Altering the Second Amemdment

[Pah]

Complete article

The struggle over ownership of guns in the United States has taken a dramatic turn. In the midst of the winter holidays, when you could bet that everyone's mind was elsewhere, the U. S. Department of Justice decided to revise the Second Amendment.

This latest example of politically motivated historical revisionism completes the task begun by John Ashcroft in 2001 in his infamous letter to the National Rifle Association, which cast aside a hundred years of Justice Department policy on how to interpret the Second Amendment. Now the Department of Justice has produced a hundred-page memo designed to give activist judges a historical pretext for striking down existing gun laws.

The Department of Justice has thus erased the preamble, which states the purpose of the amendment, to create a "well regulated Militia." The new version of the amendment crafted by the Department of Justice goes well beyond the idea of interpreting the Constitution as a living document that must respond to changing times. In effect, the Department of Justice believes that it can simply expunge language which it finds inconvenient and substitute language more ideologically suitable in its place.

 

[lilithu]

The Department of Justice has thus erased the preamble, which states the purpose of the amendment, to create a "well regulated Militia." The new version of the amendment crafted by the Department of Justice goes well beyond the idea of interpreting the Constitution as a living document that must respond to changing times. In effect, the Department of Justice believes that it can simply expunge language which it finds inconvenient and substitute language more ideologically suitable in its place.

I dunno, pah. A "well regulated Militia" is open to interpretation. It can be argued that citizens cannot form a well regulated militia if they are prevented from carrying weapons of their own. A militia, afterall, was meant to throw off a repressive regime. So it can't be refering to the same militia that is run by the govt that the militia is trying to throw off. It must leave the ability to organize and fight at the grass-roots level.

I find some merit in that argument. My deal is that I will lay off the right to bear arms if others will lay off my right to free speech, assembly and religion. Bottom line is that I will trust people with their liberties until they show that they can't act responsibly.

 

[Pah]

I dunno, pah. A "well regulated Militia" is open to interpretation. It can be argued that citizens cannot form a well regulated militia if they are prevented from carrying weapons of their own. A militia, afterall, was meant to throw off a repressive regime. So it can't be refering to the same militia that is run by the govt that the militia is trying to throw off. It must leave the ability to organize and fight at the grass-roots level.

Some would say that it was a state militia to throw off a repressive federal government. I think I should do some more research.

Truthfully, I am now undecided as to the issue and not holding the view that all weapons should be banned except for hunting.

I find some merit in that argument. My deal is that I will lay off the right to bear arms if others will lay off my right to free speech, assembly and religion. Bottom line is that I will trust people with their liberties until they show that they can't act responsibly.

Well reasoned.

 

[lilithu]

Some would say that it was a state militia to throw off a repressive federal government. I think I should do some more research.

I think that you're right on that. But I would point out that the states are a lot weaker now with respect to the federal govt than when the Bill o' Rights was passed. Afterall, the South's succession was, from their pov, an attempt to do just that. In the absence of state power, it may fall directly to the people.