Thoughts on the Second Amendment
Mr. Cho has stirred up the Second Amendment debate. Here are some initial thoughts:
A new idea (new for me) is to view the Second Amendment in terms of the fact that a large number of the signers of the Constitution were slave-owners. For example, George Washington owned about 100 slaves. Some owned many more than that. In 1790, an astounding 20% of the US population were black slaves.
Given this fact, would a SLAVE OWNER approve an amendment that gave EVERY BLACK SLAVE the right to own a gun, without any regulations? Put in modern terms, would a SLAVE OWNER approve an amendment that gave EVERY BLACK SLAVE the right to own a Glock 19 semi-automatic, without any sort of regulation?
Highly dubious. But WHY is this relevant? Because we are primarily concerned with the INTENT of the original signers of the constitution. And clearly, it was NOT the intent of slave-owners that every slave in the USA should have the right to own a Glock 19 without even getting a permit, or any other form of "well regulated" license.
This gets into another "new" fact (new for me), that there are actually TWO versions of the Second Amendment. The difference between them is in which words are capitalized, and in an additional comma.
This may seem trivial, but I don't think so. It may be of ENORMOUS importance. The original version, approved by the Congress, read as follows:
“ 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 copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation. It read as follows:
“ 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. ”
Here is my opinion (probably unqualified): Note that the first version capitalizes "Militia" and "Arms", while leaving "people' in lowercase.
The second version puts "militia" and "arms" in lowercase, and puts "People" in uppercase. This totally changes the meaning.
By capitalizing Militia and Arms, the first version places more emphasis on the idea that "the people in the Militia" have the right to keep their arms at home, or on their person.
This was a more believable version coming from a group with MANY slave-owners, who would certainly be LOATH to have their slaves running around with guns! Especially MODERN guns!
In the second version, which was more populist, and approved by the individual yokels of the states, the word "People" was capitalized. This TOTALLY CHANGES THE MEANING of "people". When "People" becomes capitalized, it clearly means "The People", or ALL of the people of the USA. This revision is further intensified by the fact that "militia" has been reduced to lowercase.
So the original meaning, providing the right to keep and bear arms to State Militia members (in a WELL REGULATED MILITIA, no less), was suddenly converted into a blanket document allowing every Tom, Dick and Cho to go around carrying a gun.
Precisely where "Well regulated militia" even fits into the second definition is a mystery. Apparently the State guys could not get away with simply chopping it off, so they just ignored it.
Also, by capitalizing "Arms" in the first version, that might have been referring to a SPECIFIC TYPE of arms that one would use in a MILITIA. This differs from the more populist view of anybody carrying around any kind of weapons that they so choose.
Similarly, eliminating the second comma, changes the focus of the dependent clause. Indeed, the first version could actually be saying that the right to a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA shall not be infringed, rather than the right to bear arms.
CONCLUSION:
Was this legal? Did the STATES have the RIGHT to CHANGE the constitution as it was written and ratified by Congress? This is rather dubious.
Furthermore, how have the COURTS managed to act as if both of these versions are the same, when they are really ENORMOUSLY different?
My opinion: The Second Amendment should be either repealed or amended. I'm not sure if/how that is done.
Why should it be repealed or amended? In the past 230 years, such factors as new technology, the invention of the modern city, and the massive movement of US population from farm to city, makes it HIGHLY DUBIOUS that the Second Amendment would have been couched in its current language by the Founding Fathers.
The bullet was not even invented yet. Clearly, the Founding Fathers were referring to "arms" that existed at the time of the writing of the second amendment. This argument could also be supported by the capitalization of the word "Arms", which would refer to specific, existing arms of a certain type (while we are splitting hairs).
Were the Founding Fathers also stating that the right of the people to keep and bear a-bombs should not be infriged? The right of the people to have their own aircraft carrier? The Founding Fathers did not have a CLUE that such weaponry would ever be invented.
Almost none of the modern weapons of war were even invented yet.
The founding fathers had no idea of the lethality of modern firearms, and it is highly questionable as to whether they would have allowed civilians to own them.
A new idea (new for me) is to view the Second Amendment in terms of the fact that a large number of the signers of the Constitution were slave-owners. For example, George Washington owned about 100 slaves. Some owned many more than that. In 1790, an astounding 20% of the US population were black slaves.
Given this fact, would a SLAVE OWNER approve an amendment that gave EVERY BLACK SLAVE the right to own a gun, without any regulations? Put in modern terms, would a SLAVE OWNER approve an amendment that gave EVERY BLACK SLAVE the right to own a Glock 19 semi-automatic, without any sort of regulation?
Highly dubious. But WHY is this relevant? Because we are primarily concerned with the INTENT of the original signers of the constitution. And clearly, it was NOT the intent of slave-owners that every slave in the USA should have the right to own a Glock 19 without even getting a permit, or any other form of "well regulated" license.
