The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on October 16, 2013, 08:52:02 AM
-
kelliekat44 (2,553 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023838658
Ok, so i was checking out the Constitution again (maybe 12th time) re 2nd Amendment and guns
It is interesting to me that Article I Section 8(15 &16) seem to clearly indicate the reasons for a militia. And further it seems pretty clear (at least to me) that Article II of the Amendments (2nd Amendment) is a clarification of why citizens might be granted the right of having and owning a gun based on the preceding Article I Section 8 parts 15 & 16. Section 8 clearly gives the conditions under which (well regulated) that gun right should be granted.
I copied the text from an online copy of the Constitution. So how did we get from there to where we are now with
the SCOTUS decisions on gun rights?
Article I
"Section 8
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Amendments to the Constitution
Article II (Second Amendment)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."
Help me out here. I know I am not a lawyer but what am I missing? (Just thinking about the current situation with the GOP-Cruzers and insurrection and all that stuff.
The left twill keep pushing for total gun confiscation. However- one DUmpmonkie hits it out of the park:
pipoman (11,208 posts)
15. You believe
that a group of people who banded together to fight a dictatorial, oppressive government and win independence because of their ability to possess weapons..who stated concern that the government they were forming could once again become oppressive and the people may once again have to take it back, would believe there should be any limits on private ownership of weapons?...Nonsense revisionist gibberish..
:yahoo:
-
Well, kelliekat, I'm glad you asked.
Your basic problem is that you are reading the Constitution like a real estate P&S agreement, where all meaning and right has to be derived from the terms within its four corners, and no reference made to the background or oral discussions preceding the finalization and signature of the writing. For statute and Constitutional law, however, the norm is to look at 'Legislative history' when opinions differ about what particular carved-in-stone words were meant to say, and the papers of the Founding Fathers make it pretty damned clear that they were indeed talking about an individual right, not a collective one, in the Second Amendment...and it is not mere coincidence that all the rest of the first eight articles of the Bill of Rights concern individual, not collective or governmental rights, with the provision on guns coming between the first and third of these.
Now go back to watching Oxygen and stop bothering the grown-ups.
-
Section 8 clearly gives the conditions under which (well regulated) that gun right should be granted.
The Bill of Rights acknowledges the inalienable natural or God given rights, it does not grant anything.
-
As Obamunists would say "IT'S THE LAW!!!!"
-
The term "well regulated" had a much different definition than it does now.
-
The term "well regulated" had a much different definition than it does now.
Yes it did.
The idiot also doesn't understand what "militia", means, either.