The problem with understanding the clear intent of the 2nd Amendment lies not in its supposed ambiguity, but in the long history up to now of the ruling elites to deprive the people of the right to acquire, keep and carry the means to resist their arbitrary plunder and tyranny.
I see the Second Amendment as addressing the right of the people to be secure as a political society, keeping and bearing arms as a well regulated state militia.
It is the Fourth Amendment that addresses the right of the people to be secure as individual persons. By adding the word “arms,” Madison and the First Congress could have made the Fourth Amendment to begin, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, arms, houses, papers, and effects…” And they could have inserted explicit words like those sought by the New Hampshire ratification convention:
“Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual
rebellion.”
It doesn’t appear that Madison and the First Congress considered it necessary to provide individuals with protection against the new federal government in their personal use of guns.
[…] It’s a rather ridiculous assertion for a variety of reasons but this ain’t a post about that. It’s a post about Jack then coming to here and making a similar comment under a different name. He’s probably leaving the same comment at other blogs. I don’t care that you leave comments but use the same handle. It’s the polite thing to do. […]
December 13th, 2006 at 10:15 am
The problem with understanding the clear intent of the 2nd Amendment lies not in its supposed ambiguity, but in the long history up to now of the ruling elites to deprive the people of the right to acquire, keep and carry the means to resist their arbitrary plunder and tyranny.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Ron W,
Yup. Judges are hesitant to overthrow decades of law and cases law. I’ve commented on that point as well.
December 13th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
I see the Second Amendment as addressing the right of the people to be secure as a political society, keeping and bearing arms as a well regulated state militia.
It is the Fourth Amendment that addresses the right of the people to be secure as individual persons. By adding the word “arms,” Madison and the First Congress could have made the Fourth Amendment to begin, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, arms, houses, papers, and effects…” And they could have inserted explicit words like those sought by the New Hampshire ratification convention:
“Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual
rebellion.”
It doesn’t appear that Madison and the First Congress considered it necessary to provide individuals with protection against the new federal government in their personal use of guns.
December 14th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Yes, Leif, I know. Kinda like when you said the same thing over here as Jack Weaver but from the same IP address.
December 14th, 2006 at 9:58 am
[…] It’s a rather ridiculous assertion for a variety of reasons but this ain’t a post about that. It’s a post about Jack then coming to here and making a similar comment under a different name. He’s probably leaving the same comment at other blogs. I don’t care that you leave comments but use the same handle. It’s the polite thing to do. […]