doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Are these liberals you guys talking about?

Kingsley:

I swear sometimes I think you just like to stir up a commotion - like pitching a hand grenade into a chicken coop. Perhaps thats what journalists do.

I digress.

The prime example of an explanation of the Constitution is the federalist papers. While they pre-date the Bill of Rights by some 10 years, every time the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is discussed, there is no doubt that the right is considered an " individual right". Justice Joseph Story's Constitutional Commentaries, 1833, ( Ill get better cites if you wish ) left no doubt abpout the situation in that era.

The jurisprudence springing from interpretation of the 13 and 14th Amendments, when laws to disarm and prevent the voting of ex-slaves were overturned, the right of these new citizens to " keep and bear arms" " was right up there with the right to vote. And, as Pete rightly points out, the Congress even came to that conclusion in 1982.

This "collective" rights idea is a pernicious falsehood.

The states are sovereign, and always had the right to keep militia. The right to have a militia is imbedded in the main text of the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 8 - Powers of Congress, gives Congress the power to " To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Article 1, Section 10- Powers Prohibited of the States, prohibits them from keeping " Troops", ie, regular armed forces. The states are not prohibited "militia".

Note that the existence of the militia is in no doubt, and the States maintain the authority to train them, in accord with the regulations from Congress ( in modern times, US Army and US Air Force regulations, as the case may be).

Any proposition that Amendment II was anything other than what it, in plain English, appears to be, is silly at best. In a litany of individual rights, which are referred to as rights of " The People", is it logical that the term " The people"... means in every instance an individual, except in Amendment II, where it is p[ropsed to actually mean " the States".

That is silly on the face. If the word " People" and the Word" State" are synonyms, we should be able to perform a word for word substitution, and arrive at a reasonable phrase. Lets take that one out for a spin, shall we?

" ... The right of The State of Texas to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

" ... The right of The State of Oklahoma to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Ok lets think about this. The above phrases are basically nonsense.

1) A state, being a political unit, cannot "bear" arms. Only men, individuals, can BEAR arms.

2) Article 8 does not give the Congress the power to limit the militia of the states, other than making sure that their discupline and training regimen meets a particular standard, but even this acknoledges the states right to have a militia, and to appoint the officers and control the militia.

3) Article 10 says the States cannot have a regular Army. A Militia is not a regular Army.

4) Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People

" 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."

A lovely restatement of the restrictions on the Congress. Hmmm... I think that puts the kibosh on the proposition. No where does the Constitution prevent the States from having a militia. If that is so, then the purpose of the Second Amendment, Amendment II, "The Palladium of our Liberties", as Mr. Justice Story put it, must be what it in plain English says.

It sure does upset a bunch of folks, and confuses a lot of our friends, but by golly, thats one of those things that makes us Americans, and me a Texan.

Unlike so many British and Canadians, I do not think like a subject, I don't need Bobby Peel or the friendly Mountie to protect me, and I will not be placed in the position that I cannot do it myself. Being "free" is much more than being a well-tended and watered sheep.

Regards

Gregory K. Taggart

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06f...amp;oref=slogin

OK, here's the article. Names Lawrence Tribe and Sanford Levinson. Could also include Dershowitz, I suppose. All have begrudgingly admitted the 2nd means what it says. I think Tribe and Dershowitz have been calling for a constitutional amendment to repeal.

The part that bugs me is the spin that there was once this great consensus (presumably, after the oft misunderstood 'Miller') that the 2nd somehow conferred a collective right. For the first 150 plus years of US history there was not one printed opinion or document to support the idea that the 2nd was anything but an individual right.

In the end, the right - like a genie that has escaped from the bottle - will protect itself, if push comes to shove. We all hope this does not happen, of course. Thus, we continue to vote and to write our senators and congressmen.

Sam

They are calling for its repeal. They have come to realize two things. One, they could not get rid of private gun ownership by pretending that it was not an individual right. Two, that by doing number one, their sacred cows like abortion and the 1st amendment could be destroyed via the same means (Dershowitz has openly made this point before).

The mask that they pretend to wear, "We don't want to ban guns", has finally come off now that they are calling for a repeal. That they have admitted that it is an individual right does not mean they are no longer an enemy when they call for the 2nd amendment to be repealed.

I used to work with a lady who was real PITA. She would go through a job file until she found some 'problem'. She would run around for a week 'fixing' the problem until she finally had 'taken care of it'. Then she spent the next week patting herself on the back for having saved our asses once again.

The thing is, when she finally wound down, everyone couldn't help but notice the job file was exactly the same as when she first started her wild goose chase.

I am sure she was a liberal.

Recommended reading: The Second Amendment Primer, A citizen’s guidebook to the history, sources and authorities for the constitutional guarantees of the right to keep and bear arms. The book was written by Les Adams and published by Palladium Press Birmingham, Alabama in 1996. The author walks you through the chronology of the second amendment.

Many thanks your views. I posted more from a mischievous sense that no one can be neatly categorized or labelled these days. We're liberal on some issues and what I think of as foolish moss-back Tory on others. At least I and all my friends are, and that's why I posted here to the world. Regards, King

King, where you been huh?
We are more deeply divided than ever!
The left-leaners don't have guncabinets.
They count their toilet paper sheets by the fire.

It's silly, and counterproductive, to use labels such as conservative and liberal when talking about gun rights.

MANY people who call themselves "liberal" support gun rights. Many people (especially politicians) who consider themselves as "conservatives" have/do/will trade away gun rights.

The sooner we realize that yammering about those "danged liberals" only costs us the support of liberal gun lovers, the better off we will be.

I don't care what a politician's views are on any other issue if he/she supports gun rights.

That is the only way we win on our issues.

Now there's some disinformation for you!
The nightly news leaders of the Dems are about 100% anti-gun - you know, the ones you've voted in.
Think welfare, over gun rights, and you'd be spot on.

Ah friends:

The Second Amendment does not create a right. It merely RECOGNIZES a pre-exisitng right.

Examine, once again, the text.

"...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It does not say " Congress has created a right". Nor can one infer that the right has been created by the Amendment, which is indeed the case with Amendments III, V, VI, VII, and VIII.

Should Tribe, et al, get such a repeal passed, which strikes me as so unlikely as to not even be worthy of comment ( other than that the Tribe cabal [ no pun intended] have finally agreed it IS an Individual right), that would work no change.

A right which pre-exists the Constitution, cannot be removed by a legislative act, and the act would be void on its face ab initio. In addition, Congress can no more repeal the " Right to bear Arms" than it can repeal the " Right to Life" or "Right to Liberty" or the " Right to Pursue Happiness". These are Natural Rights and stem from the Creator.

Any government which attempted to "repeal" a natural right, would be giving evidence of its own illegitamacy.

Regards

GKT