Amendment II as Written and Ratified v. as Applied

[HairyEyeball]

We are all intimately familiar with the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (or should be); many even cognizant of the compromise between the Pennsylvania and Virginia proposals which resulted in the specific text finally adopted:

Article II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Without reiterating the arguments raised since at least NFA 34 provided the first major national infringement of the right, the 'interpretation and application' of a preexisting right that was enumerated clearly and specifically to preclude government interference has effectively given us:

Article II: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be restricted to only those deemed acceptable by the changing fashions of the times, and shall be regulated by unelected officials and appointed bureaucrats who shall not be held to any standard of continuity or ethical conduct. The citizen militia shall be abolished, and replaced by a standing Army and subordinating the State Guard units of the joint and several States, and only those holding a position in such units may be allowed the use of such arms forbidden to the general populace, and only such times as they are on duty, or actively occupied in such tasks which the government sanctions them as requiring them, or during time of war, declared or otherwise. Further, such persons desirous of exercising this alleged right must need petition arbitrarily assigned or appointed representatives of various governmental agencies for permission, and be compelled to offer a strictly regulated bribe to such authority prior to a decision as to whether such license be granted.

Insofar as the right to keep and bear arms as intended clearly offers no restriction on whether such 'bearing' must be 'open' or may be 'concealed', there is just a 'leetle' discussion on the authority of the State to proscribe certain persons and firearms, or to levy duties on a clearly enumerated 'right'. Obviously we all have 'opinions' on the subject, do we also have viable suggestions as to restoring the interpretation and universal application of the Amendment to its intent?

[pioneer461]

"...do we also have viable suggestions as to restoring the interpretation and universal application of the Amendment to its intent?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The best way to accomplish that, as I see it, is to make sure we elect presidents and senators who will appoint and confirm appointees to the federal courts and to the Supreme Court, who are Constitutional scholars and understand what the founders had in mind. Not only on the 2nd, but the other amendments as well.

The current crop of politicians, on both sides, seems to have a problem understanding founder's intent. There is a trend among US politicians to look to Europe for legal and legislative precedence. That is not what the founders had in mind! They had just fought a war to get rid of European influence.

In the present situation, the major political party which comes closest to that understanding, is the Republican. There are other parties which would be better for us on purely Constitutional issues, but the chances of their not only winning the Presidency, but a majority in the Senate, are slim to none.

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb294/pioneer461/Flags%20and%20Patriotism/Donttreadimages.jpg

[liquibyte]

Perhaps we should get rid of the "two party" system, it doesn't seem to be working. Sometimes I think what we really need is to be invaded. I bet if that happened no one would have a problem with ordinary citizens "bearing" and the original intent of 2A would finally be understood.

[HairyEyeball]

While that may be the ultimate goal, 'building the attic' before 'laying the foundation' is a pretty impractical way to go about it. Not to specifically criticize you or your 'big picture', but it's a little more involved than that.

Who do you think nominates candidates for the House, the Senate, or the Oval Office? Certainly not 'we the People', at least not at that level. Those candidates are anointed by the State and national parties, and the only way to have a voice in those decisions is to get your hands dirty doing the 'scut work'. All politics is local - you have to involve yourself in your Precinct Committee, 'distinguish' yourself enough to get appointed to your District Committee, then to the State Party and possibly elected as a delegate to National. You have to take an active voice in selecting viable, electable candidates for city council members or aldermen, even dog catcher if that's an elected position. You have to walk the precincts, knock on doors, bring in campaign funds. You have to make yourself known and trusted at the neighborhood/precinct level, and if the candidates you choose and back get elected, and perform well, you may get a 'real' voice in choosing and working your butt off for candidates at the next level.

You also have to find a way to convince 'good' candidates to serve the way the Founding Fathers intended: To put their business and personal lives on hold, perform a public service (possibly at a greatly reduced income and substantially greater public exposure of their every move and secret), and leave gracefully, picking up where they left their lives. You have to contend with laws and regulations that favor incumbents and professional legislemmings, perform it all honorably and to the best of your ability with little or no thanks, even if you win - then do it all again next election. Then, maybe, you'll have some voice in choosing candidates for national office. Or, you can become a candidate for local or state office, do all the above - only all day, every day - plus have your every move and utterance subject to public scrutiny, often by media with the will and means to intentionally misinterpret it all for public titillation.

