Journal enkidu's Journal: Another Gun Rights Rant 1
5/12/2002
In "A Faulty Rethinking of the 2nd Amendment", Prof. Rakove, puts forth three counter-arguments to those who argue that the Second Amendment applies to all people. I would like to comment on these three counter-arguments.
His first counter-argument concerning the definition of "militia" as not being composed of all armed males is quite correct, but is not supported by the actual text of the amendment. It is true that the meaning of militia is defined in the first article of the constitution. However, the amendment does not read "the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", but "the PEOPLE".
His second refutation, centered around the claim that "the people" does not mean "all persons" due to the fact that "the people" who vote are determined by the state, as specifically stipulated by the constitution, is a wonder of selective reading. We also see the phrase "the people" in the first, fourth, ninth and tenth amendments. Surely he doesn't believe that the meaning of the "the people" in the first amendment should only apply to those people determined by state law? Jim Crow, segregation and "un-American activity" laws followed just such an interpretation. As an aside, is he arguing for the right of all people who vote to keep and bear arms?
In his third counter argument he claims that the deletion of the definition of militia as "composed of the body of the people", reduces the broadness of the amdendment. With the addition of this definition, the amendment would then read: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The addition of the phrase does not alter the meaning of the latter half of the amendment.
Although there are many writings by our forefathers concerning the definition of militia, there are also many writings (some by the same persons) upholding the individual's right to bear arms. The forefathers meant the same group of people when they wrote "the people" in the Second Amendment as when they wrote "the people" in the other amendments composing the Bill of Rights.
Sincerely,
[snip]
Rewriting history (Score:2)
I'm sure you've heard about this book [amazon.com], which claims early Americans by and large were not armed.
Its just not enough anymore to sound pretentious and intellectual in order to get your agenda across however. Bellisarius' book has been severely criticized by historians who value the truth over any one side of a political issue. Read here [historycooperative.org] for some authoratative rebuttals to his book.
As much as I dislike Ashcroft personally(calling pot smokers terrorists-WTF?) I must agree on this issue. The original intent of the framers and the early government was for each able-bodied American citizen to be armed. At the time that meant white and male. But just because the definition of citizen has become more inclusive doesn't mean that our rights have changed in any way.