How to Read the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution

[cory]

In light of a recent thread it has occurred to me that most of us do not understand the Bill of Rights or the Constitution and thus read it incorrectly.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights have little to nothing to do with the Individual. When reading either don't think what does this mean to me, think what does this mean to the government.

It was necessary to allocate Rights from the Individual to the government so to have a functioning society where the Rights of the Individual were protected. In order to do this the Founders crafted the Constitution where the Rights taken from the Individual and allocated to the government were specifically defined. And in order to prevent government from doing what is natural to it, growing and devouring more power from the Rights of the Individual, checks and balances were put into place.

The Constitution was and is a masterful accomplishment. Even with that being so, Madison's House of Representatives first act was to amend the Constitution. After deep review of the Constitution, they effectively said, "That's all well in good, but hear this." And they amended the Constitution with the Bill of Rights.

Why is that important? Because unless the amendment specifies it does not supercede a clause of the Constitution, it supercedes the entirety of the Constitution.

Therefore the appropriate manner in which to read the 1st and 2nd Amendment is that the government in no uncertain terms does NOT have the Right to regulate speech or firearms.

As we know there are no absolutes. This is why we have to understand the principle Rights laid out in the Declaration of Independence and how the 1st and 2nd fit into it. Speech is a subset of our Right to Liberty and Bearing Arms are subsets of our Right to Life (property) "Arms" and our Right to Liberty "Bearing". We have the Right to say whatever we want up until it violates someone else's Right to Life or directly violates someone else's Right to Liberty (e.g. screaming fire in a crowded theater). It's the same logic for Bearing Arms. However, your Right to your Arms (property), supercedes another's Right to Liberty. I.e. someone can not take them from you.

Thanks for taking the time to consider the perspective from a Mechanical/Systems Engineer based on logic as I understand it.

[montana]

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/...ill-rights

The Bill of Rights represents the first step that “We the People” took in amending the Constitution “in Order to form a more perfect Union.” The original, unamended Constitution was a remarkable achievement, establishing a revolutionary structure of government that put power in the hands of the people. The Bill of Rights built on that foundation, protecting our most cherished American freedoms, including freedom of speech, right to bear arms, religion, assembly, and due process of law. For more than two centuries—as we have exercised, restricted, expanded, tested, and debated those freedoms—the Bill of Rights has shaped and been shaped by what it means to be American.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Yet many of the points Stan has taken have been accepted: https://constitutioncenter.org/interacti...endment-ii

Times have changed but the debate on our rights have not.

[stanc]

In light of a recent thread it has occurred to me that most of us do not understand the Bill of Rights or the Constitution and thus read it incorrectly.

Concur.

It was necessary to allocate Rights from the Individual to the government so to have a functioning society where the Rights of the Individual were protect. In order to do this the Founders crafted the Constitution where the Rights taken from the Individual and allocated to the government were specifically defined.

Well, so much for the notion that rights are unalienable (i.e., cannot be taken away).

Therefore the appropriate manner in which to read the 1st and 2nd Amendment is that the government in no uncertain terms does NOT have the Right to regulate speech or firearms.

As we know there are no absolutes.

Second sentence contradicts the first. (And the courts have ruled that the government can regulate both speech and firearms.)

This is why we have to understand the principle Rights laid out in the Declaration of Independence and how the 1st and 2nd fit into it. Speech is a subset of our Right to Liberty and Bearing Arms are subsets of our Right to Life (property) "Arms" and our Right to Liberty "Bearing".

The Declaration of Independence does not divide rights into categories and subsets of categories.
It says that the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are "among" the rights given to us.

Thanks for taking the time to consider the perspective from a Mechanical/Systems Engineer based on logic as I understand it.

At the risk of being undiplomatic, I must say that your understanding of logic seems a bit flawed.

[Double Naught Spy]

Therefore the appropriate manner in which to read the 1st and 2nd Amendment is that the government in no uncertain terms does NOT have the Right to regulate speech or firearms.

Hmmm, the courts do not concur and the very founding fathers who penned the document did not concur either, or rather they also immediately violated the 2nd Amendment with the first Militia Act of 1792 less than 6 months after the Bill of Rights, where the right to keep and bear arms was infringed by being made a legally encumbering requirement.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

A right is no longer a right when it becomes a requirement.

[keystone183]

Well, so much for the notion that rights are unalienable (i.e., cannot be taken away).

CERTAIN...unalienable rights.....

The Declaration of Independence does not divide rights into categories and subsets of categories.
It says that the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are "among" the rights given to us.

One can logically conclude that it does, because they throw the above mentioned word in there. At least two categories anyway. And those you mention, are 'among' the UNALIENABLE ones....

At the risk of being undiplomatic, I must say that your understanding of logic seems a bit flawed.

