"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
But when Mason said "whole people", he was talking about the make up of the militia, and not the personal rights of said militia. (It's on this basis that conscription is legal in the US and one can be forced into the military (or be an objector). )
My big worry, if we allow The Second Amendment to be rewritten and/or re-interpreted (to "modernize") it, is that a precedent is set -- it will then be much easier to allow any of the other amendments to be rewritten and/or reinterpreted to align with the beliefs of those who are currently in power.
I don't see a problem with "modernization". Constitutional documents should be living documents, tuned for clarity and for the times. Of course, such changes should not simply be a matter of passing a new bill. There should be significant political hurdles involved.
That ship's already sailed. We already depend on the scotus to "fill in the details" in deciding & applying the intent of the constitution & bill of rights. Hell, we've already struck down amendments in their entirety (think Prohibition).
This is a task they're already well equipped for, well practiced in, and pretty much designed for.
(And I believe it was always meant to be this way. The wisest idea "the founding fathers" left us with, was that of amendments - that none of this was carved in stone, nor should it be, nor could be.)
>“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776
I bet the same people that use this section as a justification of armed citizenry acting as a militia have no issue with the US army being active
Okay, so the Second Amendment really says: "In order to prevent tyranny by the government, the government organized national guard shall not be disarmed"?
Sorry, I'm Canadian and think the entire US legal system is insane but that's NOT what the 2nd says. They're going to need to buckle down and amend it or agree it doesn't apply to crazy people or ... I don't know ... something. They can't just reinterpret it.
The firearms conflict is basically unending, because what it comes down to is personal philosophy. You either trust most people to be reasonable, or you trust only a select few. Since it's a personal belief, it's nigh-impossible to get someone to change their mind on it.
The ‘individual mandate’ of citizens having the right to firearms, when they’re not part of a state-level Militia, seems to be a recent phenomenon:
> The U.S. Supreme Court had never, until 2008, suggested even once that there was any such right. Warren Burger, the arch-conservative Supreme Court justice appointed by Richard Nixon, in an interview in 1991 described the then-new idea of an individual right to bear arms as “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
There's a book mentioned in the above article called "The Second Amendment: A Biography”, but haven’t had a chance to read it yet. The author, Michael Waldman, has some good interviews and talks online. It was released in 2014 and most of them are from then. These two are pretty good (about an hour each):
> The ‘individual mandate’ of citizens having the right to firearms, when they’re not part of a state-level Militia, seems to be a recent phenomenon
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own land or tenements]"
-Thomas Jefferson's proposal of language to add to the Virginia Constitution
Also, there is a supreme court ruling from my home state which expresses a view of the origin of this right which goes back to England before the founding the United States:
Nunn vs Georgia (1846)
"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women, and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: The rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I, and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Manga Charta!"
I can't find any indication that Saunders has any expertise in American law in general or firearms law in particular (his web page doesn't even mention any college degree), but statements like "Until 2002, every U.S. president (sic) and government had declared that the Constitution’s Second Amendment did not provide any individual right for ordinary citizens to own firearms" are categorically false (most Presidents and Congresses have been mute on the subject).
For "then" = 1792, but weapons (and tartan!) were banned in highland Scotland between 1747 and 1782:
"it should not be lawful for any person or persons ... to have in his or their custody... broad sword or target, poignard, whinger, or durk, side pistol, gun, or other warlike weapon"
Since when the right for self defence calls for the use of fire guns?
Basically every society preserved the right to self defence from the time humans first started to gather until now in more advanced cultures where gun possession is strictly controlled.
I use this silly example to help people read the 2nd amendment:
"The gestation period of some species of opossum being seven months, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed."
Even if there isn't a species of opossum that gestates for seven months, free speech might still be a good idea. Or it might not. Either way, the first statement's truth value doesn't change the command.
Now, to be fair: Compared to the founding fathers, we know much more about pretty much everything. I don't really care what they thought was best. I care about what is best for society. If that means more restrictions on guns, ok. If that means fewer restrictions on guns, ok. If it means some other thing, great. Deferring to previous generations makes no sense. We don't do that for disciplines such as math, biology, chemistry, or engineering. Why should we do it for law?
