Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TygrBright

(20,733 posts)
6. Well, a good many years of historical and Constitutional scholarship don't necessarily...
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:28 AM
Dec 2012

...constitute an "education," so I will meekly accept your exhortation to "be educated" on the topic, and will study some more. (Gee, what a sacrifice... !)

Your observations do highlight a deficiency in the OP, and I definitely did not adequately emphasize this: The major purpose of the Constitution was to weld together disparate former colonies. The former colonies had largely conceived of themselves as self-governing in the wake of the Revolution, and the establishment of a central government was threatening. The Constitution, by clearly delineating the structure and responsibilities of the Federal government, and the Bill of Rights, by clearly enumerating various limitations on the Federal government's authority, was a way of reconciling the self-governing former colonies to the authority of the central government.

Nevertheless, if you look at the very specific "charters of rights" and "declarations of rights" made by the various colonial governments in the run up to the Revolution, and to the documents and memoranda submitted by the newly-formed state governments in respect to the Constitutional convention, it is abundantly clear that the specific rights enumerated in the Bill represent both the common ground of liberties demanded, AND the obligation of the Federal government to ensure that those liberties not be abridged.

You cannot divorce the Bill of Rights from the Constitution. The Constitution creates the powers of the central government and the authority of the Federal Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in precedence over the states' authority. That is, where the Constitution speaks, it guarantees the rights of all citizens of the nation.

The restrictions in the Bill of Rights were never intended to apply only to the Federal Government. No state is permitted to set unreasonable bail, to quarter troops on the populace, to restrict freedom of speech, etc.

The framing of the Bill of Rights as limitations on federal power was intended to reassure states and citizens that the federal government would a) not infringe on the rights of citizens in these areas, AND b) not infringe on the rights of states to govern in areas not specifically restricted by the Constitution (see: Amendment 10.) In essence, this is to say that freedom of assembly and petition may not be denied by the federal government and, therefore, also not by state or local governments, but that since the Constitution says bupkus about how states will elect their state governments, that will be up to the states.

Nor did I state anywhere in the OP that the intent of the second amendment was to mandate anyone to have a gun or to mandate state militias-- merely that no governmental entity could restrict the ownership and maintenance of the weapons necessary for a well-regulated militia. No citizen is required to participate in a militia, no state is required to maintain a militia. Merely, no government may impede the functioning of a well-regulated militia by prohibiting the ownership and maintenance of the weapons required for such a militia.

The entire Constitution of the United States of America applies, and has always applied from the moment of it's final ratification, to every American state. No state is permitted to enact laws or regulations that are unconstitutional, such laws and regulations are not valid. That's how the multiple jurisdictions of our government cascade in authority to weld together many into one.

And a critical issue for that welding together and maintaining the integrity of the newly-formed nation was our right to defend our existence as a nation, by ensuring that a well-regulated militia may exist to ensure the security of the nation.

We have the right to defend our nation with a well-regulated militia. No jurisdiction of government may impede or abrogate this right, nor restrict us as citizens from participating in such a militia and owning and maintaining the weapons required for such service.

We also have the right to think and say wackjob shit about black helicopters and FEMA concentration camps, and the right to skulk around in camo in the woods and drink beer with our fellow wackjobs, but that's protected by the FIRST amendment, not by the second amendment, and that right does not necessarily include the right to accumulate a huge arsenal of unregulated weapons that have nothing to do with defending our national sovereignty via a well-regulated militia.

specifically,
Bright

P.S. I don't claim to be the final authority on this, Constitutional scholars have been arguing about it for centuries and will continue to do so. But I do maintain that it is an interpretation well-grounded in historical context, Constitutional semantics, and legal, social, and economic traditions of representative democracy: at least as much as, if not more so than, the absolutist "GUNZ GUNZ GUNZ and MOAR GUNZ for anybody and everybody and the damn gummint can't do damn thing about it" interpretation.

