Should People Who Do Not Know The Purpose Of A Gun Be Allowed To Own One?

The answer to my question is no, it would not be Constitutional for the US Congress to ban guns even if the Second Amendment didn't exist. Why, well read the Constitution as I suggested and you'll know. The Constitution did not create a true democracy, it created a Federal Constitutional Republic. As such the power and subject matter in which Congress can make laws is limited to specific subjects enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. Nowhere does it grant the power to regulate arms. We can take this a step further, an extra layer of this assurance to the nature of the new Republic was placed in the Bill of Rights. In the Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This is the nature of federalism.

We can take this further and include the Second Amendment as a third layer of the Constitution preventing the regulation of arms. The Second Amendment has two clauses. First "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" Secondly "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first clause is not as you propose the reason for not infringing on the right to bear arms. It is the reason why arms are even a subject matter for the federal government on the first place. It's saying that the second clause is there because the new Constitution gives control of the militia to the federal government. By this time all of the States had there own Constitutions, in most of the States already in existence before the federal Constitution the right to bear arms is already protected specifically by their Constitution if not just plain assumed by previous law. And all of the States prior to the new federal Constitution have their own militias. By ratifying the new Federal Constitution the States are giving the new federal government power over their militias, thus they want assurances. Assurances that the new federal government will not use that power to infringe on the already present natural right to bear arms. Thus the first clause joins the clear and simple second clause and we have "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."

On your 'original' claim, the right to arms was well established in common law for a long time before the United States was even an idea. In English law it goes as far back as the Magna Carta(1215) and English Bill of Rights(1689). For the Colonies the Articles of Confederation in 1777 stated "“…Every state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed…and shall provide…a proper quantity of arms…” Within the new State governments Pennsylvania was first in 1776 "Article I, Section 21. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." By the end of 1791 when the Second Amendment was adapted it was rather late to the party and really only an adaptation and clarification on previous law.

 

What say you?

 

Nothing in your post is correct. Rights are a matter of Natural law and always holds true regardless of a population's belief systems. This means that it does not matter how many people agree that "a wrong can be turned into a right", or that "a right can be turned into a wrong". Such things can never be done in reality. People can only believe they can claim such reversals and that this will magically make it so. Unfortunately, most human beings erroneously believe that it is morally possible for them to create and delegate "rights" which do not exist or to take away rights which do exist. The constitution grants no rights whatsoever. Government grants no rights whatsoever.

When in doubt as to whether an action is or is not in harmony with natural law, visualize the scenario of a world with only two people. If the behavior is either a right or wrong in that instance, it remains a right or wrong in any size population, regardless of how many people may believe otherwise, like your claim to prohibition on drugs.

Prohibition is the claim that a group of people who call themselves "government" have been given the "right" to prevent others from putting any given substance into their own bodies, and if those others refuse to comply with those terms, they will be fined or imprisoned. It should be self-evident that if an individual's body is actually their own property, then that individual always maintains the natural right to decide what will or will not be put into their own property, their body. Understanding this, we can easily see that the claim of the "right" to command that will or will not be put into the body of another person amounts to a claim of ownership upon this other person's body. The claim of ownership upon another person's body is called slavery. Therefore, prohibition is merely a euphemism for slavery, backed by violence, regardless of the justifications made by those who claim such practices are "necessary for the common good". Since no individual anywhere on earth has the "right" to claim the ownership of another person's body, such behavior can never be "delegated" to a group, and called a "right". Therefore, all forms of prohibition are always wrong according to natural law.

The only real threat to "national" security are the psychopaths that the ignorant masses refer to as "government".

 

Like your write up but the constitution did not create a "Federal Constitutional Republic". The constitution created a trust promising a republican form of government for the benefit of the people. As you stated this trust was empowered with certain enumerated powers as laid out in Article 1, Section 8 and a series of very explicit prohibitions as laid out in Section 9.

But it was the anti-federalist that complained about the blatant deficiencies and demanded a bill of rights as a reminder of limit of the powers granted. They, correctly I may add, the total breakdown and induced powers that would be assumed by a strong federal government.

Also, if one feels one must argue rights based on the constitution, then it will be taken one actually has no inherent rights, but only the privileges granted and removed by government.

