Constitutional Interpretation Surrounding the Second Amendment

[Cruentus]

I started this to get a discussion going on the second amendment itself.

Here is the actual language:

"Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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."

First, to clear the air on this, This does not mean that one must be in a militia to own a firearm, as many wrongfully interpret the amendment to support an anti-gun stance. It says that a. the rights for States to have a well regulated militia, and b. the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now that we cleared that one up, lets talk about what the framers intended this amendment for.

I believe that the framers intended for this amendment to protect states, and the people, against a tyranical federal government. The idea of having to defend oneself from ones own government is not an issue that most people like to explore when talking about the second amendment. However, one has to consider the mindset of the time period, and one has to still consider the possability of a government gone tyrannical today. The framers had just seperated from England, and were very afraid of "big government" and government gaining too much power and imposing tyranny on the people. So, just as in the decleration of Independance, we as people were given the right to protect ourselves and our property from a tyrannical government.

In order to protect ourselves from our Government, the right to bear arms was and is still nessicary. The second amendment specifically illustrates our rights to self-defense; not just from each other, but from our own leadership.

But, the question is, where is the line drawn? We have the rights, and need to be able to reasonably defend ourselves against intruders and criminals, and against tyranny. If we go with this logic, then we have the rights to own what some would consider "military weapons." The question is where and how do we draw the line, or should we draw the line at all.

This seems like a more interesting discussion...so I'd like to hear your opinions...

Paul

 

[AC_Pilot]

Like the "shot heard round the world" at Lexington Green, I'm here to fire the opening salvo :mp5:

The second half of the amendment explains what the first half of the amendment initiates:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

1) The first half explains that a "well-regulated" (well-trained and organized) civilian militia is necessary to the security of a free state. This means that without that civilian militia, government has no check against tyranny, and foreign invaders no resistance to deal with once the regular army is defeated. The only way to ensure this is to have a citizenry armed and trained with the same weapons used by the current military. The founders sought to explain this natural G-d given right to defend one's self, and one's country, by writing down this right in an amendment. The right is inalienable, uninfringeable, in other words the second amendment does not create the right, it merely enumerates it as #2 in importance after freedom of speech. All of the 10 amendments were individual rights, and the 2nd is no exception, for the second half explains the first half's true intent:

2) "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Please read this history lesson if you have not yet: http://www.gunowners.org/fs9402.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This people is the same people seen in the other amendments. If the word people is not the citizenry then you possess no other rights you treasure, such as the first and fourth amendments. Please note below in blue:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I started this to get a discussion going on the second amendment itself.

Here is the actual language:

"Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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."

First, to clear the air on this, This does not mean that one must be in a militia to own a firearm, as many wrongfully interpret the amendment to support an anti-gun stance. It says that a. the rights for States to have a well regulated militia, and b. the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now that we cleared that one up, lets talk about what the framers intended this amendment for.

I believe that the framers intended for this amendment to protect states, and the people, against a tyranical federal government. The idea of having to defend oneself from ones own government is not an issue that most people like to explore when talking about the second amendment. However, one has to consider the mindset of the time period, and one has to still consider the possability of a government gone tyrannical today. The framers had just seperated from England, and were very afraid of "big government" and government gaining too much power and imposing tyranny on the people. So, just as in the decleration of Independance, we as people were given the right to protect ourselves and our property from a tyrannical government.

In order to protect ourselves from our Government, the right to bear arms was and is still nessicary. The second amendment specifically illustrates our rights to self-defense; not just from each other, but from our own leadership.

But, the question is, where is the line drawn? We have the rights, and need to be able to reasonably defend ourselves against intruders and criminals, and against tyranny. If we go with this logic, then we have the rights to own what some would consider "military weapons." The question is where and how do we draw the line, or should we draw the line at all.

This seems like a more interesting discussion...so I'd like to hear your opinions...

Paul

Not to be a jerk Paul, but . . .

Could you please quote the Supreme Court decision that states what you state. Also any others that define the words and how you are interpreting them?

NOTE:

1) I am for ownership of fire arms by citizens. I am also for firearm safety classes and training.

2) I am also trying to make a point that Paul and others have made to me and others on this site. You cannot discuss certain issues until the Supreme Court puts a definition on the words and how they are to be interpreted.