Damn right. We must reframe the gun issue and deal with it harsly as a terror instrument graham4anything Dec 2012 #1
I say this as politely as I can -- the entire OP is factually mistaken cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #2
Well, a good many years of historical and Constitutional scholarship don't necessarily... TygrBright Dec 2012 #6
Your education was to no avail cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #13
The Constitution (of which the Bill of Rights is a part)... TygrBright Dec 2012 #15
Oh, FFS... cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #16
The point is absolutely debatable. blackspade Dec 2012 #22
I'll try all caps... IT IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #47
Again, that is your opinion. blackspade Dec 2012 #61
It remains a fact whether you know it or not cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #78
This is how we get global warming and evolution debates. JVS Dec 2012 #90
Um, yeah..... blackspade Dec 2012 #116
And you refuse to provide DATA.... blackspade Dec 2012 #99
type: incorporation bill rights into the Google search box top-right of this page cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #102
I did actually. blackspade Dec 2012 #114
Okay. So you are now *willfully* ignorant. cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #118
Awesome indeed. blackspade Dec 2012 #132
Try this AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #151
actually, that the bill of rights applied only to the federal gov't originally is a matter of fact, HiPointDem Dec 2012 #121
As I pointed out... blackspade Dec 2012 #133
fail HiPointDem Dec 2012 #134
.... blackspade Dec 2012 #136
This message was self-deleted by its author ruxpin Dec 2012 #145
Arguing legal issues with a non-lawyer COLGATE4 Dec 2012 #38
Hey, you two . . . brush Dec 2012 #68
No thanks. I'll continue to stand for truth over lies cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #80
Why do you find it necessary to insult everyone and call them stupid and liars? pangaia Dec 2012 #148
It doesn't matter AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #152
IMO, there is only one thing worse than ignorance, and that is WILLFUL ignorance. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #72
It is amazing cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #81
You are a better person than me. X_Digger Dec 2012 #141
Get on the fucking bus or get off AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #153
It goes to show ....... oldhippie Dec 2012 #113
You just said what I've been thinking as I am reading this exchange. nt DeschutesRiver Dec 2012 #172
That is simply false. white_wolf Dec 2012 #91
This message was self-deleted by its author ruxpin Dec 2012 #144
It is not nearly as simple as that. cheapdate Dec 2012 #103
As American law cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #111
The fact that it even went to the Supreme Court in 1833 cheapdate Dec 2012 #112
Wrong, and that's settled in the Constitution's own words. caseymoz Dec 2012 #155
Flat wrong cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #165
Wrong. And there's not even any doubt about this. caseymoz Dec 2012 #150
I have to agree with Cthulhu here, you make a profound error jberryhill Dec 2012 #126
See #150, and Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution. caseymoz Dec 2012 #158
Not only is it not "spelled out there" jberryhill Dec 2012 #159
Why clarify the state/fed relationship with this clause, then? caseymoz Dec 2012 #160
"Case law is just another opinion" jberryhill Dec 2012 #161
Glad we can agree in a limited way. caseymoz Dec 2012 #164
But your opinion is not historical fact jberryhill Dec 2012 #167
How can opinion take precedence over a written article? caseymoz Dec 2012 #169
When it is signed by a majority of the Supreme Court jberryhill Dec 2012 #171
Where did you go to school? naaman fletcher Dec 2012 #140
Consider the preceding 100 replies in this thread cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #166
maybe I replied to the wrong person... naaman fletcher Dec 2012 #168
thanks. You are so right. cali Dec 2012 #8
Excellent post. n/t Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #27
And - say this as politely as I can - you're full of shit. baldguy Dec 2012 #43
Then why not get off your butt cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #93
This message was self-deleted by its author ruxpin Dec 2012 #146
Actually, I say it as politely as I can nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #49
They want military firepower without the military discipline & civilian control that goes with it. baldguy Dec 2012 #69
Yup nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #76
They disregard that whole "well regulated" piece of it. n/t RomneyLies Dec 2012 #105
"you remember school English? I guess you don't." zappaman Dec 2012 #83
What about the Supremacy Clause? renie408 Dec 2012 #67
You get trapped in a logical loop there jberryhill Dec 2012 #130
You have bought the Fox "News" bullshit Doctor_J Dec 2012 #70
Sigh... cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #82
You are correct Brainstormy Dec 2012 #74
One of the most powerful aspects of the U.S. constitution cheapdate Dec 2012 #98
those pesky details tahoelewis Dec 2012 #129
But the tenth amendment is not a restriction on government power in the first place jberryhill Dec 2012 #131
Yep, pesky details ruxpin Dec 2012 #147
Here's why you're completely wrong jeff47 Dec 2012 #135
i agree with the essence of what the OP was saying samsingh Dec 2012 #156
Thank you so much. Excellent OP. freshwest Dec 2012 #3
Thanks for your OP, TygrBright. JDPriestly Dec 2012 #4
This is true. Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #28
Read Perpich v DOD Kennah Dec 2012 #5
I never stated that the militia IS the US military. nt TygrBright Dec 2012 #7
What you said was ... Kennah Dec 2012 #9
Well, I'm originally from Minnesota, and the Hamline University... TygrBright Dec 2012 #10
You missed a spot Kennah Dec 2012 #11
LOL... hand me some more steel wool. n/t TygrBright Dec 2012 #12
Be careful. You don't wanna set the danged thing off in your hand. Kennah Dec 2012 #14
Okay, you can have your guns SCVDem Dec 2012 #17
And printing presses, too? Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #29
What about machine guns, RPGs, anti-aircraft missiles? Hugabear Dec 2012 #37
crew-served weaponry. Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #40
If you want to look at it historically ElbarDee Dec 2012 #42
That's right. And we have the National Guard and state, county and city/town police brush Dec 2012 #115
That is called bobclark86 Dec 2012 #124
This message was self-deleted by its author A HERETIC I AM Dec 2012 #39
My bad. SCVDem Dec 2012 #64
The nut jobs don't make a lot of sense to me! glowing Dec 2012 #18
You are correct TygrBright fasttense Dec 2012 #19
No, he is not. Nor are you. Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #30
Of course the tenth amendment was passed and ratified well after the rest of it nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #50
I don't understand what you are trying to say. n/t Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #51
You might want to read the tenth nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #54
I read it, and still don't see the point you are trying to make. Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #60
What part of all other rights are you purposely missing? nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #77
Nothing, I just don't see the point you are trying to make. Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #85
Read it again nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #86
This (the tenth amendment) references powers, not rights ..... oldhippie Dec 2012 #120
This message was self-deleted by its author cheapdate Dec 2012 #110
A mentally ill person shooting little kids is not part of a well regulated militia Botany Dec 2012 #20
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the 1st amendment does not mention "Life, Liberty.... A HERETIC I AM Dec 2012 #44
Exactly. blackspade Dec 2012 #21
That is one hell of an opinion you have there, but it is utterly indefensible. 1-Old-Man Dec 2012 #23
It's Quite Defensible ProfessorGAC Dec 2012 #25
Well said Champion Jack Dec 2012 #33
'Xept the history is all but scant nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #55
Why is such a compelling argument "indefensible"? OleDogg1945 Dec 2012 #125
Great Read, Tygr ProfessorGAC Dec 2012 #24
Sorry, this is just wrong. Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #26
You might want to read Federalist 29 nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #57
Fed 29 was in large part, a treatise on the proper organization of the militia X_Digger Dec 2012 #142
The Purpose of The Second Amendment JGug1 Dec 2012 #31
I get the distinct impression that you won't make it to ten posts. n/t A HERETIC I AM Dec 2012 #48
Oh for crying out lows, there is plenty of contemporary documentation nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #56
It may very well happen treestar Dec 2012 #58
It DOES matter what the intent was. Lex Dec 2012 #66
Thomas Jefferson frank380 Dec 2012 #32
The gun culture would provide no help whatsoever against Doctor_J Dec 2012 #71
The fact that americans are doing nothing frank380 Dec 2012 #108
Because the Constitution changes over time Doctor_J Dec 2012 #117
Is TJ the author of the second amendment? Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #127
Agree, we have a political system that allows "revolutions" every 4 years. Old and In the Way Dec 2012 #34
The Second Amendment was about three differnet types of protection: marble falls Dec 2012 #35
IMO it's the "right of self-defense" not the "right to keep and bear arms" that is the key issue. jody Dec 2012 #36
Taken together and in context, the 2nd and 3rd Amendments exist because we're not supposed to have TransitJohn Dec 2012 #41
The Constitution is not a suicide pact Progressive dog Dec 2012 #45
If the purpose was to creeksneakers2 Dec 2012 #92
I disagree Motown_Johnny Dec 2012 #46
The amendment states its purpose quite clearly drm604 Dec 2012 #52
It is a teaching of sorts. Three different kinds of "states", ... Trillo Dec 2012 #73
Exactly! fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #101
K&R treestar Dec 2012 #53
K/R moondust Dec 2012 #59
Logic problem: before the Revolution, the British gov't WAS "our government". Romulox Dec 2012 #62
Don't forget the Indians. The Midway Rebel Dec 2012 #63
You're wasting your time LittleBlue Dec 2012 #65
First Amendment: "Can't Yell Fire" Second Amendment: "Can't Open Fire" napkinz Dec 2012 #75
"Free State" confuses some of those who misinterpret mzmolly Dec 2012 #79
You are correct. Not many people even know that the 2nd Amendment was to keep citizens armed in Lint Head Dec 2012 #84
To all gun-worshipers who think the 2nd will protect you from your government, MsPithy Dec 2012 #87
Yep. And that will not happen. Amonester Dec 2012 #95
You're BACK!!!!! Yay!!! When did you come back? kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #88
+1 NMDemDist2 Dec 2012 #97
Same argument over the same ground for 221 years and counting. Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #89
The 2nd Amendment reads: sulphurdunn Dec 2012 #94
Great point, and ProSense Dec 2012 #96
TWO WORDS: WELL REGULATED fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #100
Isn't Our Military The Well Regulated otohara Dec 2012 #106
Not Sure You Get My Point fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #107
Imagine if we were as serious about "guns" as we are "automobiles" libdem4life Dec 2012 #104
Guns/Cars Lurker Deluxe Dec 2012 #162
I'm guessing this is sincere. The same is true for your kids...up to some level you can do to or libdem4life Dec 2012 #163
Actually, the only thing that could change the current SCOTUS interpretation amandabeech Dec 2012 #109
Collective right vs. individual right. moondust Dec 2012 #119
Time to REPEAL the second amendment Dems to Win Dec 2012 #122
What a load of horse puckey Android3.14 Dec 2012 #123
John Adams Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #128
We can always cherry pick our quotes to support our own bias Android3.14 Dec 2012 #137
This OP does not offer a holistic analysis of the Colonial / Constitution era context... reeds2012 Dec 2012 #138
Exaxtly !!! The forefathers were scared shitless that England would come back ( they did in 1812) SoCalDem Dec 2012 #139
This message was self-deleted by its author jeanmarc Dec 2012 #143
Post removed Post removed Dec 2012 #149
Amen! And a question: tblue Dec 2012 #154
Well rtracey Dec 2012 #157
I think Jefferson put it pretty succinctly when he stated: GoingUnder Dec 2012 #170
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The 2nd Amendment was NOT...»Reply #6