 

While I'm not going to argue that words don't matter this is kind of splitting hairs. I think we can both agree on the term Constitutional as the founding document is a Constitution. Clearly we both agree on the term Republic and the term Federal simply refers to the linking of smaller governments, ie the states and federal levels. The term Trust however as you use it I don't recall ever being used to describe the document at the time. I don't think it's incorrect just uncommon.

This is an old argument, one in which the supporters of the Bill of Rights won. I personally agree with Alexander Hamilton on this one and think that time has proven him right. In fact the simple truth that the Second Amendment is what is argued constantly in reference to gun control laws and not article one section eight I consider proof of this. I quoted part of his Federalist 84 earlier but will do again here also in more complete form. I leave the first two paragraphs for context but my point is in the third.

"It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the Petition of Right assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

Link to the complete essay and links to the rest of the federalist papers. http://www.teaparty911.com/info/federalist-papers/no84.htm

I completely agree, these words and the instituted government only attempt to protect rights which already exist.

 

Ok ok, so youre pulling up the old Locke/Rousseau logic here. Basically the rights not listed here are not necessarily denied to you. Yes that is in the French constitution. So, i could equally say, well it could be denied to you, it is just not necessarily denied to you. But aside from that, the fact that it is in the Bill of Rights makes the previous statement obsolete. You separated the second amendment into clauses. Saying, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. You say that the first clause does not justify the second, it only brings it up. We do not actually know if it justifies it or not because we cant go ask the people who made the amendment. I could equally say that, the way they write it could be saying that because they need Militias, you get to have a gun. You bring up the Magna Carta, but once again, I would say that is clearly says for a militia, so technically if you are using it for something that is not for that purpose, it could potentially be against the law. We neither have militias nor hunt for food now, so my question would be, why do we need guns in the first place? Guns are indeed dangerous, but unlike say a hacksaw, we dont actually need to have a gun at this point in time. You also say that the right was adapted from the Pennsylvania right, but i could just as easily say that it specifically says in defense of themselves, and that is a little bit archaic because, back then, people had duels and such with guns. I mean, about 100 years later, people living in the West had duels like that with guns. We dont have duels anymore like this, so then it brings it back to the question of why we need such a dangerous item around.

 

No, already argued, not going over it again.

Ask them no, but they wrote A LOT about it. Instead of arguing about your ignorance with me why don't you go read some of it?

You can say anything, it doesn't make you right.

Already answered the militia question.

There's two arguments here, the law and the use of firearms, which are you making?

Nobody is forcing you to own one, are attempting to make the argument that I shouldn't?

 

Well first that's an extremely broad explanation of the purpose, so broad as to lose the actual meaning of it's purpose. But... are you actually arguing for some kind of an originalist interpretation?

 

Yes, very general purpose for both rights, but in no way losing the meanings. Simply setting a standard of meaning.

Originalist? No, I think not. Completist is closer. However, complete within the original intents of the framers when embarking upon the creation of this nation.

It's very simple and very much based in the beginnings of where constitutional Intent originated.

It is very much proven with one question and its honest answer.

If the ultimate purpose of free speech is not the enablement of unity required to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, then exactly how did the framers intend the people be adequately unified to alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to those unalienable rights?

 

It's not splitting hairs, when speaking of law, language needs to be precise. The founding document was the Declaration of Independence, that informed the king that we were an independent nation and was willing to fight for the right. The Articles of Confederation was the document that declared the Union of the states but was a very weak document that was taken advantage of by more than a couple of the states. The constitution is but a trust document that forms a governmental trust. Look up the definition of a trust, a document by two parties, one the trustee (Federal government) and the other the trustor (the states), for the benefit of a third party, the benefactor, not a party of the trust.

Here is an interesting site, but not only such site, on the US as a trust with some obvious slant but interesting all the same. I haven't had an opportunity to chase the links to case law so I can't warrant it's validity. Doctrine (The Constitution is an Express Trust). In time I will chase the links because it is an interesting concept.

I have a problem believing Hamilton on almost anything except his just end. Hamilton was a lawyer that was in favor of a strong central government. It was he that keep insisting on a central bank which Washington caved on. Your reference is an excellent example of just how vague he wanted things and yes, he fully understood the impact.

Also, here is what I consider a better site to the Federalist Papers, The Federalist Papers. I find this site easier to work with.