarding the 1st. They must have seen a difference and believe it ought to be recognized.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Perhaps the most common misunderstandings of amendment 2, is the answer to the question "by who". Though the amendment is written in plain enough language, it does not specifically state the "by who", such as was incorporated into amendment 1.
Discuss.[:)]
....
I think plain language can be very complicated, or made very complicated. I wonder why the framers used "infringed" regarding the 2nd and "abridged" regarding the 1st. They must have seen a difference and believe it ought to be recognized.
Heller and McDonald have corrected this oversight by the Founders. The 2nd now reads 'abridged'.
Brad Steele
unlike a gun or conventional bomb, which requires a human's ill will to hurt someone, a nuclear bomb (or in fact medical/industrial radiation sources) can just be stored improperly and hurt a lot of people without the idiot owner actually having malicious intent. Thus the storage of radiation sources is regulated rather strictly, and IMO this is correct
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Perhaps the most common misunderstandings of amendment 2, is the answer to the question "by who". Though the amendment is written in plain enough language, it does not specifically state the "by who", such as was incorporated into amendment 1.
Discuss.[:)]
Taking into account the follow up posts - if not by the court, who would you have interpret the 2nd?
the question presumes that an interpretation is needed.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
"By whom" is not the operative concept in play most of the time; "shall not be infringed" does not need that qualification, stemming from the natural law both to property and self defense, in society. God's law in this matter needs no qualification, I presume.
The key to the concept of TRTKABA is the term "infringed".
Infringed is never used in a positive sense, it necessarily imposes the concept of an improper limitation.
That is the function of language, to draw proper distinctions through accepted and plain definitions.
So that in reading, the right to keep and bear arms is not to be improperly limited by anybody, and more specifically, the federal government, and through extension, neither by the states.
Otherwise, you end up with confusion.
Which is not too uncommon, at times.
perhaps then because the term "infringe" is so broad that it goes beyond merely laws, such as what congress may establish?
The construction of the second amendment differs from that of the first in that a particular application of the universal right is first identified, and then given as the rationale for both the defense and recognition of implicit appropriate limitation of both the right, and limitation to it's proper boundaries.
In the first, it may be noted that there is no hint of any restraint by the federal government. In many of the states' organic and enabling acts, the terminology often used is a guarantee of the the "free and perfect" liberty of conscience and speech (thought). Not even criminals or non-persons such as women and slaves are ever prohibited that liberty. Not so in the second.
Naturally, the principle of non-contradiction must lay behind any construction and understanding, and so both the several states as well as men must take up the task of restricting human sacrifice, shouting "fire", establishing standards of "fighting words", pornography, and the like. In accordance with natural law, and the laws of God.
I think the second is second, as it is necessarily subordinate to the first. the second is second, as it notes, being necessary for the protection of a free state.
A free state where citizens enjoy free and perfect freedom of speech and conscience.
Could you explain what you mean in red above?
The difference between abridged, and infringed.
Different words with different meanings.
Use of the term abridged by necessary implication, involves a lessening of an item or idea. The right to conscience shall not be lessened, as an unequivocal requirement. There are things that may be found to be abridged, both rightfully and properly, and not. As in a dictionary, or a list, or a number of things. Abridged does not carry a necessary implication of "improper", so that we may rightly further limit or qualify the term as in , "an improper abridgement", and make good grammatical and logical sense.
Subject to the laws of nature, and of God, alone.
To use the same modifying term with infringement is neither logical nor proper, as in "an improper infringement." Such usage is redundant. All infringements are by nature, improper. Infringement is not the same thing as simple limitation.
Infringed refers to the creation of an improper lessening.
There is no such thing as a "good infringement", it grates upon the mind and reason as well.
I guess I am not seeing how that is an explanation.[:I]
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Perhaps the most common misunderstandings of amendment 2, is the answer to the question "by who". Though the amendment is written in plain enough language, it does not specifically state the "by who", such as was incorporated into amendment 1.
Discuss.[:)]
Taking into account the follow up posts - if not by the court, who would you have interpret the 2nd?
the question presumes that an interpretation is needed.
