Why are modern gun owners so willing to throw the 2nd Amendment under the bus?

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Galileo, Nov 19, 2016.

  1. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Bill of Rights Guarantees Individual Rights,
    The Right to free speech.
    The Right to keep and bear Arms.
    The Right to remain silent, the Right to an Attorney etc.....
    Those Anti-Gun advocates they try and negate individual Rights in favor of Collective Rights and State Power & Authority.

    The truth is; The Founding Fathers did not place trust in Government and sought that balance Government Power with The Rights of The People, and that was the individual Right to keep and bear Arms, the Right of The People to form
    The Militia, composed of unpaid Volunteers, bearing Arms without any infringement, able to respond to local disaster without any need of a standing Army, which the Founding Fathers distrusted.

    The Militia was The People, which in no wise should be restricted or infringed or regulated as far as keeping and bearing Arms and all the other Freedoms guaranteed us by the Bill of Rights.
     
  2. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You don't seem to have a very good understanding of the role that preambles played in the interpretation of law during the 18th Century.

    "39. Modern debate over the Second Amendment has devoted considerable attention to the role of the preamble, which asserted the need for a well-regulated militia. Eugene Volokh, 'The Commonplace Second Amendment,' NYU Law Review 73 (1998): 793–821, erroneously claims that lawyers in the eighteenth century treated preambles and proems as mere justification clauses rather than as explanations of the purpose of a particular statute or constitutional provision; on this point, see David T. Konig, 'The Second Amendment: A Missing Transatlantic Context for the Historical Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms,' Law and History Review 22 (2004): 119–59. On the evolution of the amendment's language, see Cogan, Complete Bill of Rights, 169–80. Cogan notes that some transcriptions of the amendment's final language capitalize the first letters of militia and arms. Rather than capitalize them, Cogan concludes that the versions with this orthography are printers' errors with the letters slightly out of alignment. For a good introduction to eighteenth-century theories of statutory construction, see William D. Popkin, Statutes in Court: The History and Theory of Statutory Interpretation (Durham, N.C., 1999). Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765; repr. Chicago, 1979), 1: 58–60; Giles Jacob, The Student's Companion: or, the Reason of the Laws of England (London, 1725), 191–92."
    https://books.google.com/books?id=f...#v=onepage&q=saul cornell giles jacob&f=false
     
  3. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the 2nd is neutral, and the 10th is explicit, where does the federal government draw its power to regulate the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

    The government is free to regulate the militia. It is not empowered to regulate the right of the people. It has taken powers it isn't granted but is still limited in restricting firearm ownership by Millet and Heller, and the states by McDonald.
     
  4. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
  5. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

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

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is that the 2nd amendment does not state "the militia" but "a militia"? You refer to "the militia" but that's not what the 2nd stipulates.
     
  7. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You're splitting hairs. It is stating a general truth about the importance of a well regulated militia- a truth that is certainly applicable to the militia in Article I.
     
  8. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What makes his opinion more valid than those of the gun community?
     
  9. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Barring evidence to prove conclusively that the private use of firearms, for purposes outside of officially recognized militia purposes, was actually prohibited by law and a punishable offense, the above holds no actual relevance to discussion.

    There is simply no evidence to be found that would even suggest those who did not participate with the militia were legally prohibited from owning and using firearms, or that said firearms were confiscated for noncompliance, or that those who were too young, too old, or not the correct gender for militia service were prohibited from owning and using firearms. Without such evidence to show that the founding fathers linked firearms ownership with militia servitude, there is no basis for this discussion to take place.
     
  10. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,274
    Likes Received:
    20,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    you confuse what "well regulated" means. It has noting to do with federal regulation
     
  11. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At the time of the drafting and ratification of the second amendment, the phrase "well-regulated" was read as meaning in good working and functional order. At best this would mean the original intent of the second amendment was to provide every able-bodied individual with free firearms training to the public so that they could actually hit a target if need be.
     
  12. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,274
    Likes Received:
    20,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Galileo is a gun banner He is not going to accept the fact that the second amendment was intended to be a blanket prohibition on federal action concerning the private use, possession and ownership of arms
     
  13. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The original draft, by Madison, was: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country." The second clause is dependent on the first, and the first is independent of the second. While the order of the reading was reversed, the militia clause still remains a weak dependent upon the right of the people clause.

    The first phrase (...Militia...) of the current amendment does not limit the second phrase. It's participle "being" simply emphasizes the reason for the amendment to be in the BoR. Imagine if the Constitution were to say "The car tires being flat, the right of the people to walk shall not be infringed". Would it make sense then that if the car tires were filled, Congress could infringe upon the right to walk? No one denies that the people have the right to walk, but if the car tires are flat, then people are just going to have to walk. Similarly, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and if the militia needs to be called out, the people will need their arms.
     
  14. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,435
    Likes Received:
    51,249
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't seem to have a very good understanding of the fact that the Supreme Court has already investigated and ruled on this. Our framers made it very clear, the Federal Government does not have the power to disarm the people.

