As Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox pointed out last week, a careful, rational, and honest reading of the Second Amendment shows that “a well-armed militia” is contingent on the right of the citizens to “keep and bear arms”. Not the other way around.
There is no constitutional basis for the idea of so-called “collective rights.” Our rights are “endowed” by our “Creator” not by the federal government.
Bat One - 11:11am on 11/27/2007
Bat One,
Amen.
The first phrase of the Second Amendment is the reasoning behind the guarantee of the Right. As such, I don’t believe there should be legal way to ban the ownership of any weapon commonly issued to the Armed Forces.
Rodney Graves - 11:11am on 11/27/2007
As Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox pointed out...
I voted for that guy. Him winning took some of the sting out of socialist Jennifer Granholm’s win over Dick Posthumus in 2002.
likwidshoe - 11:11am on 11/27/2007
Him winning took some of the sting out of socialist Jennifer Granholm’s win over Dick Posthumus in 2002.
Not for Granholm it didn’t! Cox has been a persistent thorn in the right side of her posterior ever since.
Bat One - 11:11am on 11/27/2007
Well, screw Granholm. I briefly toyed around with the idea of moving back to MI earlier this year. Then they raised taxes, yet again. That wasn’t the welcoming mat I was looking for. Screw that state. Many of my old friends have fled the state in the past few years. They’re leaving a sinking ship. It’s only too bad that so many of them are the rats that helped cause that ship to start sinking in the first place. They’re only moving their insanity to other states, where they’ll no doubt repeat the same damn mistakes. Higher taxes, more union protectionism, and higher taxes. They never learn, bless their hearts.
likwidshoe - 11:11am on 11/27/2007
"A well-regulated militia...” What exactly does “well regulated” mean? Regulated how? By whom? And note the use of “militia” as opposed to “citizenry”, “public”, “populus” or “people”. The Framers left us with one of the Constitution’s most ambiguous statements and, in so doing, opened the door to the anti-gun crowd. I am a strong believer in a strict-interpretation of the Constitution, but a strict interpretation is difficult here.
pparets - 02:11pm on 11/27/2007
A prefatory explanation of motivation in no way impugns nor limits the Right of the People thus explained and stated.
Rodney Graves - 02:11pm on 11/27/2007
pparets” Please allow me remove the abiguity for you:
Did virtually every man and most women in this country own and use personal firearms when the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights was enacted? They did!
Were they all actively involved by membership and required to be uniformed and be in a militia? No!
Therefore, the people that ratified the Second Amendment were aware that virtually every citizen owned a firearm and these firearms were not licensed nor subjected to registration when they wrote about the right to keep and bear arms. Having this knowledge, had they any idea that only a uniformed, regulated militia should possess and use firearms, wouldn’t they have included these restrictions in the 2nd Amendment?
The only abiguity is in the minds of those that want to overturn the 2nd Amendment absent the Constitutional process for their own malevolent motives.
Neiman - 02:11pm on 11/27/2007
pparets, unfortunately the brevity of the language in the constitution allows for different interpretations and the writers often put several unique and seperate items into the same paragraph. One of the best examples of that in the first amendment which contains unique references to religion, speech, assemble and petition. Similarly, I believe the references to militia and the right for the people to bear arms can be treated as separate items, but however one reads it, the ‘shall not be infringed’ surely implies that there be no restrictions on the ‘peoples’ use of firearms.
docdave - 02:11pm on 11/27/2007
pparets,
I don’t see that this needs to be all that confusing. As Cox points out the phrase “keep and bear arms” consists of two separate and distinct verbs, with two two different meanings. To “bear” arms meant to serve in the militia, and to “bear arms”, one must first own, or “keep” those arms. Serving in the militia, the “bear"-ing arms part, was contingent on having those arms in the first place. There is no indication or historical support for the idea that this, or any of the other Rights listed in those first ten Amendments was meant to be a “collective right.”
As Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox pointed out last week, a careful, rational, and honest reading of the Second Amendment shows that “a well-armed militia” is contingent on the right of the citizens to “keep and bear arms”. Not the other way around.
There is no constitutional basis for the idea of so-called “collective rights.” Our rights are “endowed” by our “Creator” not by the federal government.
Bat One,
Amen.
The first phrase of the Second Amendment is the reasoning behind the guarantee of the Right. As such, I don’t believe there should be legal way to ban the ownership of any weapon commonly issued to the Armed Forces.
As Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox pointed out...
I voted for that guy. Him winning took some of the sting out of socialist Jennifer Granholm’s win over Dick Posthumus in 2002.
Not for Granholm it didn’t! Cox has been a persistent thorn in the right side of her posterior ever since.
Well, screw Granholm. I briefly toyed around with the idea of moving back to MI earlier this year. Then they raised taxes, yet again. That wasn’t the welcoming mat I was looking for. Screw that state. Many of my old friends have fled the state in the past few years. They’re leaving a sinking ship. It’s only too bad that so many of them are the rats that helped cause that ship to start sinking in the first place. They’re only moving their insanity to other states, where they’ll no doubt repeat the same damn mistakes. Higher taxes, more union protectionism, and higher taxes. They never learn, bless their hearts.
"A well-regulated militia...” What exactly does “well regulated” mean? Regulated how? By whom? And note the use of “militia” as opposed to “citizenry”, “public”, “populus” or “people”. The Framers left us with one of the Constitution’s most ambiguous statements and, in so doing, opened the door to the anti-gun crowd. I am a strong believer in a strict-interpretation of the Constitution, but a strict interpretation is difficult here.
A prefatory explanation of motivation in no way impugns nor limits the Right of the People thus explained and stated.
pparets” Please allow me remove the abiguity for you:
Did virtually every man and most women in this country own and use personal firearms when the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights was enacted? They did!
Were they all actively involved by membership and required to be uniformed and be in a militia? No!
Therefore, the people that ratified the Second Amendment were aware that virtually every citizen owned a firearm and these firearms were not licensed nor subjected to registration when they wrote about the right to keep and bear arms. Having this knowledge, had they any idea that only a uniformed, regulated militia should possess and use firearms, wouldn’t they have included these restrictions in the 2nd Amendment?
The only abiguity is in the minds of those that want to overturn the 2nd Amendment absent the Constitutional process for their own malevolent motives.
pparets, unfortunately the brevity of the language in the constitution allows for different interpretations and the writers often put several unique and seperate items into the same paragraph. One of the best examples of that in the first amendment which contains unique references to religion, speech, assemble and petition. Similarly, I believe the references to militia and the right for the people to bear arms can be treated as separate items, but however one reads it, the ‘shall not be infringed’ surely implies that there be no restrictions on the ‘peoples’ use of firearms.
pparets,
I don’t see that this needs to be all that confusing. As Cox points out the phrase “keep and bear arms” consists of two separate and distinct verbs, with two two different meanings. To “bear” arms meant to serve in the militia, and to “bear arms”, one must first own, or “keep” those arms. Serving in the militia, the “bear"-ing arms part, was contingent on having those arms in the first place. There is no indication or historical support for the idea that this, or any of the other Rights listed in those first ten Amendments was meant to be a “collective right.”
Read Cox’ entire Op/Ed.