So, to get this discussion rolling, are thier actually Supreme Court decisions, none of this lesser or state court decisions. As I was told they do not count. I would like to read them myself for my own education if they exist.

 

[Cruentus]

Rich, yes, you are a Jerk.

But, so am I. Woohoo!

Broadly, here are some online references to Supreme Court Decisions regarding the 2nd amendment:

http://www.megalaw.com/top/firearms.php

Here is a better source, though. Although it is a rough copy of a university law journal, this is a well cited document containing 35 cases where the Supreme Court has interpreted the second amendement to fit the individuals rights to bear arms, and not just a right left up to state governments:

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm

The problem with the issue is that there are other decisions that contradict these, and suggest that the decision on gun control should be left up the States. This is why the issue is not as black and white as I would like it to be. I may personally feel that the 2nd amendment right was intended to apply to individuals and I may have many court cases to back it up, but as of today the Supreme Court is on the fence as to whether to defer the issue for the States to decide or to take a strong stance regarding the 2nd amendment protecting individuals.

This creates a problem for our very conservative judges; most of them are big "states rights" buffs and don't want to give the federal government more power over the states, but on the other hand they don't want people to lose their rights to bear arms either.

This arguement, though, is entirely different then your arguement behind the bane of your existence, which is your belief that it is unconstitutional to have the word "God" on our money. Your arguement that this is a violation of the first amendment relies on the LEGAL definition of the word "God" to be defined by our courts or government entities as it pertains to our money to fit a particular religion. Since the issue hasn't gone to court, and no legal definition of the word "God" pertaining to currency has been determined by the courts, then one cannot say (yet, anyway) it is unconstitutional for the word to be on our money. Now I could be an even Bigger jerk to ask you to prove this wrong by finding a Supreme Court case on your money issue and post it in a different thread, but I won't because I actually looked myself and I am pretty well convinced that no such case exists.

The 2nd amendment interpretation issue is entirely different in that it has many court cases behind the arguement, and this issue does not rely on the definition of only one word. So the "God on Money" issue and this one is an apple to orange comparison.

Paul

 

[MisterMike]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

A) The right belongs to the people and was not granted by the Constitution, but recognized it exists.

B) It is not meant that you have to be in the militia.

Banning guns and not issuing licenses to own guns to law-abiding citizens is un-Constitutional and therefor un-American. Like the Quincy, Massachusetts police chief.

 

[modarnis]

>>>I am also trying to make a point that Paul and others have made to me and others on this site. You cannot discuss certain issues until the Supreme Court puts a definition on the words and how they are to be interpreted. >>>

If that were the case, 90 or more percent of the laws enacted by the legislature would be per se invalid until the judiciary defined them? What ever happened to words having plain meaning? If the framers meant for the right in the second amendment to apply to someone other than individual people, why wouldn't they have endid the amendment with something like the rights of this militia shall not be infringed?

It only seems to follow logically that they would use the term people in the same manner in all the amendments. Bottom line words mean things.

 

[MA-Caver]

When I was younger I was told the "Militia" version of the amendment. Later was told that the people/citizens that were well trained in military warfare were the National Guard. Also came to understand that "we the people" are the last line of defense against a foreign invasion or <shudders> a tyrannical government.
But I shudder even more when I think about every day people trying to stand up to said tyrants and their armies with a 30-06 deer rifle and maybe a .22 pistol versus a M-60 mounted on a Hummer or a squad carrying M-16 rifles (or whatever it is they're using now-a-days). I've seen videos from Iraq of what an apache helicopter can do with it's mini-gun (at night no less) to a group of individuals.
If we the people were to stand up to a tyrannical U.S. Government, might as well shoot ourselves because we really, honestly wouldn't be able to stand against the might and firepower of the U.S. Military.
As a favorite line from "Broken Arrow" (1996), one of the pilots of the B-3 bomber says..."yeah, the day we go to war against Utah, we're gonna kick ***."
Now granted, we HOPE that there will be members of said U.S. Military and National Guard who will in effect refuse to bear their weapons on fellow American citizens.

 

[MisterMike]

If we the people were to stand up to a tyrannical U.S. Government, might as well shoot ourselves because we really, honestly wouldn't be able to stand against the might and firepower of the U.S. Military.

