Comments on: Original 2nd Amendment

By: Asking And Telling | Reflections From a Murky Pond

Asking And Telling | Reflections From a Murky Pond — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:46:52 +0000

[...] defense, i.e., serve in the military forces of America, can be deduced from the concerns over the original 2nd Amendment. The Constitution makes it quite clear that such a right exists for every American and it shall not [...]

By: jonolan

jonolan — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:37:59 +0000

Mine and many others – including most of the SCOTUS judges, ReyMac. It is still open for argument though. Your view falls in line with the federalists and other groups.

By: ReyMac

ReyMac — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:31:23 +0000

jonolan-
came to check out your source material, as you suggested. I follow your argument until your conclusion. I think you’re making a jump that the right to bear arms was specifically intended to allow for protection against one’s own government. But that said, the final version passed and numbered in the Bill of Rights reads very differently from the original text. That said, the legal argument (if a=b, and b=c, then a=c) equates a militia with the necessity of people to own guns for the protection of “a free State” which means country, no? The protection from within appears to be your interpretation.

By: jonolan

jonolan — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:55:51 +0000

To my mind, geneo, the key point addressing you point is that the 2nd Amendment was originally intended to be to be inserted in the First Article, Section Nine, between clauses 3 and 4 of the US Constitution. The surrounding rights are all individual rights. Therefore it is logical to assume – via intended context – that what became the 2nd Amendment was intended as an individual right.

And…thank you, geneo. I’m a strong proponent of liberty – and the individual responsibility that it requires.

By: geneo

geneo — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:28:40 +0000

One more thought: I wonder what the intent of this amendment was in regard to the STATES. The Bill of Rights was not intended to be incorporated to the states at this time. Trying to figure out how the right of the People to keep and bear arms, as a national right, was going to really be a buffer against the tyranny of the national government. Is the assumption here that, if one branch or one state got out of control, some other branch would take control of the militia and, as Locke says in his Treatise “do what Jephta did?” (i.e. appeal to heaven and lead your army out). I would love to know what you think about that.

Also, Jonolan, I don’t want to presume to put words in your mouth, but I am developing a deep appreciation for your love of Liberty and hatred of Tyranny. I’ve got some stuff about a man in my town who was arrested under very suspicious circumstances for exercising his First Amendment Rights, if you’d like to check it out.

By: geneo

geneo — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:14:45 +0000

Great work, Jonolan.

I am not an “original intent” guy myself, but anyone who is should consider this carefully. You do a good job here of sticking to the sources. I’ll add that I think there is a clear legal distinction between “the People” and plain old “people” that runs through most of the legal work from the founding period I have seen. “the People” is a nation. The academic concept of “nationalism” was not fully developed at this point.

I believe if we trace this concept of “the People” back in time through the Western history of ideas, we’ll find that it is roughly co-extensive with the Latin concepts “populi” and “gentium.” So, if I were a judge, I would have a hard time constructing an argument supporting individual gun ownership from original intent. I would also have to consider that the way we do military organization has changed so much during the founding period that the founders’ idea of “the People” bearing arms doesn’t really apply.

I want to be clear here — I am NOT opposing individual gun ownership. I own guns, handle them responsibly, aned store them in an appropriate manner. I respect them and enjoy them. I am simply voicing my skepticism of the argument that the Second Amendment protects that right. The more I learn about constitutional and international jurisprudence, the more it seems that the Second Amendment, in modern terms, is really just protecting our right to keep a standing volunteer army.

By: jonolan

jonolan — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:12:10 +0000

JP Schilling, Welcome to this blog!

I don’t know what to say except thank you.

By: Onemorecup

Onemorecup — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:43:19 +0000

jonolan:

Just love what I see over here! You have done a pretty exhaustive study on the 2nd Amendment and you deserve many kudos indeed!

For anyone to make an assessment other than what you’ve proffered here would be nothing short of ignorance. Sure…we all have our opinions; but one cannot argue with a well-researched point of view.

I feel quite privileged to have you visit “The Thinker” (my blog) vis-a-vie Stalin’s statement about how to bring America down. However, after reading your assessment here, I am reminded that the point he makes is ‘all consuming’ and ostensibly would bring anything down. If you don’t mind I would love to add your site to my Blogroll. CHEERS!

jp schilling aka Onemorecup
“The Thinker”

By: DC v. Heller - It's On! | Reflections From a Murky Pond

DC v. Heller - It's On! | Reflections From a Murky Pond — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:50:07 +0000

[...] Finally, after over 70 years the US Supreme Court will hear a case whose basis is whether the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is an individual right or a collective [...]

By: Christy

Christy — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:16:28 +0000

For the record, thanks for the analysis.