District of Columbia v. Heller - Page 8

**CingularDuality** · 06-26-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Doesn't change my thinking. The writers made it clear which "state" they where speaking of in every other part of the document and they did in the 2nd as well.

I don't see how it matters which type of state they're referring to... In every other part of the Constitution, "the people" refers to every person in the United States. Why in the world would the Second Amendment not be the same?

Oh, and you can get some great high-res copies of US documents at the National Archive's site here: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...downloads.html

**CingularDuality** · 06-26-2008, 09:02 PM

Oh, I almost forgot to post this:

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 06-26-2008, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I don't see how it matters which type of state they're referring to... In every other part of the Constitution, "the people" refers to every person in the United States. Why in the world would the Second Amendment not be the same?

Oh, and you can get some great high-res copies of US documents at the National Archive's site here: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...downloads.html

I saw those pictures earlier. That is where I saw my mistake about the capitalization of foreign State.

I think it does matter if State refers to the fed or a state.

The 2nd was created to ensure a State could have a Militia of the type for it's circumstance. Back then the circumstance of the different states where vast. You had frontier states that had to deal with the Native American threat. You had states that had to worry primarily about invasion by a foreign force. If you had the feds telling individuals what types of arms to have it would be hard for the State to deal with local problems.

One of the things that I considered trying to understand why they gave the powers of the second amendment that they did was that nobody wanted a standing army. They didn't really didn't trust them. Especially a centrally controlled one.

(Understand that I am not trying to interpret what they wrote. I am trying to understand why they wrote it the way they did.)

But I don't think anybody considered not having some type of force available. It was a very rough world they lived in. I don't think any body at the time could envision where the State didn't need military power. They couldn't fathom why a state would even consider not having a Militia. Nor do I think that they could ever see many people not having some type of firearm. Guns at the time where, for many, an absolute necessity. Not like today where they are primarily recreational devices.

Which is why I also disagree with many when they say that bear arms means hunting or recreational weapons. Again I stress that the writers picked their words very carefully. There where other words they could have used. Arms I think related directly to weapons that could be used in a military setting. I saw a history channel special recently about the civil war and one of the historians said that Britain tried to limit the types of arms available to the civilian population. The smooth bore muskets where ok but the more advanced rifled firearms where made difficult to acquire. This was, in part he surmised, to keep the effectiveness of any kind of uprising low.

Nobody at the time new if the USA was going to work. They didn't know if the federal government would turn out to be another Britain. What they did know was that the people would remain and the State would want to be able to defend itself from the fed gone wild (scratchmonkey, here is where you jump in).

**CingularDuality** · 06-27-2008, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Which is why I also disagree with many when they say that bear arms means hunting or recreational weapons.

I agree. It's pretty obvious to me (and to the SCOTUS), that the first part of the second amendment outlines their intent, and the second part delineates the right that they wanted to be guaranteed. Because a militia is important to any country, there can be no law to keep the people from having guns.

06-26-2008, 09:02 PM	#107 (permalink)
CingularDuality Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA Age: 33 Posts: 16,641	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller Oh, I almost forgot to post this: __________________ Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market! Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage." TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links