'Getting better candidates' is easy to say, but begs the question of how and sidesteps the question of what 'we the people' can do to reestablish the primacy of the Constitution and government compliance with its strictures and specifications.

[HairyEyeball]

Liq, the two party system is as responsible for the excesses of government as spoons are for the size of Rosie O'Dummy's butt.

Multiple parties are designed to function in a parliamentary system, where a dominant faction or coalition chooses the chief minister who 'represents' the will of that controlling coalition, and is subject to their opinions and decisions. The system we function under, where the chief executive is elected independently of the legislative body, surprisingly functions more effectively with the two party system.

In a manner analogous to the 'justice' system, there is (or should theoretically be) an 'adversarial' area - the legislature - where (again, theoretically) a supposed 'best' is reached through compromise and debate, but the President is under no obligation to approve any such, even if endorsed by a majority of his faction (or party).

A parliamentary system, unlike our own with its fixed terms and regularly scheduled elections, is subject to change and dissolution with every 'vote of no confidence' or shift in public opinion - perhaps some of you are old enough to recall the Italian experience some years back, when it appeared their Prime Minister changed almost monthly?

The 'leadership' (such as it is) of the two major parties and the acrimony that passes for 'politics as usual' currently is separate and distinct from the 'system' that created them, and may rightfully condemn those individuals whom we identify the parties with, but are not a condemnation of a viable system. The splinter parties so beloved of many - but not enough to do more than affect the occasional election - are, for the most part, composed of 'purists' embracing one or more of the tenets of those major parties which, in their opinion, those parties have strayed: The 'neocons' of the current Republican Party are the root cause of such as the Libertarian and Constitution Parties. As a paleoconservative myself, I am equally 'displeased' with them, but I believe it would be more effective to regain control of, and return the party to, its philosophical roots than to hope to recruit enough sheeple to a hopefully viable alternative.

In the abstract, the two party system is as much a 'tool of government' as a framing hammer is a tool of the carpenter's trade. Misuse or abuse of the tool is the fault of the practitioner, not the tool.

[packnrat]

Perhaps we should get rid of the "two party" system, it doesn't seem to be working. Sometimes I think what we really need is to be invaded. I bet if that happened no one would have a problem with ordinary citizens "bearing" and the original intent of 2A would finally be understood.

the United Stastes of America will not and can not be invaded.

forgive the spelling of the name:
admiral Yamamoto, said.
that japan can not invade the USA as there will be a gun behind every blade of grass.

[Bill of Rights]

Perhaps we should get rid of the "two party" system, it doesn't seem to be working. Sometimes I think what we really need is to be invaded. I bet if that happened no one would have a problem with ordinary citizens "bearing" and the original intent of 2A would finally be understood.

the United Stastes of America will not and can not be invaded.

forgive the spelling of the name:
admiral Yamamoto, said.
that japan can not invade the USA as there will be a gun behind every blade of grass.

If it is to a military strike force, invading army, or other such commanded military force that you refer, I agree it is unlikely unless our own government is complicit, i.e. an invading force wearing blue helmets. Alternatively, there are conservative estimates of 12-20 million uninvited, unwelcome, criminal trespassers on American soil, any/many of whom may have ill intent against our country, people, and government. I would call enemy forces in those numbers an invasion. Just because they are not an organized force does not lessen the fact, and with certain members of our country's leadership attempting to legitimize them by giving them the vote and full citizenship, I consider them a force that could invade and occupy without firing a shot. A rifle behind every blade of grass? Perhaps so, but of equal or perhaps greater importance is a vigilent sentry protecting both those rifles and the ballot boxes. I think many of the sentries have been lulled to sleep, and I think it's time we woke them up.

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
B