Just a reminder.

Joined
Mar 5, 1999
Messages
34,096
Lest we forget. Defend these to the death if necessary. Never compromise on one word.

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment 2

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.


Amendment 3

No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment 6

In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment 7

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
 
The Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution are the basis of our govenment. Once they go, the country is gone with it.

n2s
 
Thanks Uncle Bill,
A good reminder considering recent threads world events. Since we have so many rights and freedoms in so many ways, especially compared to the rest of the world, we need to remember and honor those who fought and died to protect these ideals yesterday and today.
When in school, we were expected to be able to recite these and more importantly KNOW them. Now in schools, around here anyway, it's given more as a point of interest. When my son is old enough, he'll know what I do.
Excuse me as I step down from my soapbox.
 
Not being from your country, I've never read those before. But from TV I've heard 1, 3, and 5.

It seems that some lawyers have gotten around compromising on words by interpreting them differently. Then the whole thing gets twisted and changed from the original intent.

Remember Billy Clinton said something like...
It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
 
Stay right up there on that soapbox!

When you defend the rights of somebody you may hate and whose philosophy you violently disagree with it is easier if you realize that in truth you are defending your own rights and the rights of every other citizen of the United States by doing so.
 
I don't think I've ever read them in full myself - interestingly, they largely seem to be rooted in old Germanic common law, so their 'authority' so to speak, is really part of a much older tradition of justice, though obviously their form is particular to the USA.

One thing which always perplexes me though is their use as 'scripture' - and, after all, even scripture needs interpretation. The 2nd Amendment is the one which I always find most perplexing: pro-gun people (for lack of a better term) bring up the 2nd am. as delineating a sort of 'inalienable right', the anti-gun people (again for lack of a better word) always claim that the founding fathers were referring to a different time period and thus doesn't apply in present times. I find both of these views rather odd myself. How can one know what the US founding fathers were thinking, or would have thought about the present-day (contra the 'anti-gun' view)? and what makes the founding fathers' beliefs unquestionable (contra the 'pro-gun' view)?

Actually reading the amendment in detail, it seems to me that the amendment actually doesn't so much 'allow' people to own weapons, as to strongly suggest that they should do so. The point seems to be to establish a standing militia to defend the nation in times of need (a point which seems somewhat different from the terms in which the am. is usually debated) - which also recalls old Germanic/Anglo-Saxon common law and tradition, in which standing armies were a rarity, instead land-holders and various others had an obligation to their lord or king to provide military service if required.

If you haven't noticed, I'm remaining agnostic between sides on the issue - it's just interesting to consider the actually wording and probably intent of the am. How it applies to present day seems rather unclear - it would seem that that the issue needs to be debated on its own merits -- again, I don't have an opinion on the matter myself any more. My message is more about my interest in the surviving Germanic common law evident in these ams.

--B.
 
Good obsrvations, Beo, and thanks.

I give the founding fathers a great deal of credit for their wisdom and dedication. I'll stick with it as is until something better comes along and I don't think I'll live to see that happen.

Perhaps they should have said, "....the duty of the people to keep and bear arms shall be enforced."
 
As someone once said ( I ain't even gonna guess ):

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

So you go right on defending the Constitution and Bill of Rights your way, Uncle, and I'll go on in my way waiting for the fox to come out of the henhouse with a dead chicken in his mouth and take him out with a shotgun blast. ;)

I also have a little problem with burning the flag, unless there's a lying politician or other treasonous person wrapped in it. Then I'll even supply the gasoline. :)

We may have differing perspectives, but our hearts are set on the same goal. No disrespect to others with differing opinions. :D
 
Interesting point B. Depending on how much separation the comma between the part about the militia and the right of the people.. was meant to be. I can see what you mean by the various interpretations.

One point I find interesting though was that the Taliban disarmed their civillian population after they took power. It's easer to be totalitarian if your side has all the weapons.
 
Originally posted by Bill Martino
Good obsrvations, Beo, and thanks.

I give the founding fathers a great deal of credit for their wisdom and dedication. I'll stick with it as is until something better comes along and I don't think I'll live to see that happen.

Perhaps they should have said, "....the duty of the people to keep and bear arms shall be enforced."

Right - the language of the first clause, 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...' seems to be outlined an obligation to defend the country and to prepare oneself according rather than a right.

No idea how that bears on present day - the point seems to be to defend the country from outside aggression, but obviously in this time have changed. Jefferson and co. didn't have to think about nuclear weapons or people crashing aeroplanes into things, but invading armies armed with rifles and canons. I don't think that the common people can really defend themselves well against the modern sorts of outside aggression, no matter how well-armed and regulated (unless anti-aircraft guns are made available ;) ).

Interestingly, the amendment usually seems to be interpreted to be a right to bear arms to defend one's own person and properties - but that doesn't seem to be the intent.

--B.
 
'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...' seems to be outlined an obligation to defend the country and to prepare oneself according rather than a right.

Isn't that pretty much how the Swiss army was set up in the very recent past? (Don't know if things have changed in the past few years). Of course, they have a strong connection to most things Germanic.
 
Beo, I can't be sure exactly what the founding fathers had in mind but I like their ideas so much I'm loath to gamble by changing them.
 
