Courts ponder the second amendment

Morrigoon · 03-18-2008, 12:31 PM

In reaction to a DC-area ban on handguns, the courts are now mulling over the "right to bear arms".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23688073

innerSpaceman · 03-18-2008, 02:54 PM

Gun rights proponents and the Supremes' apparent pre-judgment on the matter simply baffles me.

If "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is a completely meaningless phrase, why is it there? How can it just be ignored, while "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is somehow not to be ignored???

And if you accept the common sense that we cannot simply ignore one part of a single sentence, and fail to ignore the other part of that same sentence, just how do you explain the admonition about a militia? If it's not to have anything to do with the right to bear arms, why is it there in the sentence about the right to bear arms?

It's not further down in a paragraph, it's not a sub-clause. It's right there, the beginning of the sentence. I suppose if Sesame Street had been around in the 18th Century, they could have written the sentence more for 2-year olds. But it's in common English nonetheless ... the right to bear arms by individuals is predicated on the security of a free state relying on a well-regulated militia.

Sheesh.

I love how it takes the Supreme Court to unravel this mystery of the common English language, and how they will conveniently bow to how the majority of modern Americans wish the 2nd Amendment would read instead of how it actually reads.

Gotta love that mob democracy. Much better than the representative government set up by the Constitution. Why not reinterpret all of it by modern mob standards? What fun!

Strangler Lewis · 03-18-2008, 03:08 PM

Judging from the news reports, it sounds like there are five votes for overturning the DC law. What will be interesting will be the reasoning and what it bodes for other gun control laws. Unless there's a lot of stuff in the debates over the Second Amendment, I would surprised to see them interpret the Amendment as focusing on an individual's right to own guns to protect his home.

E.g., when the militia clause says "free state," does it just mean free from foreign invasion or does it mean free from overstepping by the national government. If so, then states and their citizens should have arms on a par with the national government to repel incursions, which means we all get to own nuclear weapons.

blueerica · 03-18-2008, 03:15 PM

Commas-schmommas.

innerSpaceman · 03-18-2008, 03:35 PM

The commas are there for convenience, and do help in comprehending the sentence. But remove them, and the conundrum remains. You cannot simply ignore the part about the militia. Why is it there?

Why doesn't it say, "A man's home being his castle, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?"

I'll agree with the Strangler that it's unclear as to the purpose of the militia, but it's crystal clear that the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with home security.

You could come up with a hundred things that keeping and bearing arms would be good for. 98 of them would make more sense nowadays than to maintain a militia.

But the second amendment says none of those things.

I'm with Obama's Pastor ... God Damn America, God Damn America, God Damn America. What a fuctup place!

blueerica · 03-18-2008, 03:56 PM

I hope everyone knows I was just trying to be silly.

innerSpaceman · 03-18-2008, 03:57 PM

Eh, so were Dylan and Kleibold.

Morrigoon · 03-18-2008, 03:59 PM

Ah, but see the 2nd amendment is there to protect us from people like Cheney, who, but for the Constitution, would probably rather we be in an absolute dictatorship (and he's working on that pesky old Constitution thingy...)

Ponine · 03-18-2008, 04:17 PM

I thought as part of that in the initial writing that thought was that it was partly the ability of the people to bear arms, and form an army should the powers that be, or goverment choose to form an army,
and then the constituion would grant the people the power to fight the goverment controlled army.

Which may be the same thing that Stangler is saying, but I guess I dont understand what you are fired up about IsM

sleepyjeff · 03-18-2008, 04:11 PM

I once heard that when Madison wrote the amendment he originally meant for it to be placed within the body of the Constitution itself.

Does anyone know where he intended to put it and what clauses came before and after? Knowing that would help with context I'd think.

