Forms Of Infringement Of The Right To Education In: Fill & Download for Free

What a very odd question.Whyever would we need to “cope with” the Second Amendment? We like the Second Amendment (or at least, every originalist I’m aware of does).I can only imagine that what you really mean is, “How do you ‘cope with’ the imaginary ‘originalist’ interpretation of the Second Amendment that non-originalists insist is the true originalist meaning?”The imaginary originalism that says the Second Amendment was about slave patrols. Or the one that says it was about giving the States permission to form militias. Or the one that says that the right to bear arms applies only in the context of organized militias. Or that “arms” means only muskets and possibly Kentucky long rifles.None of those interpretations are supported by historical evidence, including large numbers of speeches and writings by the Framers and their contemporaries—and even their critics, in response to whom the Bill of Rights was created.So we feel no need to “cope with” those interpretations at all.To an originalist, the Second Amendment is quite clear.First, we know what a prefatory clause is. We know that what amounts to a “because” clause does not limit the scope of the operative text.“A well-read populace being necessary to the civic health of a democratic state, the right of the people to access public libraries shall not be infringed.”Guess what?If I’m going to the library to check out Fifty Shades of Shootmenow rather than Locke’s Second Treatise, my right to access that library still could not be infringed, even though my use of the library is arguably not in support of becoming well-read nor conducive to the civic health of the state.If e-books proliferate to the point that “no one needs” to use a library in order to be well-read… the right of the people to access public libraries still shall not be infringed.That is, the fact that the right is being protected in view of a particular express aim does not mean the right is constrained by its utility in promoting that aim.I didn’t write, “A well-read populace being necessary to the civic health of a democratic state, the right of the people to access public libraries for educational purposes shall not be infringed.”Likewise, the Second Amendment does not read, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for militia purposes shall not be infringed.”Second, being originalists, we know that we need to look to the way a word or phrase was used when it was written in order to know what it means.To (again) clarify a common misconception, this is not about intent—it is about “original public meaning”. That is, it’s not, “What did the Framers mean for it to mean?” but rather, “What would a typical, well-educated person of the era have understood it to mean?”And we know that “well regulated” was rarely, if ever used in the Eighteenth Century or early Nineteenth Century to mean “under government control and order”. Rather, it meant, “well-functioning and fit for purpose”—e.g., a “well regulated watch” or a “well regulated mind”. So, a “well regulated militia” is a militia properly armed, provisioned, and skilled.We also know that a “militia” composed of specially enlisted individuals distinct from the general population was what the Framers would have called a “select militia”—and they cast a jaundiced eye on the idea. A “militia”, to them, meant an armed body of the private citizenry, ready and able to assemble at need in defense of their communities.This is not a militia:[National Guard]And this was not a militia:[Continental Army]This was a militia:[Massachusetts “Minutemen”]They were “ordinary Joes” who showed up bearing their own weapons, in their own outfits (whatever they happened to be wearing when the call went out) to defend their own communities against British depredations. The particular illustration above depicts the Lexington Green… y’know, the one where the British came to take our guns and we said, “Screw that—let’s have a war.”So then, the Second Amendment, in historical context, means something to the effect of:In order for a state to remain secure against both external invasion and internal tyranny, we need a large body of the citizens to be armed and skilled in their arms. We know the best way to achieve this is to ensure that the people have the right to bear arms—the rifle should be as familiar a tool to the citizen as the hammer or the hoe. In view of the foregoing, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.We (originalists) are not the ones who have any difficulty “coping with” that reality.Original Question:“How do “originalist” interpreters of the Constitution cope with the Second Amendment?”

The question asked is:The Second Amendment states that the right to bear arms is only guaranteed as part of a well regulated militia, so why do we ignore the militia stipulation? How did we come to interpret the amendment and ignore part of it?The second amendment ACTUALLY states: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.This is yet another egregious case of Begging the question - WikipediaBegging the question is a logical fallacy which occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning and an informal fallacy, in which an arguer makes an argument that requires the desired conclusion to be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden or at least not easily apparent.The assumed truth is this case is that “the right to bear arms is only guaranteed as part of a well regulated militia.”That proposition is not at all supported by the text of the amendment, nor by an accurate grammatical reading of the text, nor by the text of the contemporary Federalist Papers (The Complete Federalist Papers < 1786-1800 < Documents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond) nor by the text of the contemporary anti- Federalist papers nor by the text of constitutional convention debates (The Anti-Federalist Papers < 1786-1800 < Documents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond).This is basically an argument to evade the clear, specific and precise meaning of the second amendment. Which is to forbid the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.What the second amendment, and the rest of the bill of rights was and, is all about is restricting and constraining the power and authority of the federal government.This is I think further exacerbated by misunderstanding of the word “militia” and the term “well-regulated” as used in English of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.(b) The classes of the militia are—(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.Meaning of the phrase (Well regulated)The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendmentFrom: Brian T. HalonenThe following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.Then we can cite Supreme Court case law that explicitly states that the people have an individual right to bear arms.District of Columbia v. Heller - WikipediaHoldingThe Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.McDonald v. City of Chicago - WikipediaHoldingThe right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded.The contention that “the right to bear arms is only guaranteed as part of a well regulated militia” is partisan political propaganda that is not at all based on facts, or honest scholorship of American law, and should not be taken as an honest respectable position.