He's in good company.....

[stanc]

He's in good company.....

I hope the two of you are very happy together.

[keystone183]

I hope the two of you are very happy together.

Thats all???:p

[stanc]

Thats all???:p

I'm trying to be less argumentative. Do you want something more?

[keystone183]

I'm trying to be less argumentative.

LOL. Nope, that should do me for a week at least!

[cory]

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/...ill-rights

The Bill of Rights represents the first step that “We the People” took in amending the Constitution “in Order to form a more perfect Union.” The original, unamended Constitution was a remarkable achievement, establishing a revolutionary structure of government that put power in the hands of the people. The Bill of Rights built on that foundation, protecting our most cherished American freedoms, including freedom of speech, right to bear arms, religion, assembly, and due process of law. For more than two centuries—as we have exercised, restricted, expanded, tested, and debated those freedoms—the Bill of Rights has shaped and been shaped by what it means to be American.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Yet many of the points Stan has taken have been accepted: https://constitutioncenter.org/interacti...endment-ii

Times have changed but the debate on our rights have not.

Let us not forget that the Bill of Rights were not a widespread desire amongst those who wrote the Constitution. It was understood that the government only had the powers laid out within the Constitution. Any law or regulation that went beyond this would be null & void. (cite Federalist Papers) Many were afraid that a Bill of Rights would be misconstrued as a definition as to what are Individual Rights.

Well, so much for the notion that rights are unalienable (i.e., cannot be taken away).

Not so at all. Rights were not taken away, but freely allocated from the people to the government when they overwhelmingly ratified the Constitution.

Second sentence contradicts the first. (And the courts have ruled that the government can regulate both speech and firearms.)

You've conveniently left off the following immediate verbiage where I explained what you see as a contradiction. Furthermore the courts are wrong. The founders intentionally made the courts the weakest branch as it's the most predisposed to tyranny.

The Declaration of Independence does not divide rights into categories and subsets of categories.
It says that the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are "among" the rights given to us.

Then what are the other Rights? Why did they only specify the 3?

I've hypothesized that these are the 3 principle Rights in their order of precedence, where you assume your Right to Life is your Right to Property as your Life is your first Property. I'm prepared to perform any logical argument to prove this theory, as I have with myself trying to disprove it and it always holds.

If you have a better theory lets hear it. If you can prove my theory wrong, then let's hear.

Hmmm, the courts do not concur and the very founding fathers who penned the document did not concur either, or rather they also immediately violated the 2nd Amendment with the first Militia Act of 1792 less than 6 months after the Bill of Rights, where the right to keep and bear arms was infringed by being made a legally encumbering requirement.

A right is no longer a right when it becomes a requirement.

The courts are wrong. The very founding Fathers set up an intricate set of checks in balances to keep a government in check, that they knew they'd have a part in running. They even feared a government made up of themselves.

Whether our government almost immediately justified our need for checks in balancing in violating the Constitution is irrelevant as to what the Constitution requires.

We should cut the Founders a little slack. They all grew up in colonial America under British common law. Individual Freedoms and a government limited by a Constitution was a radically new concept at the time.

[stanc]

Not so at all. Rights were not taken away, but freely allocated from the people to the government when they overwhelmingly ratified the Constitution.

<sigh> So much fail in one sentence.

1. "The people" did no "allocating" of their rights, as they neither wrote nor ratified the Constitution. It was written by members of the US government, and ratified by State governments.
2. You just contradicted yourself, again. You originally wrote: "...the Founders crafted the Constitution where the Rights taken from the Individual and allocated to the government..."

...the courts are wrong.

Well, go tell them. I'm sure they'll change their rulings.

The founders intentionally made the courts the weakest branch as it's the most predisposed to tyranny.

Interesting. I would've sworn that the Founders established a government with three branches of equal power.

Then what are the other Rights? Why did they only specify the 3?

LOL. That's my question. But, the Declaration of Independence and the Ninth Amendment clearly indicate that there are rights which neither document lists.

I've hypothesized that these are the 3 principle Rights in their order of precedence, where you assume your Right to Life is your Right to Property as your Life is your first Property.

I assume no such thing. My position is that "rights" do not actually exist; they are inventions of the human mind, and we have only such "rights" as we can either (a) convince others to willingly respect, or (b) use force to make them respect.


ETA: Oops. I think I misread your last sentence quoted above. By "you assume" I thought you meant me personally, but upon rereading it looks like you meant "one assumes." :o

[cory]

1. "The people" did no "allocating" of their rights, as they neither wrote nor ratified the Constitution. It was written by members of the US government, and ratified by State governments.
2. You just contradicted yourself, again. You originally wrote: "...the Founders crafted the Constitution where the Rights taken from the Individual and allocated to the government...

