joey_the_ox wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 12:26 pm
This is the only part from your reply that deals with original intent. They spent "virtually no time discussing personal possession of firearms" apart from saying "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"? Sounds like personal possession.
Bearing arms included canons and ships. Not just muskets. Ships were a key part of the militia at the time.
So you think that if the Bill of Rights was being written today, with the same intent that the founders had, citizens would be allowed to own artillery, kamikaze drones, anti-tank missiles, or any other military equipment, and could use such weapons should the country or state be attacked?
I think if the Constitution were being written today the founders would recognize that the technology and logistics of war has progressed infinitely beyond the point at which local militias bearing personal small arms are a viable alternative to standing armies. That was even a questionable notion in revolutionary times if you read George Washington’s opinions on the effectiveness of citizen militias compared to professional soldiers. But the idea of minutemen being an alternative to modern armies is an absurd notion today.
So I think if the Constitution were being written today they would have gone in an entirely different direction in terms of reining in professional militarism. And would have probably looked more to things like the “Military Industrial Complex” described by Eisenhower as something that needed to be reigned in, not the concept of a standing professional army.
But that is just a guess on my part. None of us can actually know.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ernie wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 1:51 pm
So you think that if the Bill of Rights was being written today, with the same intent that the founders had, citizens would be allowed to own artillery, kamikaze drones, anti-tank missiles, or any other military equipment, and could use such weapons should the country or state be attacked?
I would hope not. I do not think any citizen should own a nuclear bomb. I do not think governments should own nuclear bombs either.
The reality is a bulldozer will do much more damage than an automatic weapon. People who intend harm will find some way to do it. I do not have all the answers, but giving government more power and citizens less is not an answer I agree with.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
It might sound like that to you. But it doesn’t actually say that.
“People” is used plurality in the Second Amendment and throughout US law the word is frequently used to talk about collective rights and collective action, not personal. And personal “possession” and personal “ownership” is not also mentioned.
A perfectly valid alternative interpretation is that they were talking about the they collective right of a people’s militia (like the National Guard) to keep and bear arms for purpose of national defense in lieu of a Federal standing army.
Different courts and different judges have come down on different sides of this issue over the years. The current conservative SCOTUS majority takes your view for the most part. But that doesn’t mean it is the only possible interpretation. Many judges and Supreme Court justices have come to the opposite conclusion.
In any event, I have a hard time believing that the founders intended that there be no regulation or restriction on psychopathic 18 year olds obtaining weapons of war to gun down children in a classroom. I think they would be horrified that their language is being used to defend the laws (or lack of laws) that make that a regular and reoccurring event.
So in the first amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"), is "people" referring to a "collective right" to the freedoms listed or a personal right? Or how about the fourth amendment? etc.
Your last paragraph again jumps to current conditions. You might be right about what they would think when presented with the current situation or you might not. But the question at hand is one of original intent.
That’s my point. I think the original intent was the establishment of well-regulated state militias as an alternative to a Federal standing army. It wasn’t to unleash the unregulated trade in firearms such that psychopaths with no connection to any regulated militia could have unrestricted access to weapons of war to unleash on their communities.
Sincere question: Do you think the Founders (or anyone else at the time aside from the nonresistant sects of Pa) could have even conceived of restricting or prohibiting the ability of individuals to personally defend themselves and their property with something like a musket? It strikes me that just such a right or ability was seen as axiomatic and that the 'a priori-ness' of that notion comes through in the 2nd Amendment and indeed the language in the amendment is downstream of that idea.
HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 12:49 pm
Citation? I am not saying you're wrong...I've simply never read anything from the time about the need for personal ownership of cannons and gunships.
Here is a quick search and a few links. Underlines are mine to highlight.
While uncommon in the modern era, during the American Revolution and the War of 1812 the United States relied heavily on privateering, which was commonly referred to as “the militia of the sea.” In general, the term privateer refers to a privately-owned ship or sailor commissioned by a government to raid an enemy’s military and merchant shipping. Although controversial, there is a long history of privateering that dates back to the seventeenth century. The main difference between pirates and privateers is that privateers are commissioned by a specific government and can only attack ships that fly under an enemy flag, while pirates are not sanctioned by any government and can attack whomever they choose. While pirates keep the prizes themselves, privateers only receive a portion of the money generated from the sale of prizes, which is heavily taxed. Prizes refer to goods seized from a merchant or military ship. While both economically lucrative, privateers serve as a vehicle of war, pirates do not. Despite the controversy, the United States used privateering to supplement their small naval force during the American Revolution and the War of 1812.
