Randy Inman
Jingo's Ruminations
Kim K.
The second amendment - look deeper than just the words
June 27th 2008 15:49
Yesterday, the Supreme Court overturned the gun ban in DC, calling it unconstitutional. As a strict constitutionalist, I've thought deeply about the second amendment over the past years.
Every other amendment is pretty cut and dry, with just enough left open to interpretation to make them worthy of debate- such as the "cruel and unusual punishment" phrase.
The second amendment is different.
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.
There are almost two different things being said here. The second half is easy to understand. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The people are allowed to have guns.
Then look back at the first half. It says a militia is necessary to security. You have to look up the definition of militia to see just how confusing this really can get. Sometimes it is defined as members of military. Other times it is any trained soldier who is currently not in service. Sometimes it refers to any able bodied person of military draft age. If we take the more liberal interpretation of the word, the amendment says that any healthy man between the ages of 17 and 45 can own a gun.
Sometimes I think they wrote it this way so they didn't have to commit. I see James Hamilton and James Madison witting around with a couple of beers: "Hey Jim- check this out. We don't really like what guns do, but the cats out of the bag. We need them for protection. Maybe if we make this really ambiguous, no one can blame us later for problems with gun control."
Seriously though, when you analyze any piece of literature, it’s necessary to look at the context in which it was written. Our ancestors came from governments where tyranny was the norm because the "people" did not have the weapons their rulers had. James Madison is credited with writing the amendment. In a separate quote, he said:
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments . . . forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition. . . . [The] several kingdoms of Europe . . . are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
Tench Coxe, a member of both Hamilton and Adam's cabinet, had perhaps one of the greatest quotes I've read on the topic.
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which might be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
We have to remember that, much like us today, the founding fathers had a severe distrust of government. Disarming is the first step toward government control. Much like the civil war was much less about slavery and much more about the integration of the south, disarming could disguise itself behind many "positive" initiatives.
Every other amendment is pretty cut and dry, with just enough left open to interpretation to make them worthy of debate- such as the "cruel and unusual punishment" phrase.
The second amendment is different.
There are almost two different things being said here. The second half is easy to understand. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The people are allowed to have guns.
Then look back at the first half. It says a militia is necessary to security. You have to look up the definition of militia to see just how confusing this really can get. Sometimes it is defined as members of military. Other times it is any trained soldier who is currently not in service. Sometimes it refers to any able bodied person of military draft age. If we take the more liberal interpretation of the word, the amendment says that any healthy man between the ages of 17 and 45 can own a gun.
Sometimes I think they wrote it this way so they didn't have to commit. I see James Hamilton and James Madison witting around with a couple of beers: "Hey Jim- check this out. We don't really like what guns do, but the cats out of the bag. We need them for protection. Maybe if we make this really ambiguous, no one can blame us later for problems with gun control."
Seriously though, when you analyze any piece of literature, it’s necessary to look at the context in which it was written. Our ancestors came from governments where tyranny was the norm because the "people" did not have the weapons their rulers had. James Madison is credited with writing the amendment. In a separate quote, he said:
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments . . . forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition. . . . [The] several kingdoms of Europe . . . are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
Tench Coxe, a member of both Hamilton and Adam's cabinet, had perhaps one of the greatest quotes I've read on the topic.
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which might be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
We have to remember that, much like us today, the founding fathers had a severe distrust of government. Disarming is the first step toward government control. Much like the civil war was much less about slavery and much more about the integration of the south, disarming could disguise itself behind many "positive" initiatives.
| 71 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by James Rickard
unlucky_ fishermen.com
Angling Fish
Check this out...
Comment by Josie