Gun Debate Part Deux

[Hazard]

Yes, I don't follow details of American legislation. If you'd mentioned that repeal right away, it might've saved some time?

If you would have just come forward and say that you don't follow anything that happens here, it would make it easier for me to understand everything you say. I could also include everything you might need on a topic to gain an intelligent view of what is going on. If you need help, just ask for it.

--Concerning the right to bear arms:

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.

When I read that statement, and when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William H. Rehnquist reads the that statement, I read it as to say that Amendment 2 in the Bill of Rights gurantees a) a State's right to have and mantained a militia/National Guard and b) that the people have the right to own weapons. It is based on my strict and conservative interpretation of the consitution. That is that I have not re-arranged the words and cut it out and pasted it back together in a mural, as is the job of lawyers and liberals alike.

[Grok]

Excellent post, in my opinion.  To me it clearly indicates the framers' position that they will never grant their servant government the ability to take away the individuals self-granted right to bear arms.  Whether someone agrees with this today, or not, does not change the intent or content of the message.

Americans grant to themselves, and retain for themselves, the rights to bear arms.  Furthermore, they specifically deny the right of their servant government to ever make any law to take that right away.

To gun-rights advocates, I believe that to be their position.

[Adron]

To me, it indicates the impression, held at the time the constitution was written, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. For that reason (and that reason alone as specified here), they choose not to infringe upon rights of the people to keep and bear arms.

If it would be later shown that the states no longer organize well regulated militia to secure the free state, the whole sentence is ready to fall. If the intention was to never ever take away the right to bear arms, why would it be qualified with the reason for not taking away the right to bear arms right then?

The statement as it is both specifies that states should have a well organized militia, and that people are allowed to carry guns. But, as I posted about in other threads, I'm used to Swedish law, meant to be not taken as a set of words, but interpreted according to the intentions of the lawmakers. And the intention of those lawmakers seems tightly coupled to the need for a militia.


Also, there's no reason to be overly afraid of changing things. If the constitution isn't good, make an amendment and fix it. It's been done before!

[Hazard]

To me, it indicates the impression, held at the time the constitution was written, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. For that reason (and that reason alone as specified here), they choose not to infringe upon rights of the people to keep and bear arms.

It is written in order to control the independence of the states against the "big brother" federal government. It was written at a time where it was felt neccessary that the central government not become too powerful and become again like the British monarchy. The ability of states to have a National Guard is important to that balance.

If it would be later shown that the states no longer organize well regulated militia to secure the free state, the whole sentence is ready to fall. If the intention was to never ever take away the right to bear arms, why would it be qualified with the reason for not taking away the right to bear arms right then?

It is specifically stated that the right shall not be infringed because of people who think like you do. It bars you from stripping our right to carry weapons. The amendment is there for protection, it grants the people the right to protect themselves.

The statement as it is both specifies that states should have a well organized militia, and that people are allowed to carry guns.

That is a classic left-wing interpretation of the Consitution. Molding and re-shaping the Constitution so it reads to fit your own agenda. States do in fact still keep a guard, and it is legal in all states for people to protect themselves.

But, as I posted about in other threads, I'm used to Swedish law, meant to be not taken as a set of words, but interpreted according to the intentions of the lawmakers.

Swedish and liberal law. Liberal not as an insult, but liberal by defenition. The man that wrote the Declaration stood for strict interpretation, that the law should be enforced exactly how it is written. To me, that is the way to do it. Luckily, so does our Supreme Court.

And the intention of those lawmakers seems tightly coupled to the need for a militia.

Only partially. Consider looking around for an explaination of why the Bill of Rights was written to expand your base of knowledge.