Interpreting the 2nd Amendment: Literalism and Intent in Gun Laws

[TheStatutoryApe]

Just out of curiosity, why were the founding fathers so scared that the government might try to take their rifles and muskets?

Granted, for many of that time, losing their gun meant more than losing a means of self defense. It also meant they couldn't hunt.

Still, I don't know of any attempt to limit the colonists' private ownership of guns. The only guns the British were concerned about were the cannon owned by local militias and then only towards the beginning of the Revolutionary War, when the British began to realize they had a problem. They placed an embargo against powder, which would affect both cannon and privately owned guns, but the only actual guns they tried to confiscate were the cannon.

The constitution was originally seen as a contract between the states and the federal government. The anti-federalists were concerned that a strong centralized government would commit abuses similar to the English colonial government and that if the federal government had a standing army while restricting the ability of the states to organize militias this could lead to infringements on state sovereignty without the ability of the states to defend themselves. The Bill of Rights was specifically to the purpose of assuaging the concerns of the anti-federalists. To that effect the second amendment recognized the rights of states to organize militias and recognized a "right to bear arms" as important to this end. Of course were the federal government capable of restricting the ownership of arms it would hamper the ability of the state to form militias so the recognition of a personal right to bear arms is necessary.

 

[turbo]

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you on this issue. The context of my post was whether it was a crime to be in possession of a gun that's not registered to you.

I also don't worry about whether or not my guns are "off-paper", since as a practical matter, unlike universal registration, that can't be used for any ill purpose, anyway. As you know, dealer records only show who bought the gun from the dealer, not necessarily who currently legally owns it. So those records don't provide any way to establish that a particular person currently owns a particular gun.

The dealer records and FFL books offer a starting point to what might be a broken paper trail. Still, if you are the listed buyer of a number of guns that have been linked to criminal activity, it's likely that the BATF might be showing up at your door. Straw-purchasers can make a few bucks here and there helping others keep their names off the BATF records, but if they end up selling to less-than-law-abiding citizens and the guns are linked to crimes, someone will be looking for them.

 

[drankin]

I don't know how it works in other states but in Washington, as a private seller, I can sell my guns to anyone provided I have no knowledge that they are a felon. All I'm required to do is document the sale. The only reason to involve an FFL is if it crosses state lines.

 

[vertices]

Irrelevant.

You implied that a "well armed citizenry" is pretty much the only way to overthrow an illegitimate government. I simply counterargued that this is not necessarily true.

Your last example is just wrong, Dr. King did not overthrow the government, so it's a poor example.

I wasn't saying he did (read what I wrote).

 

[Char. Limit]

Turbo-1, in one of your earlier posts, you mentioned that Britain was the greatest military power at the time. Now, not hijacking the thread (I doubt this has the potential for much discussion anyway, and if it does, I'll form a separate thread for it), but I believe that 20 years earlier AND 20 years later than 1775, France was holding that position. Now, certainly Britain was the greatest naval power by far, and this is why they could control such an extensive empire. But on pure military force, you couldn't beat France, I believe.

But I might be wrong. Maybe they were in a slump at the time. I just am certain that 20 years both earlier and later, they were the dominant force.

 

[turbo]

But I might be wrong. Maybe they were in a slump at the time. I just am certain that 20 years both earlier and later, they were the dominant force.

France was definitely in a slump here at the time of the French and Indian Wars and the American Revolution. England had taken control of much of what was formerly French territory, and fought to control vital waterways like the Hudson river valley and the St. Lawrence.

France saw the colonists, in part, as a proxy army in their struggles with England as shown by the large numbers of high-quality Charleville muskets supplied to colonial militias. Those are even more desirable than the Brown Bess muskets to some collectors, since they often feature colonial militia markings, including regiment numbers. They were quite rugged, and the first official US muskets were based on this pattern.

 

[drankin]

You implied that a "well armed citizenry" is pretty much the only way to overthrow an illegitimate government. I simply counterargued that this is not necessarily true.

Can you provide a historical example?

 

[vertices]

Can you provide a historical example?

I did - Gandi's India.

 

[Cyrus]

I did - Gandi's India.

Considering it took him nearly 30 years to accomplish this, not really a viable solution - unless you like being mowed down by gunfire year after year.

 

[Cyrus]

You implied that a "well armed citizenry" is pretty much the only way to overthrow an illegitimate government. I simply counterargued that this is not necessarily true.

No, I said a well armed citizenry was intended by the founders to overthrow a government, or expel an outside government. The fact that Ghandi used other means is of no bearing here.


