Political Theory

Re: 2nd amendment language argument

CurtHowland — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:50:52 GMT

North Carolina has no legal restriction on "open carry" either. Those "shall not be construed to allow concealed carry" clauses were added en masse after 1968 to lots of state constitutions.

Fear. Most people seem to act first out of fear.

So what NC does is allow local politicians and standing military, I mean "police", to prosecute the open carrying of arms as "creating an environment of fear".

That's how they justify granting concealed carry licenses. Carrying openly may be constitutional, but it's _scary_.

Re: 2nd amendment language argument

MacFall — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:57:23 GMT

The Pennsylvania constitution: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

...Except that it has been questioned, often, and usually in favor of less liberty.

Re: 2nd amendment language argument

Solomon — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:28:52 GMT

JCFolsom:
the Spartans were oppressive bastards who kept a whole race of slaves to practice their techniques on. They controlled every aspect of their citizen's lives and were one of the least free peoples ever.

Indeed. Sparta was, and in some circles still is, the paradigmatic collectivist state.

However it's a bit of a stretch to say that the ochlocratic Athenians were free. Being forced to commit suicide (for instance) for doing asocial things like corrupting the youth with politically incorrect ideas (to use the modern expression) does not strike me as a mark of a free society. And this is to say nothing of the welfare state it became under Pericles.

Re: 2nd amendment language argument

Bank Run — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:01:41 GMT

I think folks don't understand that the rights laid into the constitution, are negative, id est, stuff the government can't do. My copy states "unabridged".

I dislike the wording from my state.

Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

I think the concealed weapons construing is silly. The legally summoned part itches me astray too.

On the 2nd, I ask if the right to bear arms shall be unabridged, than they shouldn't be makin' laws about arms to begin with.

I heard a sound clip from the misandrist progressive runing for despot, "I think a candidate needs to take the commander in chief test". In that statement she clearly fails to understand, that the head executive is C-in-C, when "called into service by the people of the united states of america" Or, congress actually has to declare a state of war before the duty of head of armed forces is entitled.

I admit I have difficulty reading things with an f in place of an s, throws me off, but I think the meaning of the text remains. Legislatures forgive themselves of sin, by debasing the very thing they should be defending.

Too many folks got an attitude like the king allows us our priviledges. Disgusting!

Re: 2nd amendment language argument

RiflesReady — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 09:50:20 GMT

jamesjwilsonsr:
...None the less, playing on their field, any retorts?

I had a fancy thought lined up. But then I recalled. I have ended friendships over matters of Constitutional interpretation. (In my defense, you can only suffer being called a murder because you are a libertarian so long.) So choose the more direct route. Yes, grammar is important. It matters much. But I have always chosen the more direct attack: more than 38 States grant the right to keep and bear arms to the individual citizen. Technically, the States could convene a Constitutional convention and ammend the Constitution to acknowledge, via the Constitution, that it is an individual right. But even that is wasting time. Instead, point out that if the majority of States grant it as an individual right then the majority of Americans agree -- elsewise, it'd have been taken off the books.

It's majority rule. And because the Disarmament crowd tends to kneel at the alter of the Majority, you've proven your case -- even if it isn't a logical, rational or even true.

If all else fails, practice your right to keep and bear arms.

Re: 2nd amendment language argument

JCFolsom — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 08:22:24 GMT

Jesus, Jim, take a pill. I didn't mean to offend you in your man-love for the 300 guys.

P.S. Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not an apologist!

