My Strange View of the 2A. Comments?

tr fox

A little groundwork first. I admire and respect those of you who are able to locate, recite and understand the numerous and various court decisions regarding things as important as our 2A rights (or as some say "no 2A rights). However, when presentng my arguments I usually try to avoid over burdening the debate table with a snow storm of "legal documents and opinions and court decision". Reason being is that often such court decisions, that many people want to use as a basis for further debate, are just plain wrong. So wrong that it makes little sense to even aknowledge that court decision.

For example the courts at one time ruled that most (perhaps all) black people were only part of a citizen/human being and not a complete citizen/human being as were the whites. The courts have also ruled that slavery was legal and constitutional. And I believe that the courts (corrrect me if necessary, but my reasoning still holds) ruled that it was legal to imprison in camps thousands of America citizens who were of Japanese descent during WWII.

And, since rules, laws, legal opinions, court decisions should have a strong anchor in the reality of fairness, reason, honesty, morality, etc. I often will argue from that direction. So it is with this argument.

We cannot deny that there is strong disagreement in the USA about who/what is exactly granted gun rights in the 2A. I look at it in a very simplified way. Suppose somehow, someway, EVERYONE had forgotten exactly what the 2A was saying? Well, let's examine the 2A and try to simplify.

"A well regulated milita,..." OK, say I can't figure out what that really refers to.

"...being necessary to the security of a free state,..." Let's see "security" for the government (the state) or for individual citizens? Let's say I don't know.

"..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.". OK, no problem with that part. It clearly gives the "people" (has to be citizens since the government is not "the people"; nor does any govt. I know of ever refer to itself as "the people") "the right" to "keep and bear firearms without infringement".

Yeah, this last part is pretty clear. Especially since the 2A is found in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights which is devoted to describing the rights that indivdual citizens have. In fact, if and when the US Constitution mentions powers given to the government, it clearly refers to the govenment.


Beside, if we all truly do want to think we live in a free country, ANY TIME there is any doubt about how much right we are given in the US Constitution, shouldn't a decision be made that comes down on the side of MAXIMUM rights for the citizens? Isn't that the only real way we Americans will be able to hang onto our rights for the next hundred years? Because if we start coming down on the side of MINIMUM rights decisions, at some point we will have DECIDED ourselves out of ALL our rights.

And if we all decide that some rights are too generous, THEN AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. But don't do an end run around the Constitution in order to get rid of a right you don't like. Because if you do so, you will have just harmed yourself by having just created a blueprint that can be used by your opponents WHO WANT TO HARM YOUR RIGHTS.

Comments?

Highball

BEAUTIFUL, TR....

Now..what do you think about gun control...?[:D][:D]

I too feel much the same about the court cases as you do..except I believe the courts are and HAVE been corrupted for many years.

I go to the fact that the Founders threw off the yoke of tyranny..and decided to prevent ANY government from doing it again...thusly the Second Amendment.
We are far past the time when we shoud have done something about the infringments....

tr fox

quote:Originally posted by Highball
BEAUTIFUL, TR....

Now..what do you think about gun control...?[:D][:D]

I too feel much the same about the court cases as you do..except I believe the courts are and HAVE been corrupted for many years.

I go to the fact that the Founders threw off the yoke of tyranny..and decided to prevent ANY government from doing it again...thusly the Second Amendment.
We are far past the time when we shoud have done something about the infringments....


In red above. Well...I don't llike gun control that only impacts you and me.....lawful peaceful gun owners.

WoundedWolf

All very good comments, TR. Well said, brother.

tr fox

quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
All very good comments, TR. Well said, brother.


And thank you brother.

gunphreak

Let's see if I can't shed some light on this....

quote:Originally posted by tr fox
A little groundwork first. I admire and respect those of you who are able to locate, recite and understand the numerous and various court decisions regarding things as important as our 2A rights (or as some say "no 2A rights). However, when presentng my arguments I usually try to avoid over burdening the debate table with a snow storm of "legal documents and opinions and court decision". Reason being is that often such court decisions, that many people want to use as a basis for further debate, are just plain wrong.

Sounds to me like you've hit the nail on the head, right here.

So wrong that it makes little sense to even acknowledge that court decision.

The courts are becoming more and more untrustworthy by the day. That is a wise decision.

For example the courts at one time ruled that most (perhaps all) black people were only part of a citizen/human being and not a complete citizen/human being as were the whites.

Thereby demonstrating that sometimes tyranny by the majority is not at all freedom or liberty.

The courts have also ruled that slavery was legal and constitutional. And I believe that the courts (correct me if necessary, but my reasoning still holds) ruled that it was legal to imprison in camps thousands of America citizens who were of Japanese descent during WWII.

