@Joe Nation,
Quote:Quote:
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
Joe Nation wrote:Why do you insist on quoting the whole amendment when, from it's most recent rulings we see,
a 5-4 majority of the USSC pays no attention to that whole inconvenient clause
about the Militia and the security of a free State?
Your point is well taken;
the right to organize private militia is not being litigated, nor is the USSC ruling on that.
Joe Nation wrote:The sooner you stop quoting the entire Amendment,
the sooner people will start thinking
that they have an individual right to keep and bear Arms.
Too late; thay 've already started.
Joe Nation wrote:I kept thinking that the "Originalist" on the panel, Justice Scalia,
would insist on linking the two ORIGINAL phrases together,
but instead I see that we have once again created a separate,
but equal, situation here in the USA.
He was at some considerable pains to show the historical growth of the doctrines
that found their way into the 2A. To this, he added independent
textual analysis by professional grammarians, resulting in
demonstration of an individual right, which co-incided with the known history, including their surviving writings.
The libertarian and Individualist zeitgeist of the 1780s n 1790s was well known.
The American Revolution was a libertarian revolution.
That was reflected in the resulting Constitution.
U might bear in mind that there were
NO police anywhere in the USA,
nor in England when the Bill of Rights was enacted in 1791.
Everyone was expected to defend himself.
Joe Nation wrote:There are two clauses, but only one of them counts if you are
obsessed by the idea of having to have a gun in your possession.
Our rights under the militia clause were not being litigated;
i.e., no one (yet) is demanding freedom to organize private militia.
What the Founders had in mind were 2 concepts:
1 ) The right of each citizen to be well armed in defense of his property
and
2 ) The right of the citizens
to organize themselves into units of militia
for whatever reasons present themselves, whether it be chasing an aberrant bear,
defending themselves from Indians or from criminals, or overthrowing the government (
AGAIN) as thay 'd just done.
That issue was not before the USSC in either
HELLER, nor
McDONALD.
Joe Nation wrote:So far the only persons firing guns in Federal Buildings, State Capitols and City Halls have done so,
not in defense of the security of the free State, but in vengeful, personal attacks on officials and nearby innocents.
Joe(Some of those officials were innocent too, I bet.)Nation
Were thay
sufficiently well armed ?
David
