Go to Personal Poetry
- Add a comment
- Go to Who are "The People" in the Bill of Rights?
Re: Mr. Klapper
I do not feel safe having guns in my home. Those of "illegal intent", as you so delicately put it, are more likely to break into whatever gun cabinet or case I might have and use my own weapons against me than for me to wake up, notice an intruder, unlock the cabinet or case, extract the gun and fire a shot sufficient to temporarily disable them so that I can make a citizen's arrest but not enough to blow away a teenage son trying to sneak back into the house after a date that lasted a bit too long.
Nor do I feel particularly safe about neighbors having guns they might use when they are drunk or angry or both.
I only really feel safe about guns that are in a facility guarded 24-7 to be used by duly commissioned municipal officers for the protection of the community as determined by locally elected officials as proscribed and limited by law.
As I described in my post, my understanding of the Second Amendment in the context of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a whole, is that only the last manner of handling weapons at a local level is provided for by the Second Amendment. The right in question is a municipal right, not an individual one.
Carl Peter
posted by
cpklapper
on November 15, 2007 at 8:26 PM
| link to this | reply
posted by
afzal50
on November 13, 2007 at 5:49 PM
| link to this | reply
Mr. Klapper
This is very well done. However, to say that because it did not say in individual homes would have any bearing on that not being the case is to far fetched to address. There were no armories then either. We have the right and must keep it. Those of illegal intent will get guns by illegal means. The rest of us should be able to keep guns in our homes.
posted by
Justi
on November 13, 2007 at 4:56 PM
| link to this | reply
Are 'We The Peiple"
or are the law makers "the people". i think we need to reassess just who we are. so many become complacent to allow lawmakers be our spokesman that we fail to understand what they are doing "in our names", that we forget to follow through with what they are doing, and when we do we cant understand what their legal garbage is saying. we have is essence forgotten how to be active in our country and then wonder why we are losing our own freedoms. how sad for us to become so complacent. ~ peg
posted by
1pegesus4u
on November 13, 2007 at 4:37 PM
| link to this | reply
Are 'We The Peiple"
or are the law makers "the people". i thing we need to reassess just who we are. so many become complacent to allow lawmakers be our spokesman that we fail to understand what they are doing "in our names", that we forget to follow through with what they are doing, and when we do we cant understand what their legal garbage is saying. we have is essence forgotten how to be active in our country and then wonder why we are losing our own freedoms. how sad for us to become so complacent. ~ peg
posted by
1pegesus4u
on November 13, 2007 at 4:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: cpklapper
Good points for which I have a few counterpoints to make:
1. The concept of a "regulated Militia" is in opposition to the "Irregulars" to which you refer. I see no evidence that "regulated" was used in the sense of being a counterbalance to a larger military. Language similar to other "check and balances" clauses would then have been used. Rather, there was concern that unregulated militia, such as that formed by Daniel Shay during his rebellion, would lead to anarchy. Indeed, it was alarm over Shay's Rebellion which led to the framing of the Constitution. The "regulated Militia" would be the notion that a local militia might have brought order before the Massachusetts State Militia had to be called in.
2. The "free state" phrase refers to the states, basically countries following the Revolution, and the federal country being then formed, being free from foreign control. Remember that even after the Constitution was ratified, The United States faced threats from Great Britain and other European powers. Again, the necessity of having a duly authorized, assembled and armed force at the ready in the event of invasion was deemed essential, whereas vigilante groups with no authorization from the people at any level of government were not.
3. "To keep and bear arms" makes perfect sense as a corporate right. Militia arms would be kept in an armory, as they have until fairly recently, and borne in formation when there was a threat to the municipality. There is no mention of arms being kept in private homes and, indeed, the Third Amendment specifically prohibits the quartering of soldiers in private homes. However, the keeping of arms and the bearing of them for purposes of a "well regulated militia" would make one a soldier so that doing so in one's home in peace time would violate the Third Amendment.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments,
Carl Peter
posted by
cpklapper
on November 13, 2007 at 2:25 PM
| link to this | reply
cpklapper
This is a well formulated argument, but I’d like to offer at least one additional interpretation.
During the American Revolution, there was a distinction between the militia and the regular army. The militia generally comprised a bunch of farmers or tradesmen recruited to help the depleted and vastly outnumbered regular army of the United States. They were basically roughnecks recruited to help in the cause. You might almost think of them as the Blackwater of the revolution (though their numbers were obviously much greater). And, if I remember correctly, this distinct ‘branch’ of the military was notorious for attacking and terrorizing citizens who at the time of the Revolution were still loyal to the king of England.
Therefore, the founding fathers may very well have been trying to enable ordinary citizens to protect themselves from the military itself, and in effect ‘regulate’ the militia. They specifically use the phrase ‘a free state’ when describing the purpose of the amendment which to me says that they were worried about citizens being able to protect themselves.
One more thing that I will point out is that the second amendment specifically states that ‘the people’ have a right 'to keep and bear arms.' That, to me, speaks for itself.
Of course, all that being said, we obviously live in different times with different threats to the security of our nation. Perhaps we need to rethink the way modern society handles guns and weapons overall.
Good post,
-smartdog
posted by
smartdog_670
on November 13, 2007 at 9:35 AM
| link to this | reply
cpklapper
very technical. Thanks for sharing
posted by
richinstore
on November 13, 2007 at 7:48 AM
| link to this | reply