Note that Burger’s entire position is based on the presumption that there’s a dichotomy between “military” weapons that the government should have a monopoly on, and “sporting” or “recreational” guns that civilians can be “allowed” to own. That that pretty much is in direct contradiction to what the Founders had intended to set up- a nation of citizen-soldier militiamen and a tiny or non-existent standing army- seems to have escaped him.
The delusion is that those guys were collectively and/or individually perfect philosophers of government, whose work was perfect as conceived and as written.
Again, did you ever read the Constitution? Especially where they made it malleable on purpose? Another good way to begin to dispel the delusion, is to read up on the many debates that went in to the writing of the Constitution. And pay attention as well, to our first FAILED state, under the Articles of Confederation, and how those misadventures led to the Constitution having a lot of differences.
It’s one thing to respect and appreciate those men for their efforts. It’s another thing entirely to declare as too many people do, that because of what THEY said we should do, that we should continue to live exactly as we guess they “meant us to live.”
Finally, no, you are wrong where you suggest that the Constitution that the original Congress signed, is the law that we live under now. It isn’t. The United States has evolved and changed a lot since then. In order to live as the original founders wrote everything up, we’d have to revert to a primarily agrarian society with slavery in some parts of the country, no standing army, only a small percentage of citizens allowed to vote, and so on.
Would anyone argue that freedom of speech is an outmoded archaism in our modern society? Or that freedom of the press means freedom to own a single-sheet screw press? Americans have changed their minds about a lot of things in the 200+ years since the Constitution was ratified. When they felt that the old piece of parchment just didn’t address the realities of modern life anymore, they formally amended it. Slavery, gone. Free negroes second-class citizens, gone. The federal Senate consisting of appointees from the state governments, gone. The federal government being limited in its income to things like stamp taxes and import duties, gone. This was done by the rules.
What I and other gun rights advocates are pleading is, play by the rule book. Don’t just say “well maybe those were the rules 200 years ago but times have changed”. Maybe the times really have changed, but no one ever updated the rule book. If Americans really want to live in a country where the government has a broad power to regulate, limit, or even ban guns, then prove it: get the support behind a constitutional amendment; or concede that that the support for changing the rules just isn’t there.
I was so hoping this would be a discussion about our constitutional right to walk around carrying an open bottle of booze.
Why are you people talking about open carry instead of dueling? Dueling was legal back then. Don’t you feel it is a tremendous infringement of everyone’s rights that in more recent years dueling has been banned?
If you want to talk about big names involved in dueling look at:
- The Aaron Burr-Alexander Hamilton duel where Burr killed Hamilton in 1804:
Burr–Hamilton duel - Wikipedia
or
2. Future President Andrew Jackson kills Charles Dickinson in 1806
Do you imagine that any Constitutional Amendment could be passed in the present political climate? Even the 26th Amendment (18-year olds can vote; it became law in 1971 after being ratified by all 42 states which voted on it) would have no chance today. Nor would the 24th Amendment (no poll taxes) which became law in 1964 with only Mississippi voting against it.
Well sorry but that’s the point of having a constitution: some principles are fundamental enough that they should require a high bar to formally renounce. Whether something is or is not a right shouldn’t depend on a 50.01% to 49.99% vote. If an overwhelming percentage of the populace really was in favor of it, a constitutional amendment wouldn’t be a problem. Our current political deadlock is due to the fact that the public really is strongly polarized on issues where there is no such supermajority.
Re. guns, at most a little over half of the people polled say that if it was just a matter of wishing for it (without being troubled to turn off the tv and go do something about it), they’d be in favor of restricting what guns people are allowed to own. While maybe slightly less than half of the people are not only pro-gun but are by necessity militantly pro-gun, and politically active about it, since they see what they regard as their natural rights to be under siege. That’s hardly the groundswell of public support gun control advocates wished they had. And imho, the gun control side is unlikely to see any gains since a large part of the population no longer believes that gun control can or would be the panacea it’s been presented as.
I hope this wasn’t intended as a response to my post, since it missed the entire point of my comment.