03-18-2008, 12:31 PM	#1
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	Courts ponder the second amendment In reaction to a DC-area ban on handguns, the courts are now mulling over the "right to bear arms". http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23688073 __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

03-18-2008, 02:54 PM	#2
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Gun rights proponents and the Supremes' apparent pre-judgment on the matter simply baffles me. If "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is a completely meaningless phrase, why is it there? How can it just be ignored, while "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is somehow not to be ignored??? And if you accept the common sense that we cannot simply ignore one part of a single sentence, and fail to ignore the other part of that same sentence, just how do you explain the admonition about a militia? If it's not to have anything to do with the right to bear arms, why is it there in the sentence about the right to bear arms? It's not further down in a paragraph, it's not a sub-clause. It's right there, the beginning of the sentence. I suppose if Sesame Street had been around in the 18th Century, they could have written the sentence more for 2-year olds. But it's in common English nonetheless ... the right to bear arms by individuals is predicated on the security of a free state relying on a well-regulated militia. Sheesh. I love how it takes the Supreme Court to unravel this mystery of the common English language, and how they will conveniently bow to how the majority of modern Americans wish the 2nd Amendment would read instead of how it actually reads. Gotta love that mob democracy. Much better than the representative government set up by the Constitution. Why not reinterpret all of it by modern mob standards? What fun!
	Submit to Quotes

03-18-2008, 03:08 PM	#3
Strangler Lewis Doing The Job Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: In a state Posts: 3,956	Judging from the news reports, it sounds like there are five votes for overturning the DC law. What will be interesting will be the reasoning and what it bodes for other gun control laws. Unless there's a lot of stuff in the debates over the Second Amendment, I would surprised to see them interpret the Amendment as focusing on an individual's right to own guns to protect his home. E.g., when the militia clause says "free state," does it just mean free from foreign invasion or does it mean free from overstepping by the national government. If so, then states and their citizens should have arms on a par with the national government to repel incursions, which means we all get to own nuclear weapons. __________________ Live now-pay later. Diner's Club!
	Submit to Quotes

03-18-2008, 03:15 PM	#4
blueerica Nueve Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,497	Commas-schmommas. __________________ Tomorrow is the day for you and me
	Submit to Quotes

03-18-2008, 03:35 PM	#5
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	The commas are there for convenience, and do help in comprehending the sentence. But remove them, and the conundrum remains. You cannot simply ignore the part about the militia. Why is it there? Why doesn't it say, "A man's home being his castle, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?" I'll agree with the Strangler that it's unclear as to the purpose of the militia, but it's crystal clear that the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with home security. You could come up with a hundred things that keeping and bearing arms would be good for. 98 of them would make more sense nowadays than to maintain a militia. But the second amendment says none of those things. I'm with Obama's Pastor ... God Damn America, God Damn America, God Damn America. What a fuctup place!
	Submit to Quotes

03-18-2008, 03:56 PM	#6
blueerica Nueve Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,497	I hope everyone knows I was just trying to be silly. __________________ Tomorrow is the day for you and me
	Submit to Quotes

03-18-2008, 03:57 PM	#7
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Eh, so were Dylan and Kleibold.
	Submit to Quotes

03-18-2008, 03:59 PM	#8
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	Ah, but see the 2nd amendment is there to protect us from people like Cheney, who, but for the Constitution, would probably rather we be in an absolute dictatorship (and he's working on that pesky old Constitution thingy...) __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

03-18-2008, 04:17 PM	#9
Ponine Virgin Ears Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,075	I thought as part of that in the initial writing that thought was that it was partly the ability of the people to bear arms, and form an army should the powers that be, or goverment choose to form an army, and then the constituion would grant the people the power to fight the goverment controlled army. Which may be the same thing that Stangler is saying, but I guess I dont understand what you are fired up about IsM __________________ There's something strange, There's something wrong. I see a change - It's like when love dies.
	Submit to Quotes

03-18-2008, 04:11 PM	#10
sleepyjeff Go Hawks Go! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parkrose Posts: 2,632	I once heard that when Madison wrote the amendment he originally meant for it to be placed within the body of the Constitution itself. Does anyone know where he intended to put it and what clauses came before and after? Knowing that would help with context I'd think. __________________ River Guardian-less
	Submit to Quotes