Second Amendment and Rules of Construction

"Militia" is mentioned only six times in the Constitution. None of them require the states to perpetually keep a standing military organization or even a militia.

Again, you're arguing constitutional rhetoric and you fail to observe the fact that the prefatory clause is not a qualifier of the actual right. Such an interpretation is totally non-existent in common legalese and was never the original intent. The purpose of a prefatory clause is to serve as a rationalization for why the right is given. That the conditions that inspired the right have changed is irrelevant. One cannot just dispense with articles of the Constitution just because they're out dated. The statement is clear. Every Supreme Court since the dawn of the nation has called it as an obvious fact that individual citizens are constitutionally guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.

If you want that changed, that's one thing. But I can't see how you can dispense with common interpretation and original intent because of convenience.

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

These are the word's and quotes and news articles, from the Time of the of the Writing of the Constitution, written, and spoken and recorded for posterity, and no were does the Idea that the Government can disarm the People, no matter the excuse, find voice, it is always the People in these Word, Quotes and Articles, who are to Keep and Bear Arms, it is the Government that is instructed to not Infringe on that Right of the People, and it is the Government that is restricted from having a standing army, or a select militia.

So now tell me that they didn't mean for the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms, Tell me that Samuel Adams the signer to the Constitution didn't know what he was Saying or Meant

Yes, grasshopper, so you still wish to be a slave:

So now explain Federalist paper No.46, were it states:

Federalist Paper No. 46.

At that time, and today every other government on earth has a Military/Standing Army, and, it is stated that the advantage of the People of America is that they unlike the people of almost every other country in the world have the advantage of being armed.

Again every other Nation at that time already had standing armies, but the subject of those countries did have the right to keep or bear arms out side of Government Military service, The Second Amendment made that right, the right to Keep and Bear Arms, a Right of the People, not the Government.

So the Federalist No. 46, written at the time of the passage of the Constitution say the Right belongs to the People, not the Government.

Federalist Paper No. 28.

Federalist Paper No. 29

Yah, we know who the hack is and it isn't me, keep on dancing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't want it changed - I support it.

As times change (especially as rapidly as they have been the past 50 years) amendments are not always necessary when the original intention is still valid and clear - this is why it is a vague framework, not a collection of specific statutes.

What the intention was - as you pionted out, it is very clearly stated in the clause and further elaborated upon by the founding fathers and quite clear in an historical context.

The federal government will not stand in the way of the states protecting themselves from a tyrranical Federal Republic (or other states, for that matter) and allowing themselves to be prepared to take up arms against such tyrranical leaders.
States are allowed to have their own fighting forces and the Federal Republic is not allowed to stand in the way of that.

That is the prupose the National Guard serves today, so the Federal Government can not stand in the way of the states arming and controlling their own National Guard forces.

Even if you want to argue that it is regarding arming individual citizens, it STILL only applies to the Federal Government not restricting the states from allowing their citizens to carry guns - it does NOT equate to an individual's right to carry a gun and does not restrict a state from revoking that right form its own citizens.
It is saying that the Federal Government can not tell a state they they can not allow their citizens to arm themselves - it is NOT saying that states HAVE TO allow their citizens to be armed.
As I said in the beginning, this is a State's Rights issue.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But is that right out dated? just read the daily papers, murders, crime, assaults, disasters, looting, terrorism, the Federal Government moving deeper in to our daily lives, controlling our finances, our right's, to our own property, and the use of that property, is the Second Amendment really out dated?.........I Know that it is Not.

 

The point is that the states should be able to protect themselves:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
And the Federal Government can not infringe upon that right:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

This does not say that the states can not prevent their citizens from carrying guns, it says that the Federal Government can not prevent the states from allowing their citizens to carry guns.
It is up to the states to determine whether gun-control laws should be passed - not the Federal Government.

 

You are correct in that it was originally intended to govern the relationship between the citizen and the Federal Government. But you are wrong that it NOW applies to the relationship between the citizen and the state. Your legal interpretation has failed to take into consideration the strictures of the XIV Amendment.

After the Civil War, the USA decided that it was time to force the states to accept the Bill of Rights as legally binding to them as well. The XIV Amendment effectively forced the states to govern themselves in the same way as the federal government. This was the intended effect by both way of wording and by way and of the spirit of the XIV Amendment.