Are you saying that no constitutional amendment whatsoever could be passed, no matter how popular support for it was? That the amendment process is for almost all practical purposes a dead letter? If so, then something is seriously wrong because amendment is necessary to prevent the “dead hand of the past” that so many detractors of the Second Amendment claim it is.
Something like the 25th or 27th Amendments could be passed easily: there’s no controversy there.
But for anything even slightly controversial, that could be used as a “wedge” by politicians? Or something (e.g. a ban on poll taxes or other voter suppression) that would give one party an advantage, however slight? No way could that be passed in the present egregiously partisan climate UNLESS one Party has 67 Senators, 290 Representatives, and control of 38 state legislatures. Otherwise it Won’t happen.
The topic was gun control. Would you agree that that is at least “slightly controversial” ?
The suggestion is that the rule, as written, specifies a militia as a reason to have guns. It is gun rights advocates who have had to use tortuous arguments, sweating over commas and what a militia is to try and re-write the plain language of the second amendment.
If you want it to read simply, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” then play by the rules and amend the constitution as you just suggested the other side do.
I would also submit that even if it did only say, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” it would still be ok to place restrictions on it.
No constitutional right is absolute. There are even restrictions on free speech. If we take the second amendment with no restrictions whatsoever then you could buy a nuclear bomb or ground to air missiles or hand grenades. When the Bill of Rights was ratified you could, as a private citizen, own any weapon in existence at the time. I think it is fair to say the FF’s never contemplated nuclear weapons and would never have meant them for private ownership. Things change and there need not be an amendment every time a new weapon is invented to decide if you can own it.
It is clear lines can be drawn even if we take the most expansive view of the 2nd amendment. The question then becomes one of where are the lines reasonably drawn?
When the Bill of Rights was ratified it wasn’t binding on the states, only the federal government.
“Militia” as constructed from Latin, is a plural noun. The people are “the militia”, an interpretation that has been repeatedly upheld by the courts. The mistake is taking militia to be a singular noun referring to an organization set up and controlled by a state government.
They never contemplated the Internet either. Would someone who claims, say, that terrorist organizations using encrypted emails to communicate makes the Internet “too dangerous” to be allowed have a valid point in your view?
Do you regard a “reasonable” line to be that government troops should have a monopoly on “military-only” weapons, that give them an irresistible advantage over “civilian” weapons like deer rifles and shotguns? Because that more or less tosses the philosophy of the FF’s out the window: their well-documented admiration for the armed citizen and their disdain for professional troops. And before you say “that’s the way things are now”, I would add (1.) gun rights advocates are trying to effect a restoration and reverse this state of affairs- being able to legally possess full-auto assault rifles would be a minimum standard; and (2.) The dangers of a huge heavily armed professional military have not magically gone away- there’s the danger that we are now a democracy more or less on inertia.
The Amendment process intentionally requires an abiding supermajority. A “controversial” Amendment is by design supposed to be an impossibility. Again, 50.01% majorities aren’t supposed to be able to set aside Constitutional guarantees.
Actually, he rewrote it to say "the rights of the people to keep and Bear Arms, (of a type we approve of shall not be infringed.
We are arguing past each other. Your response would be applicable if I had written
But that is not what I wrote. I’ve red-lighted the difference between the above and what I DID write
(cf. Hastert Rule)
I think the fact that you overlooked the distinction between these two sentences may itself be evidence of the confusion excessive partisanship causes.
“We’ll all stay serene and calm, when Alabama gets the bomb.”
I’m against gun control, but I don’t want some of my sketchier neighbors to have nuclear weapons. How about you?
Then I’m not certain what you’re driving at. Since this sub-thread started with me saying “if you really want to argue that gun ownership should not be regarded as a right, then follow the standard procedure for changing the Constitution” and you replying with “we can’t, thanks to partisan politics”, I took the implied meaning to be “and therefore we’re justified in simply agreeing to overlook that silly archaic provision”. Correct me if I’m mistaken please.
Arguing with gun control advocates about the language of the second amendment is a waste of time.
Have the state constitutions of the many states, that don’t include anything at all about a militia, slowed them down even in the slightest?
Maine: “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”
Michigan: “Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.”
New Hampshire: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.”
and so on:
You’re wasting your time. These people are fanatics, and immune to logic and clear language.