The Right To Bear Arms

[regent]

How many of our rights are absolute?

 

[M14 Shooter]

How many of our rights are absolute?

Define absolute.

 

[bendog]

I assume absolute means not being subject to regulation, or limitation, regardless of whether the limitation is proposed for a very important purpose demonstratively has some positive impact in promoting the purpose.

Linguistically, it is important to understand two things. 1) Infringe is a verb, but the meaning is not absolute. Infringe does not imply an absolute ban on any limitiations even in it's current definition. 2) A meaning of the word that is now obsolete, but which existed in the 18th century, was "to frustrate" or defeant. if the second means we law abiding citizens have a right to defend ourselves with firearms, then so long as we retain that right, any reglulation may be permissible depending on the govts' reason for the regulation and simply if it would have a beneficial result.

Infringe - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[M14 Shooter]

I assume absolute means not being subject to regulation, or limitation, regardless of whether the limitation is proposed for a very important purpose demonstratively has some positive impact in promoting the purpose.

All rights have limits; not everything that could be conceptually linked to a right is included in that right. Within the inherent limits of the rights - that is, withing the actual right itself, rights are indeed absolute.

For instance - the 1st amendment does not protect speech, political or otherwise, that harm sothers or places them in a condition of clear, preent and immediate danger. It does, however, absolutely protect your right to otherwise express your opinion.

 

[bendog]

I assume absolute means not being subject to regulation, or limitation, regardless of whether the limitation is proposed for a very important purpose demonstratively has some positive impact in promoting the purpose.

All rights have limits; not everything that could be conceptually linked to a right is included in that right. Within the inherent limits of the rights - that is, withing the actual right itself, rights are indeed absolute.

For instance - the 1st amendment does not protect speech, political or otherwise, that harm sothers or places them in a condition of clear, preent and immediate danger. It does, however, absolutely protect your right to otherwise express your opinion.

True, and even when engaging in protected political speech, the govt can require people to obtain parade permits before engaging in speech and the right to assembly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I assume absolute means not being subject to regulation, or limitation, regardless of whether the limitation is proposed for a very important purpose demonstratively has some positive impact in promoting the purpose.

All rights have limits; not everything that could be conceptually linked to a right is included in that right. Within the inherent limits of the rights - that is, withing the actual right itself, rights are indeed absolute.

For instance - the 1st amendment does not protect speech, political or otherwise, that harm sothers or places them in a condition of clear, preent and immediate danger. It does, however, absolutely protect your right to otherwise express your opinion.

True, and even when engaging in protected political speech, the govt can require people to obtain parade permits before engaging in speech and the right to assembly.

On public property, because it is public property, whch everyone has a right to use.
The permits may be denied due to scheduling or whatnot, but cannot be denied based on content.

 

[bendog]

All rights have limits; not everything that could be conceptually linked to a right is included in that right. Within the inherent limits of the rights - that is, withing the actual right itself, rights are indeed absolute.

For instance - the 1st amendment does not protect speech, political or otherwise, that harm sothers or places them in a condition of clear, preent and immediate danger. It does, however, absolutely protect your right to otherwise express your opinion.

True, and even when engaging in protected political speech, the govt can require people to obtain parade permits before engaging in speech and the right to assembly.

On public property, because it is public property, whch everyone has a right to use.
The permits may be denied due to scheduling or whatnot, but cannot be denied based on content.

yes, of course. However, there can be a vetting process where the valid exercise of speech can be denied when it could pose a public safety problem. While the ACLU may disagree, the Klan is going to have difficulty getting a parade permit in S.Boston on MLKjr day.

 

[legaleagle_45]

This is a unique reading by Acorn. Consider the milita clause, which I think Scalia correctly views as a historical anachonism but illustrative of what the framers had in mind.

Not sure if it is such a historical anachronism as many may believe. The thing that makes it "less significant" is the change in the very nature of what we describe as a "standing army". During the colonial period a standing army was more akin to a mercenary force which owed its allegiance to whomever paid them. This began changing right at the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were being adopted. Instead of monetary gain, armies began to be composed of patriots with the rise of nationalism associated with the French Revolution. Today, our standing army is much more closely related to a militia than a mercernary force feared by the framers. A militia was composed of our neighbors, friends and relatives who maintained ties to the community which they served and could not be employed as an instrument of repression. It served the same function as a jury... the peoples voice in our administration of justice while the molitia was the peoples voice in our defense establishment...

However, there is nothing which prohibits Congress from disbanding the US Army and outsourcing our defense needs to Blackwater... except the outcry of objections from every voter in the USA... the framers viewed a standing army as we would view Blackwater today. We would demand that our defense forces be composed soldiers who are our friends and neighbors and relatives... and not some mercernary force which owed its allegiance to whomever paid them.

Sidebar... the reason we got away from the militia model was we became much more of a world power, needing to project our strength outside our borders. A militia could not be employed outside of the nations borders. This is the sole reason we have a "dual enlistment provision" with the National Guard. They are regular state militia when not in federal service, but when called into federal service they are magically transformed into a part of the regular armedforces and are no longer a militia.

the milita clause gave if fuller weight in that not only could citizens defend themselves, but the militias were necessary to defend freedom from a feared tyrannical central govt that would refuse to give up power even if it lost a vote.