For example: The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Notice the key word was "Congress". Before the XIV Amendment the states could actually (and DID have) laws that required people to take religious oaths before being elected. Restricted the number of Jews in appointed state office. Required the bible for school studies. Had anti-sedition laws. This was accepted and was common practice and was the original intent of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had no issue with the individual states acting harshly, but they feared an all powerful federal government.

The XIV Amendment (which was adopted some time later) clearly states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[pay close attention to the underlined part]

The specific intent of the XIV Amendment was to totally force the states to accept the bill of rights as pertaining to their relationship with individual citizens. With this event, the Second Amendment no longer existed to protect individual citizens from Federal encroachment, but from State encroachment as well.

Again, this is the accepted contemporary interpretation and was precisely the effect desired by the original intent of the XIV Amendment.

~String

 

All of them do. Nothing special about mine.

The modern National Guard would be instantly recognized as an army, an unusually well trained and professional one, in 1790.

No, the definition of a "militia" has nothing to do with the level of organization. The militias in Iraq today, for example - they are called militias, because that's the term for such entities - have nothing to do with any "States".

They are militias because they are not professionally organized and trained and equipped by the government. In 1790 in the US they brought their weapons from home. In 2007 in Iraq the same.

I doubt that very much. Their level of professionalism exceeds that of most armies of the time. And they get paid. And they are under professional Federal military command. And so forth.

But even granted, they are not an exhaustive list.

And the fact remains that the right to keep and bear arms was not granted to the states, or the militias themselves, or any such entity: it was granted to the people.

And that intention was to protect the right of individual citizens to keep and bear such arms as would be required to form a "well-regulated militia", whenever the need arose.

You can make a pretty good case for private ownership of assault rifles from that. You can make no case at all that people might be denied the right to keep and bear arms.

 

The Fourteenth Amendment was about ensuring that the states follow a common code of conduct considering human rights issues that were seen as universal.
It was to make sure that all states do not make laws that supercede laws at the federal level.
It was to make sure that rights afforded to the people by the Federal Government were not superceded by the laws of the states.
It has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, because, as you stated, the Second Amendment was not about the Federal Government ensuring a right of the people, rather it was about ensuring the rights of the states.

The Second Amendment was put in place to ensure the protection of the states from the Federal Government - the Fourteenth Amendment was put in place to ensure the protection of the citizens from State Governments.

 

That completely ignores the qualifier:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Just as you are completely ignoring the fact that they were referring to State Militias.
Just as you are comlpletely ignoring the fact that State National Guard Forces are under the control of the state, not the Federal Government.
Who is teh Commander in Chief of the National Guard in your state?
In mine (and if I am not mistaken, every other state) it is the Governor of the state.

 

When you remove the People from their rights, you have change the Constitution Fundamentally.

No, it is not the States, read it again, read the Federalist papers, it is the People who the Constitution does not stand in the way of defending themselves from the Federal Government, or even the State Government.

None of the Quotes of the Founders, or Articles written by them in the New Papers, or the Federalist Papers give any right to the Government, State or Federal, to disarm the people, nor do they ever state that the people shall ever be disarmed, they clearly state that the People are to be the ones armed.

The word People is forever the defining noun, The People, in every Quote, Every Bill of Right, every article, and every Federalist Paper, Not the State, Not the Federal Government, But the People.........and the State is not the People, it is a Government Entity, and the National Government, is a Federal Entity, and they are not the People.

That one Word....PEOPLE, is the defining word for the Bill of Rights, it is that single word, THE PEOPLEthat destroys all your pretensions as to the Second Amendment being a State Collective Right, and not wanting to fundamentally changing the Constitution, it is That word People which destroys, the Idea of the implementation of a Standing Militia, a Select Militia, which the National Guard is.

It is the People who are to bring their own arms, those weapons can be regulated as to caliber, and military usage, but the Arms are purchased and belong to the Citizen's THE PEOPLE, and are not drawn from military stores, the only thing that the Government supplies is the ammunition, after the initial supply brought by The Individual is Expended, then the Government replaces all rounds expended by the individual.

In the National Guard the weapons belong to the Federal Government, not the People, and are under regulation of the Federal Government, they cannot be issued with out Military permission, and must be stored and secured under Federal Military Regulation, the weapons are not even owned by the States, so how then can the People be Armed?

The Militia is to be armed at all time, so as to be able to respond to any situation with out having to wait for the issue of Arms.

That Sir is the Militia.

