Gun Control and Second Amendment Rights

[AFTERMATH]

If one were to be compelled by law to ask permission prior to exorcising the first amendment right of free speech; would that be a violation?
Should background checks be required of church goers? An unstable person could easily misinterpret religious text to justify evil - Look at the middle east.
Oh, and let's make sure you have a journalist identification card before you are able to publish anything.
And yes, you are free to associate with anyone as long as you send a list of your friends and their occupations to the government.

A right, as the founding generation saw it was not an entitlement or a privilege. A person should not have to ask, inform or otherwise be denied these liberties. The Declaration of Independence referred to rights as inalienable. Rights, in fact, are something that cannot be given or taken away by men. They exist in nature and are 'endowed by our Creator' and therefor unconditional. The right to bear arms is essentially the right to protect ones freedom and liberties from those who desire to take them.

The 2nd Amendment is a two fold amendment. It exclaims the right - "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It also includes the rationale: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
Militia, essentially refers to all those capable of defending the liberties of the American people. More specifically, at the time, it was considered free white males of fighting ability. Regulated, in the militia sense means armed and trained. But this isn't as important to your topic as is the second half. Unless, you of course want to make a case for militias.

Contrary to the 'interpretations' of some, the right itself is not contingent upon the reason... Quite frankly, they could have left that out and folks would still have the "right to keep and bear arms." If I were to say that transportation is necessary to commute to work; people can have transportation - would any logical person come to the conclusion that therefor only people who work need transportation? One doesn't need to be a Vulcan to understand the logical flaw in this argument.

Therefor, let us focus on the right itself. We've established that a right is essentially an unconditional freedom. I don't think we need to define who the people are. So, what about the right to keep and bear arms?

Well, "arms" essentially means armaments or weapons, at least in our current use of the English language. However, while often used interchangeably, "arms" and "weapons" do not necessarily carry the exact same meaning or more blatantly, their connotations. "Arms" is more often used in the context instruments of war and carries with it the notion of preparation. "Weapons" however, is more simply an instrument used to cause injury and carries with it the notion of evil deeds. Think of it like the difference between: fundamental and basic - or - kill and murder. While we don't necessarily need an exorcise in the English language, at this time, I feel it's important to recognize that there is a difference. If we recognize that, we can begin to understand that the 2nd amendment does not refer solely to arms in use at that time. Same as the 1st amendment does not exclusively protect printing presses, wordage and religious institutions that were common at the time. Also they made no distinction in the 2nd amendment between small arms(rifles and pistols) and heavier weaponry. I believe that a people without the foresight to think of the possibilities of modern automatic and semi-automatic firearms would certainly had made provisions to prohibit the cannons, mortars, rockets and bombs that they did have at the time. In fact, not only did the colonists, who would become Americans, posses and use these instruments of warfare, the very muskets that many of them fought with were not well suited for sporting purposes - they were designed specifically for the battlefield and weren't much good for hunting.

Now that we know what "arms" refers to let's take a look at what we can do with them. "To keep and bear" is how they put it. To keep means to hold, retain and maintain. "Bear" however is a little trickier it has several meanings. In this context could mean to carry, produce, or act upon. Quite possibly all three. Back then folks, having to write something was a much more tedious affair than spewing letters out on a keyboard. You'll notice many of the documents at the time are written succinctly. To do that effectively requires a certain understanding of words, their uses and definitions. It seems to be a dying art these days, especially in legal documents, but with the right usage of words one can convey multiple ideas within a very short sentence. But effectively the phrase "to keep and bear" could be read: to retain, maintain, carry, produce and use arms. Again, they could have written out all the types of arms which could be used but that would take forever with a quill... Time was better spent debating, arguing and dueling.

Now we come to the end of the amendment - "shall not be infringed." So not only does the the amendment say what the people can do and why they can do it, it also states what the government can't do. After all it is an amendment to the constitution, which is an agreement between the people, states and federal government, that tells the government exactly what it can and can't do. The right shall not be infringed. This amendment is pretty hot-headed and emotional compared to the other ones. I doesn't say the congress shall make no law, etc... It straight up says, this right should not, cannot, and will not be infringed or tampered with. Why do they decide to use such harsh language here? I don't know... Perhaps it was because they just got done fighting a long, difficult, and costly war that started because of some crazy gun control scheme. If you read it aloud, not only does it read like a shield against government oppression it sounds like a down-right warning. That's why some folks get scared when they hear it.