This gets into another "new" fact (new for me), that there are actually TWO versions of the Second Amendment. The difference between them is in which words are capitalized, and in an additional comma.
This may seem trivial, but I don't think so. It may be of ENORMOUS importance. The original version, approved by the Congress, read as follows:
“ 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 copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation. It read as follows:
“ 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. ”
Here is my opinion (probably unqualified): Note that the first version capitalizes "Militia" and "Arms", while leaving "people' in lowercase.
The second version puts "militia" and "arms" in lowercase, and puts "People" in uppercase. This totally changes the meaning.
By capitalizing Militia and Arms, the first version places more emphasis on the idea that "the people in the Militia" have the right to keep their arms at home, or on their person.
This was a more believable version coming from a group with MANY slave-owners, who would certainly be LOATH to have their slaves running around with guns! Especially MODERN guns!
In the second version, which was more populist, and approved by the individual yokels of the states, the word "People" was capitalized. This TOTALLY CHANGES THE MEANING of "people". When "People" becomes capitalized, it clearly means "The People", or ALL of the people of the USA. This revision is further intensified by the fact that "militia" has been reduced to lowercase.
So the original meaning, providing the right to keep and bear arms to State Militia members (in a WELL REGULATED MILITIA, no less), was suddenly converted into a blanket document allowing every Tom, Dick and Cho to go around carrying a gun.
Precisely where "Well regulated militia" even fits into the second definition is a mystery. Apparently the State guys could not get away with simply chopping it off, so they just ignored it.
Also, by capitalizing "Arms" in the first version, that might have been referring to a SPECIFIC TYPE of arms that one would use in a MILITIA. This differs from the more populist view of anybody carrying around any kind of weapons that they so choose.
Similarly, eliminating the second comma, changes the focus of the dependent clause. Indeed, the first version could actually be saying that the right to a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA shall not be infringed, rather than the right to bear arms.
CONCLUSION:
Was this legal? Did the STATES have the RIGHT to CHANGE the constitution as it was written and ratified by Congress? This is rather dubious.
Furthermore, how have the COURTS managed to act as if both of these versions are the same, when they are really ENORMOUSLY different?
My opinion: The Second Amendment should be either repealed or amended. I'm not sure if/how that is done.
Why should it be repealed or amended? In the past 230 years, such factors as new technology, the invention of the modern city, and the massive movement of US population from farm to city, makes it HIGHLY DUBIOUS that the Second Amendment would have been couched in its current language by the Founding Fathers.
The bullet was not even invented yet. Clearly, the Founding Fathers were referring to "arms" that existed at the time of the writing of the second amendment. This argument could also be supported by the capitalization of the word "Arms", which would refer to specific, existing arms of a certain type (while we are splitting hairs).
Were the Founding Fathers also stating that the right of the people to keep and bear a-bombs should not be infriged? The right of the people to have their own aircraft carrier? The Founding Fathers did not have a CLUE that such weaponry would ever be invented.
Almost none of the modern weapons of war were even invented yet.
The founding fathers had no idea of the lethality of modern firearms, and it is highly questionable as to whether they would have allowed civilians to own them.
posted by Jack W. Orf | 10:55 AM
3 Comments:
the founding fathers had full knowlege, in some cases, of the terible affectiveness of the weapons of any time. you should note that the perpose of any weapon is to kill and america in its infacy was home to both traditional indian weapons and modern european muskets and, this is important, the NEWLY prefected rifle. the perpose of the second amendment was as a garantee of a free state, the most readily availible evidence for this that the malitia of concord had priviatly procured weapons that the brits were preparing to take possetion of when that increadibly loud shot was fired. the british had relized that the colonist were propared to perchase thier freedom with lead, thus also recognizing that freedom of a nation is contengent on a population being able to procure arms of the same or greater effectiveness as the military. if your argument for our ignorring the second based on changing technolegies is to stand our militay would have to be using flintlock muzleloaders at the same time as the general population adopts the use of the new electonic machine guns capable of one million rounds a minute, note the other way around.
if you still see the second amendment as the only thing standing in the way of the federal government outlawing the local perchase of firearms then the tenth may offer some further reasons for reconsidering. the national government is given no powers over the local perchases, possetion or use of firearms, knives, artiary, nun chucks or Browning Automatic Rifles, all lethal arms. in the most extreem cases the government could consevible regulate the trafic of arms between states (but this statement in itself is highly controvetial because "the states" could mean either the people of a state or only the government of the states).
I hope you reconsider your view, but if it is to remain unchanged please allow this only with carful examination of the full text of the constitution, bill of rights and the further amendments (don't forget the preamble to the bill of rights).
Wow, I just noticed that this was posted on April 20, which is Hitler's birthday!
Jack W. Orf
Wow, I just noticed that this was posted on April 20, which is Hitler's birthday!
Jack W. Orf
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home