Next, how about we throw the 2nd Amendment into the trash heap of well-meant but stupid historical statements. There is no right way to interpret it, and we're just being intellectually dishonest if we pretend there is.
Of course there's a right way to interpret the Second Amendment, Mark. Just because you say there's not doesn't make it so.
Be intellectually honest and do some research before acting like you're an authority and obscuring the issue.
Start by getting a copy of attorney David T. Hardy's "In Search of the Second Amendment" DVD, which interviews leading Constitutional scholars and examines the historical record on how the amendment was developed and the intent of the Founders. If you're going to set yourself up as an authority with credentials to negate evidence presented by figures like Kates, Polsby, Levinson, Halbrook, Malcolm, Amar, Barnett, Cottroll, Kleck, Lund, Johnson, Innes, Reynolds, Volokh, et al., then let's party.
Educating yourself so you know what you're talking about would be the "reasoned approach." Otherwise, you just come across as another self-impressed dilettante with a fashionable opinion and a following of equally shallow and uneducated sycophants.
9 comments:
Markie Marxist sez: "We cannot allow the Second Amendment to be seen as an individual right. If we can't get people to swallow our 'collectivist interpretation', which is designed to give the amendment an insignificant meaning that we can live with, then we'll just have to trash the whole thing as inscrutable and hope we can get people to buy that approach. Anything but an indivdual right!"
"..you just come across as another self-impressed dilettante with a fashionable opinion and a following of equally shallow and uneducated sycophants."
Well put David.
The most dispiriting part of the argument is that even if these folks recognize the 2nd amendment as the individual right ALL the amendments are, even then it'll be as worthless as all the other rights are....
It's depressing watching the Republican debates last night and watch the patriotic posturing of those guys competing to trash our rights the fastest (Ron Paul excepted). Democrats will be just as effective.
Wait, it gets better. Following are the most recent three posts by the two most active grabbers:
#49 — September 6, 2007 @ 12:17PM — Christopher Rose [URL]
Personally. I think all pro-gun nuts should be shot on the grounds of terminal boredom. Except for SayUncle's Bot, he's funny.
Or, to answer the question posed by the author of this article, no!
#50 — September 6, 2007 @ 12:24PM — Dr Dreadful
Chris, his question was answered within 20 minutes of his post being published.
The pro-gun people who've been commenting on this thread don't even want to acknowledge the other side may have legitimate concerns. As for compromise... it probably won't be long before the words 'cold', 'dead' and 'hands' get used in the same sentence yet again. Zzzzzzz.....
#51 — September 6, 2007 @ 12:26PM — Christopher Rose [URL]
That Al "Twitchy" Barger should be the first to go. Not only does he think that a bunch of lightly armed civilians could keep a professional army in line and that determining the meaning of the people who wrote the constitution centuries ago through the prism of contemporary thinking is possible, he's got rubbish taste in music too! Up against the wall with him!!
*Looks around nervously as he realises that most people here are heavily armed and humourless* That's a joke, folks!
It's funny, but not for the reason they think.
Yeah, usual tripe, but the comments were worth reading, both the anti's and pro's. Couldn't let that no compromise shot go unanswered, so did a quick comparison between pre 1968 and today. We give and give and give and damnitall it's never enough.
I know I saw the definition of "regulated " as in the 1776, or there abouts, enclopedia brittanica posted somewhere recently. It meant well "supplied". Any help in locating that?
Anon, I wrote an article about this that was published in GUNS Magazine a year ago. Essentially, in reference to a militia, it meant trained and disciplined. It did not mean citizens not actively serving in a militia were subject to government regulations. It was from this body of armed citizens that the militia manpower-subject to military discipline when in service-would be drawn. These were expected to show up bearing their own arms of military utility.
Here's another short explanation.
GunCite also has a very good page on this.
David,
How is it the ignorant and unlearned have such a loud voice?
Since he can publish his unlearned tripe, I can publish mine. The following is the comment I posted to his article. (Somebody had to answer the insult to the Founders.)
****************
So, in short you are saying that the Founders of this nation crafted a nonsensical amendment to the Constitution. If there is, as you state, no right way to interpret the amendment, that is expressly what you are declaring about the Founders.
Having read the writings of the Founders, I find that very hard to believe. Rather, I find it much easier to believe that you do not understand how the Constitution itself is framed, and the ideology upon which it is built.
Now, if you read carefully, the following quote from the Federalist 84 (Hamilton) expressly states how the Constitution is to be interpreted. I am well aware that in this quote he argues against the Bill of Rights. However, the Founders also knew that men will take every avenue to seize power and overthrow the rights of the individual -- thus a Bill of Rights (of which the 2nd Amendment is one of the individual rights expressly delineated).
Now, to quote Hamilton:
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"
Now, just where in the Federal Constitution do you find the authority and power granted to take away the right to keep and bear arms? It is not there, just like the ability to restrict freedom of the press is not there. Moreover, to insure that we retained these rights, they added the Bill of Rights, further restricting government power.
Perhaps it's time to lend a helping hand. I will henceforth assist anyone who has trouble interpreting the Second Amendment. It's really very simple, and even though the word "regulated" may confuse those unfamiliar with its etymology, the rest of the words need no historical knowledge to understand.
Yes, I suggest a volunteer effort for those lost souls who claim they cannot understand one of the most plainly-written legal documents in our history.
"I am here to help. Which part is giving you difficulty?"
Do not forget:
Grammar
Peet
Post a Comment