[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

As a matter of Constitutional writing, and the issue of gun ownership aside for a second, the founding fathers were very specific when they wanted to be and other times they were intentionally vague. They knew what they were doing, which is really amazing looking back 300+ years. The second Amendment is one that was written specifically, and addresses a group right, which is precisely why it was conditioned.
The founding fathers wrote individual rights in absolute terms to keep challengers of their writing from embarking on the "what if's" or "they meant this". They made this distinction with full understanding of the British tyranny, yet they still did not author the 2nd Amendment as an absolute and unconditioned individual right. If the right to bear arms was meant to be an indvidual right they would not have bothered to mention militias in the first place, since it could be inferred that an armed militia was a utility of an individual (i.e. uncontioned) right to bear arms. Instead we are arguing the reverse, that the group right to have an armed militia can be interpreted as and individual right. But again that's not at all they way they wrote it. And they semed fully aware of the possibiliity of re-interpretation, like we are doing now, since they made it a point to be absolute and unconditional with regard to invidual rights. The pivotal queston still remains, why didn't they do this with regard to gun ownership as well?

Aside, I don't have a problem with some guy owning as many guns as he wishes. Statiscally, most aren't nuts and planning on walking into a kindergarten or movie theater to waste everyone in the whole room. But neither do I believe they are correct in stating that they, as individuals, have a Constitutional protection, if we take the founding fathers' written words at face value. WHich is kind of the whole point of the Constitution writing exercise.

__________________________________________________ _______________

Allow me to respectfully disagree that it is not an individual right. The people are a group of individuals. They have a right to free speech, keep and bear arms etc. Bill of right protect the individual from the govt. The govt. is subordinate to the individual. Govt. was sending troops to confiscate weapons and ammo when the "shot fired around the world" was first discharged. (seems like we may need a second shot to get the current crop of politicos to start paying attention but I digress). The founders were wary of a standing army as it took citizens taking up arms to throw the British out of the colonies. It seems to me that after all this the right to keep and bear arms would not be an individual right? If not, who would grant the collective right, the govt.? Not hardly as they would be the entity doing the infringing. State of the art military weapons were always supposed to be in the hands of the public and the public would form their own militia's. Do not confuse this with the Nat. guard which was not formed until sometime in the 1930's and can be federalized by the govt. to serve its ends and not that of the populations. The minute man went to the house to secure his firearm before joining his fellow militia men to fight he did not go to the govt. armory to sign out for a weapon. I spent 6 years in the PA Natl. guard and know what a locked arms room looks like.

As far as the so called "gun lobby" goes it really is the Bill of Rights lobby. If the only thing that gives teeth to the people to resist tyrants is the 2nd Amendment then it must by its very nature be an individual right. If the militia is now the Natl. Guard, as some suggest, it is an arm of the govt. if federalized and therefore counter to the ability to resist. As an aside the 2nd amendment is a check and balance to govt. not a recreational document allowing the citizens to go deer hunting. Self defense is a given and needs no apology. "Self preservation is the first law of nature", as my old elementary school principal was fond of stating.

I have enjoyed your perspective on this debate as you seem to have done your homework and have a sense of historical perspective. Why it is important to our shared interest in Boxsters is that if we lose our freedom and are dictated to by the likes of the EPA etc. we won't be sharing the experience of driving around in them as they will be legislated out of existence.

Notice to those who find this thread offensive, just delete it or don't read it. Do not take the usual progressive tack of trying to suppress it., OK?

Respectfully, AKL