2nd amendment original-intent is NRA's worst nightmare...

[sanatanadharma]

http://www.alan.com/2012/12/19/saul-cornell-restoring-the-second-amendment-to-its-original-meaning-would-be-the-nras-worst-nightmare/

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/amendment-don-article-1.1223900?localLinksEnabled=false

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. Are we referring to...

...the same Madison that authored #46 in the series known as The Federalist Papers? This would be the same essay which estimate the number of citizens which rightfully should be armed at about half a million. With a population of about 3.2 million in 1790 and subtracting around 600,000 as slaves (not considered citizens) we are left with 2.6 million. Half of those were women (also not considered citizens) therefore we have 1.3 million remaining. If we exclude from them those too young or too old we are left with half a million (give or take).

So Madison's opinion of who should be armed (as inferred from Federalist #46) is...


...pretty much Everyone.

[sanatanadharma]

2. Apparently so...

... in a nation without a standing army.
Please compare the current size of all (state and Federal) military personnel to our present population making the same assumptions by subtracting black and female, then come back and support the claim, "pretty much Everyone".

I remain unconvinced by your post. Please also provide your curriculum vitae so that I may compare them to the professor's.

I claim no expertise, beyond a BA in Philosophy, and the truth that everyone has a point of view; mine is no private guns period.
Collector guns should be rendered unusable.
Target shooting guns should be locked up at the ranges.
Hunters can use the guns that nearly wiped out the buffalo; apparently they are efficient enough to kill.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. regarding...

"Apparently so... ...in a nation without a standing army."

Actually that section of #46 stated that those half million would be available to "oppose" a "regular army" if necessary. While the Founders generally made no secret of their disdain for a standing army, (IIRC) they wrote nothing in the Constitution to expressly prohibit one.


Permit me a quote for which I have a new found appreciation: "A foreign land is foreign for a reason, and it is in differences that we find beauty." Coming from an alternative perspective such as Philosophy there is probably something here for me to learn. Perhaps you could explain your reasons and I'll explain mine.

I have a BA (not a BS) in Physics but it's been many years. My only claim as to my abilities relative Professor Cornell is that I count myself as comparably literate to a late 18th century New York resident (State that is) to whom #46 was written. I have not much interest in publishing anything more personal in a public forum.

The essence for my own belief in the individual right to arms is that by extension of a rather universally acknowledged right to life, a right to self-defense is both individual and essential. Self preservation can't ever be considered undesirable. While firearms are one of many tools, the handling of which requires both care and responsibility, they only kill when handled carelessly or with malice.

It would be a genuine pleasure to hear more from you.

[sanatanadharma]

6. Thank you. Total agreement about self defence.

That "self preservation can't ever be considered undesirable" is true; I'd never argue otherwise. It is built into the nature of all living creatures. Even a mosquito will bite where not not seen to avoid being 'offed'.
But, even self preservation is not unlimited as proved by the Sandy Hook educators who stood in front of the killer to defend their kids.

The earliest constitutional Americans were concerned about defending the nation from the then known standing armies of foreign countries. We no longer need militias to do that. If an argument is to be made for the need to defend against our standing army, my counter argument would be to abolish our armies instead and indeed return to militias.

It seems to me that, in an argument for self-defense, a logical starting point would be to reduce the dangers against which we need to defend, rather than accepting an arms race between Americans on the two sides of our politically divided nation.
Well armed, poorly-regulated militia patriot types (for whom military style weapons are most popular) scare me, but I am not going to arm myself when all life is uncertain. I am as likely to die, struck by a bus as I cross the street with my purchase after exiting the gun store, as I am to be a home invasion victim.

