Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/17/2004 1:33:20 PM EST
Take a look at this. It's a LONG read.

groups.google.com/groups?q=guns&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.*&selm=3DC04962.5940B2BA%40krulick.com&rnum=5

This guy argues that the 2A is about the militia, and it is well written and full of historical references.

It's an old newsgroup thread from 2002, but I find his arguments somewhat disturbing.

So, let's see some of you historical and Constitutional scholars tear this argument down as effectively as he built it up.

Here are a couple of snippets to whet your appetite:


The term was a verb phrase, analogous today to one like
"practice medicine." Sure, if you mistakenly break down the
phrases you can get bear=carry + arms=guns = carry guns, or
practice=keep trying + medicine=pills in a bottle = keep trying
pills in a bottle. But any literate person today knows that
"practice medicine" means to serve as a doctor, just as any
literate person of 1790 knew that "bear arms" meant to serve as
a soldier.




Had they wanted to be more broad and inclusive, the framers
could have "clearly" written something as simple as "The right
of individuals to own and carry guns shall not be infringed."
That they didn't write that, in itself speaks volumes. The first
two phrases are not window dressing, or "subordinate" clauses,
in the legal sense, rather than the grammatical sense.


"Main" clause is a grammatical, NOT a legal term; there IS no
subordinate "clauses" in Constitutional interpretation... the
law MUST be interpreted in its entirety. The ENTIRE 2nd Amen is
rightly seen as a militia amendment, not a gun amendment,
particularly when the phrase "bear arms" is properly understood
as MEANING "serve as soldier," which is the RIGHT the particular
individuals who qualify to serve have -- to serve in the
STATE-RUN militias -- and it is THAT right the feds can't
infringe upon.

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 1:53:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 1:54:42 PM EST by Sodie]
It says, keep and bear arms, not just bear arms. Keep = Own.

The term "well regulated" in 18th century English means well equipped.

And also it is "the right of the people" singular not the rights of the government. The exact same language as in the First, Second, Fourth and Ninth Amendments.

Is that guy going to start calling freedom of speech or religion or freedom from illegal search and seizure a "collective" right too?


Amendment I

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.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 1:57:08 PM EST
I'm not a Constitutional scholar but here is my opinion.



Originally Posted By Riotgun:
Take a look at this. It's a LONG read.

groups.google.com/groups?q=guns&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.*&selm=3DC04962.5940B2BA%40krulick.com&rnum=5

This guy argues that the 2A is about the militia, and it is well written and full of historical references.

It's an old newsgroup thread from 2002, but I find his arguments somewhat disturbing.

So, let's see some of you historical and Constitutional scholars tear this argument down as effectively as he built it up.

Here are a couple of snippets to whet your appetite:


The term was a verb phrase, analogous today to one like
"practice medicine." Sure, if you mistakenly break down the
phrases you can get bear=carry + arms=guns = carry guns, or
practice=keep trying + medicine=pills in a bottle = keep trying
pills in a bottle. But any literate person today knows that
"practice medicine" means to serve as a doctor, just as any
literate person of 1790 knew that "bear arms" meant to serve as
a soldier.



Some words do have different meanings depending on their context. Hell, Gay used to mean HAPPY. Tell someone that you're gay today and they think you're homosexual. I'm surprised this tool did'nt say "To Bear Arms" meant to wear a short sleeve shirt ASSHAT




Had they wanted to be more broad and inclusive, the framers
could have "clearly" written something as simple as "The right
of individuals to own and carry guns shall not be infringed."
That they didn't write that, in itself speaks volumes. The first
two phrases are not window dressing, or "subordinate" clauses,
in the legal sense, rather than the grammatical sense.

In all other cases, where the FF stated"THE PEOPLE, they were referring to exactly that, THE PEOPLE! Think about the language that lawyers use. Nobody actually talks that way. Law ahs always been worded differently than plain words. ASSHAT 2



"Main" clause is a grammatical, NOT a legal term; there IS no
subordinate "clauses" in Constitutional interpretation... the
law MUST be interpreted in its entirety. The ENTIRE 2nd Amen is
rightly seen as a militia amendment, not a gun amendment,
particularly when the phrase "bear arms" is properly understood
as MEANING "serve as soldier," which is the RIGHT the particular
individuals who qualify to serve have -- to serve in the
STATE-RUN militias -- and it is THAT right the feds can't
infringe upon.




