Cute, but no. Try debating me on what I actually say rather than assuming I already know what you're talking about.

FYI, John's post didn't need "completing".  He was asking for quotes from the actual Constitution.  You supplied a truncated version of the Second Amendment and then have the gall to say that you have been supplying context where my side has not.

Please right back at ya.

(To this end Jefferson criticized the decision in Marbury v. Madison as potentially placing the country under the despotism of an oligarchy.)

+++

That's a fair argument, but if a portion of the Constitution is in dispute, I'm not sure how you arrive at a conclusion without trying to determine the intent. In the debate with JB he thought intent was important. When I presented actual statements from the Founders that contradict his arguments, He falls back on the hyperbole of "murdered children" than actually presenting any supporting evidence. 

••

Imagine if they really could have been shown the consequences of their actions! Keep slavery, and watch this country you are working so hard to create do its level best to tear itself in half less than a century after you consider your work done! Watch as Americans turn against Americans, and kill almost TWENTY FIVE TIMES as many of themselves as were killed by British forces.

Insist on the "right to bear arms", and see American children dying by the truckload every year, some for no greater crime than sleeping too close to a window!

It's curious, too, how the intent of the Founding Fathers can be such a plastic thing, depending on who is using it to defend what. John Adams was a staunch advocate of a single language for this country. He favored English, since that was the language he spoke, and as it happened that was the one that was ultimately chosen -- but what would he and other like thinkers make of our country today? The Balkanization they so greatly feared, spurred on by multiple pockets of people speaking different languages, is all around us, along with the hatred and distrust that seem to be its eternal close companions.

FYI, John's post didn't need "completing".  He was asking for quotes from the actual Constitution.  You supplied a truncated version of the Second Amendment and then have the gall to say that you have been supplying context where my side has not.

Please right back at ya.

+++

Matt, I have presented evidence that many Founders supported my interpretation of the Second Amendment. Can you present any evidence, (beside the actual Amendment, which clearly the meaning  is in dispute) that any Founder supports yours.

While I think review by strict constructionism is a valid way to interpret the constitution I think it fails when the situation before the Court is not one the Founders could have or did envision. If the intent is not consistent with reality one must review the words as they apply to the situation at hand.

As it pertains to the second amendemnt (and truthfully this is academic as the Court has ruled that there is an absolute right to bear arms) I believe the founders envisioned the right to bear arms in the sense of a defense from oppressive Government and to defend state or local government where appropriate. I do not believe the self defense they contemplated was from home intruders. Unless one is completely round the bend I find it hard to believe that a rational person in our day and age believes they need to bear arms to defend themseleves from our Government. So the question must turn on what these words mean in our modern context and I believe that the manner in which JB is interpreting them is in this mold. I believe his reference to their intent was what they anticipated the need for arms was (and I apologize to JB if I a mindreading).

To wit this language would mean something different to a landowner in 1789 than a citizen in 2010.

"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."

To a citizen in 1789 through the early 1800s it was clear that the right to bear arms and the existence of militia was a right confered to the citizens of the states AGAINST the Federal Government! Indeed, there is a reason why the creation of a standing federal army is limited to two years! Jefferson himself believed in armed insurrection as a means of preserving liberty -- hence the right of the people to bear arms against their government

By 2010, rational people do not fear their government in such a fashion -- which is why I think the second amendment should be repealed as its inconsistent with the reality of our times; short of that we should interpret it in a manner which makes sense for our times. And by that we must consider what, in 2010, is a comperable to a militia.

A militia, generally speaking, is a military or police force, composed of ordinary citizenry. I submit, in this day and age, a militia would be the police and National Reserves -- and there is no reason why a reservest or police officer could not keep and bear arms. To that end there would be no basis therefore for objection to restrictions on firearms to a non-reservisist/officer.

As I noted, its academic because the Court has ruled in the Heller case and thats the law of the land but I do not agree that the only, or best, way to interpret the consititution is based on the "framer's intent."

Why not quote the preceding portion, Michael?

+++

I'm happy too. But I can find no evidence that the Founders intended the second portion to be contingent on service to the government.

Well, let's think about that for a moment. Have you ever read the Fifth Amendment?

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.

Clearly, the Militia was seen as something distinct to merit a specific reference in that Amendment. Perhaps Militia meant something and that's why it was there to add context to the Second Amendment? But what ever could Militia mean?

How about Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution proper, which outlines the Powers of Congress (quoted in part)