On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:56:13 -0500, The Lone Weasel
<loneweasel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Natman <nat_mann@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:44:18 -0500, The Lone Weasel
>
>To claim that the
>> phrase "right of the people" means one thing in the Second
>> Amendment, then claim in means exactly the opposite in
>> another amendment in the *same* do***ent is pretty brazen.
>
>Context. You have to know something about history and law to
>know the context of words used in the Constitution.
>
>For example, do you think the word "defence" means the same
>thing every place it appears in the Constitution? Don't you
>think it's odd that we find the term "common defence" twice, and
>you somehow misconstrue "the right of the people" as an
>individual right? You also find "defence" used in the Sixth
>Amendment where in criminal prosecutions the accused has the
>right "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence".
>
>Do you say the term "defence" is used in exactly the same
>context everywhere in the Constitution, Gnatman? Do you say
>"the common defence" refers to the accused at trial? Do you say
>"the Assistance of Counsel for his defence" means military
>troops are used to defend communities, states, the nation?
>
I don't think every word means exactly the same thing every time it is
used. Let's talk about context. The Second Amendment has a lot of
contexts.
There's the historical context:
Here are a few quotes (thanks Topp):
> "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in
> full possession of them."
> -Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646
>
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson
> Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
>
> "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be
> infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained
> to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."
> -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)
>
> "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to
> prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens,
> from keeping their own arms."
> -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the
> Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87
There are lots more. Leif dismisses these without discussion as "Guns
Unlimited" quotes. but "Guns Unlimited", whoever that is, didn't SAY
them, the Founding Fathers did. And why do people who sup****t gun
freedom use these quotes? BECAUSE THE QUOTES SUP****T THEIR CASE.
Now if you can provide some authenticated quotes by the people who
wrote the Bill of Rights that sup****t YOUR case that no one outside
the National Guard should have guns, I'd be happy to hear them.
If there is any doubt that the Founding Fathers intended that guns
should be owned by individuals as a check against oppressive
governments, I ask you: WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THEY WERE DOING IN
1776?
The concept that they intended that arms should only be allowed under
the control of a government entity (the state militias) is completely
out of historical context.
The context of the Bill of Rights:
The Bill of Rights is a list of the people's rights as individuals.
From another perspective it is a list of restrictions ON THE
GOVERNMENT.
Words may have different meanings, but the phrase, let me repeat,
PHRASE, "the right of the people" is very specific and is used
consistently to mean the right of the people AS INDIVIDUALS. It is
completely inconsistent with the context of the Bill of Rights to
suppose that the Second Amendment grants a privilege (keeping arms)
solely for members of a government body (a state militia). If that
were their intent it wouldn't have been in the Bill of Rights.
Finally there is the context of the Second Amendment itself.
"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."
There are two verbs in the sentence (Being [necessary] and Shall Not
Be [infringed]). There are two clauses. The first preferatory clause
says that a Militia is necessary. The second operative clause says
that the right of the people shall not be infringed.
There is NOTHING about the right only extending to militia members,
that the militia only consists of militias that are part of state
governments or any of the other nonsense you guys have tried to pile
on. There is NOTHING that justifies turning the phrase "the right of
the people" to mean anything other than what it means in every
amendment; the right of the people AS INDIVIDUALS to whatever the
amendment recognizes.
If I may paraphrase Lief, if the founders had wanted the amendment to
apply only to State Militia members, they certainly could have said
so.
To quote the decision reversing the DC handgun ban:
"Page 36
The prefatory language announcing the desirability of a well regulated
Militia even bearing in mind the breadth of the concept of a militia
is narrower than the guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear
arms. The Amendment does not protect "the right of militiamen to keep
and bear arms," but rather "the right of the people." The operative
clause, properly read, protects the owner****p and use of weaponry
beyond that needed to preserve the state militias. Again, we point out
that if the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the
right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to
imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We
therefore take it as an expression of the drafters' view that the
people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that
the preservation of the militia was the right's most salient
political benefit and thus the most appropriate to express in a
political do***ent."
When you say that it is im****tant to take the Second Amendment "in
context", you mean you want license to take it OUT OF CONTEXT, to spin
whatever meaning you want on top of it. The favorite is to take the
word "militia" out of ALL THREE contexts and spin endless fantasies
from it.
***Just because the word militia appears in the amendment does NOT
provide a "military context" that justifies changing its meaning. ***
***************
If it suited your purposes, you guys could look at the moon and swear
it was the sun, each in your own style:
Spaz: It's the sun because I want it to be the sun.
The Lone Weasel: It's the sun, ****head.
Lief: The object is the earth's satellite. It is lunar in all its
aspects. To quote Shakespeare, in THE TAMING OF THE SHREW:
"PETRUCHIO:
Now, by my mother's son, and that's myself,
It shall be moon, or star, or what I list"
Therefore, I conclude it is the sun.
Sorry guys, but it's still the moon.
A follow up to this post:
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled it has been established firmly:
The Second Amendment is about an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. The "collective
right" theory has been thouroghly debunked as the empty shell it
always was.
You guys, Spaz, Lief, The Lone Weasel, Prof Jonez, et al were WRONG,
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
You are going to have to find a new topic to be obnoxious about. Which
given your lack of intellectual honesty, refusal to make a logical
case and eagerness to substitue insults for honest argument, shouldn't
be hard.
|
