Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Posted: **Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:21 pm**

First in an occasional series of threads about the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and today.

Posted: **Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:32 pm**

I believe this is what Mr. Madison was referring to.
http://www.tooshocking.com/videos/2048/ ... _Bear_Arms

Posted: **Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:43 pm**

I take the military service meaning.

In late-eighteenth-century parlance, bearing arms was a term of art with an obvious military and legal connotation. ... As a review of the Library of Congress's data base of congressional proceedings in the revolutionary and early national periods reveals, the thirty uses of 'bear arms' and 'bearing arms' in bills, statutes, and debates of the Continental, Confederation, and United States' Congresses between 1774 and 1821 invariably occur in a context exclusively focused on the army or the militia.

Uviller, H. Richard. & Merkel, William G.: The Militia and the Right to Arms, Or, How the second Amendment Fell Silent , pp 23, 194. Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-3017-2

Needless to say that I own a .22 range rifle, winchester .308 semiautomatic, and a semiautomatic 12 gauge shotgun. I think that gun ownership is part of our common culture, especially in Montana, but is not a constitutional right.

I have no problem with sporting firearms at all. Handguns are kind a gray area to me, and I am not to sure what ot think. Weapons designed speicifically to kill another human being (military grade) have no business being available on an open market.

My $.02

Posted: **Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:56 pm**

JMU DJ wrote:I believe this is what Mr. Madison was referring to.
http://www.tooshocking.com/videos/2048/ ... _Bear_Arms

Posted: **Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:09 pm**

The Federalist Papers are one of the best places to go to understand what our FOunding Fathers were thinking...although I find them a tough read in places...

There are some very good essays written on this subject...most differing in their view of what the Amendment really meant...

One that I find pretty good was written in 1995...it attempts to look at the language and how it was used by the Framers in the contect of the late 1700's...when the Amendment was written...and then bring that forward...

To see this more clearly, consider that Madison's original draft reversed the order of the elements: "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." That sentence implies that the way to achieve the well-armed and well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state is to recognize the right of people to own guns. In other words, without individual freedom to own and carry firearms, there can be no militia. ("Well regulated," Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers , meant well drilled and disciplined.)

How do we know that the "well regulated militia" is defined in terms of an armed populace and not vice versa? The syntax of the sentence tells us. Madison and his colleagues in the House of Representatives chose to put the militia reference into a dependent phrase. They picked the weakest possible construction by using the participle "being" instead of writing, say, "Since a well regulated militia is necessary. . . ." Their syntax keeps the militia idea from stealing the thunder of what is to come later in the sentence. Moreover, the weak form indicates that the need for a militia was offered not as a reason (or condition) for prohibiting infringement of the stated right but rather as the reason for enumerating the right in the Bill of Rights. (It could have been left implicit in the Ninth Amendment, which affirms unenumerated rights.)

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1095e.asp

There are plenty of opposing essays that take the opposite view...and even though I would like to see stronger gun control, I find this to be one of the best explanations I've seen...

For if there is to be stronger gun control, it must come in the form of a change to the Second Amendment...not as laws that ignore it...

Posted: **Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:16 pm**

But what was the PURPOSE of the Amendment - why was it felt necessary?

Posted: **Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:59 pm**

Ithink that the purpose of the second amendment was that the people would have protection against things that would do them harm or they can hunt for food. I will never be a hunter but it would be hard to hunt without a gun

Posted: **Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:08 pm**

OK, it's been a while since I've read the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and some of the other writings from that area on why anything was written or not written into the Constitution or the original Amendments...

So this is from memory and may not be completely accurate...

The Constitution was written by committee as we know, and was circulated to the original states...some supported it as written, but some wanted more protections...and thus the Amendments were written...

Several states were hesitant to sign onto a document that did not guarantee them the right to protect themselves from the federal government (some states were very opposed to a strong, large central government)...

If I remember correctly, that is what brought about the Second Amendment...

