rumitoid

Cut and paste from:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856.html#ixzz35JAuDXdu


A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.

So how does legal change happen in America? We’ve seen some remarkably successful drives in recent years—think of the push for marriage equality, or to undo campaign finance laws. Law students might be taught that the court is moved by powerhouse legal arguments or subtle shifts in doctrine. The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government. By the time the issue reached the Supreme Court, the desired new doctrine fell like a ripe apple from a tree.


The Second Amendment consists of just one sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today, scholars debate its bizarre comma placement, trying to make sense of the various clauses, and politicians routinely declare themselves to be its “strong supporters.” But in the grand sweep of American history, this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored.

The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government.

“Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

Cue the National Rifle Association. We all know of the organization’s considerable power over the ballot box and legislation. Bill Clinton groused in 1994 after the Democrats lost their congressional majority, “The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House.” Just last year, it managed to foster a successful filibuster of even a modest background-check proposal in the U.S. Senate, despite 90 percent public approval of the measure.

What is less known—and perhaps more significant—is its rising sway over constitutional law.

The NRA was founded by a group of Union officers after the Civil War who, perturbed by their troops’ poor marksmanship, wanted a way to sponsor shooting training and competitions. The group testified in support of the first federal gun law in 1934, which cracked down on the machine guns beloved by Bonnie and Clyde and other bank robbers. When a lawmaker asked whether the proposal violated the Constitution, the NRA witness responded, “I have not given it any study from that point of view.” The group lobbied quietly against the most stringent regulations, but its principal focus was hunting and sportsmanship: bagging deer, not blocking laws. In the late 1950s, it opened a new headquarters to house its hundreds of employees. Metal letters on the facade spelled out its purpose: firearms safety education, marksmanship training, shooting for recreation.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856.html#ixzz35JAuDXdu

Brian Devon

****************
Rumitoid, thank you for your very informative post. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens has written extensively on the fact that because we haven't had well regulated militias since the civil war, that the "shall not infringe" portion of the second amendment is not operative.

It was a long haul to end the "slaves everywhere" mentality of certain parts of this country. Apparently ending the "guns everywhere" mentality will also take some time. The most important thing we have going for us are the elementary school teachers whose task is to teach children to negotiate conflicts through words, as opposed to physical intimidation. The NRA may not have started out as the nation's number one pro-intimidation group but this is what they evolved into over time.

Lily

I will go with the liberal way of answering topics. You remember the answer to gay marriage, "If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one."

If you don't like a gun, don't own one.

As a secondary note, you are a liar. You have said before you don't have a problem with gun ownership. Yes, you do. You prove it every time you post on this topic.

Lily

I thought teachers were suppose to teach reading, writing, math and science. I thought parents taught other values. They must've added the values thing since the teachers are doing a lousy job at their real job. :idea: :idea: :!:

rumitoid

I have repeated what my specific objection is the same way every time: it is with those who believe any controls are an infringement, not with ownership. I will repeat that here, if you want?

It is not as simple as "If you don't like a gun, don't own one." The wide proliferation and lack of responsible controls are a direct threat to the public safety and order.

Facts of history, as noted in the article, are not a liberal view but simply what happened.

Lily

They have controls. You just dont like them cause they're not what you want. Get over it.

By the way, your 90% number on gun control is another lie. There's not such poll. You liberals just take a poll among yourselves. everybody says the same thing and that's your poll.

Basically you're a sanctimonous jerk. Polite, but a jerk.

freeperson

:thumbdown: :thumbdown:

Brian Devon

**********
Teachers have to do both. Many children come from homes where they are not taught to negotiate differences with words. When a fist fight breaks out in first grade, the teacher has to do some "values clarification" that may have been omitted at home.

In an ideal world all the first graders would begin school already knowing to keep their hands to themselves. Guess what? We don't live in an ideal world.

Lily

Agreed.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Perhaps it might be a good idea to see what the people who actually WROTE the Amendment had to say about it, rather than relying on an interpretation based on personal bias, whether a private or public figure. The following is a collection of comments by the Founders:




2nd Amendment Quotes From Our Founding Fathers



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.

Seems some people dont understand the 2nd amendment (even though it specifically says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall NOT be INFRINGED.) But none the less certain politicians keep saying it was for the militia and now the militia is our modern day military...
So lets take a look at what some of our founding fathers thought of guns and of the average citizens right to own them.

George Washington

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil
interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

"To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace."

"The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon."

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."

Thomas Jefferson

-"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government"

-"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

-"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion....
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time
with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

-“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve
rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may
be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

-"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

-"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

-"A strong body makes the mind strong.
As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate
exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the
mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent
for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be
your constant companion of your walks."

-"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

-"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. "

Patrick Henry

-"The great object is, that ever man be armed"

-"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation
that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the
difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own
direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense
be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted
with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

-"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one
who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."

-"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it
were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you
could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution
in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?"

Benjamin Franklin

-"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

-"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."

James Madison

-"The advantage of being armed which
Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where)
the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

James Monroe

-"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of
speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and
criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right
to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured
against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever
degenerate into tyranny."

Samuel Adams

-"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of
conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable
citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless
necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of
them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly
manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to
subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons,
papers or possesions."

Noah Webster

-"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the
people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular
troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A
military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but
such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will
possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination,
to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and
oppressive."

-"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this,
to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people,
or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on
the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule,
the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.
The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because
the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to
any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the
United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute
no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for
they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the
inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them
unjust and oppressive."

Tenche Coxe

-"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their
arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then,
that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress
have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...the
unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal
or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in
the hands of the people."

-"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may
attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised
to defend our country, might pervert their powers to the injury of their fellow-citizens,
the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right
to keep and bear their private arms."

-"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large,
will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check
upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe
them"

Richard Henry Lee

-"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body
of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when
young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all
promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind
that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly
anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice
upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for
carefully guarding against it."

George Mason

-"That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well
regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the
proper natural and safe defense of a free State..."

-"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great
Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was
governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and
most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it
openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are
the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few
public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future
day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the
future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and
poor..."

-"... who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...?
I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except
a few public officers."

Albert Gallatin

-"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

Rev. Nicholas Collin

-"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark
of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project
of tyranny

Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de7_1357179083&comments=1#as29zRzqHdDz0T7x.99

rktoad

I disagree to a degree. You lean on Madison to make your points. But if you quoted Washington, Jefferson, Payne..etc. you would understand that the right to bear arms is an individual right.
Effectively, ALL rights in the constitution are INDIVIDUAL rights. It would be a waste to begin with, to write a document about rights that then did not assign those rights to the individual.
As with all reasonable people, whether that right should be unfettered, include assault weapons and such, can be debated.
To me, the 2nd Amendment is obviously a right of individuals to keep and bear arms. It is not so obvious that they need assault weapons...or to carry those arms everywhere indiscriminately.
But unfortunately, as with too many rights nowadays, most people are extreme one way or the other. If I can't stay with the reasonableness middle ground on the issue, I would advocate for the one that extremely keeps the right to have guns, totally unfettered. It beats being totally unarmed if an American does not want to be totally unarmed.

JetJock Loc: Texas

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

JetJock Loc: Texas

The right to bear arms does not specify if it is a gun, knife, baseball bat but addresses that you have the right to bear arm with which to defend yourself, against a thief or a gov which has over stepped its authority. We are seeing more of that every day, gov over stepping it's authority.

Live free or die.

Snoopy

To All

Read the Federalist Papers to get an insight on what the Foundling Fathers were thinking about on weapons, militias, etc

Snoopy

Loki Loc: Georgia

Most of the "Federalist" comments on the subject are included in the synopsis I posted.