Questions for Conservatives

[ReillyT]

Wrong, we have a body of evidence to tell us what the document means, it was widely discussed in an effort to get it passed. Those articles tell us exactly what the framers meant.

So you maintain that there is no ambiguity in any portion of the US Constitution. The founders were always of one mind about each provision, and all this is available in the historical record. That is news. It is also, coincidentally, wrong... but news nonetheless.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So you maintain that there is no ambiguity in any portion of the US Constitution. The founders were always of one mind about each provision, and all this is available in the historical record. That is news. It is also, coincidentally, wrong... but news nonetheless.

I maintain that the Federalist papers and other documents from the time period DO clearly indicate the intent and the meaning of the Document. Those papers were written for EXACTLY that purpose. To tell the people of several States what the meaning was. To convince them why to vote for it. The claim we do not know what the framers intent was is ludicrous on it's face. We have a wealth of information on EXACTLY what they meant.

The most telling is the ABSOLUTE statement that the Constitution was DESIGNED to LIMIT the Government. That the reason only powers allowed and not powers forbidden were written into the document as the style was to be CLEAR that what was not given did NOT exist. Further we have the document it self clearly stating that powers not granted to the Federal Government resided still with the States and the people. A useless statement if " General Welfare" then means anything one wants to construe it to mean.

We have the statements that the Federal Government would NOT Usurp the powers of the States except in matters dealing with the conduct of the whole and in regards interests outside the States. The document clearly indicates that the federal Government does not concern individual citizens EXCEPT in FEDERAL property or Federal employment. The States are left with that power and authority.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Which is exactly why you have no understanding of constitutional law.

Sorry jillie but I don't believe in blind obedience to a half dozen blackshirts if my Constitutional rights are axed.

ande what would you suggest we do to stop them?

Rebellion.

Which is essentially what they did to interpret affirmative action as constitutional, (giving a preference to a specific race) when the constitution stresses equal treatment under the law....

Right…one of those "enlightened" understandings…. and politically motivated.

Actually it's the reason that precedents may be overturned, though it's rare, indeed.

Hopefully Roe v. Wade may prove to be one of those rare exceptions.

 

[midcan5]

The most telling is the ABSOLUTE statement that the Constitution was DESIGNED to LIMIT the Government.

Yes, but you are talking about a different historical time with different political concerns. Government in the minds of framers was surely different than it is today in the conservative mind.

 

[mattskramer]

Yes, but you are talking about a different historical time with different political concerns. Government in the minds of framers was surely different than it is today in the conservative mind.

Did the framers of the constitution ever imagine nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles? Aren’t such things arms? If so, then in keeping with the 2nd amendment, provided I have enough land and money, should I be allowed to own my own ICBM?

Way back then, they condoned slavery and the constitution seemed to work just fine. There was no need to change it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Did the framers of the constitution ever imagine nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles? Aren’t such things arms? If so, then in keeping with the 2nd amendment, provided I have enough land and money, should I be allowed to own my own ICBM?

Way back then, they condoned slavery and the constitution seemed to work just fine. There was no need to change it.

Your ignorance is beginning to irritate me. The second amendment provides protection to State and citizen for "personal" arms. and further protects States rights to have non strategic military assets ( back then a navy being the only strategic asset and it was barred to states)

When you want to discuss "personal arms" get back with me. Ohh and the Constitution was CHANGED to eliminate slavery, or didn't they teach you about the 13th amendment?

 

[maineman]

Your ignorance is beginning to irritate me. The second amendment provides protection to State and citizen for "personal" arms. and further protects States rights to have non strategic military assets ( back then a navy being the only strategic asset and it was barred to states)

When you want to discuss "personal arms" get back with me. Ohh and the Constitution was CHANGED to eliminate slavery, or didn't they teach you about the 13th amendment?

my copy of the second amendment reads as follows:

"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 note that you have the word "personal" in quotation marks. Could you explain that? who ARE you quoting with that word? Certainly NOT the second amendment!

 

[Shogun]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms

do you think that "personal" is not implied by specifically mention of the right of THE PEOPLE?

 

[maineman]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms

do you think that "personal" is not implied by specifically mention of the right of THE PEOPLE?

and who is to say that a bazooka is not personal? or a small suitcase nuke?

the amendment itself certainly draws no such line.

 

[jillian]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms

do you think that "personal" is not implied by specifically mention of the right of THE PEOPLE?

It also says it's in the context of a well-ordered militia, no?

 

[Shogun]

did they have either nukes or bazookas when the constitution was written?


a better question:

DID THEY restrict ANY personal Arms then? Can you show me how THEY restricted the second amendment within the first 25 years of the ratification of the constitution?


I asked you a specific question. Are you saying that THE PEOPLE does not imply PERSONAL?

 

[Shogun]

It also says it's in the context of a well-ordered militia, no?

one portion of the amendment says exactly that. The other concerns THE PEOPLE....


