This is a discussion on Congress, it's powers and the 2nd Amendment? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I decided that I would clear my head and read the constitution again , with an open mind, and just read the words that are ...
I decided that I would clear my head and read the constitution again , with an open mind, and just read the words that are written.
Amendments 1-10 were added afterword for further declaratory and restrictive purposes and as I was reading, I payed special attention to Article 1 sec 8 clauses 15-16. To me, those two clauses make sense as they stand alone. Yet as I read the 2nd amendment also, it now seems to me that it was meant for the clarification of these two clauses.
If you insert it between clause 15 and 16, (like below) to me it reads like it was meant to be there, hence the amendment.
BUT, if so, then it changes the context and meaning that it has other than if is just standing alone.Now that I read it in this context, I'm not so sure that it was meant solely for the people to use against our tyrannical government. As a matter of fact, it doesn't say anything about that.8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
8.15 To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
2nd am. 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.
8.16 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;
But on a side note, what it does say in clause 16 is that congress has the power to provide for arming said militia.
I would very much appreciate your thoughts and comments on these things.
Stop whining and go do something that makes a difference!
If you think that I may be talking to you, then I am.
And regarding the power of the government to arm, train and appoint officers for the militia, keep in mind this was for situations in which citizens were bring hired for paid service in the employ of the People specifically to be professional soldiers. That is a completely separate thing from all other citizens outside of paid soldiery who'd be in their communities and left to their own devices. And never forget what "militia" means: the adult population capable of bearing arms, no more and no less. It has nothing to do with the military, nor of soldiering, nor of being hired by, armed and trained by the government for paid service. That group is something else entirely. That is the paid military, our common government-controlled force. The militia, though, the people who are capable of bearing arms, is everyone else outside of military, outside of government control, pay, arming, and all the rest. It's us, and we're basically left to our own devices, left to arm ourselves.
1770's era language and what it meant.
The Founders' View Of The Right To Bear Arms, by David Young (2007). This book, and Young's companion (and much, much larger and richer) book, are both excellent reads, and they'll help clarify your confusion on the basic purpose of the People reserving unto themselves the right to be armed and to disallow all infringements to that right.
You take the Oath, you live by the Oath.......... Just sayin.
The rest of the discussion is, well, so 1775............it has been settled. But, now, everyone wants to rewrite and discombulate the words................
If anyone on this forum wore the black robes, it might make a difference in how you or I interpret the text.
Since I believe none of the justices frequent these forums, I find any other interpretation moot. Fun to talk about; but moot.
The power of interpretation and changing laws = money...Lots of it.
Kinda' sad isn't it.
"When those who are governed do too little, those who govern can, and will, do too much." Ronald Reagan
Do what you can; then do what you must
Sad though? Only in that the words have been stretched, poked, and prodded to allow for the mess we have now.
There are as many "sects" reading the Constitution as there are sects reading the Bible, every group believes their way is the only right way to interpret the words.
It'd be nice if the Constitution had a addendum written by the authors, explaining what they meant. Some say we have that in The Federalist Papers... But then, there are many, even in the time of the writing, that "weren't so sure." Hence the Anti Federalist Papers and the 10 Amendments in the Bill Of Rights.
What IS sad, is that neither side will leave the other alone. Or, more honestly; those who wish to confiscate our guns to make themselves feel safer will not leave us alone.
It could be worse!
The only true and accurate way to interpret the Constitution is the literal translation of the words and what they meant at the time of authorship. All other interpretations are presumptive and invalid.
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H.
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
Check my signature and I believe it was the intent and means as written of the 2nd Amendment which means nothing to our so called representative and surely not the president.AZJD1968: Now that I read it in this context, I'm not so sure that it was meant solely for the people to use against our tyrannical government. As a matter of fact, it doesn't say anything about that.
If you read the Founders' thoughts on bearing arms, you will see that your point is out of context.
"... advice is a dangerous gift, even from the wise to the wise, and all courses may run ill." -J.R.R. Tolkien
The only way to know what the intent of the original writers of the 2A was is to ask them . . . and they're not here to answer. Now, to try to pick apart the meaning and intent is pure speculation.
Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon at large.
Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth
Which some have. Such as ... David Young's two books, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms: A Definitive History of the Second Amendment, and The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government and an Armed Populace, 1787-1792.
Social structure has been dealt with by amendments (15A and 19A). I won't touch other issues at hand today, but these are two huge examples.
Until 2A is amended to allow for a certain level of infringement, all gun control acts by both the federal government and the states are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court only has the power to interpret the words on the page, not create artificial yet socially acceptable boundaries for laws.
In the context of 2A, any government action which restricts or even merely encroaches upon a citizens right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (weapons and munitions) is inherently unconstitutional.
The problem is SCOTUS derives power from granting power to Congress. If they completely forbid laws of a type as is required by the Constitution, they lose the power to decide in the future what is or is not socially acceptable at the time. That's why they allow for certain amounts of regulation, it grants them more power. This is how the flawed concepts of a "living document" and "interpretation of intent" came to fruition.
These are both invalid, as the document was ratified as written, and the intent of the authors as well as the concept of document fluidity were NOT ratified.
Simply, these types of changes require a Constitutional Convention.