Re: 2nd amendment language argument

Jim — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 07:47:50 GMT

Yes, JCFuller the Spartans were all you say they were..."the Spartans were oppressive bastards who kept a whole race of slaves to practice their techniques on. They controlled every aspect of their citizen's lives (hmm sounds like federalism to me) and were one of the least free peoples ever. The Athenians were free (albeit misogynist boy-lovers). (hmm sounds like the castro diststrict in SF) The Spartans were psychotic (and also boy-lovers).". and despite all that they kicked a lot of persian (iranian) butt. And they were very cruel and barbaric about it because thats the way "oppresive bastards"fight. They learned their lessons well against their helot/messenian slaves. And I will compare ourselves to the Spartans, JCFolsom. We all know what they were and what they did. And so what if they owned slaves there was no one there to challenge them. As if owning slaves was a bad thing back in the day? It was an acceptable norm for the times..They did what they did because they could. As all dictators do.The point I was trying to make is this: from the time of the Spartans stand against the Persians a few good men have been willing to stand against tyranny and despotism and pay the price for it. How many times have we done that on foreign battlefields, next time we are in France we will take the time to count the crosses and Stars of David. Those Spartan brave souls ("oppresive bastards") acted as a "trip wire,they fought a delaying action so the athenians could get their act together. The Spartans I suppose will always have their detractors as we have ours. The Spartans ("oppresive bastards")merely showed us how it is done. IE. to stand against an empire and poke it in the eye. And they did it with such glee and gusto ("we will fight in the shade") And send it packing from wence it came as our Minutemen did on Lexinton Green.
Now that you mention it JC, the more I think about it there does seem to be a common thread between the Spartans, the Athenians and us. We too have our boy lovers (NAMBLA) We too had slaves both north and south. we also commited genocide and ethnic cleansing to our own native peoples and used the christian faith to justify it..(MANIFEST DESTINY) and did it with the constitution in one hand and the bill of rights in the other.There is no point in pointing ("let he who has not sinned cast the first stone") a self righteous,corrupt finger at the ancients who were the first to stand for freedom and paid an awful price for it. But they did it so well. I suppose I have gone far afield here in response to the language of my Second Amendment. In my discussions with the anti Second Amendment types in my community (yes martha I live in the belly of a liberal beast) attitude is that they could care less about the grammar, commas and such in the text of my Second Amendment, they are afraid for their safety they want all guns banned. They want the Second Amendment repealed and are more than willing to use the legislative process to accomplish this. We cannot allow this to happen. This is where our challenge is. Mr Franklins quote is totally lost on them. No argument,no amount of logic will convince these hoplophobes to even consider that they have a right to protect themselves They would rather the government protect them. After all thats why they pay taxes.Yes, JCFolsom history is replete with barbarism and pederasity and so called mans inhumanity to man and all that. SO WHAT. After all this time you think we would know better. Evil is in our genetic code. In closing this history lesson for you jcfolson try to remember that when you point an accusatory finger at someone or something you will always have three fingers pointing back at yourself. Party On. PEACE.

Re: 2nd amendment language argument

jamesjwilsonsr — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:53:22 GMT

Curt, this is the kind of response I was looking for. Thanks tons!

Re: 2nd amendment language argument

JCFolsom — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:43:45 GMT

Plainly oppressive, that is. I should be able to tape a gun to my face if I want. "The Legislature shall have power", my buttocks.

Re: 2nd amendment language argument

kingmonkey — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:18:27 GMT

I personally like the way it is spelled out in the Texas constitution.

Article 1, Sec. 23

"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

Can't get much plainer than that.

Re: 2nd amendment language argument

CurtHowland — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:18:07 GMT

jamesjwilsonsr:
Some of them only want to discuss grammar, which is a bit of a red herring. None the less, playing on their field, any retorts?

Page 153 (with the meat starting at pg 155) of J. Neil Shulman's _Stopping Power_, has what I consider the definitive grammatical analysis of the 2nd Amendment:

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stop0584.pdf

If I can find the article as plain text, I'll post a link and excerpt. ...Ah! Here it is:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b55b0ec0b93.htm

{Copperud:} The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

...and...

{Copperud:} (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

Re: 2nd amendment language argument

Len Budney — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:39:16 GMT

They basically say the sentence reads like this: “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

The first clause has no bearing on the second, except to gratify curiosity. The sentence could have said, "Because the moon is made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That they're wrong about the moon doesn't change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is absolutely protected. If you object to arms on the grouns that the moon is NOT green cheese, you still have to amend the Constitution accordingly.

--Len.

Re: 2nd amendment language argument

Len Budney — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:36:28 GMT

Also, I don't understand why it's illegal to run around in public wielding swords and bazookas. That sounds like an infringement on one's right to bear arms.

It absolutely is. The correct response to folks carrying bazookas is the private property response: if you don't want folks carrying bazookas, don't let bazooka-wielding people on your property. If enough people agree with you, and ban bazookas on their property, you will have achieved a purely free-market bazooka ban. If you don't like them having bazookas on their property, there are also voluntary measures you can take. You can ban Bazooka Joe from using your road. You can refuse to insure his house. You can ban him from your grocery store. Again, if enough people don't like bazookas, you can limit them through purely voluntary means.

--Len.

Re: 2nd amendment language argument

jamesjwilsonsr — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:06:00 GMT

I never said it was "weak". Their argument is we only have the right to bear arms BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. This is why they bring up the ablative absolute argument. So they say we have no "personal" right to bear arms, or have a conceal carry. They say the right to bear arms is for the militia.

My reply would be, that the militia (A) is made up of individuals (B), and it is necessary for B to be capable to own and carry arms in order for A to exist, and B can own and carry arms whether B is a part of A or not....get my drift?

Re: 2nd amendment language argument

scineram — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:20:52 GMT

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.