Thread: Sonia Sotomayor correct on 2nd Amendment!

With all the hoopla over Sonia and the right to keep and bear arms, the question becomes elementary if we follow the wisdom of our founding fathers!

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

The answer to the question concerning the right to keep and bear arms is not that difficult to answer if one follows Jefferson’s above quote.

The simple truth is, after creating our federal Constitution which became effective in 1789, ten amendments were quickly adopted [1791] which were intentionally designed “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of “ the new government’s “powers“, and is so stated in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

Whatever the reason for each State’s ratification of the 2nd Amendment, whether it be for the people’s right to keep and bear arms or to maintain a state militia, or even merely to preserve the individual’s right to self defense is unimportant when one considers the irrefutable object for the amendment which was to further restrict the newly created government, prevent misconstruction of the Constitution of the United States, and prevent specific abuses by the hand of the federal government:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .

In regard to fundamental rights and protections of these rights within the various states, let us take a look at what the people, for example, of the State of Pennsylvania, agree upon with respect to two issues before our federal government was even created, and did so in their State’s fundamental law otherwise known as Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights, adopted in 1776

III. That the people of this State have the sole, exclusive and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

So, as it turns out with respect to Pennsylvania, documented history tells us the people therein decided to protected themselves from specific abuses in the exercise of state government power, and, by the adoption of the 2nd Amendment they went on to specifically forbid the federal government to “infringeâ€

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

Would it be too simplistic to say that our founding fathers when debating the the content of the Constitution was a collective whittling down of the nature of men. A study on the nature of man. An understanding of the inherent good nature as well as the inherent bad nature and then placing obstacles in place to guard against the bad nature.

When Jefferson draws attention to going back to, "the spirit manifested in the debates," using historical perspective, is he not pointing to the hardships, the bad nature of men, the English Crown, and so many other oppressive governments of the past which they understood and had to endure and therein lies the reasoning of the various ammendments? Intent is drawn from the understanding of the bad nature of man that was all around the founding fathers at that time?

Whereas, if we approach the Constitution with the view of the good nature of man, (change for good intent) and do not visit the bad nature of man we are playing into a possible trap?

Thanks for the post johnwk.

Does the Constitution have to be complicated?