It might be worth noting that guys in sandals with AK's are doing a pretty good job of it.

 

[Cruentus]

>>>I am also trying to make a point that Paul and others have made to me and others on this site. You cannot discuss certain issues until the Supreme Court puts a definition on the words and how they are to be interpreted. >>>

If that were the case, 90 or more percent of the laws enacted by the legislature would be per se invalid until the judiciary defined them? What ever happened to words having plain meaning? If the framers meant for the right in the second amendment to apply to someone other than individual people, why wouldn't they have endid the amendment with something like the rights of this militia shall not be infringed?

It only seems to follow logically that they would use the term people in the same manner in all the amendments. Bottom line words mean things.

Uh-oh...careful there Brett...your being logical again...

I agree with you generally speaking. What Rich was trying to compare this to was the issue of "In God We Trust" being on our currency. Rich believes this is a violation of the first amendment. I believe that it is not because the word "God" does not have to be specific to a particular religion or belief. He insists that no, people believe it only refers to the Christian God. Unlike the 1st amendment issue, since this arguement is over the interpretation of 1 word, "God," I am saying that the only way this could be considered a violation of the 1st amendment is if our judiciary were to define the word to be specific to one particular religious belief.

I know it is not the topic of the 2nd amendment, but to put it to rest, what do you think about the above issue?

Paul

 

[MA-Caver]

Originally Posted by MACaver
If we the people were to stand up to a tyrannical U.S. Government, might as well shoot ourselves because we really, honestly wouldn't be able to stand against the might and firepower of the U.S. Military.

It might be worth noting that guys in sandals with AK's are doing a pretty good job of it.

Yeah well, only because their adversaries are doing the vietnam thing and holding one hand behind their backs, trying not to devastate the cities while fighting the insurgents. If they (U.S. Military) really, rilly wanted to ... there'd be nuthing left and it doan't take a nuke to do it with. Not there anyway.

 

[rmcrobertson]

For strict constructionists, opposed to judicial activism, it ought to mean that every American has the right to tote around a muzzle-loading .60 cal musket.

One can only support this concept.

Forty years ago, hunters had no interest in automatic weapons. People who wanted home-defense weapons got a shotgun, far more useful than any handgun for the purpose--as any cop will tell you.

The fact is, a lot of folks out there now think that the Second Amendment guarantees their right to a) own as many lethal and useless toys as they like; b) indulge their self-defense and survivalist fantasies as much as they like.

And they may be right. Problem is, it is utterly foolish to have endless guns with no licensing, training, or supervision out there. Or have folks not noticed what the endless flow of weapons to places like Afghanistan results in.

 

[AC_Pilot]

We should be restricted to manual hand operated printing presses and no electronic communications because that's all the colonists had back then for freedom of the press. Rights evolve as technology evolves, and if we stay static and in the past, technologically, our rights vanish. Somehow I don't think that will trouble you much..

As far as the Supreme court, they do not have the right to INTERPRIT anything.. the amendments to the constitution are as clear as a bell to anyone with a basic knowledge of history and eyes to see. The amendments prohibit the federal and State government to infringe in any way (liscences and permits are restrictions!) upon these rights.. if they can infringe on the 2nd, they can infringe on all.. how about a state violating the amendment that freed the slaves, and re-authorizing slavery? Think about it..
The court is there as far as the amendments go, to defend our rights as so enumerated and if they fail those rights do not vanish, they are merely supressed by the sinister machinations of government, that most to be feared hand of evil. So said the founders:

"How soon we forget history... Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. " George Washington

 

[MisterMike]

Yeah well, only because their adversaries are doing the vietnam thing and holding one hand behind their backs, trying not to devastate the cities while fighting the insurgents. If they (U.S. Military) really, rilly wanted to ... there'd be nuthing left and it doan't take a nuke to do it with. Not there anyway.

Oh yea, I'm with you on that. If I were running the show, it'd either be a parking lot or a large hole in the ground. But put that same current practice here. Is our military going to destroy our own cities, homes, churches, and economy? Can it legally be used against the citizens? (No - that's why they beefed up the IRS, FBI, BATF and CIA)

1. If our government turned so bad the people had to act in force, I would think the military would see that and not follow orders from such a government anyways.

