Comments on: Sotomayor Pressed On Gun Rights, Second Amendment
Add a Comment See all 147 Comments
- Stuart, there is NOTHING vague about it! It says the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. That is not vague.
Added to that, the quotes I posted (plus hundreds more) from the Founders show that they were not intending to be vague. They said exactly what they meant. It is very clear.
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829) - Reply to this comment
- No. They were addressing the right of the people to own the instruments of the soldier to be able to defend their liberties.
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.) - Reply to this comment
- Well YOU say it's clear, but a majority of lawyers, judges, professors and other social scientists don't agree with you.
- Reply to this comment
- Everyone look out. Red Dawn is coming. Get the militias organized! Oil your weapons!
- Reply to this comment
- ***ralpherus****
You are a mentally sick man that needs help. Your fear is not others harming you it's yourself. I feel sorry for you that you believe the propaganda that you are dishing out. I believe you should bear arms but people with a sick mind like yours is the problem. Yes i'm proud to be a liberal and proud to live in a blue state but no I went to Catholic school then Nursing - Reply to this comment
- Were the framers of the Constitution simply addressing and assuring the peoples right to own a gun for the sake of owning a gun?
- Reply to this comment
-
- No. They were addressing the right of the people to own the instruments of the soldier to be able to defend their liberties.
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)
- Why do you keep citing these irrelevant quotes? If they exactly defined something, why are so many scholars, lawyers, judges and other social workers so unvcertain and in constant debate over this issue - particularly the original intent of the amendment?
Can you answer that question logically and in a non-partisan way?
- Stuart, the quotes are relevant. And nothing I am saying here is partisan. The scholars that say they disagree, do so because they want to find a different meaning in the Constitution than the one intended. They believe in a "living" Constitution, one where we can decide on a daily basis, what the thing means. The Founders did not intend for them to do that, and said so. They did not make a "living" document.
A Constitution is meant to be rigid and defined. It is a list or contract by the States that set up a Federal government. It lists what powers the Federal government has, and includes some rights (the Bill of Rights) that the Federal government can NEVER take away from a law abiding American.
These scholars want to say that, well...that was a long time ago, and things have changed...so we have to change the meaning.
Wrong!!! You dont change the meaning thru a law, or a court decision. You change the meaning by amending the Constitution. That is what the Amendment process is for!!!!!! Otherwise, we wouldnt need it.
On the 2nd Amendment, it is very clear what the Framers wrote. Not just in that amendment, but in the lengthy writings, outlining what they meant.
- No. They were addressing the right of the people to own the instruments of the soldier to be able to defend their liberties.
- That wasnt nice.
- Reply to this comment
- Yes...it is very clear by what the Founders wrote that the right to keep and bear arms (the instruments of the soldier) shall not be infringed. That is as clear as it can get, folks.
Wanna make it so Congress can limit the types of guns one possesses? Change the Constitution. Just stop ignoring it! - Reply to this comment
- There is NO absolute RIGHT anywhere that allows us to keep and bear arms. Not in such vague language. Otherwise people would keep and bear bazookas, tanks, missile launchers exct ect.
Is the continuing effort of the states to restrict gun laws a violation of my 2d amendment right?
Do we need militias anymore in this country?
Why the emphasis on weaponizing Americans? Who is behind this thinking?
Should keeping the peace be a defensive position - i.e. having a gun to defend against a violent criminal? Or should keeping the peace be an offensive position - banning guns?
There are so many questions. The issue is not as cut and dry as many of you think. - Reply to this comment
-
- Stuart, there is NOTHING vague about it! It says the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. That is not vague.
Added to that, the quotes I posted (plus hundreds more) from the Founders show that they were not intending to be vague. They said exactly what they meant. It is very clear.
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
- I didnt have time to answer the issues that you listed above...so here goes:
There is NO absolute RIGHT anywhere that allows us to keep and bear arms. Not in such vague language. Otherwise people would keep and bear bazookas, tanks, missile launchers exct ect.
-------Well, according to the Constitution, those items are allowed to be lawfully owned by law abiding Americans. The definition of ARMS is the "instruments of the soldier." Again, the definitions and prohibitions are not vague. What those that want to ban these things dont want to do is to go thru the heavy lifting of changing the Constitution, as they should. Instead, they ignore its clear meaning.
Is the continuing effort of the states to restrict gun laws a violation of my 2d amendment right?
----------Well, first off, the Constitution's intent is to limit the Federal government, not the States or people. So, if anything is vague, it is if the States are limited by this also. Some precedent has said that the States are limited by the Bill of Rights, but again...the clear meaning of the Constitution says it is there to limit the Federal government, and that all rights and liberties not given to the Federal government by the Constitution, remain with the States and the people.
Do we need militias anymore in this country?
-----------The definition of "militia" is not "national guard." The definition of militia that was used b ythe Founders at the time was every free male citizen. Here is a quote: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
Why the emphasis on weaponizing Americans? Who is behind this thinking?
