Second Amendment and Rules of Construction

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jick Magger, Oct 5, 2008.

  1. Jick Magger Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    38
    One possible reason is that the lawmakers were intent upon deception. That would explain why they made the words of the Amendments such that the object of the first clause was "a well regulated militia", but the object of the second what something different, thus creating a problem of construction, which they knew, as experienced lawmakers familiar with the well established common law rules of construction, would be resolved according to the rule of construction which dictates that, where the several parts of a legal expression cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part. The means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jick Magger Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    38
    What fair objective and rational rules and principles of construction does one use to determine what is and isn't a valid interpretation?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jick Magger Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    38
    Federalist No. 46 couldn't possibly have been meant to explain the meaning of the Second Amendment.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jick Magger Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    38
    Go read the Tenth Amendment again. Then report back here, with what it really says.
     
  8. Jick Magger Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    38
    The people, under of Section Eight of Article One of the U. S. Constitution, surrendered their right to arm the militia to Congress. Some, such as George Mason, feared that Congress could by simply not exercising that authority, deprive the militia of arms, and then use that as a pretext to justify a standing army.
     
  9. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Amendment X

    [Powers not delegated, reserved to states and people respectively.]

    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.
     
  10. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    I would love to agree with you, but I am not sure it is clear.

    It could mean that ALL people shall have the right to bear arms because in this situation, where all people have the right to bear arms, the Militia is more viable. It does not say that these people must be current members of some militia, and, in fact, it would be rather odd not to be specific about the relationship between 'the people' who get to have guns and the State would be, if that was the intention.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2008
  11. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    In the words of the Men who wrote the Constitution, and spoke the plan language of the time not the Politically inspired spin of Those of Today who would separate The People from their Natural Constitutional Rights.

    Thomas Jefferson "took his division of rights into alienable and unalienable from Hutcheson, who made the distinction popular and important", and in the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, famously condensed this to:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."


    un·al·ien·a·ble (ŭn-āl'yə-nə-bəl, -ā'lē-ə-) Pronunciation Key
    adj. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable:

    unalienable

    adjective
    incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

    Quotes from The American Ideal of 1776 supporting this Principle.

    RIGHTS UNALIENABLE---BECAUSE GOD-GIVEN

    And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?

    Thomas Jefferson ("Notes on the State of Virginia," 1782)

    The Sacred Rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.

    Alexander Hamilton (An essay, "The Farmer Refuted," 1775) (Note: entire passage in capital letters in the original.)

    Rights Inviolable by Government or by Others

    7. Neither government nor any Individuals--acting singly, or in groups, or in organizations--could possibly possess any "just power" (to use again the significant term of the Declaration) to violate any Individual's God-given, unalienable rights or the supporting rights. No government can abolish or destroy--nor can it rightfully, or constitutionally, violate--Man's God-given rights. Government cannot justly interfere with Man's deserved enjoyment of any of these rights. No public official, nor all such officials combined, could possibly have any such power morally. Government can, to be sure, unjustly and unconstitutionally interfere by force with the deserved enjoyment of Man's unalienable rights. It is, however, completely powerless to abolish or destroy them. It is in defense of these rights of all Individuals, in last analysis, that the self-governing people--acting in accordance with, and in support of, the Constitution--oppose any and all violators, whether public officials or usurpers, or others (par. 9 below).
     
  12. Echo3Romeo One man wolfpack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    This is from a thread we had after the SCOTUS ruling.

    The 2nd Amendment applies only to the militia. The Militia Act of 1958 defines the militia as:

    As we can see, the legal definition in the US is commensurate with the common understanding of what a militia is.
     
  13. Jick Magger Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    38
    What fair objective rational method of interpretation did you use to determine that?
     
  14. Jick Magger Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    38
    That's one correct for you.

    That's one wrong. It doesn't matter where the arms come from.

    That's two more correct. To constitute a militia, the body of men must be organized as a military force and be trained to arms.

    You left out two of the essential elements of a militia. The body of citizen soldiers must be disciplined and it must be controlled by the civil authorities. That's two wrong.
     
  15. Jick Magger Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    38
    The Second Amendment is ambiguous and must be interpreted by applying the well established common law rules of construction as prevailed at the time the Constitution was made.

