I'm not arguing for gun control, dude. ............. as provided by law.
Sorry so late in responding but it's peak. Anyhoo, I don't disagree to some extent with the States = People or visa versa argument but I think what threw me to begin with was from your first post where you used the term State in the singular rather than State(s) in the plural. Using a singular term made your context to me come across as a type of age old argument used by authoriterian centralists who desire a powerful central gov't and thus argue that the 2nd amendment pertains to a federal functioning militia that is thus funded by the federal gov't and if it chooses not to, then the 2nd amendment has no other relevance.
To further this possible misunderstanding on my part, you wrote the following in your first post.
They wrote the Second Amendment to be ambiguous and difficult to interpret..........For several reasons, an individual right to keep and bear arms wouldn't be the best way to ensure that the militia was armed.
Then you posted this that I took and it seemed others who posted did as well that you might again be taking that old anti-gun angle used so many times before.
Under the Original Constitution, the power to arm the state militias was delegated to Congress. Therefore, the power wasn't reserved to the states or the people.
Again, this goes right to the heart of some anti-gun segments who used this same approach to say what Congress determines not to fund therefore no long had legit standing and is therefore illrelevant.
But let's take your entire quote from post #3
Under the Original Constitution, the power to arm the state militias was delegated to Congress. Therefore, the power wasn't reserved to the states or the people.
The Second Amendment may have been meant to give the states the power to arm their own militias, if Congress neglected to arm them. However, the Second Amendment is so ambiguous it could mean a lot of things.
I say, just apply the rules of legal interpretation and be done with it.
And then in post #27 you said:
Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power, to provide for a well regulated militia, from the states?
Again, very similar argument made by some anti-gunners who try and shape the 2nd Amendment to be null and void for lack of congressional funding. However in your post I first quoted above in responding, you appear to better explain what point you are trying to make and it does clear some things up. I will be honest however that in some of your previous threads on the gun issue, you've made comments that still leave me rather suspicous so I'll tell you up front I'm not completely sold you are what you say you are.
That said and in light of your assertion that the 2nd amendment was intended to make the gov't fund the militia, it might do well to look at the Articles of Confederation. Articles of Confederations by the mid 1780's began to show what appeared to be a weakness in not granting enough power to a federal gov't. One major area for example was in the area of taxation as in lack of power and in a bit of tongue in cheek humor, many of us wish that power was never given looking at our gov't today. I must say too that my tongue in cheek probably goes a lot less far than most of you since I believe the Articles are a better document than the constitution but that's for later.
The Continential Congress decided the Articles needing amending and efforts to do so failed and as a result in Sept. 1786' Federalists led by Hamilton and representatives from 5 States met in Annapolis in what turned into a secret behind closed door meeting that from it came the original Constitution. Now the rub at this point came from disagreement between Federalists who desired a more dominate role for a central gov't and the anti-federalists who wanted the local autonomy enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation. To sell the original Constitution, the Bill of rights were added but IMO to understand the 2nd amendment in light of this historical conflict, you have to first read the Articles of Confederation and there is a lot of the Articles' wording found interlaced in the Constitution itself.
You say the 2nd amendment authorizes Congress to fund the various State militias and to go further you say if Congress fails the individual States must therefore step up. Look at the Articles of Confederation, Art. 6, 7 & 8 at the link
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp
Funny how the control of the milita was squarely in the hands of the States themselves and that the only time Congress could access those militas was in a time of declared war for the defense of the nation. Otherwise, there was no standing federal army and IMO most people today who argue strongly for a huge standing military force at the federal level but who also argue the right of the 2nd amendment are in effect arguing against themselves to some degree. The very people who gave us that 2nd amendment I believe did so with the clear intent of not letting the federal gov't have a standing army at will because they knew the dangers of such having just lived under an emperial gov't and experienced firsthand the abuses of such.
Amongst all this backdrop also come the words of what in many respects started all of this to begin with and that is the wording of the Declaration of Independence and the clause of "right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". The right to life is a very strong statement in an 18th century Classical liberal/physiocrat POV. The term itself was the influence of John Locke who expressed the term "Life, Liberty and Estate (property) but "pursuit of happiness" was used instead because not only of it's broader context but also to incorporate some of the Physiocrat ideals as well.
This phrase was the lynchpin of what became known as inalienable rights meaning rights that no power of man could seperate from men rights given by "God or Nature's God". As a result of these embedded beliefs at the time among many founders, when the organic constitution lacked statements confirming those "inalienable rights" pertaining to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" the new Constitution faced obvious defeat from obtaining enough State passage to enact so the anti-federalist it seemed at the time to have won a victory in having those rights given forthwith and in effect limiting the scope of the federal gov't.
Laws are enacted all the time and as such the overriding factors that come into play is not only the context and meaning of the words themselves but also the intent of the persons who enacted those laws. What was the intended purpose. The anti-federalists argued and IMO won the day in the case of the 2nd amendment by bringing forth the ideals of the Articles provisions for the militia by keeping them a State issue. The 2nd amendment was in effect saying that the State provisions in the Articles still apply, the milita was not a federal function and therefore not in the purview or jurisdiction of Congress except only when in the case of a declared war and even that was by law limited. Otherwise it was hands off and left to the people themsleves in the individual states. It was never a concern that a lowly average citizen had the same weapon at home that the soldier of the greatest army of the day had (Redcoat Army) on the field of battle. The only time this ever becomes a concern is when someone wants to use force or fraud on another individual whether that be in a individual capacity or individuals assemble into a herd or mob otherwise called a majority of voters and then try and exert their will onto someone to force or compell them to do as the herd sez or dictates. Having an unarmed minority just makes for easy pickings for the majority. The gun is the last line of defense for an individual to protect his inalienable right to both life and liberty. Period.
You can twist the Constitution any way you like, all day long because it makes no difference to me. I see the right to life, liberty and estate as Locke put it as being of a higher order in authority than any man made structure to begin with and in historcal context and intent, I do believe the Bill of Rights do concur with much of that as well including the right to keep and bare arms. If the rights in #2 are regulated at will by gov't, then so are the rights in all other amendments. Free Speech therefore is what Congress of gov't in general tells us it is and just how dangerous is that? Same for Religion or the press.
My closing point that makes me also doubt you are what you say is as follows:
I would have favored amendments that granted the states power to provide for their own militias and granted a reasonable limited individual right to possess and use appropriate weapons suitable for personal and collective defense of life and properly, as provided by law.
The States themselves can set criteria for weapons used in the militia itself but it's not up to you or I or anyone else to determine by law what is
reasonable. It may seem unreasonable to you and I that our neighbor mows his yard with a Combine Harvester but unless he is violating
our life, liberty or property or otherwise committing a force or fraud upon us, there is no crime and therefore we have no say in the matter at all. Same principle IMO applies to weapons as well.
Nuff said!
