|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 12/07/2002 : 20:32:20
|
Extreme leftists have argued for this interpretation for years. I guess I never thought it would come to bear, but I can't say I'm surprised it was the 9th Circuit.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/844114.asp?0cv=NB10
Now, I appreciate the stand they took in Newdow, unpopular as it was, and I think it was entirely correct. But if they didn't have the moniker of "dangerously liberal" or "out of control" before Newdow, they certainly will now. For all the brouhaha over the 2ndA in the last decade, I really don't know anything about its history; certainly not as much as I know about the 1stA now that Newdow has brought it to the forefront. I suppose it's possible that the 9th is taking the correct historical interpretation, but right now it seems to go so much against established case law as to be genuinely radical. Thoughts?
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 12/08/2002 : 00:12:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
I'm wondering how anyone can honestly argue that this amendment wasn't written to establish the fact that citizens should be able to keep and bear arms to be able to fight against a tyrannical government. To argue that a "well regulated militia" means one that is in government control is ridiculous. A well regulated militia was thought of as necessary to fight against the government, and a federal government-regulated militia in this sense is nonsensical.
[It also seems to me that the wording, interpreted the way the 9th Circuit Court seems to favor, is a bit redundant. Why would the authors mention a well regulated militia, plus "the right of the people" if they meant only a government-controlled entity has the right to "keep and bear arms"? A mention of a "well regulated militia's" right to keep and bear arms would be sufficient, yes?] |
| Edited by - Tokyodreamer on 12/08/2002 00:16:55 |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2002 : 00:16:41 [Permalink]
|
I am not at all into the idea of well regulated militias running around as they have in places like Bosnia or South America where they are sometimes working with governments and sometimes against but always killing civilians in the tens of thousands. Faced with this kind of anarchy I am either in total agreement with this judgement but even more for the scrapping of this outdated ammendment.
@tomic
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2002 : 00:20:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[It also seems to me that the wording, interpreted the way the 9th Circuit Court seems to favor, is a bit redundant. Why would the authors mention a well regulated militia, plus "the right of the people" if they meant only a government-controlled entity has the right to "keep and bear arms"? A mention of a "well regulated militia's" right to keep and bear arms would be sufficient, yes?
The interpretation is that militias are state run and for the state's protection against the federal government which I think is completely consistent with the thinking and concerns when the Constitution was written.
@tomic
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2002 : 02:25:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To argue that a "well regulated militia" means one that is in government control is ridiculous.
TD, I understand your sentiments, but this argument is not ridiculous. Try reading Article 1, Section 8; quote:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
Seems like it may be sufficient reason to argue a measure of state and federal control.
On the other hand, it, also, clearly states that the Congress is responsible for arming the militia. So, the 2nd's right to bear arms would seem redundant in light of the Congress' constitutional mandate to arm the militia.
Just trying to throw a few more monkey wrenches into the argument. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
a65phalcon
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2002 : 10:45:15 [Permalink]
|
| It was always my understanding that the reseasoning was not to endorse private militias, but to set-up National Guard orgs. Am I wrong in thinking this? |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2002 : 19:01:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by a65phalcon
It was always my understanding that the reseasoning was not to endorse private militias, but to set-up National Guard orgs. Am I wrong in thinking this?
I assume you mean the reasoning of the courts in their decisions to uphold the 2nd A? |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2002 : 01:35:00 [Permalink]
|
| I think he was referring to the Founding Fathers' reasoning. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2002 : 09:27:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boron10
I think he was referring to the Founding Fathers' reasoning.
Ah, I didn't realize there was a specific National Guard provision in the Constitution. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2002 : 13:56:00 [Permalink]
|
| Ph, I believe Tim hit on it in his reference to Article 1, Section 8. Granted, it does not specifically say "National Guard," but it sure seems to describe one. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 07:19:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boron10
Ph, I believe Tim hit on it in his reference to Article 1, Section 8. Granted, it does not specifically say "National Guard," but it sure seems to describe one.
Not a standing National Guard, but a temporary one only when needed: "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;"
This makes it seem that the "U.S. Army" is unConstitutional. On the face of it, it seems to me to be saying the States are responsible for choosing Officers in their state militia's, and the Federal government is responsible for setting down the guidelines of training and making sure the States have the money to arm their militias. The Federal government has the power to call together these militias when in need ("To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"), but does not have the power to devote resources into gathering the militias for the Fed. govs purposes for longer than two years (no standing Federal army allowed!), or in any other way be involved with these militias.
Am I even close to interpreting this correctly? |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