    All of the words in the Second Amendment, and in any other part of the Constitution, must be given meaning and, if possible, be given an effect, which is to say that each part of the Amendment must be made to conspire to a common end. If the parts cannot be made to coincide, which is the case with "people" and "well regulated militia", the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

    "Well regulated militia" trumps "people." Thus, we construe the Amendment to mean,

    A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, [which means that, even if Congress does not provide arms to the militia as it has the power to do under the Constitution, and the militia somehow obtains arms from a source other than Congress, such as the State government, the militia has a right to keep and bear those arms, even if Congress was not the provider. In other words Congress does not have plenary (exclusive and absolute) power over providing arms for the militia. Thus, Congress cannot disarm the militia, just by neglecting it.]​
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2008
  16. FelixC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    134
    BR: not being a historian or English major, I think that the few times I awoke from very boring lectures that the idea of militias comes from the Roman times were each free Roman had a sword ready as they plowed their land
    and from English I seem to remember that clauses are separated by commas, independent stand by themselves (they make sense) & dependent need to be understood by context (separately they don't make sense)

    if any of these clauses make sense on their own, then its an individual right

    "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."

    if not, its time all you gun-owners join the military, start getting "well regulated"
     
  17. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    You don't know what commas are, do you? Check it out, you'll have a different view on that particular clause.

    Baron Max
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    There is no discordance between "people" and "militia"- they coincide perfectly. That is what a militia is and was then - ordinary citizens, bringing their own weapons, coming from home. To have a militia at all, people- ordinary citizens-must have weapons to bring from home. That was common knowledge, and is still the ordinary sense.

    It is not complicated, or vague, or confused. It was carefully written, and means just what it says.
     
  19. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
    Very few of you appear to know the historical context of the words.

    What is taught as "history" today in Universities and High Schools is laughable and moronic.

    'Constitutional Scholar' is a punchline to a bad joke in the modern world.

    These 'word games' are played by people with an agenda who are separating historical context form the words they are playing games with. The Founding Fathers feared and knew this would happen, as aptly surmised by James Madison:

    Anyone who knows the history knows how completely foolish the modern day assertions about the Second Amendment are. Unfortunately almost no one knows the history today.

    The Founding fathers meant EVERY man shall be armed. They stated this in a thousand ways. Anyone who has read the debate on the floor on the ratification of the Second Amendment has no doubt. Here are just a few wlel known writings of the Founders on the topic.

     
  20. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    A Beautiful truth, spoken by our Founding Fathers, the Rights of a Free Man, who shall not become a slave to the governing elite.

    The Right of the People.
     
  21. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    Um to Dr. Mabuse the phrase bear arms in colonial times almost exclusively was used to refer to using weapons in a military context.

    Before you praddle on check your facts to at least cover your ass.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2008
  22. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Your the one who needs to check your facts, I have never seen any one so ill informed about anything in my life.

    Now provide citation as to your supposition.

    These are direct quotes from the Men who wrote the Constitution, and You Presume to interpret their words?

    The absolute Gaul, from a boy that is still living at home with his Mama, 24 years old a still hasn't moved out of the House, and he wants to expound on the Greatest Ideas ever Penned in the History of the World, and has the absolute effrontery to Interpret The Words of the Greatest Men in History of the World, and tell us they didn't mean what they said, oh grasshopper your still dancing, and nothing has changed.

    You want to tell us what these, The Great Men in History meant to say? Hell you can't even load a spell checker, or even do simple capitalization, and you want us to believe that your can cross minds in debate, with the Men who wrote the Constitution of the United States.

    Yes....Tell us What these Men really meant when they penned these words, and the Right of the People, if you dare.......and you will only show your absolute ignorance.


    George Washington

    Thomas Jefferson's quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

    James Madison

    Noah Webster

    Patrick Henry

    Tench Coxe

    Samuel Adams

    Richard Henry Lee

    Alexander Hamilton

    Their words verbatim:


    And You claime to know better then these Great Men of History.:roflmao:
     
  23. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    I am not interpreting anything. I am going by the common usage of the phrase during that period. Which is how historical legal documents like the bill of rights are and should be viewed. I am not arrogant enough to think I know what dead people thought. I will leave such idiocy to you. Your post was typical of you: insulting, ignorant, foolish and ignoring of facts.


    That's a fucking riot coming from you. Still an asshole and still ignorant I see.


    http://hnn.us/articles/48302.html
    for a citation. I suggest you read if your capable.
     

Share This Page