"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."
-Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

And there you have it - People have an inherent right that was recognized, not created, by the constitution. They created a nation that was designed to serve and protect the liberties of its inhabitants - not the other way around. Thus, we shifted the entire paradigm of world history. But everything goes in cycles, if we don't do something now, there are dark days ahead.

Note: As a few posts below allude to; it was, and continues to be, that the only way one can stand to lose their rights is by attempting to take rights from another. Thus, criminals having infringed upon another's right stand to lose theirs.

Some of my sources for this include the constitution, my memory of documents/articles written during the era and an 18th century dictionary written by Samuel Jackson - 'Cause unfortunately words have a gay old way of changing meaning, but ideas don't.


Hope this aids in your understanding and helps provide the foundation of your argument.

[JohnK87]

I found the legal argument against registration to be very interesting, plus looking at laws recently passed keeps it topical.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/0 ... ore-208045

[jgalt]

Two amendments to AFTERMATH's post:

1 - I'm quite sure he means Samuel Johnson, not Samuel Jackson...

2 - His description of rights as "inalienable" (or natural, fundamental, God-given, etc.) is correct so far as it goes.

There are of course fundamental rights inherent within each of us due to the fact of our birth - the right to self defense being one. There are in addition other categories of rights:

* Constitutional - those rights granted by a foundational document (those fundamental rights included in the Constitution are not granted by it, but rather are recognized by it - those that are not fundamental are in fact granted or constitutional rights)

* Legal - those rights created by a legitimate ruling or legislative / executive authority

* Contractual - those rights created by agreement of two or more individuals. These typically depend on a legal system for enforcement, but they are not dependant upon one for their creation and are therefore their own category...

I bring this up only to make it clear (in case it wasn't already) that not all rights are equal. Fundamental rights such as the right to self defense cannot be taken away. An unjust system may make choosing to exercise them punishable, but that doesn't remove them. A constitutional right can typically only be changed with great difficulty, and a legal right may typically be changed by any majority.

I suspect this is a lot more than you are looking for, and probably not relevant to your paper, so I'll leave it here...

[river_boater]

You might also want to look at Continental Congress. v. King George, et al, 1776.

Seriously, there is a very good book titled The Founders Second Amendment (ISBN-13:978-1-56663-792-3) by Stephen P. Halbrook that provides a very in-depth analysis of the 2A, it's origins, and the politics of the time.

[EdwardsTo]

I'm having fun just learning all of this myself! Please, keep the information coming! I may actually enjoy working on this paper over spring break next week! Hey, maybe after it's done I'll post it on here for you all to read!

[river_boater]

I'm having fun just learning all of this myself! Please, keep the information coming! I may actually enjoy working on this paper over spring break next week! Hey, maybe after it's done I'll post it on here for you all to read!

Please do!

[jshuberg]

Also remember that no right, be it the right to keep and bear arms, or even the right to life is absolute. An individual person can be stripped of any of their rights by due process of law, in front of a judge or jury, and can mount a defense. If the government presumes to limit the exercise of a fundamental right without due process, it is an infringement, and thus unconstitutional.

Also be aware that in modern times rights fall into two categories, fundamental rights, and legal rights. When examining the founding and supporting documents, they used the term right to describe a fundamental right, and they used the term privilege to describe what we currently call a legal right. For example, the writ of habeas corpus was specifically identified in the constitution as being a privilege, where today it is referred to as being a right (specifically a legal right).

Also note that the only place the phrase "shall not be infringed" is used in the constitution is the 2nd amendment. In other places the phrase "congress shall pass no law..." is used. This was not by accident. The 2nd amendment was intended to be a more concrete, a more absolute protection against government restrictions than any of the other rights recognized in the bill of rights. It is in fact the mechanism that allows the people to retain all of their other rights.

