Obama
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,536
Likes: 0
From: Orlando
Originally Posted by triman54,May 25 2008, 05:39 AM
^Barry, I have no interest in starting or contributing to arguments over politics. Everyone has to make his or her own decision and let that decision be ruled by conscience. At the end of the day, I can disagree with someone's politics and argue politics, but I don't want to risk writing something that can be construed as a personal attack against someone's candidate.
I'm extremely passionate about politics and have many personal reasons tied to my choices. I pat myself on the back for staying out of it. -B
Former Moderator
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,821
Likes: 5
From: Jacksonville, FL
Originally Posted by triman54,May 25 2008, 06:43 AM
Legally and historically, the argument would be that the Amendment was added as part of the Bill of Rights, and the language about a well-regulated militia was used, because Article I of the Constituion authorized the Congress to establish an army and navy. The states were concerned about their loss of their traditional sovereignty since they had hirthto established individual state militias. (Remember that even the Continental Army during the Revolution was established by the Continental Congress, not by any constitution--hence the states were the primary repositiories of legal authority for its estabishment.) To placate the states' concerns, Madison included the Second Amendment. That being the case, the Second Amendment could be deemed historically a collective right, not an individual right. If it is collective, than jurisprudentially the states would have the greater inherent authority to regulate individual ownership of firmarms than if the Second Amendment were deemed to protect an individual right.
I picked up a book a couple years back when I was constantly getting into Consitutional battles on the net: The Complete Bill of Rights by Cogan. It's a collection of available Congressional records showing the history of the changes to the 10 Amendments and correspondence from the State's legislatures regarding them...plus the original language of the State's individual constitutions. There is no commentary or editorial, it is mearly a compelation of avalable artifacts. But it has been helpful to me in forming my own interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
And it was obvious that the States wanted to make sure they could arm their own militia to protect themselves from a strong Federal government. BUT, it is also interesting to note that there did not seem to be any question that Citizens were to "keep arms".
Case in point is the Pennsylvania proposal for the amendment which states:
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."
Which is similar in language to the 1776 Pennsylvania Consitution...and the 1790 revised Consitution which simply stated:
"That the right of Citizens to bear arms, in defense of themselves and the state, shall not be questionned."
BTW...it is also interesting that the largest debate on this amendment was not whether the people would be able to keep arms, but on whether the Federal government should force serving in the military.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,040
Likes: 0
From: Winter Springs, Fl.
[QUOTE=negcamber,May 25 2008, 02:34 PM] Very true.
I picked up a book a couple years back when I was constantly getting into Consitutional battles on the net: The Complete Bill of Rights by Cogan.
I picked up a book a couple years back when I was constantly getting into Consitutional battles on the net: The Complete Bill of Rights by Cogan.