The Right of the PEOPLE shall not be in fringed, not the "right of the State shall not be infringed", but the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

There were City Militias, County Militias, there were even Militias formed from Churches and Social Clubs, but there were no state militias, all militia were from towns, and counties, even the States had to call up the Militias from the Cities and Counties, name me one State militia from Colonial Times, there were none.

 

That's not a qualifier, and no it doesn't. It specifically takes it into account, as perfectly explanatory. For one thing, it settles any lingering questions about what kinds of weapons the people may keep and bear - the kinds involved in their forming a well-regulated militia capable of defending the security of their State, should the need arise.

In my state, much of the National Guard is currently under the command of George W Bush and his delegated authorities in Iraq. My Governor is not involved in their activities, nor is my State paying for their deployment there.

And where did I ignore the fact that the "National" Guard is organized by State? I deny that State level organization is a defining feature of militias. They can be organized at almost any level - in Iraq, by church.

 

Nice evasion of the question.
Running for office?

They were deployed to assist the Army in a time of need - which the Governor had to agree to because the Governor is the Commander in Chief of your state's National Guard force - they are NOT a US Federal Military force.

 

Wrong as usual. First off you ignored my statement in which i say it is a individual right. Secondly by ignoring my reference to the swiss system of firearm ownership leads me to believe either A. you haven't the foggiest idea what the swiss system entails(which is odd considering what the system entails.) or B. You don't really believe in gun ownership you just fight for it because the left is viewed to be against gun ownership. Thirdly, yes we know who the hack is and it is you. Still stupid, still a fool, and still dancing.

 

Well then explain this?

In your own words you state that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a implied collective right:

Now please define what you think this Swiss System is?

Having been on Liason Missions with the Swiss Army, I do not ever remember this Swiss System? Or that it has any bearing on the Right of the Individual as a Individual to Keep and Bear Arms personnel arms, in the United States

The Swiss weapons are issued by the Government, and as such can be recalled by the Government, and there is now a push on in Switzerland to do just that or remove the ammunition and in doing so render the weapon useless.

All in the name of crime control, and in repudiation of the porcupine approach, to defence of the Swiss State.

You have all of these strange concepts that seem only known by you, and you offer no citation in support of your obtuse rational, you just keep dancing, and dodging and weaving, you must be a expert at duck and cover.

 

The 'unorganised militia' was, and is comprised, of well-bodied adult males. These men had private firearms, and would be liable to being conscripted in event of war. Private cannons and warships, however, were regulated against. This said, even if the last clause is subordinate, it is unambiguous in the practical meaning of the first clauses, to wit: the right of who? (the people) to do what? (keep and bear arms) shall not be what? (infringed).

An elementary survey will show that arms borne by the federal armies have done far more damage and inflicted far more horror on a global scale than the arms borne by private persons within the confines of the US, even including the use of such arms when possessed illegally.

 

You're wrong, One Raven, it was written specifically to ensure that the Bill of Rights applied to the states as well. That was the intent of the writers, and that was the result. It is the common interpretation as well. As I stated, which point you ignored, the First Amendment also was about the Federal Government ("Congress") but it was later intended to apply to the states through the adoption of the XIV amendment.

This is why, the Fourteenth Amendment says, "..nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is was accepted at the time of its writing as the intent, and has continued to be the accepted intent.

Based upon what source to you make your assumption? The "equal protection of the laws" specifically was intended to bind the Bill of Rights as applying to the states as well.

~String

 

:roflmao:

Hell I've owned you since day one, it's just that you are to OBTUSE to realize it.

You lost, you have backed nothing you claim and insite, with citation from the U.S. Constitution or The Federalist Papers, or even from the News Articles of the time, as they all talk about the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

Even your definitions are spurious.


Now these are the definitions as recognized by Dicyonary and common usage.

People;

1. the entire body of persons who constitute a community

persons:

1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child:

2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

3. Sociology. an individual human being, esp. with reference to his
or her social relationships and behavioral patterns conditioned by
the culture.

Keep:

1. to maintain control of

2. to maintain control of

3. to hold under control

4. to hold or retain in one's possession

 

Mod Note: PJ Dude, Buffalo has been arguing his point without calling you names. He's not an "idiot" for not agreeing with or accepting your point of view. If you can't deal with a difference of opinions, then just don't debate. Simple.

 

He not an idiot for not agreeing with. He is an idiot for for trying to tell me what my point is. I have very strong reasons for treating him the way I do.