Quote:
Originally Posted by conwic
However, I still cannot agree with Stevens idea that "Bear arms" is code for military service.
The common dictionary definition for " bear" of " to have or to use" when connected to "arms" and to "keep"is far more reasonable to me than his explanation. I.E., " to keep and to use arms" as opposed to Stevens " to keep and to do military service with arms".
|
Bear arms was not code for anything. It was common idiomatic phrase for military service as Scalia acknowledged. Scalia, for the sole reason of no other explanation, considered the phrase idiomatic only if the word 'against' was appended. Stevens effectively showed Scalia's tortured interpretation was inaccurate by using numerous documents that left no question as to the meaning.
Quote:
|
Not sure what you mean by the second amendment is military. Since you say " God Given right ", I presume that you are agreeing with the majority opinion that held the reference to the goal of a useful militia to be read seperate from - though dependant upon- the preexisting right of the population in general to possess and use arms.
|
That is exactly correct. Ultimately, I agree with the majority because a third grader could figure out what he Amendment means. The fact that the citizenry is armed allows for a militia to be formed. Pages and pages of verbiage to come to an obvious conclusion.
Quote:
|
But if you mean that the right to have firearms is dependant on a connection to a government organized and regulated militia, then we disagree.
|
My only point, and I think Stevens and Scalia agree, is that the intent of the Second was purely military. That is why militia is used in the preamble and bear arms as the right protected. The Second was not crafted to protect a right to self defense. It was composed to prevent the Federal government from disarming the militia.
Quote:
|
( I say not included since Stevens tells us that while the second amendment obligates you to keep a firearm for militia service, the amendment confers no right to use that same firearm for individual purposes like self protection.)
|
Stevens is wrong in that the Amendment does not address the use of the firearm, only the reason the right is protected.
Quote:
|
Though neither side of the court wished to address this part of constitutional history, I believe that historically the founding fathers purpose in both the first and second amendment was to guarentee to the population the last resort of a free people- the means to organize and rebel against an American government which had grown to be a tyranny.
|
I have always disagreed with this view. If the Federal government becomes a tyranny then the Bill of Rights, in fact the entire Constitution, means nothing at all. That is why the anti-Federalists were wrong in protesting the Constitution and why the Madison's compromise has caused far more problems over the years than was necessary. It does, however, give something for people to complain about. And, of course, attempt to find remedy in the courts rather than with their neighbors and at the ballot box.