The Second Amendment

[opebo]

Obviously one would have to be an active member of the militia for this amendment to apply.

[opebo]

That assertion was already refuted. Please quit trolling.

What do you mean 'refuted'?  We just have different interpretations - such is the nature of interpretation, Philip.

[opebo]

Your interpretation isn't based on any kind of legal reasoning. You're just saying 'obviously it means what I want it to mean.'

That's all 'legal reasoning' is, Philip - just an excuse for what is essentially a political, ideological decision.

[opebo]

Legal reasoning is about finding the objective meaning of words. I've explained this to you in some detail several times.

If we can understand each other's posts, we can understand laws.

People misunderstand each other's posts as often as they understand them on this board.  And that is without a motivation to misunderstand them.  For example I would be highly motivated to interpret the second amendment in a different way - a way that would allow pervasive gun control.  And if I had the power to do so, that is what I would do - if I were, for example on the Supreme Court. 

In the same way one can interpret into existence things one wants, such as the right to privacy.  Its all very easy, it is just a matter of getting power.

[opebo]

TexasGurl and I are both women and we are both supportive of the right to bear arms. Personally, whilst I cannot currently own a gun (I am not familiar with Californian gun laws and am also still a minor), I plan on acquiring one before moving out. My mother encourages me to have a gun and will likely get one herself after I move out, as she will be alone. If I ever need to subdue a bandit or rapist, I will not sit idly and wait for the police/authorities to arrive after the crime occurs. People who support gun control ramble incessantly about the nightmare of guns, yet I have never heard one strong argument regarding how to deal with house-breakers and criminals without using a weapon of some kind.

Housebreaking and criminality are caused by poverty, everett, and can be reduced by ameliorating that condition. 

Of course typically the neighborhoods of the poor are very far from the neighborhoods of their oppressors, so they end up victimizing one another, but if a poor could successfully invade the home of a member of the owning class and mete out a little revenge, who could blame him?  One might perhaps even feel a twinge of sympathy for the underdog.

[opebo]

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 Amendment is comprised of two clauses; both should be read in pari materia. The second clause defines the right; the first describes why it should be protected.

Madison's original draft of the Second Amendment read as follows: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country." The right to keep and bear arms was seen as necessary for maintaining a free state.

The original draft might have been two clauses, but what was approved is just one.  There is no semi-colon nor "and" between what you have bolded and what is left unbolded.  It specifically says that the right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of providing a well regulated militia.  Again, it's one of the few poorly written sentances in the Constitution, but it is clear as to what it says.

Yes, it obviously implied that any bearing of arms that is to be done should be carefully regulated, and only allowed within the context of a 'militia'.  This amendment in no way suggests that individuals have a right to bear arms personally.

[opebo]

Yeah, that only contradicts the opinions of the people who wrote the constitution - they obviously had no idea what they were talking about.

No, you're clearly misinterpreting them, as they mentioned a 'militia'.

[opebo]

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 Amendment is comprised of two clauses; both should be read in pari materia. The second clause defines the right; the first describes why it should be protected.

Madison's original draft of the Second Amendment read as follows: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country." The right to keep and bear arms was seen as necessary for maintaining a free state.

The original draft might have been two clauses, but what was approved is just one.  There is no semi-colon nor "and" between what you have bolded and what is left unbolded.  It specifically says that the right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of providing a well regulated militia.  Again, it's one of the few poorly written sentances in the Constitution, but it is clear as to what it says.

Modu

I suggest you read Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2.

You will find that the militia was already recognized in the Constitution.

So, the question is what does the Second Amendment add to those provisions?

Repetition for emphasis, Carlhadan, repetition for emphasis.  They really liked militias.  Besides, is it really appropriate to interpret clauses using extraneous materials like other parts of the constitution?  Shouldn't the meaning of the clause be derived from the orginalist intent and natural meaning of the clause itself?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hah, doesn't sound like the opinion of 'learned' men, but rather the viewpoint of the violent redneck.

[opebo]

So, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is effectively erased from the Amendment in your misinterpretation since YOU do NOT want others to bear arms since when the people are armed we will have a relatively "free" state.

No, the right to bear arms is affirmed, but first you have to join the militia.  It is all right there in black and white, Cahlhardon.

And of course there is no connection between a 'free' state and a violenct populous.  Just look at the present day US - highly dangerous, but also very unfree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously the first amendment does not mention a militia, Carlhaydense.