--------------The Founders. They understood that the only person that can defend our liberties is the American people themselves. The Constitution was allowed to be backed up and defended at the barrel of a gun. If not, than it is just a worthless piece of paper. Americans must always be able to defend their homes, their lives and their liberties from anyone that might try to hurt them or take their liberties away. That means ANYONE that might do so. How do you think we gained independence? We decided one day that our government was too tyrannical, too corrupt. So we threw them out at the end of a bayonet.
Should keeping the peace be a defensive position - i.e. having a gun to defend against a violent criminal? Or should keeping the peace be an offensive position - banning guns?
-----------You cannot keep the peace by banning guns. Banning guns just means law abiding citizens dont have them. But again, even if true (but it isnt) that banning guns would lower violence, banning them is unConstitutional. Which means, there is a way to ban them, if the American people want them banned. And it is Constitutional. it is called the amendment process. It is very simple.
- The militia was mostly ineffectual during the Revolution. And we went into the War of 1812 with a hodgepodge of militia units (against the wisdom of George Washington), and the British regulars kicked our butts. The lesson of history is that a militia is all right as long as you don't have a war.
A militia is completely irrelevant to modern war.
- Stuart, there is NOTHING vague about it! It says the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. That is not vague.
- I dont decide what I want it to mean. It is in plain English what it means. The Founders have written ad nauseum on this. It is very clear.
Those that want to make it unclear have an agenda because they dont like what the Founders wrote and what they meant. So, they like to create confusion, where none exists! - Reply to this comment
- When the government bans machine guns, by some of the interpretations I see here, the government is infringing on my right to keep and bear arms.
- Reply to this comment
-
- Yes...it is very clear by what the Founders wrote that the right to keep and bear arms (the instruments of the soldier) shall not be infringed. That is as clear as it can get, folks.
Wanna make it so Congress can limit the types of guns one possesses? Change the Constitution. Just stop ignoring it!
- Well YOU say it's clear, but a majority of lawyers, judges, professors and other social scientists don't agree with you.
- Sorry, a majority do not disagree with me.
Again, those that want to find ambiguity, do so because they dont like the Amendment. They dont like what the Founders said. The Founders were very, very clear! Please take even the small list of quotes I have provided and find ambiguity in their statements. You cannot.
It is the same silly notion about this right to privacy that the SC found in the Roe case. There is no right to privact listed in the Constitution. That cannot be found there. Those that wanted it there try to make clear language, unclear...so that they can then force their agenda forward.
Here is always my proposal...you want a right to privacy in the Constitution? Put it in there. Yo uwant to be able to limit arms in the hands of the people, or even do away with them? Then change or abolish the 2nd Amendment.
But dont ignore the Constitution or decide on your own what the meaning is. It makes the Constitution useless.
- Yes...it is very clear by what the Founders wrote that the right to keep and bear arms (the instruments of the soldier) shall not be infringed. That is as clear as it can get, folks.
- I only wish the law was as simple as some of you.
- Reply to this comment
- Huh????? No such thing as a moderate?? Oooookay.
And you citing a bunch of quotes does NOT answer either of the questions I asked. The fact is, nobody can agree on the original intent of the amendment. Hence all the debate among minds far greater than yours and mine. But you know huh? Right. You mean you've decided for yourself what the Amendment means. - Reply to this comment
- Vigilantes, Anarchists, and Murderers should be imprisoned.
- Reply to this comment
- "The Supreme Court ruled today that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history."
LA Times June 26, 2008
In 2008 the Supreme Court addressed the 2nd & ruled that citizens have the right to keep & bear arms. I can't imagine that the issue is going to come before the Supreme Court again for quite awhile. At least for another couple decades.
To paraphrase many Obama supporters after the election. (My self included) It's been decided, get used to it. - Reply to this comment
- Moderate? There is no such thing.
- Reply to this comment
- Stuart, the government does a lot of unConstitutional things. The American people just choose to let them!
- Reply to this comment
- Of course we know what the Framers meant. They wrote it down in many writings. It is easily seen. All you have to do is Google! Here are a couple:
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)
"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.) - Reply to this comment
- Seventeen years this woman has sat and ruled as a moderate. Now that Obama has nominated her to the SC, the neo-con fools want to suggest that she has some hidden liberal agenda and that that agenda will threaten America's future.
Sadly, they don't see how utterly pathetic and desparate they are while they pander and grandstand to impress their extremist right base.
Indeed....they need to get over it. - Reply to this comment
-
- Huh????? No such thing as a moderate?? Oooookay.
And you citing a bunch of quotes does NOT answer either of the questions I asked. The fact is, nobody can agree on the original intent of the amendment. Hence all the debate among minds far greater than yours and mine. But you know huh? Right. You mean you've decided for yourself what the Amendment means.
- I dont decide what I want it to mean. It is in plain English what it means. The Founders have written ad nauseum on this. It is very clear.
Those that want to make it unclear have an agenda because they dont like what the Founders wrote and what they meant. So, they like to create confusion, where none exists!
- Huh????? No such thing as a moderate?? Oooookay.
- Judge Santamayor will be confirmed to the US Supreme Court
The 2nd Amendment will never be repealed.
The Republican Party will stay out of power until they put forth beneficial policy.
Vigilantes, Anarchists, and Murderers will be imprisoned if they abuse firearms.
Get over it. - Reply to this comment