2. A lot of gun owners are more experienced in small arms than their 18-25 year old military equivalents.

3. How many enlisteds are going to fire on their own citizens?

I don't think it's as clear cut on who would "win."

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh, boy.

1. See, the note made about "strict constructionism," referred to folks who believe that, "judicial activists," have been, "interpreting," the Constitution out of all recognition. Folks like yourself, who want to go back to a) the strict letter of the Constitution, b) strict adherence to the intent of the framers of the Constitution. See, what this would mean is that we can only use the ideas and the tools that they used--everything else is a violation of the timeless truths advanced by the God-fearing Founding Fathers. See, what this would mean is that any and all, "progress," is a form of interpretation. So, the right to bear arms is the right to carry EXACTLY the weapons they had back then, for EXACTLY the purposes--and only the purposes--of the 1770s. One is surprised to have to explain this to someone who apparently believes in turning back the clock in so many ways.

2. Of course, "strict constructionism," is utter nonsense. a) We don't know exactly what those guys had in mind; b) We DO know that Franklin, Paine, Jefferson and others were a pack of atheists, agnostics and deists (not to mention, like, Freemasons! the Illuminati!) whose ideas sharply conflicted with contemporary conservatism; c) the Constitution has built into it all sorts of carefully-checked means for evolution; d) despite the charming tendency to believe that the likes of Holmes, Brandeis, Marshall, Douglas, Warren and others were all a pack of interpretin' Commies, these sorts of fantasies are completely at odds with both reality and the very best American traditions. You live in a great country, with a considerable amount of proud history--take a bit of time, and actually learn what that history and those traditions are.

3. It is right-wing lunatic survivalist fantasy to believe that an armed American revolution would be anything other than an utter disaster in which millions would die and our culture would be destroyed. What's almost worse, it is very unlikely that we'd end up with anything resembling a liberal democracy--which is what we have now--largely because the gangs of gun-totin' rightists who think this would be a good idea (Tim McVeigh much? The "Turner Diaries?") are basically all scary, scary fascists. In other words, guns won't help in such a situation. Oh, you can shoot back. You can guerrilla fight in every street and house. Sure.

And you know what? You do that, it's the end of America.

 

[modarnis]

>>I know it is not the topic of the 2nd amendment, but to put it to rest, what do you think about the above issue?>>

The abstract notion of a god is not in or of itself establishment of a religion. I also don't see how the term in god we trust would prohibit the free exercise of a religion if one were to choose to exercise a particular set of beliefs. The language in the constitution goes to great lengths to allow people to make choices with respect to speech and religion. That being said, it is obvious that our forefathers were from a Christian tradition, so it seems obvious that the framework would draw from those principles. My take is that the In God we trust language was used to validate where their values came from.

I agree with Paul that that language does not endorse any particular religion , so the First Amendment doesn't really apply :asian:

 

[modarnis]

>>>1. See, the note made about "strict constructionism," referred to folks who believe that, "judicial activists," have been, "interpreting," the Constitution out of all recognition. Folks like yourself, who want to go back to a) the strict letter of the Constitution, b) strict adherence to the intent of the framers of the Constitution. See, what this would mean is that we can only use the ideas and the tools that they used--everything else is a violation of the timeless truths advanced by the God-fearing Founding Fathers. See, what this would mean is that any and all, "progress," is a form of interpretation. So, the right to bear arms is the right to carry EXACTLY the weapons they had back then, for EXACTLY the purposes--and only the purposes--of the 1770s. One is surprised to have to explain this to someone who apparently believes in turning back the clock in so many ways.

2. Of course, "strict constructionism," is utter nonsense. a) We don't know exactly what those guys had in mind; b) We DO know that Franklin, Paine, Jefferson and others were a pack of atheists, agnostics and deists (not to mention, like, Freemasons! the Illuminati!) whose ideas sharply conflicted with contemporary conservatism; c) the Constitution has built into it all sorts of carefully-checked means for evolution; d) despite the charming tendency to believe that the likes of Holmes, Brandeis, Marshall, Douglas, Warren and others were all a pack of interpretin' Commies, these sorts of fantasies are completely at odds with both reality and the very best American traditions. You live in a great country, with a considerable amount of proud history--take a bit of time, and actually learn what that history and those traditions are.>>>

I would suggest you read the musings of Justice Souter or any other "Constitutional Literalist" Most of them would argue that the Constitution as it exists is a living document that doesn't need to be changed in reaction to minor societal changes. The system works best when seperation of powers is maintained. So when activist judges in affect make law or erode laws, they are crossing into a legislative function for which they have no authority.