An armed man is a citizen.
An unarmed man is a subject.

[AFTERMATH]

Two amendments to AFTERMATH's post:

1 - I'm quite sure he means Samuel Johnson, not Samuel Jackson...

2 - His description of rights as "inalienable" (or natural, fundamental, God-given, etc.) is correct so far as it goes.

There are of course fundamental rights inherent within each of us due to the fact of our birth - the right to self defense being one. There are in addition other categories of rights:

* Constitutional - those rights granted by a foundational document (those fundamental rights included in the Constitution are not granted by it, but rather are recognized by it - those that are not fundamental are in fact granted or constitutional rights)

* Legal - those rights created by a legitimate ruling or legislative / executive authority

* Contractual - those rights created by agreement of two or more individuals. These typically depend on a legal system for enforcement, but they are not dependant upon one for their creation and are therefore their own category...

I bring this up only to make it clear (in case it wasn't already) that not all rights are equal. Fundamental rights such as the right to self defense cannot be taken away. An unjust system may make choosing to exercise them punishable, but that doesn't remove them. A constitutional right can typically only be changed with great difficulty, and a legal right may typically be changed by any majority.

I suspect this is a lot more than you are looking for, and probably not relevant to your paper, so I'll leave it here...

Agreed,

I was burning holes in the keyboard trying to type up the last couple paragraphs, while the barista was telling me the clock says it's time to close. I know Samuel Jackson is old, but I don't think he's that old - or smart.

I do wish however, the definition of rights was exclusive to those fundamental - less confusion that way.

I'm having fun just learning all of this myself! Please, keep the information coming! I may actually enjoy working on this paper over spring break next week! Hey, maybe after it's done I'll post it on here for you all to read!

Don't forget to take a bit of time to exorcise your rights while you're at it.

[farmerj]

This is all I am going to say on this topic.

I was asked by my daughter here to give her some input on this paper.

I invited her to come here instead. I gave her MacDonald and Heller and SCOTUS and suggested she come here and post her topic.

Following it ever so lightly, I am so happy she's received the welcome she has.

It's what I have come to know from the MNGT community.

Thanks guys.


ETA:

This is the same little girl that embarrassed Phorvick and I in tic-tac-to with his single shot derringer he used to have to only shot .22 shorts.

[jspace]

*snip*
Don't forget to take a bit of time to exorcise your rights while you're at it.

That's probably the last thing someone should do
The only advice I can give on this is to quadruple check for simple mistakes like above. Doesn't matter what you meant to say (or that everyone reading will get the intent), but what's actually written down.

[jgalt]

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

The link is to an article by Sanford Levinson - a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas, and a self-professed "card carrying ACLU member" & liberal - called The Embarrassing Second Amendment.

It is "embarrassing" because he came to the conclusion that the 2A doesn't mean what he & all his liberal friends would like to believe it does (that is only applies to states & their militias). He believes it is intended to be an individual right. It was one of the first articles by someone who wasn't already a strict supporter of individual rights, and therefore holds a special place in the academic discussion about the 2A.

It includes extensive footnotes which themselves will be a wealth of both knowledge & references to other scholarly works that may apply to the writing of your paper.

Have fun...

[whiteox]

That Yale article was a good read. Interesting that it is 24 years old.

[EdwardsTo]

So, in writing this I will be quoting a few things... Just wondering if there's a certain way any of you would like me to quote you guys, using your screen names or just saying it was from the forum. Don't want to offend anybody is all! Thanks guys! I turn it in this Friday so I should be posting it on here soon!

[jgalt]

I'm pretty sure it won't be a benefit to you to be quoting "John Galt" as a source in your paper...

All you should need is the name of the forum & a url. If you want to link directly to the post being quoted, get the url from the title area of that particular post (the "Re: Gun Control and Second Amendment Rights" part...).

[MNGunner]

I would offer to help here, but I think that too many would complain.

(But, if I were to help, it would go something like this:
Dymmycrats are the enemies of guns, and therefore the enemies of ALL rights, for as long as you have the 2nd, you can always regain any and all other rights and as soon as you lose the 2nd, they can take away as many rights as they like).