2nd Amendment Conveys Individual Right
comments powered by Disqus
Allan Walstad - 3/22/2008
Even defenders of the right to keep and bear arms seem to have bought into the idea that the militia clause refers to organized military units under government control. "Militia" was used sometimes in that sense, other times in the sense of an armed populace or citizenry that might be called on to serve. "Well-regulated" was used in 18th century parlance to mean "well-coordinated" or "well-operating" or "effectively operating."
The relation between the two clauses of the Second Amendment is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary to serve the purpose of an effective militia, namely, the security of a free state. "Security" does not mean only defense by organized military units against invasion or insurrection. When armed citizens defend themselves, their homes or families, or when they come to the aid of their fellow citizens against attackers, they are contributing as members of the militia to security.
No interpretation that I've seen, if it uses the parenthetical phrase to negate the declaration of an individual right to keep and bears arms, can account respectfully and plausibly for the very existence of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Robert Lee Gaston - 3/21/2008
Try This: Read Federalist 46. You may find that he was reading the minds, or the words, of the founders.
Keith Halderman - 3/21/2008
A close reading of the Second Amendment does support my position. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, is an independent clause set off by commas and therefore that right is not tied to being in the militia. It always amazes me how people on your side of this issue are so willing to accept tyranny for a policy that has absolutely no track record of success. Your precious DC gun ban has done less than nothing to stem the tide of violence that city.
chris l pettit - 3/20/2008
Were you reading the minds of the Founders when you argued that?
It may be the most ridiculous legal statement I have ever heard. It is a nice ideological and maybe political beliefe, but to have that statement made in the legal realm is asinine.
You can argue that we need to apply things in a current historical and cultural context, and that your ideological position is the one given, but then you have to also respect the other diverse viewpoints that counter your position. The Second Amendment does not support your ideological position on its face. It requires the ideological assumptions you ask us to accept.
- Rare silent Native American movie of 1920s attracting a lot of interest
- It happened in Idaho and was the largest massacre of Indians in US history, but where exactly did it take place?
- Junípero Serra’s Missions Destroyed Entire Native Cultures. And Now He’s Going to Be a Saint.
- Isis destruction of Palmyra's Temple of Bel revealed in satellite images
- McKinley's lost his mountain. Should we still remember his presidency?
- Japanese historian upends the familiar narrative of WW 2 by taking a bottom up approach, focusing on fascism from the grassroots
- Holocaust-denying historian David Irving organises 'disgusting' £2,000-a-head holiday tours of former concentration camps and Hitler's HQ so people can 'make up their own mind about the truth'
- 72 history professors sign letter urging removal of Jefferson Davis statue from Kentucky Capitol
- 10 Years After Katrina, the Enduring Value of the Hurricane Digital Memory Bank
- Historian author Antony Beevor says his new World War 2 book may anger Americans