Bear Arms means, CARRYING A WEAPON. If you are a lawman and you BEAR A SHIELD, it means that you are wearing, or CARRYING A BADGE! Militias were not always state run, and our FF clearly stated that it would be dangerous if we had a STANDING ARMY at home in times of peace. The National Guard IS A STANDING ARMY! ASSHAT 3

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 1:59:36 PM EST
I guess that moron never read any of the writings, of our Founders.......

It is CLEAR they meant an individual right applied to the "People".

End of story.........

Don't need a Moron, or a Judge, to tell me what my GOD-GIVEN Rights are!!!!!!

Sheesh...........

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 2:01:04 PM EST
Actually,"well regulated" has more to do with being trained or "adjusted" as in "regulate your sights" then it does with being equipted. Basically, in a nut shell, people were to own and practice with military arms so that in the event of war they'd be ready to serve their country when it called them to action.
Just think of how easy it'd be if every person that entered the military today had been shooting an M16a2 since they were old enough to hold a firearm. There'd be very little "regulating" for the Army to do with reguard to shooting.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 3:25:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 3:26:32 PM EST by Skibane]
In the United States Constitution, the word "state" (in the context of a governmental entity) appears 83 times. Conversely, the phrase "the people" appears only 9 times — a scarcity that suggests it was purposefully chosen in those 9 instances.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 3:33:14 PM EST
Rights are for people, powers are for states.

Saying that the right to keep and bear arms is for the state to have a National Guard is like saying that the:

First Amendment's guarantee of the right of the people peaceably to assemble is only for police unions to have picket lines.
Fourth Amendment's guarantee of The right of the people to be secure is a protection of the state against FOIA requests.
Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers is twice stated to the states.
Fifteenth Amendment guarantee of The right of citizens of the United States to vote is for the state to have a registrar of voters.
This is echoed in the Nineteenth Amendment so that the state's registrar of voters can compile lists of females that want to vote.
The Twenty Fourth Amendment is for the registrar of voters to compile lists of people that may have been taxed to vote.
The Twenty Sixth Amendment is for the registrar of voters to compile lists of people that wanted to vote when they were 18.

Ask him how he can confuse an individual right in one place but recognize it everywhere else? It is not consistent that the Founding Fathers would put a reference to a power of the state in with the enumeration of individual rights when that was the concern that lead to the creation of the Bill of Rights.

My 2¢,

wganz

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 3:33:18 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 3:37:26 PM EST
I fully believe that the second amendment was created not only to preserve our right to own firearms but as a national defense strategy. plain and simple.

Some stupid country makes the mistake of attempting an invasion of the USA and actually gets inland... where is the first place an anti gun retard is going to head.. TO SOME GUN OWNERS HOUSE!
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 3:40:37 PM EST
This is the best explanation of the second ammendment I've ever heard. It's an analogy, a technically correct analogy. It's not my creation but it's worth repeating:

An educated populace, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

Think about it!
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 4:04:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 4:04:59 PM EST by Hydguy]
It's really easy: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.

End of story.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 4:08:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 4:10:11 PM EST by Palo_Duro]
THE MOST IMPORTANT COMMA IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS!



Link Posted: 9/17/2004 4:09:09 PM EST
Militia is the people.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 4:16:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 4:21:30 PM EST by Tortfeasor]
This is the only argument you need. Check mate, my friend! YOU WIN! What follows is the United States Code - the FEDERAL LAW OF THE US, enforceable both in state and federal courts!

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311. Next

Sec. 311. - 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
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 4:18:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tortfeasor:
This is the only argument you need.

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311. Next

Sec. 311. - 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




Which means everyone. Good post, torf.

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 4:27:09 PM EST
Did anyone actually READ the entire post in the link?

You've got some nice one liners, but I have yet to see anyone post a detailed refutation with specific historical citations to back up your "opinions".