1. They absolutely did. Who ratified it? Representatives of the people of the state acting on the behalf of the people.

2.Fair enough. I'm may have said that there but it's not exactly what I meant. What I have said in regards to it more recently is true.
What you're really doing here is playing semantics for the sake of winning and not to actually get us anywhere.

Interesting. I would've sworn that the Founders established a government with three branches of equal power.o

I'll forgive you as this is a common misconception. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or supporting literature that suggests this. In fact the intent was the very opposite of this. Read the Federalist Papers if you don't believe me.

The founders intended for the judicial branch to be the weakest and the Congress the strongest branch with specific powers divided between the 2 house. It's with noting here that they intended for the President to be responsible for all aspects of the executive branch. It's why we only vote for the one position in the executive branch.

LOL. That's my question. But, the Declaration of Independence and the Ninth Amendment clearly indicate that there are rights which neither document. o

I've presented a reasonable theory on this. And in turn all you've done is said nope I don't like it while pissing on the board.

I assume no such thing. My position is that "rights" do not actually exist; they are inventions of the human mind, and we have only such "rights" as we can either (a) convince others to willingly respect, or (b) use force to make them respect.


ETA: Oops. I think I misread your last sentence quoted above. By "you assume" I thought you meant me personally, but upon rereading it looks like you meant "one assumes." :o

In reality I firmly agree with you on point a and b. However, in order to do that we must have a frame work to work towards.

Rights may not be as real as the air you breath or the ground you walk on. However, they are necessary for society to exist and for a legal system to work especially in a free society. Therefore, to take a phrase from Jordan B Peterson, they're real enough.

[stanc]

1. They absolutely did. Who ratified it? Representatives of the people of the state acting on the behalf of the people.

Representatives of the people =/= the people.

2.Fair enough. I'm may have said that there but it's not exactly what I meant. What I have said in regards to it more recently is true.
What you're really doing here is playing semantics for the sake of winning and not to actually get us anywhere.

No, I'm not playing semantics. You said it. I thought you meant it.

I've presented a reasonable theory on this. And in turn all you've done is said nope I don't like it while pissing on the board.

:confused: I don't recall you presenting any theory on what the unnamed rights are.

I did question your idea that the three rights listed in the Declaration of Independence are categories of rights, with all other rights originating from them.

The 6.5 Grendel Forum is endowed by its Creator with many outstanding members, among whom are NugginFutz, montana, and cory.

Does that mean all other Horde members are descended from those three named individuals?

[bj139]

Hmmm, the courts do not concur and the very founding fathers who penned the document did not concur either, or rather they also immediately violated the 2nd Amendment with the first Militia Act of 1792 less than 6 months after the Bill of Rights, where the right to keep and bear arms was infringed by being made a legally encumbering requirement.

A right is no longer a right when it becomes a requirement.

That is a bit unusual but there is no right to NOT bear arms delineated in the Constitution.

I guess there is no right to decline military service as there is no right to decline health insurance; well, used to be, I think.

[stanc]

Hmmm, the courts do not concur and the very founding fathers who penned the document did not concur either, or rather they also immediately violated the 2nd Amendment with the first Militia Act of 1792 less than 6 months after the Bill of Rights, where the right to keep and bear arms was infringed by being made a legally encumbering requirement.

A right is no longer a right when it becomes a requirement.

How does requiring militia members to keep and bear Arms violate their right to keep and bear Arms?

[41bear]

I see that the debate of our Constitution and Bill of Rights are alive and well but let us all remember that actions, not words, are what will keep those precious documents alive and well for future generations of Americans to be able to debate.

[cory]

Representatives of the people =/= the people.

In a Republic it absolutely does.

[cory]

:confused: I don't recall you presenting any theory on what the unnamed rights are.

I did question your idea that the three rights listed in the Declaration of Independence are categories of rights, with all other rights originating from them.

The 6.5 Grendel Forum is endowed by its Creator with many outstanding members, among whom are NugginFutz, montana, and cory.

Does that mean all other Horde members are descended from those three named individuals?

Here you're just being ridiculous. Instead of presenting some Right you think I have left of the list for discussion you present nonsense.

[keystone183]

In a Republic it absolutely does.

I think stanc would need to see the signatures of the entire population of the US at the time of the ratification in order to be satisfied on this one.

I feel this discussion is fixing to degenerate into one about the basic tenants of society....

[Double Naught Spy]

How does requiring militia members to keep and bear Arms violate their right to keep and bear Arms?

Quite simply as I explained. It is no longer a right when it is a requirement. A right means having the option, a choice to exercise a behavior if so desired. The first Militia Act of 1792 took away that right as it was no longer a choice. Anything that you are required to do by law is not a right, plain and simple. That they were in the militia, was not by their choice, but required by law. That they had to provide their own arms for the state actually made it a tax.