Sigh...I'm getting tired of arguing things that should be self evident.

 

[vertices]

Considering it took him nearly 30 years to accomplish this, not really a viable solution - unless you like being mowed down by gunfire year after year.

It's not a viable solution because it takes a relatively long time to accomplish? An armed struggle would have left India in a state of anarchy - democracy is never granted, it is won and it takes time to win it.

Btw can you provide evidence to back up the bit in bold - I think you are quite wrong on that (as far as I am aware there was only one such massacre in Amritsar).

No, I said a well armed citizenry was intended by the founders to overthrow a government, or expel an outside government. The fact that Ghandi used other means is of no bearing here.

The problem is that illegitimate governments invariably have atleast some support in the population (eg. Shah's Iran, Sadam's Iraq, Idi Amin's Uganda) - what if you only have a minority of people wanting to overthrow the government? That's why I raised the example of MLK - the pre-civil rights American government was by definition undemocratic and illegitimate - could civil rights supporters (the minority) have overthrown the government if they had resorted to an armed struggle (without attempting to inspire others with their message)?

Your (and dare I say, the founding fathers') ardent belief that private citizens must own muskets and dualing pistols, as this is the only 'viable' way to overthrow the government, flies in the face of hard empirical evidence.

Furthermore, the discourse (which is quite belligerent in tone) surrounding the 2nd amendment gives ammunition (no pun intended) to a number of thoroughly Anti-American and anti-democratic lunatics in the teabagger movement, who want to secede from the union because Obama apparently isn't "their" president - this shows that a non-violent approach to solving crises in democracy is always the best approach as its entirely in the spirit of democratic ideals.

 

[BobG]

The problem is that illegitimate governments invariably have atleast some support in the population (eg. Shah's Iran, Sadam's Iraq, Idi Amin's Uganda) - what if you only have a minority of people wanting to overthrow the government? That's why I raised the example of MLK - the pre-civil rights American government was by definition undemocratic and illegitimate - could civil rights supporters (the minority) have overthrown the government if they had resorted to an armed struggle (without attempting to inspire others with their message)?

Only about 40-45% of the colonists supported the American Revolution - which was about twice as many as remained loyal to the British Crown. The rest just tried to making a living on their farms or in their stores.

That's not meant to trivialize support for the American Revolution, either. You need more active supporters than the other side has, not a majority of the population. And even if you have less supporters, you can still try.

But resorting to an armed struggle without inspiring others that your fight is legitimate is a good way to lose. You'll alienate people who were once neutral and increase the number of people that decide to support the other side.

 

[Cyrus]

It's not a viable solution because it takes a relatively long time to accomplish? An armed struggle would have left India in a state of anarchy - democracy is never granted, it is won and it takes time to win it.

<shrug> Okay. Not really relevant here...

Btw can you provide evidence to back up the bit in bold - I think you are quite wrong on that (as far as I am aware there was only one such massacre in Amritsar).

I was basing it on movie Ghandi, I think there were a few scenes of famous events where this happened. Anyways, I'll take it back if its not true - it's not really the main point here anyways. The point was that it took a very, very, long time.

The problem is that illegitimate governments invariably have atleast some support in the population (eg. Shah's Iran, Sadam's Iraq, Idi Amin's Uganda) - what if you only have a minority of people wanting to overthrow the government? That's why I raised the example of MLK - the pre-civil rights American government was by definition undemocratic and illegitimate - could civil rights supporters (the minority) have overthrown the government if they had resorted to an armed struggle (without attempting to inspire others with their message)?

It was "undemocratic" and "illegitimate"? Umm...no. That doesn't even make sense. And what does it matter what they did or didn't decide to do? You are under a the false impression that just because you can peacefully protest the government you don't need to have the 2nd amendment, the same way you are under the false notion that banning guns reduces crime rates.

Your (and dare I say, the founding fathers') ardent belief that private citizens must own muskets and dualing pistols, as this is the only 'viable' way to overthrow the government, flies in the face of hard empirical evidence.

Not really, as they overthrew a government, namely, yours, using weapons. I don't know why you choose to ignore history. Your "evidence" comes hundreds of years after the creation of the constitution. Do you honestly think they had a magic crystal ball to look into the future and predict these later world events (absurd)? Besides, the founders never said it was the only viable way. They were much smarter than you give them credit, because they included the ability to have an armed uprising, if we Americans so choose. That does not mean that we here in the US grab our arms and start armed revolutions every time something doesn't go our way. I don't know why you have this false impression, perhaps if you were more well traveled, you'd understand.

