Just a Thought About the Second Amendment
And here it is, just to remind you:
I had never thought of this before, but it just occurred to me that the bill protects the right to "keep and bear arms." It says nothing at all about owning them. I would say that, under a literal interpretation of the second amendment, there is nothing to prevent the government from banning the private ownership of weapons.
Well, what do you think? I mean, that's what they said, right? Original intent and the Founding Fathers and all that...how do you think right wingers would respond to that argument?
"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."
I had never thought of this before, but it just occurred to me that the bill protects the right to "keep and bear arms." It says nothing at all about owning them. I would say that, under a literal interpretation of the second amendment, there is nothing to prevent the government from banning the private ownership of weapons.
Well, what do you think? I mean, that's what they said, right? Original intent and the Founding Fathers and all that...how do you think right wingers would respond to that argument?
Comments
In 1939, before the oligarchs took over, the Supreme Court decided a case called People v. Miller http://rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html That Court held that it is a state right, not an individual right. The other thing is, if your want to actually use original intent, then the individual right should only extend to weapons in existence in 1787.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm
A small sample:
"It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects... This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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"
"Regulation," in the words of the writers of the Constitution themselves (in this case, Alexander Hamilton, speaking for them all) consists of both training them and supplying them with arms, as well as directing their military activities.
I know this doesn't apply to you, who are obviously sincerely interested in the subject, but it continues to amaze me that gun nuts spout off for years about what this amendment means, without ever once referring to the actual words of its writers, which utterly disprove their claims.
How did that work out?
Are you kidding? Australia had the Port Arthur massacre, then passed strict gun control laws. It hasn't had one since. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/14/america-mass-murder-australia-gun-control-saves-lives In the meantime, how many have we had? How many more do we need?