![[SeMissourian.com]](/images/nameplate.gif)
|
|
 Print
 Email link
 Respond to editor
 Post comment
How do you interpret the Second Amendment?Tuesday, July 15, 2008
I was talking briefly this morning with online editor Matt Sanders about the Second Amendment and the passion that it evokes. We thought it would make a good blog post to ask local residents to discuss their interpretations of the amendment, particularly in light of the recent Supreme Court decision that struck down the DC handgun ban. The Second Amendment reads as follows from the Bill of Rights: "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." In my opinion, the wording is notably vague and raises lots of questions, some of which I have listed here. What is a militia -- the National Guard? Where is the line that defines what is necessary to the security of the state? What exactly are arms -- guns, baseball bats, or knives? Are hunting weapons necessary to the safety of the state? While the definition of what the right to bear arms itself is a big question to me, the Second Amendment is pretty clear that whatever this right is shall not be infringed. How do you interpret the right defined in the Second Amendment? How do our modern needs (such as safety from assault weapons in cities) compare with the intent of the time to protect the new-born country against an overly-powerful government? Should we have separate laws governing guns in cities and other laws for rural areas? This is an issue that has not been resolved in the 220 years since the Bill of Rights was passed. Clearly, it will not be easy to reach a "right" or "wrong" conclusion, and there may not be one.
Comments  The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, use the exclamation point icon beside the comment to send a report to the webmaster.
Respond to this storyYou are not logged in. Please login or create an account.
|
Tristram Thomas is a senior Classics major from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who will be interning at the Southeast Missourian this summer. He has lived in New Jersey, Maryland, and Montreal, Canada, and spent his last two summers in Punta Arenas, Chile as an English teacher, and in Rome, Italy as Latin student with a Carmelite friar.
His blog will chronicle his experiences in Southeast Missouri this summer. Having spent most of his life in the Northeast, Tristram plans to use his blog as a means to facilitate an exchange of ideas between the cultures of Southeast Missouri and the Northeast. How do you interpret the Second Amendment? (July 15, 2008) Multi-racial Churches in Cape (July 1, 2008) advertisement
|
I'm amazed at how many feel it necessary to own a gun. Have no problem with those who wish to own a gun, but just don't "get" the lure. Perhaps my line of thought has been jaded by moving out of state for 18 years...but I find the strong cultural conviction to own and use guns a bit scary.
And shocked by the following statement..."Our children have learned to shoot at young ages (as have mine), and that teaches respect, safety, and a great sport to young Americans." IMO Guns should be kept locked away from ALL children! NO child has the appropriate level of maturity to make wise "unsupervised" decisions with any type of gun. The last several decades of school shootings are excellent examples of poor gun unsupervised decisions made by children. AND I feel our laws should hold the gunowners responsible for such crimes, as well as children's accidental shootings when guns are not safely stored.
The following url is reflective of my stance...
http://www.youtube.com/...
It is about time the firearm laws in D.C. are changed! Now they need to be changed in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago! The second ammendment CLEARLY STATES the right of an individual to own and keep arms!!! I own several firearms that were given to me by my Grandfather and Father. Along with those firearms I own several pistols, rifles and shotguns. I would feel very sorry for any individual or individuals who want to infringe my rights as a United States Citzen!!!!!!!!!
"This is an issue that has not been resolved in the 220 years since the Bill of Rights was passed. Clearly, it will not be easy to reach a "right" or "wrong" conclusion, and there may not be one."
Oh, but Tristram, it has been resolved, at least, for the time being.
The meaning of the Second Amendment was analyzed under the scrutiny of historical attitude, content and intent and interpreted to mean that the Second Amendment gives the right for law abiding citizens, to own firearms.
Our Forefathers tried to make certain that the rights of U.S. citizens, would remain intact, always, not just for the time being. The "militia" was not meant to protect, solely, against foreign aggressors, but also, meant to give the citizens the right to protect themselves, against any threat, by local, state, or federal government of this country, if need be.
The difference between citizens and subjects, is the right to bare arms.
My first rifle was an Ithica...
When the Second Amendment was passed our nation was fearful of large standing armies run by a "federal" government. At that time if you were in the militia you were not given a gun when you signed up, you had to bring your own. Therefore, individual citizens do, and should have the right to own firearms. I have that right to protect my property.
QUOTE: "Clearly, it will not be easy to reach a "right" or "wrong" conclusion, and there may not be one."
There are at least two "wrong" conclusions that are easy to recognize. One is the conclusion that the Second Amendment protects the right of the government instead of the individual. Another is that the Second Amendment has anything to do with hunting.
Tristram
You can't keep anybody from getting a firearm no matter what laws are passed. Let that sink in slowly to your young brain! Stict firearm laws such as in DC have proven that fact.
And why are you bringing up the subject of hunting? Just curious, but I can probably predict where you are going with your debate. LOL
Here's a link to an article on the recent Supreme Court decision:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
The article outlines the fact that the right to guns for individual citizens is there. It also says European countries with fewer gun laws have lower homicide rates, but the United States is an exception to that.
In my view, the question comes down to how do we keep the wrong people from getting guns? I have had friends shot to death because individuals obtained guns who were not supposed to. In the most recent case, the two shooters were not legally permitted to hold firearms, but they had them anyways. How do we avoid those situations?
Unlike Nil, I do not believe individuals shot to death are collateral damage; I do believe we can have our right to bear arms but still have safe smart laws that keep the wrong people from getting guns. How do we do that?
(I'm still curious whether bloggers have an opinion on hunting weapons and their pertinence to security from the state.)
Santee
Right on! We lose our rights and then have to beg for them to be restored. We need more civil disobedience. It's a dirty little secret that the same folks in DC who pass our laws are illegally armed.
