I came across this argument when researching the conscientious objector clause of the Second Amendment. "This was the background against which Madison wrote the second amendment: as a logical extension of the religious freedom enshrined in the first amendment. The first amendment said that the state couldn’t tell you what faith to believe. The second amendment, as originally written, said that when faith and the state required opposite actions from an individual, faith trumps government.... " In fact, in the record of the First Congress’s debate over the second amendment, the conscientious objector clause was the only part of the proposal that drew any comment at all.... " In deleting the clause, the framers came down in favor of the power of the state, and against the rights of the individual.... "First, it is clear from reading the conscientious objector clause that for Madison and the framers, the phrases 'bearing arms' and 'military service' were essentially synonymous.... "Second, the framers did not view individual rights as sacrosanct. They understood that individual rights carry individual responsibilities, and that these cannot be disentangled from each other. They understood that citizens owe something to their government, and this obligation cannot be defaulted upon, even under the cover of religious belief.... "What does this all mean in light of Scalia's decision? It means this: "Scalia was dead wrong." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/27/525635/- Very interesting. In discussions about earlier drafts of the Second Amendment, concern about personal freedom was only expressed when discussing the conscientious objector clause. Bearing arms, in contrast, was viewed as a duty- something that the government could require of citizens. That view did not seem to be controversial at all.
1) what part of Article One Section 8 was intended by the founders to delegate any power to the federal government to control, restrict, or ban firearms ownership by private citizens acting within their own state 2) before one even discusses the second amendment, one has to prove that the commerce clause properly empowers the federal government to restrict arms. This "finding" of a power by the FDR administration is one of the most pathetic frauds perpetrated upon the public in the history of this nation's jurisprudential fabric 3) the purpose of the bill of rights was to recognize rights the founders a) never gave the federal government the power to interfere with b) were rights the founders believed came to man from the creator and which PRE-EXISTED the creation of any and all government c) what right was the second amendment intended to RECOGNIZE
I thought the Second Amendment was to prevent tyranny by the federal government, or a foreign government. When this was written there was no air force, nuclear weapons, tanks, so the states could in theory have given the gov a "run for its money". Now, only if every man woman and child in, say, Texas, or another state had a Thompson submachine gun would the government have its hands full. The right to have a pistol in your nightstand to shoot down a burglar, on the other hand, is a right implied because of the natural right of self defense etc..that pre-existed the creation of a government.
Something the Left leaning Politicians have accomplished, is to somehow convince some Pro-Gun Folks that the Right to keep and bear Arms has Geographical boundaries, and that Defensive Arms, are kept, only inside the home. The Defensive use of Arms is not limited to the home only, nor does the Right to keep and bear arms end at a State line, even if it has become acceptable. This is "Reasonable Gun Control" in action.
Considering the number of firearms currently in private circulation, and the number being added on a daily basis, the united states federal government would still have its hand full if it were to contend with the populace as it currently is. Every last person, regardless of age, would have to be classified and treated as a potential combatant. Considering the porous border between the united states and the nation of Mexico, it is entirely possible that the various drug cartels would lend aid to the people against the government, on the basis that they are insuring they continue to have customers willing to purchase their products.
Scalia has actually spoken before about the viability of attempting to discern the will of Congress by using rejected language as a tool to interpret what was actually passed: “Congress can not express its will by a failure to legislate. The act of refusing to enact a law (if that can be called an act) has utterly no legal effect, and thus has utterly no place in a serious discussion of the law. The Constitution sets forth the only manner in which the Members of Congress have the power to impose their will upon the country: [Page 536] by a bill that passes both Houses and is either signed by the President or repassed by a supermajority after his veto. Art. I, § 7. Everything else the Members of Congress do is either prelude or internal organization. Congress can no more express its will by not legislating than an individual Member can express his will by not voting.” United States v. Estate of Romani, 523 U.S. 517, 535-536 (199 (Scalia, concurring) (Emphasis in original) But never fear, we don’t need your author to hold up rejected language to a mirror to see what it might say if read backwards, or indeed to engage in any other outcome-desired speculation. We already know what the language actually says as passed by Congress and as ratified by the People. And we also know how it was described: “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 power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear private arms.” Tench Coxe, discussing the purpose of the Second Amendment in his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," published under the pseudonym, "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 Col. 1. (Emphasis added) And there is not a single recorded dissent from this public explanation of the right. Why would this be important? Because your author’s logic would place such great weight upon it. If we apply the very same logic your author uses (that silence over any other concerns is evidence that these concerns cannot have ever existed) then we must conclude that the overwhelming silence in response to this public explanation of the amendment equals their uniform consent with this explanation of what they ultimately agreed to enact. And—when you use your author’s logic—you must concede this counter argument becomes much stronger than his. For here we are looking at an actual explanation of what actually passed, rather than using your author’s method of engaging in speculative guesswork involving legislation that never was. And so my question remains: If the 2nd Amendment is only about militia arms and militia service, then how does it survive contact with Congress’ authority to “arm, equip, and discipline” the militia in Article I section 8—a power rendered absolute by the Article VI supremacy clause? This is for anyone out there now and not just Galileo. Don’t you see how foolish you look demanding we accept an interpretation when you yourself cannot explain what it does and how it works? So if you believe the 2nd Amendment only pertains to militias and militia arms, then what does it really do and how does it work to limit congress? Or is it enough to maintain your credibility by saying we are so opposed to agreeing with what Bryan says (a recognized individual RKBA outside militia service) that any contrary interpretation which denies this is preferable—despite your inability to explain how it works? (Sort of a "I can't say what it does or how it is supposed to do it, but I know I don't want it doing what he says....) Assume Congress agrees with you and says the Amendment is only about militia arms, and further says Article I section 8 tells us we already totally control those, and therefore we decree you cannot have any arms at all, and we further decree we will have a totally unarmed militia which we will teach kung fu to instead (further citing Article I section 8 again which says the states must train the militias “according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”) How then does your interpretation overcome the Constitutions’ Supremacy clause telling us that since this is an enumerated power Congress gets to say “so let it be written so let it be done?” Since this absolute power cannot be squared with the phrase “the right of the people,” then how does the Amendment do anything if its “protections” are limited to militia arms? In the meantime, I ask that you consider this. In the spirit of your author’s method of using a search for a lack of evidence as the new standard by which we define evidence (for that is exactly what your author is doing), how do you reply to the following: If the framers of the 2nd Amendment had any intention of having that instrument modify Congress’ power over the militia and militia arms, then nothing would have been simpler than for them to have said so directly—just as they did when they included the specific modification regarding the appointment of militia officers in Article 1 Section 8. The fact that the entire Bill of Rights is an instrument drawn with such meticulous care—by men who so well understood how to make language fit their thought—and yet does not contain a direct modification to the power of Congress over the militias—while it does contain so very many other restrictions on congressional power in other areas—is very persuasive evidence that no such qualification was intended—and—consequently—that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with militia arms—and everything to do with the individual RKBA outside militia service. These are again my thoughts. I welcome yours.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you start with "I hate guns" and work backwards from there. The entire argument is apples v oranges, with grapefruit as the conclusion.
