LukeT said:
Don't take this wrong Kodiak, but surely you guys can see how the Bible can have several different interpretations when a document that is only a couple of pages has several different interpretations.
Yes I can, but there is a preponderance of evidence...
LukeT said:
Obviously, the point of the right to bear arms was so that we could have a well regulated militia. How we define "well regulated" and "militia" certainly has a bearing on who can have exactly what kind of arms.
Not obviously...
LukeT said:
Is the guy who has a tank in his garage a member of a militia? Is that why he has the tank?
Good questions, but they have little bearing on a citizen's right to keep and bear arms, and the bearing they
do have, if any, seems counter-intuitive to me...
"Amendment II --
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Militia was just a reason given for originally instituting the 2nd Amendment. It protects the right of the
people, not just the militia."
The second amendment is composed of two parts: the
Justification clause, and the
Rights clause.
Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"
Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause."
"Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis." --
Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA See http:/www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm
The Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right:
The Supreme Court has listed the Second Amendment in at least two rulings as an individual right. --
Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood and
U.S. v. Cruikshank
The Supreme court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did not belong to the government. --
United States v. Miller
"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not thay are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training".
"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment."
"All of the evidence indicates that the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." --
U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331
"62% of those likely voters sampled believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while only 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias." --
Associated Television News Survey, August 1999
"There are 23 state constitutions with "right to keep and bear arms" clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only 3 have "for the common defense...." or other "collective rights" clauses."
"Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment, or the state analogs to it, only 10 (3.3%) have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846)." --
Clayton Cramer, historian, author of For the Defense of Themselves and the State_(Praeger Press, 1994), cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)
James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". --
Stephen P. Halbrook, "Where Kids and Gun Do Mix", Wall Street Journal, June 2000.
"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respectingthe rights of property: nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people: or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. --
Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 - Tucker's comments provide a number of rare insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice
"The signification attributed to the term "Militia" appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised
all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." --
U.S. v. Miller -the Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had any military (militia) use, and they wanted some evidence presented, confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons.
Please. Imagine this scenerio. a professional army with tanks,choppers,assault rifles,trained/professional soldiers vs what? a mob of civilians, scared ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, armed with hunting rifles.