Posted: **Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:25 pm**

The Second Amendment is interesting because in a way it's very different from the rest of the Articles and Amendments. The enduring strength of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that they largely dealt with ideals, with human institutions and emotions, giving it a relevance that is timeless, an authority and a relative clarity that doesn't need to be constantly amended to apply fairly to a much different world 220 years later. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that the one clause in the document that we have arguably the most difficulty reconciling with our world today can found in the one place where it ruled on a human issue – the defense of self- and collective-interest – that is equally a technological issue as it regards to firearms, a technology in its infancy that would evolve into a much different thing than the authors were familiar with or could have imagined. I don't know how the Founders could have enshrined the ideal without including the material, but that combination of the enduring and the dated has ensured there will never be a simple, consensus reading of either letter or intent when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Bah, serious post. I'm going to stop with the abstract right there. Carry on, gents

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:21 am**

To hold our federal government ultimately accountable to the people, rather than vice-versa.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:03 am**

Wedgebuster wrote:To hold our federal government ultimately accountable to the people, rather than vice-versa.

Bingo!.....to keep a government, any government (monarchy, president, congress), from gaining so much power that the populace could not hold it accountable....our government is based upon a system of checksa and balances....the second amendment was a counter balance to the government...

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:44 am**

Wedgebuster wrote:To hold our federal government ultimately accountable to the people, rather than vice-versa.

Back in the day (when the second amendment was written), weapon technology was still in it's infant stages. It was easy for private citizens to own weapons that were equal, or superior to what the military had - think Lexington and Concord.

Do you think that is possible today?

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:45 am**

dbackjon wrote:
Wedgebuster wrote:To hold our federal government ultimately accountable to the people, rather than vice-versa.

Back in the day (when the second amendment was written), weapon technology was still in it's infant stages. It was easy for private citizens to own weapons that were equal, or superior to what the military had - think Lexington and Concord.

Do you think that is possible today?

Nope, but that shouldn't negate our right to try to take out as many of the fokkers as we can if necessary....

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:23 am**

dbackjon wrote:
Wedgebuster wrote:To hold our federal government ultimately accountable to the people, rather than vice-versa.

Back in the day (when the second amendment was written), weapon technology was still in it's infant stages. It was easy for private citizens to own weapons that were equal, or superior to what the military had - think Lexington and Concord.

Do you think that is possible today?

That may be true but there are also a ton of people in the populace and the sheer numbers would make the use of those weapons tough to do. There would be many that are on the side of the people and not the government that could help the people acquire those weapons. The military is made up of the people and I couldn't see them all being on the governments side of the conflict if were to ever occur. More importantly, take a look at what two well armed men did to an organized, armed police force in California a few years back. I would think that things like that alone would give a govenment a rightful pause in trying to enslave it's people. There would be a whole lot of crazy bastards like those guys that would be fighting for a just cause instead of an unjust one.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:26 am**

dbackjon wrote:But what was the PURPOSE of the Amendment - why was it felt necessary?

For DEFENSE! Remember, there are indians on the frontier as well as the French, and Spanish to an extent. Defend yourself!

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:30 am**

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:
dbackjon wrote:

Back in the day (when the second amendment was written), weapon technology was still in it's infant stages. It was easy for private citizens to own weapons that were equal, or superior to what the military had - think Lexington and Concord.

Do you think that is possible today?
That may be true but there are also a ton of people in the populace and the sheer numbers would make the use of those weapons tough to do. There would be many that are on the side of the people and not the government that could help the people acquire those weapons. The military is made up of the people and I couldn't see them all being on the governments side of the conflict if were to ever occur. More importantly, take a look at what two well armed men did to an organized, armed police force in California a few years back. I would think that things like that alone would give a govenment a rightful pause in trying to enslave it's people. There would be a whole lot of crazy bastards like those guys that would be fighting for a just cause instead of an unjust one.

Some good points in there Ursus. And it would be interesting (hopefully never see it) where the loyalities of the military would lie if there was a wide spread government uprising.

We do know from history that the majority of Americans do sit silently, without protest, when rights are denied small segments of the populace

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:35 am**

dbackjon wrote:
Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: That may be true but there are also a ton of people in the populace and the sheer numbers would make the use of those weapons tough to do. There would be many that are on the side of the people and not the government that could help the people acquire those weapons. The military is made up of the people and I couldn't see them all being on the governments side of the conflict if were to ever occur. More importantly, take a look at what two well armed men did to an organized, armed police force in California a few years back. I would think that things like that alone would give a govenment a rightful pause in trying to enslave it's people. There would be a whole lot of crazy bastards like those guys that would be fighting for a just cause instead of an unjust one.

