Who believes the claim that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to arm militias

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Turtledude, Sep 21, 2017.

?

Was the 2nd Amendment intended to arm militias and not recognize an individual right

  1. Yes, the second amendment was designed to enable the government to arm itself

    13.9%
  2. Of course not, the bill of rights was not designed to expand the power of government

    52.8%
  3. The purpose of the second amendment was to guarantee a right the founders believed men had

    47.2%
  4. The second amendment recognized a right the founders believed pre-existed government

    69.4%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,274
    Likes Received:
    20,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    one poster has a made this claim. I know its wrong but I want to see what other people on this forum think

     
  2. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know the purpose of the
    Second Amendment.
    To protect the Right of individual ordinary citizens to keep and bear Arms.
    You do NOT have to be a member of the Militia or Army etc....

    The Second Amendment protects citizens from gun banners.
     
    Empress, 6Gunner and Turtledude like this.
  3. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,274
    Likes Received:
    20,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    well one poster claimed the he could fill a symphony hall with law professors who claim its only about the power of the government to arm an entity that it can control. of course we have yet to see any such professor named
     
    ocean515 and DoctorWho like this.
  4. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes.

    Currently there are not enough Professors at Law to fill let's say N.Y.C.'s Carnegie hall, or N.Y.C.'s Metropolitan Opera house etc.....


    " Carnegie Hall has 3,671 seats, divided among its three auditoriums."
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2017
    Turtledude likes this.
  5. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,274
    Likes Received:
    20,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    what is hilarious are people who think that the purpose of any part of the bill of rights was to give the federal government MORE power than the constitution itself gave it
     
  6. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I wouldn't be surprised if he can. So what?
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  7. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,274
    Likes Received:
    20,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He cannot because there aren't that many law professors around who come close to believing that but your point has merit
     
  8. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Funny how Gun Control advocates need to alter the intent of the Second Amendment and the intent of the Founding Fathers in order to bolster support for a failing sagging gun control agenda.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  9. tom444

    tom444 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2017
    Messages:
    3,835
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Who believes the claim that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to arm militias


    You mean besides Supreme Court justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg?

    "Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.

    We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment . The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment. In my view, it does not.


    The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests.

    .................................As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.” United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174,"

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2017
    yiostheoy likes this.
  10. tom444

    tom444 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2017
    Messages:
    3,835
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did I say that? Silly me. I meant two symphony halls.
     
  11. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The opinion of Saul Cornell is of no relevance. The matter of Heller has been settled and is now the law of the land in the united states. It does not matter how many legal scholars disagree with the argument, it does not matter how they frame the issue. The united state supreme court decided the issue, and there is no chance of it ever being overturned. Donald Trump will hold office for the next three years, meaning he will have the opportunity to appoint more united state supreme court justices who will support and potentially the Heller ruling for decades to come, just as Neil Gorsuch signaled his willingness to do.

    The matter is over, the case is closed.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  12. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is not wrong. They could have called it a right to self defense, but they didn't. The Second Amendment was in part a response to British round up of guns and in part a response to the inability to quickly gather up a militia to put down Shay's Rebellion.
     
  13. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is logic and reason behind the idea that the 2nd Amendment sought to arm the public so they could be an armed reserve militia force in times of crisis.
     
  14. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to have an armed public that could defend their homes and persons, and had nothing to do with a reserve defense force in times of crisis, it was HORRIBLY worded.
     
  15. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pennsylvania called it a right to self defense, as did Vermont. Here's what the states have had to say about the subject :

    http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
     
  16. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    E- All of the above choices

    The original intent was for the country and government to defend itself with militias, in addition to protecting our right to self defense. At that time, both of these were seen as basically the same thing, as we had formed our government as a means to protect our rights from being trampled by other governments.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2017
  17. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Really the Bill of rights should be viewed in the light of Virginia and George Mason since it is the spark notes version of Mason's Declaration of Rights, but many like to avoid Mason because it doesn't serve their cherry-picking needs.
     
  18. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Tracer is Meh. Go find us some APDS or HE tips ;)
     
  19. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why should Mason's view be the primary or sole viewpoint? Isn't that just cherry picking on your side? Didn't all states bring their proposals to the Convention, and didn't all states vote with equal voting power?
     
  20. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because that is what Thomas Jefferson based the Bill of Rights on. If George Mason had been interested in being part of the formation of the federal government, there would be no Thomas Jefferson facebook memes.
     
  21. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At the time of 2A, the USA intended to be a military isolationist nation with a minimal standing military, for which it was believed if all Americans were armed that a militia/military could quickly be assembled and if all Americans were armed an invasion would quickly be countered due to travel and mobility time involved.

    There also was no national police force and very limited numbers of law enforcement personnel in general. A militia is not only necessary for a readily available military in terms of invasion or war, but also for insurrections, criminal gangs, and to assist in enforcement of laws if there is wide scale criminal civil unrest.

    If more people were armed and if laws did not so greatly encourage apathy towards others, there would not be such a need for a massive police presence and the negatives that come along with this. If most people were essentially "community crime watch" looking out for each other there would be vastly less need for as many police.
     
  22. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fair enough.

    [Columbo turns to walk away, then pauses and turns around]

    "One more thing. Didn't Madison write the Bill of Rights?"
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  23. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,274
    Likes Received:
    20,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    bottom line, one of the reasons for an armed citizenry was so that an effective militia could be assembled quickly in response to an incursion or other threat. But to claim that the purpose of the second amendment was to give the government the power to create a militia and not to protect the right of private citizens to own arms even when they were not in the militia is an intellectual fraud. and the idea that the right only vests one one is in active service, is a claim that none of the justices were willing to support-not even Stevens who later claimed the second amendment SHOULD BE CHANGED to limit the right to those in the militia
     
    6Gunner likes this.
  24. tom444

    tom444 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2017
    Messages:
    3,835
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests.

    .................................As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.” United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174,"
     
  25. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

    Why did the decision even mention a right of a citizen to keep and bear a weapon, if that right was dependent upon membership in a militia?

    What if the court had found that the weapon did indeed have a reason relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia? Given the language above they would have found that the Second Amendment did guarantee to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
     

Share This Page