It does presume. People have disagreed about the meaning of the BoR for about 250 years. Who, in your judgement, should decide?
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Perhaps the most common misunderstandings of amendment 2, is the answer to the question "by who". Though the amendment is written in plain enough language, it does not specifically state the "by who", such as was incorporated into amendment 1.
Discuss.[:)]
Taking into account the follow up posts - if not by the court, who would you have interpret the 2nd?
the question presumes that an interpretation is needed.
It does presume. People have disagreed about the meaning of the BoR for about 250 years. Who, in your judgement, should decide?
Disagreement does not change the clear text. Interpretation is merely a method of changing what was written into smething more palatable based on desires opposite to what is written.
That is all.
Collectivist gerbils, gnawing away at the foundations of the Republic.
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Perhaps the most common misunderstandings of amendment 2, is the answer to the question "by who". Though the amendment is written in plain enough language, it does not specifically state the "by who", such as was incorporated into amendment 1.
Discuss.[:)]
Taking into account the follow up posts - if not by the court, who would you have interpret the 2nd?
the question presumes that an interpretation is needed.
It does presume. People have disagreed about the meaning of the BoR for about 250 years. Who, in your judgement, should decide?
Disagreement does not change the clear text. Interpretation is merely a method of changing what was written into smething more palatable based on desires opposite to what is written.
That is all.
Collectivist gerbils, gnawing away at the foundations of the Republic.
So the answer is "no one decides, everyone should know" - is that it?
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Perhaps the most common misunderstandings of amendment 2, is the answer to the question "by who". Though the amendment is written in plain enough language, it does not specifically state the "by who", such as was incorporated into amendment 1.
Discuss.[:)]
Taking into account the follow up posts - if not by the court, who would you have interpret the 2nd?
the question presumes that an interpretation is needed.
It does presume. People have disagreed about the meaning of the BoR for about 250 years. Who, in your judgement, should decide?
The words themselves are clear enough and should decide for themselves. Any interpreting serves merely to water down, alter or otherwise diminish what is stated.
One need only look at DM's post above that the SC has ruled that infringed really means abridged. Sorry, that's not what it actually SAYS. Furthermore, I fail to put my finger on the portion of the constitution which authorizes the courts or another body to interpret the language of the document itself.
I am well aware that the SC thinks that's it's job, but pointedly, the support for that view is not found within the document that gives them the power to say so.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Perhaps the most common misunderstandings of amendment 2, is the answer to the question "by who". Though the amendment is written in plain enough language, it does not specifically state the "by who", such as was incorporated into amendment 1.
Discuss.[:)]
Taking into account the follow up posts - if not by the court, who would you have interpret the 2nd?
the question presumes that an interpretation is needed.
It does presume. People have disagreed about the meaning of the BoR for about 250 years. Who, in your judgement, should decide?
The words themselves are clear enough and should decide for themselves. Any interpreting serves merely to water down, alter or otherwise diminish what is stated.
One need only look at DM's post above that the SC has ruled that infringed really means abridged. Sorry, that's not what it actually SAYS. Furthermore, I fail to put my finger on the portion of the constitution which authorizes the courts or another body to interpret the language of the document itself.
I am well aware that the SC thinks that's it's job, but pointedly, the support for that view is not found within the document that gives them the power to say so.
True regarding SCOTUS, Article 3 Section 1 is all of about 2 lines long. Wasn't it Jackson who said "Justice Marsall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it" or words to that effect?
I think "free speech" means I can stand on the street corner and say "We've found Bin Laden and Seal Team 6 is going to Aballabad in three days to kill him". I say I can hand out flyers too. Do you think some may disagree - how is that settled?
The BoR and Constitution are inexact. I'm not too crazy about the efforts at interpretation, but I think we have to go with something other than "everyone ought to know".
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
"By whom" is not the operative concept in play most of the time; "shall not be infringed" does not need that qualification, stemming from the natural law both to property and self defense, in society. God's law in this matter needs no qualification, I presume.
The key to the concept of TRTKABA is the term "infringed".