Even before the United States declared itself independent from Great Britain the Continental Army began utilizing privateers to undermine British commerce and support the war effort. By the end of the summer of 1775, General George Washington began converting schooners to prey on British supply ships heading to Boston to apply pressure on the British and gain some thoroughly needed supplies. Washington called these vessels privateers; however, that was technically inaccurate as they were not commissioned by the Continental Congress and thus were essentially pirates under international law. Nevertheless, the American public embraced the idea and called this little fleet of pirates “Washington’s Navy” and by the end of 1775, seven ships comprised “Washington’s Navy.” Individual colonies commissioned their own privateers to seize British cargo, but it wasn’t until March 1776 that the Continental Congress legalized privateers and began issuing commissions. Early privateers sailed on small vessels that normally carried no more than six guns and had a crew of about twenty-five; however, as the war progressed and the Continental Navy dwindled, the scale of privateering grew. By the summer of 1781, the American fleet of privateers numbered in the hundreds, and many privateers were skilled seamen. In the American Revolution, privateers transported arms, munitions and tropical products to the American continent. Privateers became a weapon in the fight for independence.
Following the American Revolution, many former privateers became captains on merchant ships, because without war, privateering was no longer needed on such a large scale. Maintaining a large standing navy proved to be an expensive endeavor, which also carried with it political intrigue and ramifications. During his term as President, President Thomas Jefferson made deep cuts to the United States Navy. In the build up to the War of 1812, the United States increasingly relied on privateering for naval protection. Privateering proved to be lucrative for the United States as they taxed prizes between 30-40%. From the beginning of the War of 1812 Congress did not want to encourage a naval war with Great Britain as they believed it to be expensive and would ultimately fail against Britain’s notoriously strong naval force. Thus, Congress adopted privateering as their main naval strategy, while maintaining a small navy. By the end of the war, Congress commissioned over 525 private ships to be privateers, which captured thousands of British vessels and millions of dollars in prizes. In the War of 1812, privateering was crucial to alleviating the trade imbalance by providing the United States with much needed goods, both for civilians and for the military.
So in the first amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"), is "people" referring to a "collective right" to the freedoms listed or a personal right? Or how about the fourth amendment? etc.
Your last paragraph again jumps to current conditions. You might be right about what they would think when presented with the current situation or you might not. But the question at hand is one of original intent.
That’s my point. I think the original intent was the establishment of well-regulated state militias as an alternative to a Federal standing army. It wasn’t to unleash the unregulated trade in firearms such that psychopaths with no connection to any regulated militia could have unrestricted access to weapons of war to unleash on their communities.
Sincere question: Do you think the Founders (or anyone else at the time aside from the nonresistant sects of Pa) could have even conceived of restricting or prohibiting the ability of individuals to personally defend themselves and their property with something like a musket? It strikes me that just such a right or ability was seen as axiomatic and that the 'a priori-ness' of that notion comes through in the 2nd Amendment and indeed the language in the amendment is downstream of that idea.
A lot of countries allow for private ownership of firearms for sport and personal defense. But they regulate them. Firearms are licensed, gun owners are licensed just like car drivers and required to go through training and keep their firearms secured. There are strict background checks without loopholes for gun purchases. And they regulate the types of weapons and ammo that is available. I don’t think any of that is inconsistent with the plain language or intent of the second amendment at all. And they tend not to have 18 year old psychopathic school shooters popping up every week like we do.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
That’s my point. I think the original intent was the establishment of well-regulated state militias as an alternative to a Federal standing army. It wasn’t to unleash the unregulated trade in firearms such that psychopaths with no connection to any regulated militia could have unrestricted access to weapons of war to unleash on their communities.
Sincere question: Do you think the Founders (or anyone else at the time aside from the nonresistant sects of Pa) could have even conceived of restricting or prohibiting the ability of individuals to personally defend themselves and their property with something like a musket? It strikes me that just such a right or ability was seen as axiomatic and that the 'a priori-ness' of that notion comes through in the 2nd Amendment and indeed the language in the amendment is downstream of that idea.