My philosophy: there is no difference between you and me (no differences among all of us) and thus no reason for fear.
My personal philosophy is a difficult road to walk when I choose to not kill even the mosquito.
All differences are superficial. Stripped of all of the accidental (temporary or could be otherwise) differences like gender, race, nationality, education, interests, experiences, hopes, fears, etc., we are left with the unity of existent awareness. We are conscious beings. Our existential awareness is the ground upon which all identity rests and is constant regardless of changes in thought. Awareness is, as though, the unified field of all physics. No mind, no knowledge. Even thoughtful scientific, materialist research about a world devoid of conscious awareness requires the existence of that awareness.

I am willing to stand in front of the 2nd amendment to defend my kids' future.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. Some thoughts

Self preservation, is indeed, not unlimited. Often a hero will sacrifice themselves in order to give others a better chance of survival. I have noted such a person a while back in the veterans group, Ross Andrew McGinnis. He is a somewhat recent recipient of the Medal of Honor. His crew is alive today because, like some of the Sandy Hook faculty shielded students, he shielded fellow soldiers from a grenade blast with his body.

The proper scope and size of the DoD today is and definitely should be a major topic. I am in favor of reductions there. Certain elements should be reduced more than others. I recently read that US keeps over 4,000 active bases with 60 plus in about 30 foreign countries. I'd say there is some clear excess there. My interpretation of militia utility is for defense from all of the above.

To address reducing danger, my best answer is to quote Jefferson who quoted Cesare Beccaria: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

However, I agree with you personally in that I have chosen not to arm myself. I made that choice mostly due to both contending with demands on my time that preclude sufficient time to devote to practice and the presence of a family member on a medication that makes such things less wise.

To each his own.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. I hate it when people only posts links. We are allowed four paragraphs and you get to choose which

four.

Don't you think that is the least you could do if you want to generate a discussion ?

from the first link: (seems Alan :as in I used to date a guy named Alan: has an OPINION)
It is vital that Americans separate myths from realities, because what many of us seem to have forgotten is that, in the vision of the founders of the United States of America, the right to bear arms carries with it enormous burdens and responsibilities.

In fact, if we restored the Second Amendment to its original meaning, it would be the NRA’s worst nightmare. Invoking the Second Amendment ought to be a more effective argument for increased regulation than it is against it.

In 2008, a closely divided Supreme Court abandoned more than 70 years of precedent and for the first time in American history affirmed that the Second Amendment is about a right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense. Lost in most of the commentary then and now is that this is almost the exactly opposite of what James Madison, the primary architect of the amendment, intended, and is hard to reconcile with the way most ordinary Americans would have read it in 1791…

Militia laws ran on for pages and were some of the lengthiest pieces of legislation in the statute books. States kept track of who had guns, had the right to inspect them in private homes and could fine citizens for failing to report to a muster.


from the second link: (which by the way comes from the OPINION section)
In the coming months, as the nation begins a serious discussion about gun regulation, the meaning of the Second Amendment — the statement that “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” — will be much discussed.

It is vital that Americans separate myths from realities, because what many of us seem to have forgotten is that, in the vision of the founders of the United States of America, the right to bear arms carries with it enormous burdens and responsibilities.

In fact, if we restored the Second Amendment to its original meaning, it would be the NRA’s worst nightmare. Invoking the Second Amendment ought to be a more effective argument for increased regulation than it is against it.

In 2008, a closely divided Supreme Court abandoned more than 70 years of precedent and for the first time in American history affirmed that the Second Amendment is about a right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense. Lost in most of the commentary then and now is that this is almost the exactly opposite of what James Madison, the primary architect of the amendment, intended, and is hard to reconcile with the way most ordinary Americans would have read it in 1791.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/amendment-don-article-1.1223900#ixzz2FdaLK7yc

I chose to post the first four paragraphs but, you could have edited differently. The first article is rather short.

[sanatanadharma]

5. Thank you, my concern is that my editing...

...would prejudice readers of the first link and then the second, which was the source of the first.
The referenced essay conforms to my point of view. Others' mileage may vary.

[ralfy]

8. Good find.

Thanks!