Letters to the Editor
-
Please read carefully next time
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.
-
Walter Shapiro is a fool
Not too long ago I read a short article about a similar situation at another university. The only difference was that the only person hurt was the shooter after being confronted by a student who retreaved a legal firearm from a teachers car.
The only time that violence is reduced is when the general public is able to protect itself.
Even a person of questionable sanity would think twice if he knew that there was a good posibility that he would be confronted.
The reason why shootings have happened in places like schools is that they are generally "protected" and "gun free." This leaves the shooters with a sense that they will be free to cause whatever mayhem they choose without being confronted by a person willing and able to protect themselves and those around them.
To prove my point, simply look at two places in the world where guns have been all but completly outlawed, Great Britain, and Australia.
In both of these countries after guns where taken from the law abbiding
citizens the incidence of "hot" home invasions has skyrocketed.
As well as other crimes of violence against the unarmed.
In simple terms that even people like Shapiro can understand, if you
disarm the citizens only the criminals and despots will be armed.
-
Militias
"Your argument might carry some water if militias weren't an archaic, outdated, unused concept. There are no more militias, no-one that is called to defense of the country is expected to bring their own gun. Though the way the Bush Administration has been "supporting" the troops, they probably will soon. They already have to provide their own body/humvee armor."
I've been called up for militia duty and it happens rather frequently in rural areas. It's called deputization and you are assisting local authorities in an emergency. You are required to bring your own firearm.
Plus, legally, every male between 18 and 45 is in the Militia, it's called the National Guard act of 1903.
"Lets just look at the second and third words: well regulated. The NRA and others seem to think any regulation is anathema to the second amendment. Even if you conceed that it is intended to confer the right to bear arms on individuals (which I do not), regulation is definately a key."
The wording of the Amendment does allow for some restrictions, but likely in the way opposite of what you want. Those arms that contribute to a well regulated militia (which has a specific meaning) can't be made illegal. Those that do not contribute can be made illegal.
That's why even in the early part of the country's history sword canes could be banned in cities, while swords could not. The former has no military purpose, the latter does.
Ironically, the 2nd Amendment gives greater protection to military weapons than to hunting weapons.
In fact, the 1939 decision that people keep misquoting makes this clear. The issue at hand in that case was a sawed off shotgun, which the court ruled had no military value and thus did not fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment.
---------------------------------
"Why not allow individuals to own guns, but require they be registered and that all owners must buy insurance, take classes, etc..."
That's the law already in most States.
------------------------------------
"In fact, why not have all guns kept in central repositories. If people want to sign their guns out, they can. No problem. After all, this is so they can form a militia when needed, right?"
Why do so? In a free country it's not up to an individual to prove a need in order to excerise it, it's up to the State to prove a compellling reason why a right needs to be curtailed and to do so in the least restrictive way possible.
Why not lock up all books and you can check them out when needed, afterall nobody has ever once been killed because he or she did not have a book to protect him or herself.
In many places firearms are still a vital part of personal security. When you live hours from the nearest police response or emergency service, the threat from criminals and even animals is different than if you can just call the police and they are then in 5 minutes.