Infringed is never used in a positive sense, it necessarily imposes the concept of an improper limitation.
That is the function of language, to draw proper distinctions through accepted and plain definitions.
So that in reading, the right to keep and bear arms is not to be improperly limited by anybody, and more specifically, the federal government, and through extension, neither by the states.
Otherwise, you end up with confusion.
Which is not too uncommon, at times.
perhaps then because the term "infringe" is so broad that it goes beyond merely laws, such as what congress may establish?
The construction of the second amendment differs from that of the first in that a particular application of the universal right is first identified, and then given as the rationale for both the defense and recognition of implicit appropriate limitation of both the right, and limitation to it's proper boundaries.
In the first, it may be noted that there is no hint of any restraint by the federal government. In many of the states' organic and enabling acts, the terminology often used is a guarantee of the the "free and perfect" liberty of conscience and speech (thought). Not even criminals or non-persons such as women and slaves are ever prohibited that liberty. Not so in the second.
Naturally, the principle of non-contradiction must lay behind any construction and understanding, and so both the several states as well as men must take up the task of restricting human sacrifice, shouting "fire", establishing standards of "fighting words", pornography, and the like. In accordance with natural law, and the laws of God.
I think the second is second, as it is necessarily subordinate to the first. the second is second, as it notes, being necessary for the protection of a free state.
A free state where citizens enjoy free and perfect freedom of speech and conscience.
Could you explain what you mean in red above?
The difference between abridged, and infringed.
Different words with different meanings.
Use of the term abridged by necessary implication, involves a lessening of an item or idea. The right to conscience shall not be lessened, as an unequivocal requirement. There are things that may be found to be abridged, both rightfully and properly, and not. As in a dictionary, or a list, or a number of things. Abridged does not carry a necessary implication of "improper", so that we may rightly further limit or qualify the term as in , "an improper abridgement", and make good grammatical and logical sense.
Subject to the laws of nature, and of God, alone.
To use the same modifying term with infringement is neither logical nor proper, as in "an improper infringement." Such usage is redundant. All infringements are by nature, improper. Infringement is not the same thing as simple limitation.
Infringed refers to the creation of an improper lessening.
There is no such thing as a "good infringement", it grates upon the mind and reason as well.
I guess I am not seeing how that is an explanation.[:I]
Different words with different meanings.
They did not use different terms to make the document a more enjoyable read, they were craftsmen well versed in grammar, rhetoric, logic, and philosophy.
They meant to say what they said.
yes, that part is not rocket surgery. What I don't understand is what you mean by quote:"In the first, it may be noted that there is no hint of any restraint by the federal government."What do you mean there is no hint of restrain by the federal government in the first? What does that mean? To me, the sentence makes no sense.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Perhaps the most common misunderstandings of amendment 2, is the answer to the question "by who". Though the amendment is written in plain enough language, it does not specifically state the "by who", such as was incorporated into amendment 1.
Discuss.[:)]
Taking into account the follow up posts - if not by the court, who would you have interpret the 2nd?
the question presumes that an interpretation is needed.
It does presume. People have disagreed about the meaning of the BoR for about 250 years. Who, in your judgement, should decide?
Disagreement does not change the clear text. Interpretation is merely a method of changing what was written into smething more palatable based on desires opposite to what is written.
That is all.
Collectivist gerbils, gnawing away at the foundations of the Republic.
So the answer is "no one decides, everyone should know" - is that it?
Ignorance and inability to read is not a reason for changing what is written.
Whether you want to face it or not, 'shall not be infringed' is simple and clear. Problem is, many people simply do not want to live in a nation where that concept and reality restricts government, for whatever reason.
That is all.
Perhaps the most common misunderstandings of amendment 2, is the answer to the question "by who". Though the amendment is written in plain enough language, it does not specifically state the "by who", such as was incorporated into amendment 1.
Discuss.[:)]
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right - Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.
"Because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,' the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era." (Source: The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century)
Anti-federalist no. 84- http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/anti_federalist_paper/anti_federalist_papers_84.php
Federalist no. 84- http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/federalist_papers/federalist_papers_84.php