Based on my observations of leftists, standard right-wingers, and centrists, I have observed that many of them don't understand a few essential concepts.Self-ownershipWhat government actually isWhat rights actually areWhat America’s form of government isSelf-ownershipI own myself. I have the absolute right to do whatever I want with my thoughts, speech, ideas, labor, and body as long as I don't infringe upon the rights of others. Moralizers in most political ideologies consistently use the power of government to deny self-ownership.Social policies concerning LGBT marriage, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, vapes, suicide, and prostitution deny a person’s ownership of themselves. Economic policies such as the minimum wage, occupational licensure regulations, and rules regarding business practices deny people’s right to engage in voluntary transactions with whomever they like.People who do not own you vote for politicians who use the power of government to restrict your liberty and autonomy. How is that fair or moral? It isn't.What is government?Government is not a fuzzy all encompassing teddy bear that becomes whatever you want it to be. Government is an institution that has a monopoly on violence and coercion. It is also the only institution based on violence that is considered “good” and justified in its actions.Let’s say I own a private security firm. You didn't pay your bill and you duck my calls. I decide to break into your home at the crack of dawn, shoot your dogs, handcuff you, and put you in a steel cage. Would the average citizen be ok with what I did? No. They would demand that the institution of monopolized violence (i.e. the State) destroy me.Just take a second and think about it.This is what government does.Don’t pay your taxes? ViolenceDon’t comply with regulations? ViolenceDon’t pay required fees? ViolenceExercise your right to self-ownership and light up a joint? ViolenceOwn a gun that government deems is black and scary looking? ViolenceBuild a non-compliant structure on your own property? ViolenceI’m not saying that we should eliminate all government and become an anarchical society. I’m just asserting that people need to understand that government is monopolized violence personified. A citizen needs to be extremely careful whenever they advocate any new law or policy. The first question that must be posed is if this new idea requires using the monopolized violence of government to coerce others and infringe upon their natural rights and liberties. Unfortunately, we have become a society that is mostly apathetic to the fact that we have millions of people who casually use the violence of the state to prey upon those whom they find undesirable.What are rights?Rights are not whatever you want them to be. Healthcare, education, food, and shelter are not rights. Those things are goods and services that require somebody else’s money, ideas, and labor. No one is entitled to the fruits of somebody else’s labor just because they happen to be alive.Rights come from nature and they are negative. They exist simultaneously among all freemen. If something is actually a right, it imposes no obligation on another person. My right to free speech doesn't require somebody else to do something for me. I have a right to keep and bear arms. I buy guns and ammo if I want to. Again, no one else is obligated to do anything for me. The only thing others have to do is avoid interfering with me.Natural rights can be delegated to government as they simultaneously exist among us. I have a right to free speech, that can be delegated. However, I do not have a right to take Dave’s income and give it to Jack. Therefore, such a right cannot be delegated to government.What form of government does the U.S. have?I’m sick and tired of explaining that the United States is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Federal Presidential Republic. It is a sovereign republic made up of 50 republics. We have a democratic component in that we have universal suffrage for all adult citizens (many states don't allow felons to vote). Universal suffrage ≠ democracy.Democracy is a system of mob rule and our founders did not believe in it. A constitutional republic that gives very limited enumerated powers to the federal government largely having to do with war, diplomacy, coining money, and managing national endeavors is the form of government created by the U.S. Constitution.The Bill of Rights was added later to ensure that the people’s natural rights would not be infringed upon by the new government. This nation was not designed to be a place where the 51% could destroy the rights and liberties of the 49%. Just because a majority wants or thinks something does not mean it is right. In America, it wasn't supposed to matter. At least with regards to people’s rights and the ideal of freedom.For example: I don't care if 99% of Americans want the AR-15 banned. It is not up to them, owning a rifle is my natural right and I will exercise it as I see fit.Vivat Libertate!