Some good points in there Ursus. And it would be interesting (hopefully never see it) where the loyalities of the military would lie if there was a wide spread government uprising.

We do know from history that the majority of Americans do sit silently, without protest, when rights are denied small segments of the populace

Whoever has the money, a la ancient Rome.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:41 am**

dbackjon wrote:
Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: That may be true but there are also a ton of people in the populace and the sheer numbers would make the use of those weapons tough to do. There would be many that are on the side of the people and not the government that could help the people acquire those weapons. The military is made up of the people and I couldn't see them all being on the governments side of the conflict if were to ever occur. More importantly, take a look at what two well armed men did to an organized, armed police force in California a few years back. I would think that things like that alone would give a govenment a rightful pause in trying to enslave it's people. There would be a whole lot of crazy bastards like those guys that would be fighting for a just cause instead of an unjust one.

Some good points in there Ursus. And it would be interesting (hopefully never see it) where the loyalities of the military would lie if there was a wide spread government uprising.

We do know from history that the majority of Americans do sit silently, without protest, when rights are denied small segments of the populace

That is exactly right and the reason that I have said many times in the past that people only care about their rights as it affects them. Hell I even used that logic against you once a few months back. That is one of my big problems with people letting themselves fall into the government making decisions for them and the Federal Government having the power that we freely give over to them to make decisions as to how individual states should handle their own business as they see fit.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:44 am**

hank scorpio wrote:
dbackjon wrote:

Some good points in there Ursus. And it would be interesting (hopefully never see it) where the loyalities of the military would lie if there was a wide spread government uprising.

We do know from history that the majority of Americans do sit silently, without protest, when rights are denied small segments of the populace
Whoever has the money, a la ancient Rome.

Amen to that one Scorpio.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:17 am**

I will just sit quietly in the corner, eating my popcorn and listening to this conversation.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:19 am**

Griz, I think I might join you. Though, I will add one little bit, I agree with those who said the 2nd Amendment was placed in the Constitution for the populace to protect themselves from the government (amongst other threats).

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:28 am**

grizzaholic wrote:I will just sit quietly in the corner, eating my popcorn and listening to this conversation.

ASUMountaineer wrote:Griz, I think I might join you. Though, I will add one little bit, I agree with those who said the 2nd Amendment was placed in the Constitution for the populace to protect themselves from the government (amongst other threats).

chickens

Seriously though, I would like your thoughts on this.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:30 am**

ASUMountaineer wrote:Griz, I think I might join you. Though, I will add one little bit, I agree with those who said the 2nd Amendment was placed in the Constitution for the populace to protect themselves from the government (amongst other threats).

I totally agree with that but it is not just the government. Any person has a right to protect themselves against any threat, that is not even up for debatable in my view. Some people want to cause harm on the individual level to others for their own gains and you must have the right to protect yourself. Now on the larger scale we need to protect ourselves against a government that can do us harm if we give away too much power.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:34 am**

dbackjon wrote:
grizzaholic wrote:I will just sit quietly in the corner, eating my popcorn and listening to this conversation.

ASUMountaineer wrote:Griz, I think I might join you. Though, I will add one little bit, I agree with those who said the 2nd Amendment was placed in the Constitution for the populace to protect themselves from the government (amongst other threats).

chickens

Seriously though, I would like your thoughts on this.

Not adding to the discussion does nothing to open up the minds of others to your points and certainly does nothing to help drive the discussions. Both of you sons a bitches have thoughts (Maybe Grizza doesn't) so sharing them can do no harm in the debate.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:39 am**

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:
dbackjon wrote:

chickens

Seriously though, I would like your thoughts on this.
Not adding to the discussion does nothing to open up the minds of others to your points and certainly does nothing to help drive the discussions. Both of you sons a bitches have thoughts (Maybe Grizza doesn't) so sharing them can do no harm in the debate.

I cannot get into any discussions this week. I am just brain dead and any time that I try to make a thought and put it down on paper it will either make no sense or be some ramblings about how this and that something or other.

My stance is the way it already is. Full auto weapons need a permit, as does CCP. Felons get no sympathy from me, no weapons for you.

If someone is going to commit a crime, be it robbery-home invasion-assault-menacing-whatever, they will use what they can get. A hammer, a stick, a rake, a knife, a sword. Once the government takes away a liberity it will never come back. PERIOD!

Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Re: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?