 

[michaeledward]

it is obvious that our forefathers were from a Christian tradition,

It may be obvious that the founding fathers were from a European tradition (as opposed to African or Asian), from this we can conclude that many of their moral framework was influenced by the predominant religions of the European continent. As the predominant religious beliefs in Europe were Christian, the founding fathers may have drawn upon many of the influences of that religion.

To draw the conclusion that Christian influences equals a Christian tradition, I believe is incorrect. I believe those who make such statements are projecting their belief systems onto the founding fathers.

Of course, there are many excellent biographies that can shed insight into what the Founding Fathers actually believed.

I think some citizens might be surprised to learn that the 'Christian' tradition is not what many of the founding fathers believed of practiced.

 

[Cruentus]

Back to the issue at hand, interpretation of the 2nd amendment depends on ones belief on the individual right to self-defense and defense of the innocents.

If you believe that the rights of the individual to self-defense is an inherent right as a human being, then you can't prescribe to the idea that we must all be constricted to muzzle loading long guns. If criminals can get a hold of automatic weapons and weapons that utilize modern technoligy, then we should have the right to own what is nessicary to stop that threat. If an intruder comes into my house armed with an AK-47 modified to go full auto, my muzzle loader would be hard pressed to reasonably stop that threat.

Then, there is the issue of self-defense against our government. Citizens will never be able to match the force of our military. However, if citizens are armed enough to make it difficult for a tyrannical government to seize assets and people by essentially being able to "return fire", then this makes self-defense possible even against a tyrannical government.

Then there is the philisophical issue of ownership. Why should any government be able to regulate what I own if it is not jeaprodizing the safety of others? This brings forth the issue of regulation and proper training; for example allowing people to carry concealed firearms without proper permits that require proper training could be problematic, as someone not properly trained could jeaprodize the safety of others.

But, where is the line drawn? This will sound entirely stupid I realize, but if I want to have my lazer sites and auto-carbines and silencers and whatever, so as long as I am not endangering my fellow citezens, then why is it justified for the government to say I cannot own these things?

Paul

 

[Rich Parsons]

>>>I am also trying to make a point that Paul and others have made to me and others on this site. You cannot discuss certain issues until the Supreme Court puts a definition on the words and how they are to be interpreted. >>>

If that were the case, 90 or more percent of the laws enacted by the legislature would be per se invalid until the judiciary defined them? What ever happened to words having plain meaning? If the framers meant for the right in the second amendment to apply to someone other than individual people, why wouldn't they have endid the amendment with something like the rights of this militia shall not be infringed?

It only seems to follow logically that they would use the term people in the same manner in all the amendments. Bottom line words mean things.

I agree.

I quote dictionaries. People get upset and state I am not using the common understood definition of (* Insert smaller population of people here *). I try to present logical statments that will show a valid point at the end of those statments and then make a conclusion to my proof. Now some insist that there is no proof unless people see an actual rulling or writ from the supreme court. I think this goes into the materialists. If they cannot touch something it does not exists. How do I know that I exist, other than as some figment from Paul's subconscious to tourment him. And to this type of person who argues this way you cannot prove anything.

I have made staments before. People got upset and thought I was attackin them personally because they made assumptions it was about their religion. I never attack religions, only discussed when certain things were put into place and who certain admendments of the Bill of Rights combined with the timing of the events, then I can prove my point. Yet, others insisted I had no arguement because there was no legel definition by the Supreme Court.

For example:

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 first half got us the Oklahoma Bombing as there was a well regulated Militia of people, who believed they were acting in the right. Personally I disagree with them, and sorry it did happen. Yet this is how they interpreted the admendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Hmmm, this also could mean that no one is allowed to cut off my arms as other countries do for certain crimes. It also could mean I am allowed to go around with a sleaveless shirt on without getting into trouble. Or does it mean on my Right Arm could be sleaveless? Not sure, unless you look at the context, and how it was intended by the framers of the Constitution and then also by those who interpretate it. i.e. The Supreme Court.