    "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "

    -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
     
  15. 10A

    10A Chief Deplorable Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    5,698
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Also from Federalist 29:
    An interesting choice of words, "people at large", not "militia" and he used "militia" throughout Federalist 29. You should read it all instead of taking a snippet from some left wing site. In context, Hamilton was calling for DECREASED regulation (which doesn't mean what you think it does anyway, and you're willfully ignorant on the real meaning) because militia can't be expected to work as efficiently, i.e. not as well-regulated, as a standing army. He argued militia have their own professions to attend to and don't have free time to participate in regulation.

    He went further, making a case for citizens to have military grade weapons:
    Do you agree with Hamilton's sentiments now?

    He even mentioned anti-gunners, unknowingly:
    All of this even before the Bill of Rights, which Hamilton opposed.
     
  16. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    If Hamilton had had his way the Second Amendment never would have been added to the Constitution. So is his own personal opinion about how practical it was to create and maintain a well regulated militia composed of the general citizenry really that relevant? I only brought up Federalist 29 to show that regulation means regulation by the government. Hamilton was an 18th Century American who spoke 18th Century English so he would have understood the meaning of the word.
     
  17. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It was far from being a unanimous decision. Some of the justices wrote very strong dissents. The Supreme Court has been wrong before. Do you agree with the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling?

    That proposal by Samuel Adams was rejected by his contemporaries. Read it and weep:

    "For a complete picture of the sentiment of the day, it would have been helpful for Peroutka to include the context and the fact that the Massachusetts convention failed to approve this language. Furthermore, Adams’ reference to 'peaceable citizens' could be taken as a qualification on the right to bear arms. In his NRB broadcast, Peroutka argues that the founders believed possession of arms was a deterrent to government tyranny. However, it could be argued that Adams was not referring to citizens who were seditious or who did not keep the peace."
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warren...-george-washington-quote-on-second-amendment/
     
  18. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Social pressure.
     
  19. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    2nd Amendment was, is and will be always a matter of different interpretations at least.

    However, what I learned as foreigner in this forum about gun law in the USA is much! First is that the complete culture of the USA in this matter is a total other one as in most other countries. For so many it makes no difference if someone collects guns as hobby and has a bunch of them or if someone collects postal stamps.
    Secondly it is totally OK that young people are not allowed to drink alcohol under age 2, but to have an own gun or (depending to states) handling even with age 12 or so together with his father. In my opinion strange if a US Marine age 19 can be sent into war to Afghanistan but he is not allowed to make "party" with his mates and drink alcohol!

    And third and finally ... if you ever start any discussion about if this is correct as it is, you will have a problem. So ... ehm ... no! Hold your gun law as it is if you want it, but no whining after next amok run and for sure no playing the teacher to others who have other opinions about in world.
     
  20. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We know exactly how the government felt about regulation, as they passed exactly zero laws to limit firearms ownership in any way. They certainly didn't feel that the Bill of Rights was in violate as they passed the Alien and Sedition Acts to limit free speech. Even with the recent history of the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion no gun laws were passed. There's no record of any even proposed to Congress.

    Hamilton wasn't opposed to the 2nd Amendment; he was opposed to a Bill of Rights, believing that the Constitution already protected the rights of the states and people through the limits on government enumerated in the Constitution. The AntiFederalists felt the without further enumeration those rights wouldn't be specifically protected. We're finding both to be true - the federal government is trying to restrict those rights, as the Anti-Federalists feared, and they're using the wording of the enumerated protection to try to do so as the Federalists feared.
     
  21. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,435
    Likes Received:
    51,249
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course not. It did not secure the fundamental rights of people, which is the first purpose of government.

    The second amendment guarantees the individual's right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. For you to argue the converse is simply to take complete leave of your senses.

    The Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense. How you fail to understand this is beyond comprehension.

    "The People" secured by the Second Amendment are the same "People" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection. It's positions like yours that assure the majority of Americans that "Progressives" are vile evil dangerous people who would strip us of our Constitutional Rights, and of course, we won't support folks like that at the election box. That is why you have lost the entire South and recently lost much of the Midwest. You may soon find yourself a regional rump Party hiding out in California and West Coast and few hold out regions of "dead-enders" in the NorthEast..
     
  22. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

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

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
    The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right."

    " Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

    Breyer
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html
    “ Thus I here assume that one objective (but, as the majority concedes, ante, at 26, not the primary objective) of those who wrote the Second Amendment was to help assure citizens that they would have arms available for purposes of self-defense.”
     
  23. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow. A huge pile of nonsense. Congrats.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Which as no effect whatsoever on right to keep and bear arms held by the people.

    A statement you make knowing you cannot support it in any way.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Fallacy: appeal to authority

    - - - Updated - - -

    Which, again, has no effect whatsoever on the right to keep and bear arms as held by the people.
     
  24. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Non sequitur

    - - - Updated - - -

    None if this is in any way relevant to the right to keep and bear arms as held by the people.
     
  25. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When it is read that way, the result is this:
    The Second Amendment protects an individual 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
     

Share This Page