Somebody who's done his homework... I like that.

And, since rules, laws, legal opinions, court decisions should have a strong anchor in the reality of fairness, reason, honesty, morality, etc. I often will argue from that direction. So it is with this argument.

I guess this sounds reasonable, up until someone tries to argue that a court could rule that rape is totally legal, and that those who dissent can go to the courts and have it changed, but meanwhile, must submit to it. Forget that!!!

We cannot deny that there is strong disagreement in the USA about who/what is exactly granted gun rights in the 2A.

But you know what the answer is to it.

I look at it in a very simplified way. Suppose somehow, someway, EVERYONE had forgotten exactly what the 2A was saying? Well, let's examine the 2A and try to simplify.

"A well regulated milita,..." OK, say I can't figure out what that really refers to.

Well, there are a whole bunch of other people who already fit in that sinking boat. To say no one would be able to figure this out is in contradiction to research, common sense, and knowledge.

"...being necessary to the security of a free state,..." Let's see "security" for the government (the state) or for individual citizens? Let's say I don't know.

Considering only people can be free, and not entities, there really is nowhere to go with this statement, other than to concur that it means the people should be free.

"..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.". OK, no problem with that part. It clearly gives the "people" (has to be citizens since the government is not "the people"; nor does any govt. I know of ever refer to itself as "the people") "the right" to "keep and bear firearms without infringement".

The heart of this is still intact, no matter how much you don't know about the verbiage in this statement.

Yeah, this last part is pretty clear. Especially since the 2A is found in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights which is devoted to describing the rights that indivdual citizens have. In fact, if and when the US Constitution mentions powers given to the government, it clearly refers to the govenment.

Pretty much. Take a look at what is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The rights necessary to ensure freedom are the ones enumerated. These are the rights tyrants try to overthrow first. Tyrants always attempt to disarm the populace, censor their books, gag them from speaking their mind, force them to submit to the religion of the state, do not allow redress of grievances, abuse your property, invade your home and business, seize your property on a whim, steal your money, imprison you for no reason, circumvent due process of law, and hold minor offenders on exhorbitant and opressive bails and subject enemies of the state to the gulags. These are the rights that tyrants must destroy in order to prevail.

Beside, if we all truly do want to think we live in a free country, ANY TIME there is any doubt about how much right we are given in the US Constitution, shouldn't a decision be made that comes down on the side of MAXIMUM rights for the citizens?

Well, it is written that freedom is expansive, while gov't is enumerated. In other words, the gov't is given all its powers up front. It cannot expand on them. The rights of the people are not enumerated, and unless such a right could demonstrate itself to be abhorent to another's rights, it is to be left intact.

Isn't that the only real way we Americans will be able to hang onto our rights for the next hundred years? Because if we start coming down on the side of MINIMUM rights decisions, at some point we will have DECIDED ourselves out of ALL our rights.

That is correct....

And if we all decide that some rights are too generous, THEN AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. But don't do an end run around the Constitution in order to get rid of a right you don't like.

Just because the right is repealed, doesn't mean it doesn't exist... it only means that the gov't will no longer recognize it, and agents enforcing this type of doctrine should be killed on sight as traitors to the United States for waging war on her citizens.

Because if you do so, you will have just harmed yourself by having just created a blueprint that can be used by your opponents WHO WANT TO HARM YOUR RIGHTS.

Very possible...

Comments?

I guess you could say that...

dsmith

Well said, TR. Citing court rulings is a bad idea. Imagine if the Supreme Court's ruling about Fredrick Douglass not being a person would have held up. The courts can be just as corrupt as the politicians.

1776-1976

from the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation and Principles, and organizing its Powers in such a form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light or transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to wich they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity wich constrains them to alter their Former System of Government. The History of the present King of Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid World. This is all pretty much self explanatory as to what our founders intentions are.

River Rat

You can say that Court rulings are unreliable, and it is true that judges are fallible. But the overwhelming majority of court findings on gun rights over the past two centuries have been overwhelmingly favorable to gun-owning citizens. That is because, in spite of the flowering language and free-wheeling punctuation of the founding era, the intent of the 2A is still quite clear.

The best way to know the intent of the Founding Fathers is to read their own statements, letters, biographies, and above all the Federalist Papers. The FP were written to help "sell" the Amendments to the public -- which was essential to getting the Constitution ratified.

There are only two things one needs to really know and understand: 1) the Militia is defined by the U.S. Code as the sum total of all able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 47 who are not in the military, and 2) the Revolutionary War was started when the British Army attempted to seize arms from the militia.