Lets be fair though. When you answer my questions posed to you, I'll respond to your link. I actually had a response typed up, but decided it wasn't worth it since you haven't responded to me.
Your interpretation only and now I guess the SC's majority opinion. The framers added the first 12 words for a reason and you chose not to include them, because they could possible muddy or detract from your interpretation. I just pointed it out. Many thought that "people" used in the context of this amendment was as a people collectively rather than individuals, to enable states to maintain a militia. IMO, I could see validity in both sides and I'm greatful that the SC has resolved the issue.
I'm pretty sure that they if they found a few more votes in Florida for Gore in 2000, that the this decision could have been quite different, so your response to Tryingtoquit seems rather ironic. BTW - I don't necessarily disagree with your position, just your debate tactics.
"Which part of this would you like to see abolished? Would you prefer it say "to keep and bear arms, except handguns, shall not be infringed"? Is there another compromise to the Constitution you'd be in favor of?"
"you chose not to include them, because they could possible muddy or detract from your interpretation."
You are a mind reader now!? Wow, then Ii've DEFINITELY lost this battle!!:)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
" the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,
" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" -- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6
"The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order." -- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... " --Samuel Adams
"BTW - I don't necessarily disagree with your position, just your debate tactics."
Shrug - your original comment was snarky and incomplete without referencing the entire amendment. Ok, you DID not include it in your response.
I could cut and paste the argument that right to keep and bear arms exists only for individuals in a militia, or the right's only purpose was to enable states to maintain a militia. But that issue was narrowly decided today, so I'll move on.
Snarky? No...it was an honest question (and I've gone back and edited it, just for you!)...which part of the amendment would Tryingtoquit would s/he like to have seen abolished and/or changed:
"Which part of this would you like to see abolished? Would you prefer it say "to keep and bear arms, except handguns, shall not be infringed"? Is there another compromise to the Constitution you'd be in favor of?"
Speaking of snarky...the whole approving of "your tactics" thing wasn't??
"Ok, you DID not include it in your response."
Yes, I DID...in my response TO YOU, where you said I left it out. The next post, post number 11 I said:
"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."
Would you like it to read:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, except handguns, shall not be infringed."
or better:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I believe "the people" was very carefully, very specifically chosen. Don't you?"
Which, by the way, you didn't answer either (which change, if any, would be better).
"I could cut and paste the argument that right to keep and bear arms exists only for individuals in a militia, or the right's only purpose was to enable states to maintain a militia."
From the framers? Or from 20/21st century "scholars" ??
You left out half of the amendment. It seems, IMO, that there was a reason for that in the pp. If just an accident, then I apologize.
No, I believe it was complimented by "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"...and you can't read either clause without the other. I believe both were specified for a reason.
I am far from a Constitutional scholar, I've got no law degree and it's been years since my college degree poli-sci, but my personal interpretation is that the framers wanted to maintain state's collective right of arming verses the federal government power. If I cared to argue the point I would back it up, but I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other, so I won't. You are the victor! Guns for all, and I'll pass.
Since now that you've gone to some lengths to support your point, don't you really think that Tryingtoquit deserved a better response than your first one? Just saying...
Pages
I did indeed.
Lets be fair though. When you answer my questions posed to you, I'll respond to your link. I actually had a response typed up, but decided it wasn't worth it since you haven't responded to me.
Your interpretation only and now I guess the SC's majority opinion. The framers added the first 12 words for a reason and you chose not to include them, because they could possible muddy or detract from your interpretation. I just pointed it out. Many thought that "people" used in the context of this amendment was as a people collectively rather than individuals, to enable states to maintain a militia. IMO, I could see validity in both sides and I'm greatful that the SC has resolved the issue.
I'm pretty sure that they if they found a few more votes in Florida for Gore in 2000, that the this decision could have been quite different, so your response to Tryingtoquit seems rather ironic. BTW - I don't necessarily disagree with your position, just your debate tactics.
"Which part of this would you like to see abolished? Would you prefer it say "to keep and bear arms, except handguns, shall not be infringed"? Is there another compromise to the Constitution you'd be in favor of?"
"you chose not to include them, because they could possible muddy or detract from your interpretation."
You are a mind reader now!? Wow, then Ii've DEFINITELY lost this battle!!:)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
" the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,
" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6
"The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams
"BTW - I don't necessarily disagree with your position, just your debate tactics."
What "tactics" are those?
Shrug - your original comment was snarky and incomplete without referencing the entire amendment. Ok, you DID not include it in your response.
I could cut and paste the argument that right to keep and bear arms exists only for individuals in a militia, or the right's only purpose was to enable states to maintain a militia. But that issue was narrowly decided today, so I'll move on.
Snarky? No...it was an honest question (and I've gone back and edited it, just for you!)...which part of the amendment would Tryingtoquit would s/he like to have seen abolished and/or changed:
"Which part of this would you like to see abolished? Would you prefer it say "to keep and bear arms, except handguns, shall not be infringed"? Is there another compromise to the Constitution you'd be in favor of?"
Speaking of snarky...the whole approving of "your tactics" thing wasn't??
"Ok, you DID not include it in your response."
Yes, I DID...in my response TO YOU, where you said I left it out. The next post, post number 11 I said:
"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."
Would you like it to read:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, except handguns, shall not be infringed."
or better:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I believe "the people" was very carefully, very specifically chosen. Don't you?"
Which, by the way, you didn't answer either (which change, if any, would be better).
"I could cut and paste the argument that right to keep and bear arms exists only for individuals in a militia, or the right's only purpose was to enable states to maintain a militia."
From the framers? Or from 20/21st century "scholars" ??
You left out half of the amendment. It seems, IMO, that there was a reason for that in the pp. If just an accident, then I apologize.
No, I believe it was complimented by "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"...and you can't read either clause without the other. I believe both were specified for a reason.
I am far from a Constitutional scholar, I've got no law degree and it's been years since my college degree poli-sci, but my personal interpretation is that the framers wanted to maintain state's collective right of arming verses the federal government power. If I cared to argue the point I would back it up, but I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other, so I won't. You are the victor! Guns for all, and I'll pass.
Since now that you've gone to some lengths to support your point, don't you really think that Tryingtoquit deserved a better response than your first one? Just saying...
Edited 6/26/2008 11:48 pm ET by currieri
Lots of people are stabbed to death every year. Should we outlaw all knives as well?
Pages