Rice: Gun Rights Important As Free Speech

Actually, I'm quite good with a .22, and yes, the 2nd amendment only confirms the right to own and carry such.

Deleted because of massive delay between writing and actual post.
Not sure what happened.

I thought we were doing that.

So am I, but I wouldn't show for duty in A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, with a .22 .

The Second Amendment is written with the qualification that as long as a well regulated militia IS necessary the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but a person not under the regulations of such an organized armed group, for instance, having your weaponry listed in a registry, seems to me not to have any license or right to bear arms. One end of the amendment supports the other, each end being equal.


Joe(here's shooting at you)Nation

That's hogwash Joe, and you know it. The SCOTUS has never interpreted it that way, and never will.

You may disagree with what Joe wrote, but it's not "hogwash." Well, I guess you can call it that if you want, but it's bogus to say that no one truly believes that interpretation to be valid.

Maybe even hogwash...

I can hunt and kill with a sharp stick. Do I need to be a member of a militia to have a sharp stick?

I don't recall the Constitution mentioning sharp sticks. The militias at that time had better weaponry...

The ammendment is not difficult to interpret and no reasonable person with a good command of the English language would interpret it that way.

The first part of the thing is basically a motivation, and the second part of it is the law.

The first part is basically immaterial. It could as easily read



You could even produce a film of a wet bird actually flying at night, and even that would not invalidate the law. The best it might do might be to motivate somebody to try to change the constitution legally.

You're right. That would be an insult to hogs.

lol That's a new twist. Now the right to bear arms is dependent on whether or not someone decides a militia is necessary?

The statement "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.." is declarative. It is written as a statement of fact. It has never been interpreted by any court or Constitutional scholar as a qualifier. There is no "if" or "as long as..." in the 2nd Amendment.

Based on you logic here one could interpret the entire Consitution as being meaningless if they decide that they no longer want a "more perfect union".

There has been a lot of talk lately about reading the Constitution and how to do it. Some think we need to read it in the originalist sense, I concur.

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.

The second half of this Article, which every gunsucker er slinger loves, is clearly an independent sentence. It can stand alone, but it does not.

It is preceded by a qualifying, yes, declarative, but still, qualifying clause. A well regulated militia implys many and several things:

That the right to bear arms depends upon the necessity of that well-regulated militia. I will leave it to you to decide what well-regulated might mean, actual membership in a organized armed group which stands ready to provide security for the free state comes to my mind. Not simply that everybody is able to bear whatever armament they themselves deem necessary for their own health and safety. No, clearly, the intent of the founders was solely to provide security for the the Free State through a well-regulated militia.

Gungasnake says:


No no no. It might come as something of a shock to some to learn that no parts of the US Constitution are immaterial. Ask Anton Scalia for a ruling on that one.

Good to hear from you, fishin. I don't think this is a new twist. I think there was a SCOTUS ruling back in the 30's based on this thinking. (The decision concerned the ownership of saw-offed shotguns, who could possess them (no one) and what State regulation was Constitutional. (Any State can regulate the ownership of weapons. Wyatt Earp could prevent the carrying of weapons in Dodge City. The Federal Government can regulate the interstate transfer of said ownership. I'll look it up)

Meanwhile
Fishin wrote:


No, not meaningless, meaningful. What it says, it says,

but there is this:



It's the reason that dweebs like George W. Bush can talk about proposing an Amendment to our Constitution that would LIMIT rights rather than secure them. Isn't that a shocking idea? but that's what the Protection of Marriage Amendment would do.

Our Republic rests on a living document, any citizen may propose to change the very foundation of it's life politic. I am not even proposing that, I am saying that the Second Amendment ought to be read as it is.

The right of the people to bear arms rests upon the need of a regulated militia to maintain security for the Free State and is not an individual right but a easement to the maintenance of the Free State's security.

Joe(It's right in front of you.)Nation

Spoken by a true city slicker. Remember your lack of individual "rights" the next time you get mugged on the subway. NYC's gun laws are totally in favor of criminals.

I don't think I mentioned New York. What I am stating here is my view of what the Second Amendment was written to achieve. Do you want to speak to that or just throw out comments about New York?


Joe(Just read what it says.)Nation

The most major thing the ammendment was meant to achieve was to provide a final bullwark against the possibility of government ever going out of control.

Kind of hard to square that with the idea of government being able to interfere with that right, isn't it?

The Second Amendment speaks of the security of a Free State. If you want to see it as a bulwark against oppressive government suit yourself, but that would raise the question of who then would be the regulator of the militia? Armed groups in opposition to the constitutionally formed government of the United States usually have ended up in jail or hanged.

Would you say that the recent SCOTUS decision in Gore vs. Bush could have been seen by some citizens as the lancepoint of an oppressive government thereby giving them the right under the Second Amendment to take up arms?

Joe(Damn, where's that other box of ammo?)Nation

Here are the names of a couple of people who thought the Second Amendment gave them the rights you propose.


John Brown

Tim McVeigh.

Good luck arguing their defense against an oppressive government.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..."
and,
"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
and,
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton.


"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself."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."
Thomas Jefferson


"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..."
John Adams.


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


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."
and,
"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."
James Madison.


"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..."
Richard Henry Lee.


"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.... The great object is that every man be armed."
Patrick Henry


"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium (safeguard) of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1833



Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah)


"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samual Adams

You left out the names of pretty much all of our founding fathers.

I'm always intrigued when I read these historical statements surrounding the Second Amendment. I mean, aren't they really rooted in history?

In the context of a new and developing nation they make perfect sense.

In the context of a progressive, industrialised nation with very effective domestic law enforcement and a powerful military the idea of being able to keep arms for defence from government (or presumably foreign invasion) seems redundant.

And I'm not sticking my ferriner nose into the domestic argument about fiearms control -just making an observation about the nature of the Second Amendment.

I will admit that if I lived in the US I would definitely apply for a ccw permit and I definitely would carry - all the time.