Furthermore, the discourse (which is quite belligerent in tone) surrounding the 2nd amendment gives ammunition (no pun intended) to a number of thoroughly Anti-American and anti-democratic lunatics in the teabagger movement, who want to secede from the union because Obama apparently isn't "their" president - this shows that a non-violent approach to solving crises in democracy is always the best approach as its entirely in the spirit of democratic ideals.

Who cares what tea baggers have to say? Why is this relevant? Stop arguing straw men. And, BTW, this does not show why non-violent approaches to solving problems in democracy is always the best approach. ---------------------------------
The 2nd amendment gives us (US Citizens) the right to bear arms. End of story. Finito. Fine.

In case you have not noticed, everyone here has relentlessly and mercilessly shot down your argument. So, I'll lend you a helping hand: if you want to make a case for gun regulation, you need to do so from a constitutional stand point -not by arguing irrelevant (and incorrect) safety figures, or tea part movement rhetoric. And, going back to the OP, not by trying to pawn it off to poor sentence structure by the founders.

 

[turbo]

Today, SCOTUS has voted (narrowly) that the 2nd amendment is binding on state governments, as well as the federal government. While they did not explicitly strike down Chicago's ban, that decision will change the tone in the lower courts, where Chicago's handgun ban will certainly be struck down.

 

[Cyrus]

Today, SCOTUS has voted (narrowly) that the 2nd amendment is binding on state governments, as well as the federal government. While they did not explicitly strike down Chicago's ban, that decision will change the tone in the lower courts, where Chicago's handgun ban will certainly be struck down.

Woo hoo! I can't wait to see the look on that DONKEY Mayor Daleys face!

[PLAIN]http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/6756/pict0282w.jpg

A nice celebratory picture of my Glock and the constitution!

Hopefully this trend will reverse Commiefornias crazy gun laws too.

 

[Cyrus]

From SCOTUS itself!

If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of handguns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.

Nice slap in the face to Mayor DONKEY!

 

[turbo]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_guns;_ylt=AlA2bePqgLndiJTno1eX6u6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNtNTZobGxxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNjI4L3VzX3N1cHJlbWVfY291cnRfZ3VucwRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzEyBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdXN0aWNlc2V4dGU-

I didn't link the AP story earlier, because it had been picked up by Huffington Post.

 

[drankin]

Today, SCOTUS has voted (narrowly) that the 2nd amendment is binding on state governments, as well as the federal government. While they did not explicitly strike down Chicago's ban, that decision will change the tone in the lower courts, where Chicago's handgun ban will certainly be struck down.

I'm speechless, this is fantastic. And right before Independence Day!

 

[turbo]

I'm speechless, this is fantastic. And right before Independence Day!

And about time.

The laws that we have in place at the federal level are sufficient, if they are only enforced. Massachusetts has some very restrictive laws, as does NYC. Perhaps the rights of the citizenry can be restored in some of these cases.

 

[Cyrus]

And about time.

The laws that we have in place at the federal level are sufficient, if they are only enforced. Massachusetts has some very restrictive laws, as does NYC. Perhaps the rights of the citizenry can be restored in some of these cases.

Judge sotoymayor was very disappointing in the way she voted. What is scary is that 4 judges (worthless) voted against it.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Judge sotoymayor was very disappointing in the way she voted.

Can you clarify this? I'm mystified

 

[Cyrus]

Can you clarify this? I'm mystified

She voted against it.

 

[Office_Shredder]

She voted against it.

I was really focusing on the disappointment part

 

[Cyrus]

I was really focusing on the disappointment part

She is supposed to uphold the constitution, she failed. She voted exactly as I'd expect from a liberal judge.

 

[turbo]

Can you clarify this? I'm mystified

I have to agree with Cy on this one. The notion that states and cities can restrict personal freedoms granted in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is disturbing.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Oh my god this isn't hard. How is Judge Sotomayor disappointed in the way she voted. No lectures on the morality of the case or whether states rights trump the constitution etc.

 

[Cyrus]

Oh my god this isn't hard. How is Judge Sotomayor disappointed in the way she voted. No lectures on the morality of the case or whether states rights trump the constitution etc.

No no no no no. Reread what I wrote. I'm disappointed in how she voted.

 

[Office_Shredder]

No no no no no. Reread what I wrote. I'm disappointed in how she voted.

Oh, I thought it said 'disappointed' not 'disappointing'. My bad

 

[Cyrus]

pEP9G2v-_LA&feature=player_embedded... him a constitution to go read. F'in scumbag.

 

[drankin]

pEP9G2v-_LA&feature=player_embedded...heir home and we all survived without injury.