I believe that the real framers this possibility as remote and that the existence of the militia serving as deterant to that eventuality, a form of checks and balance found elsewhere in our system of government that by its very existence prevents overreaching. This sentimet can be discerned in Madison's Federalist #46..

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made.

Patrick Henry pointed to the experiences in Virginia and opined that the failure to arm the militia by the feds would more likely be a result of benign neglect rather than nefarious design... penny wise, pound foolish.

Mr. HENRY:... The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c.? Every one Who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without. limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed?

Virgina Ratifying Convention: June 14, 1788

Essentially, the framers desired a militia not just to combat tyranny (which was aminor concern), but also to repel invasions, put down insurrections and enforce the laws of the Union (which were the primary roles envisioned).

The right to arms was specifically denied non citizens and more importantly is is only justified by self-defense and (possibly) hunting. Though at English law, there was no hunting the King's animals.

It was treated similarly to the right to vote, the right to serve on a jury, the right to run for public office and the right to engage in certain occupations, such as lawyers.

Side bar... "hunting" had different connotations in merry ole England than it does in present day USA. One hunted, deer, elk (which we would call "moose"), fox and swans. Killing other animals for food or protection was not considered hunting. Rabbits and feral hogs could be "hunted" and would not be considered "hunting".

the ban on felons is premised upon their giving up their right to self defense when they prey upon law abiding folks.

Plus the concept of "civil death" effectively stripped them of all rights associated with citizenship.

 

[bendog]

Essentially, the framers desired a militia not just to combat tyranny (which was aminor concern), but also to repel invasions, put down insurrections and enforce the laws of the Union (which were the primary roles envisioned).
--

Yes, the militas were to be the basis for a national army after the revolution. The Continentals were mostly disbanded. There was a fear of a standing army. Late 18th century events and threats that showed the weakness of state militas eventually led to founding West Point and expanding what was left. This is all sort of an aside, but in a nutshell the militia clause does reinforce the notion an individual right to self defense.

Albiet a right that had conditions and limits. I don't think there will be any support for the Founders thinking a person known to be mentally ill could own a weapon, and I'm sure that had someone like Alexander Hamilton ordered a quantiy of cannon and muskuts, there would have been a outcry and limitation. LOL

 

[koshergrl]

Tyranny was a minor concern of the framers?

Are you going to go with that?

 

[bendog]

Tyranny was a minor concern of the framers?

Are you going to go with that?

I thought his intent was that to the Framers the state militias had a variety of purposes. There primary purpose was to repel an invasion or civil insurrection, most likely in terms of native americans and slave revolts ... but of course the notion European interference was a possiblity, but after the Treaty of Paris, it was not an issue to require the Continental Army be retained.

But placing the primary tool for the entire body politic to act in self defense AT the State, rather than Federal, level was the means to prevent Tryanny. Any attempt by a previously elected govt to illegally retain power, or by a State or group of states, to force other states to do what they didn't agree to do, would require the Federal Govt, or group of states, to raise an Federal Army. And the militas were an impediment to that occurring.

Which, btw, was exactly what Lincoln had to do to prevent the South from walking, peacefully, away. And, that's the South argument even today. We never would have ratified danm thing in the first place if we didn't think we could leave. LOL We could whip em for a couple of years, but once them federal boys got some experience, they was just too much fer us.

 

[Nemo]

The handwriting is on the wall:
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-1149.pdf

 

[TemplarKormac]

tyranny was a minor concern of the framers?

Are you going to go with that?

i thought his intent was that to the framers the state militias had a variety of purposes. There primary purpose was to repel an invasion or civil insurrection, most likely in terms of native americans and slave revolts ... But of course the notion european interference was a possiblity, but after the treaty of paris, it was not an issue to require the continental army be retained.

But placing the primary tool for the entire body politic to act in self defense at the state, rather than federal, level was the means to prevent tryanny. Any attempt by a previously elected govt to illegally retain power, or by a state or group of states, to force other states to do what they didn't agree to do, would require the federal govt, or group of states, to raise an federal army. And the militas were an impediment to that occurring.

Which, btw, was exactly what lincoln had to do to prevent the south from walking, peacefully, away. And, that's the south argument even today. We never would have ratified danm thing in the first place if we didn't think we could leave. Lol we could whip em for a couple of years, but once them federal boys got some experience, they was just too much fer us.

District of Colombia vs. Heller! Read it!

 

[Nemo]

The handwriting is on the wall:
Google Scholar

 

[Wolfmoon]

The right to Bare Arms was intended for the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrant government. When a government allows third world degenerate into America and kills her citizenry, I call that tyrant. When a government spends the countries coffers on making themselves rich, I call that tyrant. When a government strips away people Constitutional rights and calls it updating, I call that tyrant!!! The government may take away the people’s right to have guns but not in my generation!

.

 

[Nemo]

the right to "bare arms" is provided by short-sleeve shirts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The handwriting is on the wall:
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-1149.pdf

Other than the fact you do not usnderstand the issues here, it is hard to see why you thing this is meaningful.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

I have been trying to find a list of Senators that voted incorrectly on the recent gun bill, if anyone has this list please point me in the right direction or post it here.

 

[Lakhota]

The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete - and is certainly not unlimited.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete - and is certainly not unlimited.

So is the 1st.