There is no question that it is an individual right. In fact, if you read the amendment grammatically, the definition of militia is irrelevant. It doesn't say that it's the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.
We have to remember that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect individuals from government, not the other way around.
I am perfectly content to have the 2nd Amendment mean what the 18th and 19th century writers and commentators said it meant -- the right of a voter and taxpayer to go where she pleases and be armed wherever she goes.
How far have we fallen from the intent of the founders of our Constitutional Republic here in the United States? The intent of the founders was understood completely until the gun-grabbers began to multiply. This is why the 2nd Amendment was never challenged until the 20th Century.
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the 'High Powers' delegated directly to the citizen by the United States Constitution, Amendment II, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government'. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon it or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." - Cockrum vs. State of Texas, Texas Supreme Court, 1859.
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.'" amp;quot;MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)
"Any government that would attempt to disarm its people is despotic; and any people that would submit to it deserve to be slaves!" - Stephen F. Austin, 1835
And now our plea, as almost slaves, is that they restore what has been taken away from us. We are close to losing all our Constitutionally protected rights, which are being infringed more and more. Or perhaps, we are close to the day when we rise up and take back what has been taken away.
I am surprised that this had not had more responses.
I have heard the position that the Second Amendment only applies to the National Guard. While I don't understand the wording of the Second Amendment; I do understand the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights applies to individuals, not to government. There is no way that our founding fathers wrote any part of the Bill of Rights to guarantee the right of the Armed Forces to have weapons and not the citizenry.
I don't understand how otherwise seemingly intelligent people can make the argument that our founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights to guarantee the right of soldiers wearing the uniform of the US Army to have weapons but not law abiding citizens.
That position is as ridiculous as the position that the Second Amendment allows anybody to have any weapon without government interference of any kind.
In my view the entire point of the second amendment was to that an armed populace is able to retain their liberties against the threat of invasion or even internal tyranny.
This has changed a bit in modern times since a group of individuals no longer has much hope in going head to head against a modern standing army, but an armed citizenry still makes it nearly impossible for a nation to be occupied by another nation.
Victims of gun crimes & accidental shootings are just a minor bit of collateral damage in the bigger fight to keep society free from outside threats.
Please try to use logic, common sense, history, and plain english as your guide. Our Founding Fathers knew that disarmed people were constantly subject to criminals wrath in the old Countries. Read their writings, it was the intent to allow our Citizens to protect themselves from armed predators, they believed it was a God-given right. They knew the secondary effect would be that no military force could overwhelm a free Country in which every person had arms, and that takeover of the Federal Government by Tyrannical Dictators (which seems more relevant now), could be easily stopped by "the people" if our own military was turned against us. That is why ordinary citizens should own and train with military type weapons. Also the Constitution is about "individual rights", do you think they would honestly write a provision that our military could have guns? Were our Militias of the time supposed to throw rocks at Foreign Armies if we did not have the 2nd Amendment?...get real. We have always been a nation of warriors, and the best marksmen/riflemen in the world because of our 2nd Amendment. Our children have learned to shoot at young ages (as have mine), and that teaches respect, safety, and a great sport to young Americans. It is the thugs that have never seen, held, or owned a weapon that get one and use them for criminal purposes. You will NEVER disarm criminals...only the law abiding. If I assault another with a BB gun, that instrument becomes an "assault rifle". So please, do not use the word "assault rifle" to describe a weapon, it shows total ignorance and bias. It is either an (illegal) "automatic rifle/pistol" or a (legal) "semi-auto rifle/pistol" or a "single-shot rifle/pistol" or a "revolver/lever action". Guns are used THOUSANDS of times per year to save lives in the U.S., it is documented by our Sheriff's and Police, but the media will not print even one positive story of citizens with guns saving lives. Even if you live in a big city, please go to your local firing range and learn to shoot, learn the safety rules, and at least try it once before you tell others that guns are evil. Guns are NOT evil, only people can be evil.
1. There was no National Guard when the Second Amendment was written. The militia WAS the people. The "people" were the citizen soldiers that fought against tyranny and lost much and gave some incrediable sacrifices to gain our freedom.
2. Arms. Firearms. You might want to approach a bad guy with a firearm with your arm or a baseball bat but I don't. And people who say they would normally have body guards very close by.
3. Assualt Rifles. Only specially licensed individuals can own an assault rifle. An assualt rifle is a selective fire weapon that fires semi-auto or full auto. Most firearms you call assault rifles are semi-auto only and just look like assault rifles. Now to get an underestanding on this, just becasue a person looks like a bad guy doesn't make him a bad guy, does it? You need to understand what your describing before writing about it.
4. Have you ever fired a semi-auto rifle? How about going aut to the range and do a little recreational shooting sometime with a friend. Try it you might like it!
5. Remove the Second Ammendment and imagine what would happen. All you have to do is look back in history when the "people" were disarmed. The Jews! The Polish! The Cambodians! Need I list more? Be very proud that our founding fathers thought enough about this right to make it the Second Ammendment right after the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech.
6. Why have seperate laws for cities and rural areas. Ther are laws on the books now that are not being enforced. Many are not because of "privacy issues". There are laws on illegal drugs and they seem to be everywhere. How do you plan to keep guns from bad guys. Drug users want drugs, bad guys want drugs, money and guns and they will have them if you and I don't.
7. Be happy when your next door neighbor comes to the rescue someday with a firearm when a bad guy is threatening you or your family.
First, I would argue with your premise that people need protection from assault rifles. No they don't--people today need protection from CRIMINALS. Unfortunately, the police can't do much to prevent crime, they just show up in time to write the report after it's happened.