Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Please learn some history
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"When the Bill of Rights was passed, a gun consisted of a muzzle loader, and in most cases, if not a rifle, would not be of much use for hitting anything."
The firearms of their day were highly accurate and those in private hands were more accurate than those used by the military, because hunters used rifles and the military used smoothbores mostly until the 1830s.
"In fact, the rifled barrel, necessary for accuracy, was not invented until 1885."
You are over 100 years off. In fact, you can buy modern bolt action rifles where the RECEIVER was built in 1885.
When you see something like the 1903 Springfield or the 98k Mauser, or the 91/30 NM. Those refere to dates. The 98 was adpoted in 1898, the 91 in 1891 by the Russians. These are still rifles you can buy and fire today and ammunition is still made for them.
"Todays handguns have the firepower of a militia in 1776. If this had been the intent of the second amendment, it would have read "everyone can have their own little militia to use as they see fit". This guy had semi-automatic firing, spare magazines to relode instantly, and the firepoter to shoot people through doors. We really need to think about some type of regulation."
We do have regulation, the problem is that no type of regulation is going to prevent someone without a conviction from buying a firearm. That a teacher made had a problem with him is not something that is reportable.
Your conclusions are based on completely errorenous sets of information. You have no idea about the firepower of firearms is specific time periods is, you have no idea about how a modern semi-automatic pistol works, and you have no idea about how current regulations on firearms work, yet despite this giant gulf of ignorance, you think you can draw correct conclusions.
A conclusions based on ignorance is worthless.
-
Wording of the Constitution.
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State ...
Those thirteen words that begin the 2nd amendment are the ones that our Supreme Court tend to ignore, deciding time and again that the right to bear arms is an individual right, rather than, as indicating by the beginning clause, a collective right (which, as written, it most clearly is).
----------------------------------------------
If it is a collective right as you are stating, perhaps you can find one legal opinion or scholar in the first 100 years of this country's history who would agree with you.
In fact, in terms of debating the issue, the stance that it is an individual right is called the standard theory.
Not only does the historical context, the fact that a clause expliciting stating for collection defense defeated, but wording does not support your conclusion either.
Let's reword the Amendment.
"A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed"
Would you take this to mean that only well educated electorate could keep and read books? No, you wouldn't conclude. You would rightfully read it as saying the goal was a well educated electorate and part of acheiving that goal was people being able to keep and read books.
It's the same with the 2nd Amendment. The purpose behind it is so that people can be familiar enough with firerams to form a well regulated militia.
-
Please read carefully next time
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]re: xanthro & wording of the constitution.
Easy enough to find an opinion in support of my statement:
Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052
--------------------------------
When I post stating you will not find a legal opinion that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right in the first one hundred years of this nations history, and you respond back with a 1999 court case, I'll assume you simply didn't read what I wrote rather than you actually believe this country was founded sometime after 1898.
You can find a number of people arguing it's a collective right after the first hundred years, what you can't find is someone in the first hundred years. Why, because it's not a collective right and any non idiotic reading, and understanding of the history behind the amendment leads to the only conclusion that it's an individual right.
Are we to believe that somehow the defeat of a proposed language stressing the it's a collective right, and the first hundred years of Judical review were somehow wrong. That the people who WROTE the amendment and voted on it and spoke at length as to its purpose were also wrong?
No, that's as silly as stating that the amdenment really means we can wear short sleeves shirts. After all, it's says keep and bear arms.
------------------------------
And via wikipedia's treatment of the 2nd amendment:
"Akhil Reed Amar, a leading scholar of constitutional law, writes in the left-leaning journal The New Republic that the word people is also used in a collective sense in the US Constitution: "The amendment speaks of a right of 'the people' collectively rather than a right of 'persons' individually.' And it uses a distinctly military phrase:
-----------------------------
Want me to edit Wikipedia for you? Seriously, anybody can edit Wiki, while it has it's uses, it's not a source for any type of debate on an important issue.
Now, I guess we have no individual rights whatsoever since the phrase "the right of the people" is in the First, Second and Fourth Amendments.
The Bill of Rights as a whole speaks to the "the right of the people" Are you seriously going to argue that someone Amendments adopted at the same time, using the same langauge that said langauge has a different meaning in different parts?
When "legal" scholars make such an argument, they should be fired, because it's incompetent.
"The right of the people" doesn't mean an individual in some cases and a collective in others, it's one or the other. Anything else is childish word games.