Guns? The Most Mysterious Right

[midcan5]

The Most Mysterious Right

by Cass R. Sunstein

“To understand the problem, we must begin with the text of the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”"

“In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms.” Burger answered that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud– I repeat the word ‘fraud’–on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that “the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all. ” In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was “to ensure that the ’state armies’–’the militia’–would be maintained for the defense of the state.”

It is impossible to understand the current Second Amendment debate without lingering over Burger’s words. Burger was a cautious person as well as a conservative judge, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court is unlikely to offer a controversial position on a constitutional question in an interview on national television.”

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e8997807-107b-461f-90d2-51a3ef91b508

[Nukeman]

The Most Mysterious Right

by Cass R. Sunstein

“To understand the problem, we must begin with the text of the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”"

“In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms.” Burger answered that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud– I repeat the word ‘fraud’–on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that “the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all. ” In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was “to ensure that the ’state armies’–’the militia’–would be maintained for the defense of the state.”

It is impossible to understand the current Second Amendment debate without lingering over Burger’s words. Burger was a cautious person as well as a conservative judge, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court is unlikely to offer a controversial position on a constitutional question in an interview on national television.”

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e8997807-107b-461f-90d2-51a3ef91b508Yes to fight against an oppresive government everytime it happens. Our fore fathers put that into the constitution. we are to remove any government that is not representative of the people, without the means to defend ourselves that would be impossible.

the interviewer could have easily asked about the seperation of Church and State. this appears NO WHERE in the constitution only that the State will not establish a "State relgion".

How about the Federal government maintaining a military in time of peace?? That is not allowed by the constitution either....

What it comes down to, is the intent of the men who drafted this document. I think they were fully aware of the ability of government to turn against their own people and that is precisely why the second ammendment is there.....

[Little-Acorn]

"Mysterious" right? Hardly. The 2nd amendment is clear in its prohibition against government interference with our right to own and carry guns.

Some of the arguments that have been used against that right, might be seen as "mysterious", since they twist the English language into almost-unrecognizable shapes, and/or rely on flat falsehoods to bolster their case.

Here's an interesting interview with a well-known scholar of early American English. A professor who, by the way, supports "gun control":

-------------------------------

http://www.2asisters.org/unabridged.htm

THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT

by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of theSecond Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus. A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did \not\ give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"July 26, 1991
"Dear Professor Copperud:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.

"Sincerely,

"J. Neil Schulman"

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]

[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]

[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]

[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]

[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.

[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]

[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.

[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]

[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be, Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?;
and Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]

[Copperud:] Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

[avatar4321]

CJ Burger is right. The Second Amendment "doesnt guarantee the right to have firearms at all." It guarentees Americans the right to any weapon, firearm or otherwise for personal defense.

[Hagbard Celine]

CJ Burger is right. The Second Amendment "doesnt guarantee the right to have firearms at all." It guarentees Americans the right to any weapon, firearm or otherwise for personal defense.

If a person were smart enough to develop a nuke in his basement, would it fall under the second amendment? Real question, not being a smart ass.

[mundame]

If a person were smart enough to develop a nuke in his basement, would it fall under the second amendment? Real question, not being a smart ass.

Never mind nukes...........shoulder-fired rockets strike me as more of an issue, especially around airports.

[Hagbard Celine]

Never mind nukes...........shoulder-fired rockets strike me as more of an issue, especially around airports.

If a person built or acquired stinger missiles in his basement, would the government be able to take them away?

[theHawk]

The Most Mysterious Right

by Cass R. Sunstein

“To understand the problem, we must begin with the text of the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”"

“In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms.” Burger answered that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud– I repeat the word ‘fraud’–on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that “the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all. ” In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was “to ensure that the ’state armies’–’the militia’–would be maintained for the defense of the state.”

It is impossible to understand the current Second Amendment debate without lingering over Burger’s words. Burger was a cautious person as well as a conservative judge, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court is unlikely to offer a controversial position on a constitutional question in an interview on national television.”

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e8997807-107b-461f-90d2-51a3ef91b508

If it was meant to allow only militia the right, it would of said "the right of the militias to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
Unfortunately for you it doesn't say that.

[theHawk]

Never mind nukes...........shoulder-fired rockets strike me as more of an issue, especially around airports.

Rockets, missles, and bombs aren't going to help any individual defend his home against criminals.

[mundame]

Rockets, missles, and bombs aren't going to help any individual defend his home against criminals.