Originally posted by Bill Martino
Beo, I can't be sure exactly what the founding fathers had in mind but I like their ideas so much I'm loath to gamble by changing them.

I'm not suggesting changing (I'm not really suggesting anything in fact :) ), I was just looking at interpreting what they wrote.

--B.
 
We've had enough flame wars and bad humor in these parts recently, so I won't comment on Beoram's post or its implications. Suffice to say I won't be reading anything else he posts.

Sure, he has an inalienable right to say what he likes. By the same token, I have a similar right not to listen.
 
Tom - I'm not sure what I wrote that you took offence to? :confused: Or what the implications might be of anything I wrote - simply idle musing.

My apologies for any offence or upset.

--B.
 
I've been laying doggo for a while, but I feel the need to say something here - Tom, Beo can be taken at face value. He has no hidden agendas, and he intends only what he says (unlike one we have had through here recently).

I've done some fairly thorough reading over the past ten or so years, regarding the intent of those who signed our constitution and its' amendments. While many wish to debate the words that found their way into the amendments, correspondence among the signers makes it very plain that the right to keep and bear arms was intended as an individual right, for all the people, and the purpose was not only to be ready to fulfill their duty to defend the country (as when called to the militia) but to give them the ability to defend the country, and themselves, from internal tyranny as the government developed, and wilder members of society as the country grew. Whatever our level of civilization, these rights, framed into law, have had real (if unpublicised) effects in our development. Witness countries where these are "privileges" rather than rights, given, taken or modified at the whim of the current government. Witness the areas where the people grew tired of the "whims", revolted, and descended into tribal anarchy, without an original document on which to base their new freedom, and the power that came with being suddenly unrestrained, but fully armed. We are unique in the world in this respect. Our armed potential is granted as a right, not a statute which can be overturned. Our government is "Of the People, BY the People", but in the background is always the old, old slogan - "DON'T TREAD ON ME".
 
Rusty, if I don't keep on defending you may not have that shotgun to use on the fox!

Tom, I reread Beo's post and it looks more like academic curiosity to me than anything. Have I missed something? You can email me personally if you don't want to air the issue. I'm curious.

I do agree with you about the right to speak and the flip side about the right not to listen.

I'll hand Jane Fonda the microphone and then promptly insert my earplugs.
 
Amendment 2

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.

The key word for me is actually the use of the word "free" in "free state". The Constitution did not create a strong federal govenment. It creative a representative body that would serve as a collective creature of the the states (the original 13). The original sturcture was something like the present European Union, a union of independent states. This clause ensures that each state will be allowed to maintain it's own army, and then it goes further.

This could have been written as:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state, the right of the free states to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But it wasn't written that way. The word "people" is specifically used. It is used becuase the intent was to arm each of the states, and the people within each of the states. The constitution is born of a popular revolt and that mechanism is specifically left intact.

The raising of armies and a navy by the Federal government is addressed separately under Article I. So the language in Amendment 2 speaks to the arming of each of the states, and to the arming of the people within each of the states.


n2s
 
Thanks Walosi and Uncle Bill :) - I don't have any hidden agendas on this matter. I don't have any hidden agendas period - academic background conditions me perhaps, but if I have an agenda, I always try to make it clear from the start.


Walosi wrote
While many wish to debate the words that found their way into the amendments, correspondence among the signers makes it very plain that the right to keep and bear arms was intended as an individual right, for all the people, and the purpose was not only to be ready to fulfill their duty to defend the country (as when called to the militia) but to give them the ability to defend the country, and themselves, from internal tyranny as the government developed, and wilder members of society as the country grew. Whatever our level of civilization, these rights, framed into law, have had real (if unpublicised) effects in our development. Witness countries where these are "privileges" rather than rights, given, taken or modified at the whim of the current government.

Ah - this is exactly the sort of thing I was curious about! The wording of the emendment doesn't seem to specify the matter as one regarding individual rights, but rather collective responsibility. What you say makes a lot of sense - right to bear arms also, in theory, 'protects' a country from internal tyranny as well (though unfortunately there's quite a bit of insidious internal tyranny in the West in the form of big business - though one does often wish one could simply solve that problem with a shotgun ;) ). I wonder why the individual rights part of the notion isn't explicitly expressed? Any thoughts? Was the connexion more self-evident in the 18th century? (Walosi, can you recommend a good source on the correspondence, &c. - just curiosity?)

In any case - Tom, you're more than welcome to email me too if you like - I suspect I've put something badly without meaning too (I think some of the regulars here will attest I'm pretty easy-going, so you needn't fear I'll be upset or go mad or anything). But of course you're more the welcome just to ignore me, I mainly write a lot of rubbish anyway, so you won't miss much ;)

cheers all,
--B.
 
Originally posted by BruiseLeee
One point I find interesting though was that the Taliban disarmed their civillian population after they took power. It's easer to be totalitarian if your side has all the weapons.

Very true. Every genocide in the last hundred years was preceded by disarming the people. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, ad nauseum. Even back to ancient times. Those in power had weapons, those oppressed did not.

The second amendment is the foundation the others were built on.

Anyone who relys on police protection is in a dream world. Dial 911, wait 20 minutes, and die.

Semp --

By the way, I'm an NRA Endowment Life Member, if you couldn't guess from the above rantings. :D
 
Back
Top