Second Amendment and Rules of Construction

And still today, I think.

So?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Excuse me but I am very familiar with current and past sentence, rule and law construction. the time frame the amendment was written and by whom the meaning was exceptionally clear.

(A well equiped Militia being neccesary for the secuirity of the free state,)
This is bascially filler to let people know why the following law is termed as it is.

(the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.)

Meaning that the People already had the right to bear arms, it's not a granted right but an inalienable right, and that no governmental force has the ability to limit it in any way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Filler?
How much more "filler" is in there?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I suppose you missed the Keep part of keep and bear arms.......

 

Dude you have already been proven dead wrong by the very words of the people who framed the constitution. So if i were you i would simply duck out.

 

You're not me.
Nor are you correct.

 

So the current structure of the National Guard has replaced the antiquated notions of how Militias used to be run, and are now the defacto standard of civilian-soldier forces in this country.
The National Guard IS the Militia.
As it was pointed out, it is not a requirement for soldiers to supply their own weapons for a civilian-soldier force to be a Militia.
A Militia is a military force (in this case, a well-regulated military force) made up of citizen soldiers, as opposed to full-time soldiers.
This was written as a direct response to our having to take up arms against the British army and the rights of the states to do the same to protect themselves from a tyrranical federal government with a standing professional military force.
Back then, state's rights meant a lot more than it does now - this really was a collection of independent states under the umbrella of a federal republic at the time.
At the time it was written, this was still a quite rural, sparcely populated country - and the states were poor.
The states could not afford to have state funded and armed Militas, nor were they necessary, except in times of state peril.
It was the charge of the citizens to be ready to defend their states, if necessary - thus, they would need to be armed.

NOW, the Militias are the National Guard forces - state armed and state funded.
They are still non-professional military forces under control of the states.
The Second Amendment bars the federal government from restricting the states to have, keep, and arm the citizen soldiers of their Militia forces.

When the amendment was written, most states considered every able bodied man a Militia member.
Until and unless the various states begin to consider every citizen a member of their respective National Guard forces, the second amendment DOES NOT APPLY across the board.

There would not be the qualifier of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" if this was about individual rights to bear arms. This is strictly an issue of the states to retain the rights to take up arms in their own defense and allowing their citizens to carry guns if those citizens are members of the state's WELL REGULATED Militia.

 

missed it? its what i am talking about.

and legal documents aren't known for their filler.

 

Then why did they include anything about "the individual" if they just meant the militia? Why bother ever mentioning "individual"?

Baron Max

 

Sorry the you are being totally obtuse, you know shit about the common usage of the times, in the Common usage of the time the phrase:

Right of "The People" means the means the individual, not the state, and especially the Federal Government.

If this was suppose to give only the right to the Government, State or Federal, the phrase "Right of the People" would never have appeared.

Now if "The People" in the Second Amendment are not the individual, then please explain how the "Right of the People" means the individual in the rest of the Bill of Rights?

Give us your erudite insight as to why "The Right of the People" in the Second Amendment, doesn't mean the Individual? Just as "The Right of the People"
means the individual in the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Now also explains the phrase "Bill of Rights" only the People have rights.

Your still dancing, faster and faster.

 

I'm not denying the phrase right of the people is in their but you cannot ignore phrases that imply a group right. It is rather clear that what the 2nd admendment is saying is something close to the swiss system. It an individual right to ensure the safety of a collective right.


Typical right wing hack only look at what you think supports you claims.

 

You are completely incorrect.

 

Well, I guess that settles it, then.
Thank you, oh wise oracle, for so clearly showing me the error of my foolish ways.

 

Hey, Raven, why didn't you answer my previous question?

Then why did they include anything about "the individual" if they just meant the militia? Why bother ever mentioning "individual" at all?

Baron Max

 

Funny that "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" part, which tends to say otherwise. Moreover, even the writers of the constitution saw fit to allow citizens -- militiamen and not -- to keep whatever arms they wanted (including women and children). No restrictions. No quid pro quos. Nothing. Have whatever guns you wanted. Militia service not required. That was the intent, and that was the result. That the founding father could have never foreseen our contemporary issues is irrelevant. The Constitution, in its ambiguities, is quite open to interpretation; where it spells out clear immunities, there is no second guessing.

The Second Amendment is pretty clear. Even the writers and judges who were native to the time stated that the first phrase of the Second Amendment (the part about the militia, also known as the Prefatory Clause) is not a re-requisite or a qualifier to the second (the part that includes the "right to keep and bear arms"). It was held, and has been correctly held, that the first phrase serves as a clarification of purpose and even without that purpose the second phrase does not become invalid. One, does not depend upon the other. Only some twisted, Machiavellian re-interpretation of the Constitution (and why not, it's already happening now) will cause the Second Amendment to be dispensed with altogether.

What gun regulation advocates should be petitioning for is a democratic change to the Constitution and not some kritocratic mandate that jettisons the Bill of Rights out of hand. Since the possibility of the American public getting behind an amendment that restricts freedom is slim-to-none, we both know how far such an attempt would go. So like all good elitists they'll just add fuel to the fire that is burning the Constitution in front of our very eyes and attempt to get the Supreme Court to just do away with the amendment through deceit and chicanery.

~String

 

You present an argument for changing the Constitution, to reflect our more modern methods of assembling militia,which you claim have superseded the old ways - at least in the US, as they are clearly not superseded elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the Constitution is clear: the right of the people, the constituents of a militia as it was known then, as everyone knew it then, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Until changed, that's the document. It may be outdated, quaint, etc, but it does not mean other than what it says therefore.

 

Exactly what I am saying.
Are you a Milita member?

 

Yep. See Echo's definition, part two.

The National Guard is a professional standing military force, btw, nationally organized and commanded, formally equipped and trained. Not a militia, as the word would have been understood by anyone in 1790.

 

What group rigth? The Right of the People to Bear Arms, so they can form a Malitia not the Government.

This is why the Bill or Rights of the People was added:

The National Guard is a select Militia, one that answers to the Federal Government.

The Militia is the people, and the Government has to call them up, and guess what?, they can refuse that call up, if they don't belive that such actions are necessary by the Government, The National Guard cannot refuse call up for Federal service, they are under the UCMJ and are subject to Military Rile and Regulation.

The only hack here is the one dancing all around the truth, yopu have become very good at doing so.

 

Really?
I highly doubt it.
How "well organized" is it?
When were the last drills?
What state do you live in that they still have a Militia made up of all citizens?

The state National Guards are state funded AND state organized and self described Militia forces and the members are citizen-soldiers - this is what a Militia is today.
The definition of Militia is and was a fighting force funded by and under control of the state made up by non-professional citizen soldiers for protection of the state.
Anyone from 1790 would also recognize today's National Guard forces as Militias.

To try and argue that the state national Guards are not Militias, then what you are really saying is that all the states are in violation of the constitution, because it calls for every state to have a Militia.