Yeah, as a Brit, I've never fully understood the Constitution and its related documents being so glorified and set in stone - Especially when discussing the 2nd Amendment - Its an amendment, so obviously the founding fathers intended for the documents to be changeable
[+] [-] RCompKing|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw0112a|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlgaddis|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ujio|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nnain|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soneil|10 years ago|reply
This is a task they're already well equipped for, well practiced in, and pretty much designed for.
(And I believe it was always meant to be this way. The wisest idea "the founding fathers" left us with, was that of amendments - that none of this was carved in stone, nor should it be, nor could be.)
[+] [-] hackercomplex|10 years ago|reply
Electronic Frontiers Forum Presented at Dragon Con 2015 The Second Amendment: A Refreshing Perspective Tom Cross https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp0-g-cjxmM
[+] [-] gravypod|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sageikosa|10 years ago|reply
You get a better sense here.
[+] [-] elthran|10 years ago|reply
>“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776
I bet the same people that use this section as a justification of armed citizenry acting as a militia have no issue with the US army being active
[+] [-] Ensorceled|10 years ago|reply
Sorry, I'm Canadian and think the entire US legal system is insane but that's NOT what the 2nd says. They're going to need to buckle down and amend it or agree it doesn't apply to crazy people or ... I don't know ... something. They can't just reinterpret it.
[+] [-] notacoward|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dawnbreez|10 years ago|reply
The firearms conflict is basically unending, because what it comes down to is personal philosophy. You either trust most people to be reasonable, or you trust only a select few. Since it's a personal belief, it's nigh-impossible to get someone to change their mind on it.
[+] [-] throw0112a|10 years ago|reply
> The U.S. Supreme Court had never, until 2008, suggested even once that there was any such right. Warren Burger, the arch-conservative Supreme Court justice appointed by Richard Nixon, in an interview in 1991 described the then-new idea of an individual right to bear arms as “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
* http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/article28078752....
There's a book mentioned in the above article called "The Second Amendment: A Biography”, but haven’t had a chance to read it yet. The author, Michael Waldman, has some good interviews and talks online. It was released in 2014 and most of them are from then. These two are pretty good (about an hour each):
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IopMFON6BNM
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxTOBh_AZJY
[+] [-] hackercomplex|10 years ago|reply
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own land or tenements]" -Thomas Jefferson's proposal of language to add to the Virginia Constitution
Also, there is a supreme court ruling from my home state which expresses a view of the origin of this right which goes back to England before the founding the United States:
Nunn vs Georgia (1846) "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women, and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: The rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I, and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Manga Charta!"
[+] [-] DrScump|10 years ago|reply
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/crburger.htm
I can't find any indication that Saunders has any expertise in American law in general or firearms law in particular (his web page doesn't even mention any college degree), but statements like "Until 2002, every U.S. president (sic) and government had declared that the Constitution’s Second Amendment did not provide any individual right for ordinary citizens to own firearms" are categorically false (most Presidents and Congresses have been mute on the subject).
[+] [-] spacecowboy_lon|10 years ago|reply
Ignoring the point that common law allows for self defense - back then the UK even let Catholics and other subversives own weapons.
[+] [-] pjc50|10 years ago|reply
"it should not be lawful for any person or persons ... to have in his or their custody... broad sword or target, poignard, whinger, or durk, side pistol, gun, or other warlike weapon"
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/jacobit...
[+] [-] jbssm|10 years ago|reply
Basically every society preserved the right to self defence from the time humans first started to gather until now in more advanced cultures where gun possession is strictly controlled.
[+] [-] etaty|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chroma|10 years ago|reply
"The gestation period of some species of opossum being seven months, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed."
Even if there isn't a species of opossum that gestates for seven months, free speech might still be a good idea. Or it might not. Either way, the first statement's truth value doesn't change the command.
Now, to be fair: Compared to the founding fathers, we know much more about pretty much everything. I don't really care what they thought was best. I care about what is best for society. If that means more restrictions on guns, ok. If that means fewer restrictions on guns, ok. If it means some other thing, great. Deferring to previous generations makes no sense. We don't do that for disciplines such as math, biology, chemistry, or engineering. Why should we do it for law?
[+] [-] elthran|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] PetersC|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] PetersC|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mgpwr_new|10 years ago|reply