Taking out a city block where the individual supposes the criminals LIVE might well seem to some people a good idea.......where should the government draw the line, and how can it, in accordance with the second amendment?

[PostmodernProphet]

the right to bare arms?.....a fraud?......say it isn't so....

http://www.countryhumor.com/larry/righttobarearms.jpg

[theHawk]

Taking out a city block where the individual supposes the criminals LIVE might well seem to some people a good idea.......where should the government draw the line, and how can it, in accordance with the second amendment?

Attacking a criminal in his own home is not the same as defending your own. Explain how the second amendment in any grants immunity to someone tresspassing and attacking someone else on their own property.

[mundame]

Attacking a criminal in his own home is not the same as defending your own. Explain how the second amendment in any grants immunity to someone tresspassing and attacking someone else on their own property.

It doesn't, of course.

The actual question is, can the law properly ban people owning shoulder-fired rockets?

The Constitution does not address "defending your home," after all: it refers to militias and individuals. So it is not obvious how the law could restrict a person to weapons suitable to the defense of the home against burglars. Can you explain that?

[Hobbit]

If a person were smart enough to develop a nuke in his basement, would it fall under the second amendment? Real question, not being a smart ass.

If a person built or acquired stinger missiles in his basement, would the government be able to take them away?

Definitely legitimate questions, which I have given some thought to in the past. I think the Constitution allows for pretty much anything you can get your hands on at heart, but the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that some cases of apparent Constitutional rights must be restricted, as their free use restricts the rights of others. Free speech means you can say what you want without retribution, but when you shout 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater, you are performing an action where a probable outcome is injury and death, thus the rights of people to remain uninjured and alive trump your right to free speech. More on point, saying something defamatory and false about somebody tarnishes his reputation, something determined by law to be of legal value (the reputation of branded companies is actually assessed and recorded on their books as an asset). His right to retain his possessions of value trumps your right to speak, unless, of course, the allegations are true.

Thus we come to the question of things like high explosives. I think the most sensible way to approach the problem of privately owned high explosives, while keeping as close to the spirit of the 2nd amendment is as follows: The United States military records the projected and maximum projected radius of effectiveness of all ordnance. First off, no making your own stuff without a specialized license, and a license would require that you can and swear to accurately project the blast radius of your stuff. Thus, with those radii known, no one may store those explosives closer than the blast radius to the edge of their own property unless it is stored in a rated, blast-shielded storage area. That way, if there is an accidental discharge, the owner's property will be the only one damaged. Also, the owner of said ordnance will be held financially responsible for all damage done by it except in the event of mitigating circumstances (i.e. if a criminal broke in and decided to play with your stingers or if, God forbid, an enemy plane flies over your house and you miss). Thus, explosives such as personal rocket launchers would be effectively limited to rural areas and/or to those rich enough to build blast-shielded rooms and afford an undoubtedly high increase in insurance premiums, and that's in addition to the price of the weapons themselves, which I understand to be fairly steep.

As for nuclear weapons, the danger of such things as fallout is so high that it would be reasonable to allow no private citizen to own such weapons. An accidental discharge could cause problems in multiple states. Double so for biological and chemical weapons.


Taking out a city block where the individual supposes the criminals LIVE might well seem to some people a good idea.......where should the government draw the line, and how can it, in accordance with the second amendment?

The 2nd amendment makes no guarantees for unlimited use of such weapons, and shouldn't, as it would infringe on others' rights to life and limb. As it stands, if I take a handgun that I legally own and unload it into a crowd because the guy who lifted my wallet is in that crowd, I would go to jail for murder (or attempted murder, if nobody died) because it is not permissible to recklessly endanger or kill innocent civilians in the pursuit of a criminal. Only if the criminal were actively endangering my life from there would that be legally permitted, and even then, it would be fairly reckless. As such, it would, of course, be completely unlawful for a private citizen to take his privately owned MLRS and level a city block just because a cat burglar lived there.

[mundame]

The 2nd amendment makes no guarantees for unlimited use of such weapons, and shouldn't, as it would infringe on others' rights to life and limb. As it stands, if I take a handgun that I legally own and unload it into a crowd because the guy who lifted my wallet is in that crowd, I would go to jail for murder (or attempted murder, if nobody died) because it is not permissible to recklessly endanger or kill innocent civilians in the pursuit of a criminal. Only if the criminal were actively endangering my life from there would that be legally permitted, and even then, it would be fairly reckless. As such, it would, of course, be completely unlawful for a private citizen to take his privately owned MLRS and level a city block just because a cat burglar lived there.