Now does arms mean Fire Arms? It does not say explicitly Fire Arms. It says Arms. So if you look at weapons, then I should be allowed to have and carry swords or knives on me. I can bear them right? Hmmm Wow I used Right to mean Priviledge (* but stronger *), and also to be Correct and also a side of my body.

Yet looking at the following:
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


This empowers the states to make laws about the size of the blade I may carry. This empowers the states to also makes laws about when, where, and how I can carry a pistle or fire arm.

This is how California argued that it had the right to remove "Under God" from the Pledge in public schools. This later may have been over turn in a higher court or federal court, but is was the basis for the State to say they have the right to decide what is right or wrong.

So, my point was, is that until you get a 100% decision out of the Supreme Court, all this discussion is for nothing. No matter how sound your arguement is with data, you cannot decide anything here. I still content that I can prove something, and not have the Supreme Court Rule on it or issue a Writ, with the arguement still being sound and logical, and thereby proving my initial statement or premise for an arguement. Yet some people do not like the word Prove as I mentioned above. No hard feeling, and I was just trying to make a point here that data would be nice for the arguements.

For you see, even though it may look like I was being petty, it made Paul go out and provide links for people to read. He did mention there were others so hopefully people will read the other side as well.

As to wear I stand I believe "The People" have the right to own and operate guns in a safe manner. That manner being defined by the local and state laws as well as common sense.

So there are no hard feelings, just making Paul provide some evidence and also hopefully people will take the time to read it and not just argue from their personal emotional point of view and instead take an abstract look at it, and try to be logical with the words and their meanings and the intent from the context of those words.

Peace
:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

>>I know it is not the topic of the 2nd amendment, but to put it to rest, what do you think about the above issue?>>

The abstract notion of a god is not in or of itself establishment of a religion. I also don't see how the term in god we trust would prohibit the free exercise of a religion if one were to choose to exercise a particular set of beliefs. The language in the constitution goes to great lengths to allow people to make choices with respect to speech and religion. That being said, it is obvious that our forefathers were from a Christian tradition, so it seems obvious that the framework would draw from those principles. My take is that the In God we trust language was used to validate where their values came from.

I agree with Paul that that language does not endorse any particular religion , so the First Amendment doesn't really apply :asian:

I disagree.

I showed that the terms were added in first right after the Civil War, in strong reformation era. I also see it as a restriction of my beliefs, for it assumes there is a god and everyone assumes it must be the Christian one. I cannot go places without being told I am wrong for not believing as they do. So, I do contend that it does affect me.

I also showed that the the term God does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. It deos appear in the Declaration and the Preamble. Yet as the Declaration only declared independance from England and put into motion a Confederacy that ran this government with a President that was not George Washington, from 1776 to 1791. The U.S. Constitution is what our current form of republic governement is based upon. This document does not mention God, and yes it does define what can and more explicit what cannot be done by the federal government. Therefore, looking at the separation from the past, and the intent of religious freedom they inacted the first admentment. So, if the money at the creation of our country either 1776 or 1791, had this phrase then I would not see as much evidence against having it on the money. It occured in a time of conservatism just like the Under God in the Pledge was added in iin a time of Conservatism.

So let me ask you and others, would you tolerate it if it said "Kali" a Hindu Goddess, or in Trees we trust? Just because the largest population is Christian in the country does not mean I have to be Christian and follow their beliefs.

Now how does this pertain to the subject at hand. I believe in the U.S. Constitution, and what it states. Therefore I will have my arms ready though they may only be swords, when they come to my house and tell me I can no longer practice my religion in my front yard. I can no longer practice a non Christian religion in public at all.

I believe it is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. It infringes upon my rights. Take a minute and talk to people at work and find out who is Jewish or Islam or what have you, and many are afraid of this country, even though they may have been born here as were their parents before them. I say watch the line, for as it slips it gets harder and harder to pull it back, until the momentum does not allow you to maintain and you are dragged away.

I do apologize if you think this is too off topic.

Peace
:asian: