Scope of 2nd Amendment's Questioned

[elder999]

Because the right to self defense is a human right, which is acknowledged in the Constitution as the "inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". And this shows that they knew this, and the government cannot "give" us rights that are naturally ours by birth.

That's a good answer, but it's only part of it.


The Founding Fathers did not believe we got our rights from the Bill of Rights. Nor did they believe they came about as a result of being American, Christian, of European decent, or white. They believed everyone had these rights even if they lived in Europe, China, or the moon. They called them Natural Rights. Where these rights were not allowed, they believed they still existed but were denied.

Our rights exist apart from government. Let me ask you this, in a country where children have no civil rights, do they still have a right not to be molested? Do women in countries where they have a second-citizen status have the right not to be abused by their husbands, even if the government won’t protect them?

If the government passed a law tomorrow that said we didn’t have the right to free speech, or the right to free worship, or freedom of the press, would those rights no longer exist, or would they be simply denied? If the Constitution is amended depriving us of our rights, do those rights cease to exist?

According to the guys who set up this country, yes, we would still have those rights. We’re just being denied them. Because of that, it’s the way we have to look at the Constitution.

It may be, that in reality, rights are a figment of our imagination. But the Founding Fathers believed they existed and that’s how this country was set up. Rights are something that come with being human. The Founders never believed we got them from the government. If and when the United States goes away, the rights will still be there.

Then why have a Bill of Rights?

Men like Alexander Hamilton asked that same question. He and many others thought having a Bill of rights was dangerous. They were afraid that the existence of a Bill of Rights as a part of our Constitution implied that the government not only had the right to change them, but that any rights not listed there were fair game for the government to deny. And, as a matter of fact, that’s exactly what has happened. The government seems to have set itself up to be an interpreter of our rights; it acts as if it is also the source of our rights, and whatever rights weren’t mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the government has seen fit to declare exist only at its discretion.

The 9th and 10th amendments were added to the Bill of Rights to quell the fears of men like Hamilton who were afraid that any rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights would be usurped by the government. The 9th says:

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

This means that any rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights are not to be denied to the people.

The 10th says:

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.

So any powers not specifically given to the Federal government are not powers it can usurp.

So it’s enough to show the Founding Fathers thought we had a right for it to fall under the protection of the 9th or 10th Amendment. This means that the Founders didn’t even have to specify we have the right to free speech, religion, jury trials, or anything else. To understand what they felt our rights were, all you had to do was show what they said our rights are. Any rights in the first eight Amendments are just redundant with what the Founding Fathers considered Natural Rights.

Aside from the gun issue, your rights are being violated right now:the Founding Fathers felt we had a right to unrestricted travel. So, now we have driver’s licenses, automobile registrations, and passports. They also felt we had property rights, so Civil Forfeiture or Civil Seizure laws, now exercised by the Feds and the states, are actually illegal under both the 9th and 10th Amendment.

I'll add here that no where does the 2nd Amendment deny the people "the right to keep and bear arms," so, even if the Congress or even the Supreme Court decides the 2nd Amendment only refers to formal military organizations, we still have the right to keep and bear arms, because the Founding Fathers considered it a natural right. And if you don’t believe it, read what the Founding Fathers said in their papers, their letters, and their debates in both Congress and the state legislatures

(Weapons have always been important. In Greece, Rome, and even under Anglo-Saxon law, when slaves were freed, part of the ceremony included placing a weapon in the man’s hand. It was symbolic of the man’s new rank as a free man.)

Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense.

John Adams, A Defense of the Constitution

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.

Samuel Adams (yeah, the beer guy), John Adams’ second or third cousin, during Massachusetts’ U.S. Constitution ratification convention in 1788.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, with the last as part of the proposed Virginia Constitution of 1776.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

Jefferson, again quoting Cesare Breccaria, a Milanese criminologist in On Crimes and Pnishment.

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.

Thomas Paine, in Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.

George Washington, speech to Congress, January 7, 1790


A personal favorite:

To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

This last was from George Mason, during the debates on the Constitution itself…

 

[Rich Parsons]

I think the words that would seem to carry the most weight are 'right of the people', particularly 'the people''.

I tend to see all te Bill Of Rights as a blanket statmenet of 'this is what it meanns to live as 'Free People'

Freedom of the Press should not be conditional on the times we live in, neither should Freedom of Speech, or Freedom to Assemblem of Right to Bear Arms. The Right of the People to Bear Arms was seen as neccessary for maintaining a "Free State". Although it seems as though all thse rights are becoming more and more conditional. Note that all of the other rights are intended to protect the rights of the individuals from the power of the government (as they were born at a time of revolution against an oppressive government). The 2nd Amendment fits the pattern of keeping the State Free from the government.

Some would argue that it's impossible to fight against the US Miltary with small arms, to which I would say that a) that doesn't eliminate the right to be in a position to try should the government go in a direction where that was deemed neccessary and b) take a look to Iraw and what can be done with determination and light weapons against a more powerful military

If one looks at the "Bill Of Rights" the first Ten Admendments that were written right after the Constitution was put into place deal with personal rights of the people.

 

[michaeledward]

The interpretation that I think should be taken is the intentions of the founders. If not, then one could make this argument regarding the first amendment:

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.

Therefore, individual states should be able to establish their own state religions, as it says "Congress" shall make no law. States can also prohibit any type of speech they choose, prevent them from assembling, and restrict the press. States are not Congress.

It can be shown that the founders intent of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the oppression of the people by the government. In that context, there should be no firearm that an individual should be restricted from owning.

If you draw your attention to this quote, from another poster, but sourced in the Bill of Rights, if I am not mistaken ..

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.

As the Constitution has been ratified with the rights enumerated, the States do not have the authority to make their own laws in regard to the listed freedoms.

Now, you may further recall, that some of the Southern States wanted, at a specific time, to move toward a more federalized system, where the states held more power than the federal government. We fought a war over that disagreement. As I recall, the end result of that war was that our Federal Government was the First Order of Rule, and the States were subservient to the central government.

So, there are some areas where the States hold jurisdiction. But, if a dispute brings that jurisdiction to the federal level, the United States are the higher authority. The state law would be ruled as unconstitutional, and be struck down.

 

[elder999]

As I recall, the end result of that war was that our Federal Government was the First Order of Rule, and the States were subservient to the central government.

14th Amendment.

 

[michaeledward]

14th Amendment.

I hope you are saying that I've got my civics correct.

I think that by the time I went through my public education, the 'Civics' classes had all but disappeared, or were rolled into the Junior year US History class.

It is an area of study that too many young American - including myself, at the young age of 42 - are insufficiently prepared to have a quality debate.

 

[elder999]

I hope you are saying that I've got my civics correct.

Yup.

 

[Don Roley]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the words in the Constitution mean what the Founding Fathers said they meant, and we can’t go changing or amending the Constitution by giving new meanings or new shades of meaning to the words. And, if you think about it, it makes sense; otherwise, our rights really mean nothing. Congress or any other governing body can deny you the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a trial by jury, or whatever else it wanted just by claiming the words now have a new meaning.

Excellent point!

I would much rather we erred on the side of caution when discussing our rights. People can argue that the founders meant one thing or another, but I would rather we stick to the words and limit what the government can do more than the individual.

 

[FearlessFreep]

I would much rather we erred on the side of caution when discussing our rights.

Rights taken away are very hard to get back.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

If you draw your attention to this quote, from another poster, but sourced in the Bill of Rights, if I am not mistaken ..



As the Constitution has been ratified with the rights enumerated, the States do not have the authority to make their own laws in regard to the listed freedoms.

Now, you may further recall, that some of the Southern States wanted, at a specific time, to move toward a more federalized system, where the states held more power than the federal government. We fought a war over that disagreement. As I recall, the end result of that war was that our Federal Government was the First Order of Rule, and the States were subservient to the central government.

So, there are some areas where the States hold jurisdiction. But, if a dispute brings that jurisdiction to the federal level, the United States are the higher authority. The state law would be ruled as unconstitutional, and be struck down.

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it prohibit states from limiting these rights. It say "Congress shall make no laws..." Nothing about limiting the states from doing so. Now if we are to take the Founder's interpretation (which I am inclined to do), then the States can't do this. But if one were to take a strict word for word definition they can. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the States can't make laws regarding this. Even the 10th Amendment says that since the United States can't do it, and it's not denied to the States by the Constitution, then they can do it.

I'm not advocating it. I believe that we should follow the Founder's intent. This is just food for thought for those that want to interpret the Amendments using modern thought.