Good answer.

The issue is not really how various weapons would be used legally, but whether their availability raises the likelihood they'll be used ILLEGALLY.

That's the whole, entire point to the issue of gun control, right? The fact that if guns are legal, some kids that go to Columbine High School may indeed decide to kill the first American Christian martyr, and many others.

And that if other weapons, like shoulder-fired rockets, are legal to own, well of course they wouldn't be legal to use to ping away at planes at the local airport!!!! But someone would do it, sooner or later: it's inevitable.

And that's a problem. It's the basic, founding problem. The one we always discuss. Guns are fine if no one misuses them or leaves them lying around where small children can get at them. But people DO misuse them and DO leave them around, that's the human condition. So now what?

[avatar4321]

If a person were smart enough to develop a nuke in his basement, would it fall under the second amendment? Real question, not being a smart ass.

im not sure nuclear bombs constitute arms...

[avatar4321]

Never mind nukes...........shoulder-fired rockets strike me as more of an issue, especially around airports.

The point of the second amendment is to protect oneself from others and from government.

Logically, the government shouldnt be allowed to put down someone simply for having weapons that could be used against the government. Of course if the person actually stages a resistance and rebels against the government then i think the person would still be punishable for rebellion, but not for owning weapons, even if they are unconventional.

[mundame]

The point of the second amendment is to protect oneself from others and from government.

if the person actually stages a resistance and rebels against the government then i think the person would still be punishable for rebellion,


These are contradictory statements, aren't they?

[diuretic]

The nuke question is easy to dispose of. The right to bear arms doesn't imply licence. There can be reasonable restriction and prohibiting the private ownership of nukes is reasonable.

The issues of self-defence are simply clouding the main issue. You're entitled to defend yourself with your bare hands if you wish. And you can defend yourself with a firearm if you have one. The response just has to be proportional. But self defence is a separate concept from the right expressed in the 2nd Amendment.

[avatar4321]

These are contradictory statements, aren't they?

not at all. unless you also think that prosecuting someone for murder with a gun is the same as punishing someone who owns a gun.

[JimmyAteWorld]

Good answer.

The issue is not really how various weapons would be used legally, but whether their availability raises the likelihood they'll be used ILLEGALLY.

That's the whole, entire point to the issue of gun control, right? The fact that if guns are legal, some kids that go to Columbine High School may indeed decide to kill the first American Christian martyr, and many others.

And that if other weapons, like shoulder-fired rockets, are legal to own, well of course they wouldn't be legal to use to ping away at planes at the local airport!!!! But someone would do it, sooner or later: it's inevitable.

And that's a problem. It's the basic, founding problem. The one we always discuss. Guns are fine if no one misuses them or leaves them lying around where small children can get at them. But people DO misuse them and DO leave them around, that's the human condition. So now what?

If a fork is misused it can be lethal, but obviously we aren't going to start a Ban the Fork movement. You can take cars, plastic bags, paint thinner, and countless other things and make them harmful if they are misused, so that is really not a measuring stick for banning something or making it unavailable.

A gun can realistically be used for protection or hunting, it can even be a keepsake or just a conversation piece. A shoulder fired rocket serves no common purpose, and I won't even get into nukes. So now... we use a little common sense. Any Constitutional right is subject to the laws of the land. That's why we have Freedom of Speech but we can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater and things of that nature. Laws can prohibit owning a shoulder fired rocket without interfering with our right to own a gun.

[JimmyAteWorld]

And as far as guns be the "Most Mysterious Right", I guess we all have our opinion. Gun ownership is far from the most mysterious right to me. That would be the "Constitutional right" to abortion.

[emmett]

You must spread some rep before being allowed to reward two good points by one person. You know, Affirmative Action of the rep system. You are only allowed to rep a little at a time. We want it to be faior for everyone. Liberals should love our rep system. It sucks.

[DragonStryk72]

I've always thought that the 8th amendment was the most mysterious. I mean, really, do you know what it is, without looking it up?

It covers the "inherent" rights, like owning your own property, right to have children, things of that nature.

[Yurt]

I've always thought that the 8th amendment was the most mysterious. I mean, really, do you know what it is, without looking it up?

It covers the "inherent" rights, like owning your own property, right to have children, things of that nature.

um, you should really look it up, the 8th has nothing to do with that... and i kno of no amendment that deals with the "right to have children" :poke: