tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26981669.post962846726955277401..comments2024-03-23T10:55:30.196-05:00Comments on Cold Fusion Guy: Will SCOTUS decide "the individual-versus-collective argument"?Jim Peethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07649414726939918803noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26981669.post-41649838288147955602008-03-18T10:45:00.000-05:002008-03-18T10:45:00.000-05:00Nice try, anonymous, but the first clause only mod...Nice try, anonymous, but the first clause only modifies the second, primary clause, and there are no contemporary sources from the founding era that would back you up on that. The Founding Fathers, to a man, endorsed it as an individual right.<BR/><BR/>Ever notice that the Brady Campaign isn't exactly keen on quoting the Founders on the 2nd Amendment? There is a reason.Bike Bubbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193546045614393425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26981669.post-82595473761132175222008-03-18T10:20:00.000-05:002008-03-18T10:20:00.000-05:00And who is parsing here. The rest of the sentence...And who is parsing here. The rest of the sentence reads "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Militia was made up of the people, minutemen. Farmers, shop keepers etc. The framers did not trust a standing army nor a strong federal govt. <BR/><BR/>The argument of banning guns still doesn't address the fact that people can still get them illegally. Enforce the laws we have on the books because an outright ban never works. How did prohibition work out?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26981669.post-24120993181317233112008-03-18T08:40:00.000-05:002008-03-18T08:40:00.000-05:00It never ceases to amaze me that people cannot sim...It never ceases to amaze me that people cannot simply read the second amendment and have a complete understanding of its intent. Gun advocates insist on completely ignoring the first clause: "A <I>well <B>regulated,</B> militia</I>, being necessary to a free state..." <BR/><BR/>The individual vs. collective argument is completely spurious. The language of the ammendment is inarguably collective. But don't have to go through the useless exercise of parsing and reparsing the words of the amendment, in an attempt to make it say what we want it to say. We have related historical documents that tell us beyond a doubt what the intent of the amendment is. From these documents, it is clear that the framers disired to protect the states' rights to continue to form a regulated militia - that is to say their own armed forces, seperate from the Federal government's - in time of need. There is no mention whatsoever of protecting an individual's right to keep and bear arms. There was a debate about the necessity for people on the fronteer to have weapons.<BR/><BR/>This argument has come before the Court on several occasions over the last 100 years. In all cases, the Court has ruled that the Second Amendment does not gaurantee the individual's right to own guns. Over the last several years, Republican presidents have placed strict originalists on the Court. Thus, if the current Court is to be true to their majority interpretive philosophy, they must consider contemporary documents and conclude that Washington D.C.'s ban on hand guns is consitutional.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com