A lot of countries allow for private ownership of firearms for sport and personal defense. But they regulate them. Firearms are licensed, gun owners are licensed just like car drivers and required to go through training and keep their firearms secured. There are strict background checks without loopholes for gun purchases. And they regulate the types of weapons and ammo that is available. I don’t think any of that is inconsistent with the plain language or intent of the second amendment at all. And they tend not to have 18 year old psychopathic school shooters popping up every week like we do.
So to be clear - you would agree that the notion of the right to defend oneself with a firearm is inherent to the language of the 2nd Amendment?
HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 2:02 pm
Sincere question: Do you think the Founders (or anyone else at the time aside from the nonresistant sects of Pa) could have even conceived of restricting or prohibiting the ability of individuals to personally defend themselves and their property with something like a musket? It strikes me that just such a right or ability was seen as axiomatic and that the 'a priori-ness' of that notion comes through in the 2nd Amendment and indeed the language in the amendment is downstream of that idea.
A lot of countries allow for private ownership of firearms for sport and personal defense. But they regulate them. Firearms are licensed, gun owners are licensed just like car drivers and required to go through training and keep their firearms secured. There are strict background checks without loopholes for gun purchases. And they regulate the types of weapons and ammo that is available. I don’t think any of that is inconsistent with the plain language or intent of the second amendment at all. And they tend not to have 18 year old psychopathic school shooters popping up every week like we do.
So to be clear - you would agree that the notion of the right to defend oneself with a firearm is inherent to the language of the 2nd Amendment?
No. I actually think the intent of the second amendment was communal defense (militias) not personal defense with a firearm. That doesn’t mean I don’t think people should have the right to defend themselves. That is a separate issue. And I certainly don’t think the intent of the second amendment was utterly unregulated manufacturing, sale, and use of firearms without limits.
1 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
A lot of countries allow for private ownership of firearms for sport and personal defense. But they regulate them. Firearms are licensed, gun owners are licensed just like car drivers and required to go through training and keep their firearms secured. There are strict background checks without loopholes for gun purchases. And they regulate the types of weapons and ammo that is available. I don’t think any of that is inconsistent with the plain language or intent of the second amendment at all. And they tend not to have 18 year old psychopathic school shooters popping up every week like we do.
So to be clear - you would agree that the notion of the right to defend oneself with a firearm is inherent to the language of the 2nd Amendment?
No. I actually think the intent of the second amendment was communal defense (militias) not personal defense with a firearm. That doesn’t mean I don’t think people should have the right to defend themselves. That is a separate issue.
Where then is that right protected if not in the 2nd Amendment?
Ken wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 3:10 pm
And I certainly don’t think the intent of the second amendment was utterly unregulated manufacturing, sale, and use of firearms without limits.
I'm unclear as to how this is germane. Has anyone here even intimated that this idea is inherent to the language of the 2nd Amendment or any caselaw thereto?
HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 3:01 pm
So to be clear - you would agree that the notion of the right to defend oneself with a firearm is inherent to the language of the 2nd Amendment?
No. I actually think the intent of the second amendment was communal defense (militias) not personal defense with a firearm. That doesn’t mean I don’t think people should have the right to defend themselves. That is a separate issue.
Where then is that right protected if not in the 2nd Amendment?
The right to self defense is covered by state laws in every single state which authorize the use of lethal force for self defense. The more important right is actually the right to self defense. There isn’t much point in “bearing arms” if you can’t legally use them. We are a Federal republic. Not every single right necessarily needs to be spelled out in the Constitution. We could erase the Second Amendment tomorrow and one would still have the right to self defense in every single state.
Ken wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 3:10 pm
And I certainly don’t think the intent of the second amendment was utterly unregulated manufacturing, sale, and use of firearms without limits.
I'm unclear as to how this is germane. Has anyone here even intimated that this idea is inherent to the language of the 2nd Amendment or any caselaw thereto?
That is the result when the courts strike down any and all restrictions on the manufacturing, sale, and use of firearms on second amendment grounds, and when state legislatures do the same.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 4:50 pmThe right to self defense is covered by state laws in every single state which authorize the use of lethal force for self defense. The more important right is actually the right to self defense. There isn’t much point in “bearing arms” if you can’t legally use them. We are a Federal republic. Not every single right necessarily needs to be spelled out in the Constitution. We could erase the Second Amendment tomorrow and one would still have the right to self defense in every single state.
Except there would be no way to actually engage in self defence, since criminals would continue to have guns, but law-abiding citizens wouldn't.