Now, I know we are not in the business of supporting a fraction of our amendments... That First is about more than speach, yes?

 

[jillian]

did they have either nukes or bazookas when the constitution was written?


a better question:

DID THEY restrict ANY personal Arms then? Can you show me how THEY restricted the second amendment within the first 25 years of the ratification of the constitution?


I asked you a specific question. Are you saying that THE PEOPLE does not imply PERSONAL?

In those days, the militia was the U.S. military. And they provided their own weapons. Also, the people who say their guns are so they can take up arms against the government if it becomes tyrannical are wrong, as well. They forget that the Constitution also sees fit to include treason as the only crime it defines.

So, the question then becomes what is a well ordered militia?

 

[jillian]

one portion of the amendment says exactly that. The other concerns THE PEOPLE....


Now, I know we are not in the business of supporting a fraction of our amendments... That First is about more than speach, yes?

Nope. They're all equal. But the Second has never been clearly defined. You know that, too.

 

[CSM]

and who is to say that a bazooka is not personal? or a small suitcase nuke?

the amendment itself certainly draws no such line.

True enough...in fact, there was a day in this country when private citizens could own their own cannons (arguably the heaviest arms in existence at the time). You will notice that such ownership did not result in the destruction of the nation.

Society and culture has changed but human nature has not. There will always be some who feel they should own *.* weapon and those who believe that NO ONE should own weapons.

Funny thing about laws...their encatment or even enforcement does not mean that whatever the specific law is trying to prevent will not occur. Laws merely keep the law abiding citizen ... well...law abiding!

 

[M14 Shooter]

In those days, the militia was the U.S. military.

Except for the regular army and navy.

And they provided their own weapons.

Yes they did.

Also, the people who say their guns are so they can take up arms against the government if it becomes tyrannical are wrong, as well.

Hardly. The right to revolution was very much on the minds of the people that wrote the constitution in general, and the 2nd in specific.

They forget that the Constitution also sees fit to include treason as the only crime it defines.

Except for piracy and countefeiting.

So, the question then becomes what is a well ordered militia?

Well-regulated.
Why is that the question?

 

[Shogun]

In those days, the militia was the U.S. military. And they provided their own weapons. Also, the people who say their guns are so they can take up arms against the government if it becomes tyrannical are wrong, as well. They forget that the Constitution also sees fit to include treason as the only crime it defines.

So, the question then becomes what is a well ordered militia?

It's not JUST "what is a well ordered militia" There are two rights being described even if the second has never been clearly defined. This is why I ask if THEY ever restricted private individuals from having ANY particular weapon.

Also, lets look at the variations of its original drafting:


The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, states:
“ 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."

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:
“ 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 think that the second portion specifically implies the right to own and use weapons of ALL kinds. I am not familiar with the wide scale restriction on any specific weapon during the first 25 years of Constitutional ratification. If anyone can show me what they, themselves, banned from citizens then I'll consider it. However, regardless of an ill-defined second half I think it is as important to broadly validate the second as we do the first, fourth and fifth.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think that the second portion specifically implies the right to own and use weapons of ALL kinds. I am not familiar with the wide scale restriction on any specific weapon during the first 25 years of Constitutional ratification. If anyone can show me what they, themselves, banned from citizens then I'll consider it. However, regardless of an ill-defined second half I think it is as important to broadly validate the second as we do the first, fourth and fifth.

I have written significantly on this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/blogs/viewblog.php?userid=6581

 

[mattskramer]

It's not JUST "what is a well ordered militia" There are two rights being described even if the second has never been clearly defined. This is why I ask if THEY ever restricted private individuals from having ANY particular weapon.

Also, lets look at the variations of its original drafting:


The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, states:
“ 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."

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:
“ 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 think that the second portion specifically implies the right to own and use weapons of ALL kinds. I am not familiar with the wide scale restriction on any specific weapon during the first 25 years of Constitutional ratification. If anyone can show me what they, themselves, banned from citizens then I'll consider it. However, regardless of an ill-defined second half I think it is as important to broadly validate the second as we do the first, fourth and fifth.

Heck. Let’s simply amend the 2nd amendment so that there is no ambiguity and so that people will know exactly what it means. While we are at it, we can define an arm to exclude inappropriate things – so that people like me can understand what the “understood” limitations are understood to be.

 

[maineman]

did they have either nukes or bazookas when the constitution was written?


a better question:

DID THEY restrict ANY personal Arms then? Can you show me how THEY restricted the second amendment within the first 25 years of the ratification of the constitution?


I asked you a specific question. Are you saying that THE PEOPLE does not imply PERSONAL?

I think it implies that the people can own arms. I do not think it restricts them from having only the sorts of armaments that they can carry on their person and that only have limited kill power. Those restrictions are as a result of court action.