I'm not trying to inflame anyone, I'm trying to make you WORK to win anti-gun arguments. If we don't become students of history, then we will FAIL in our arguments against those who are students of history. Even when they selectively quote history while ignoring the relevant parts of it.

Come on, I KNOW someone here can do better. If I were to post a thread about whether bikinis were sexier than one piece bathing suits, you guys would pick apart every fucking line of my post and refute it with a paragraph.

Well, do that now.

P.S. Mike Mills, I'm going to start a new thread about analogies.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 4:40:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By Riotgun:
Did anyone actually READ the entire post in the link?

You've got some nice one liners, but I have yet to see anyone post a detailed refutation with specific historical citations to back up your "opinions".

I'm not trying to inflame anyone, I'm trying to make you WORK to win anti-gun arguments. If we don't become students of history, then we will FAIL in our arguments against those who are students of history. Even when they selectively quote history while ignoring the relevant parts of it.

Come on, I KNOW someone here can do better. If I were to post a thread about whether bikinis were sexier than one piece bathing suits, you guys would pick apart every fucking line of my post and refute it with a paragraph.

Well, do that now.

P.S. Mike Mills, I'm going to start a new thread about analogies.



OK brother, let me get this strait - you are actually hung up on the guy's argument about what the framers DIDN"T write? OK, I got a bunch of stuff they didn't write, like, Congress can take away any and all guns whenever, wherever they want...framers didn't write that, SO IT AIN"T TRUE! If your friend is trying to somehow conjur up the intent of the framers, then find out what the fuck they meant by search and siezure...I could use some whoopass mojo on some cops I have cases with when they just break the hell in and search without a warrant.

The intent of the framers was to put teeth into the social contract that says government can govern only until it becomes oppressive, then those with guns form a new government.

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 4:43:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tortfeasor:
OK brother, let me get this strait - you are actually hung up on the guy's argument about what the framers DIDN"T write?



Why not just cite the 9th Amendment?

That shows justification of any mentions not in the BOR.


Link Posted: 9/17/2004 4:45:34 PM EST
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."

--- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).


Our Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing individual rights. How do we know this? The Ninth Amendment states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, we have other rights beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution, and the federal government is not justified in denying us those rights.

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 4:46:32 PM EST
Just call that guy an asshat and be done with it.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 4:50:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:
Just call that guy an asshat and be done with it.





Funny!

But let us gather our public support instead of alienating it!

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 4:51:52 PM EST
The 2nd Amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, it merely affirms an already existing natural right.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 4:53:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:
Just call that guy an asshat and be done with it.



I did, 3 times
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:03:06 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:05:13 PM EST

There are three ways of defeating such a phoney argument.



1. Every right in the "bill of rights" refers to the "INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS" of citizens. What he is talking about is the right of the govt to form a militia.

The bill of rights is about the citizens individual rights.

The bill of rights is about limiting the govts power over it citizens. (that is why it says "shall not be infringed") Shall not be infringed by whom? Would the populuce in fringe on the govts right to form militias? Hardly. It is about the govt not infringing on the peoples natural rights.

The govt doesn't have "rights" it only has powers and limitations. Only people have rights.

If the right refered to in the second refers to the govts right, then all of the others do as well. So that would mean that the right to press, speech, assembly, etc is for the govt, not individuals.

His argument is illogical at it's base.


2. He is completely ignoring the federalist papers. If you read them it is obvious that the right to keep and bear arms is placed in the consitution as a right of the individual citizen. (for protection form the govt itself)


3. Here is one I rarely here, but I think it explaines it all. In those days states had private armys known as "Militias" which were under the power of state govts. Our right is there to protect US from the out of control govt militias. (in modern terms that would be police and our own military) The "Militial" it refers to is out own govts militia. And it is OUR job to "regulate" them when they get out of hand. Did you know that long ago, bands of citizens who persued corrupt officials to justice were often called "regulators".


4. Okay there is one more good one. These rights are not granted by the govt or constitution. They are natural or god given rights only recognized by the constitution. (and garranteed by it)


Beyond that this idiot should have his balls collected and strung on strings and be given to small children to be used as "clacker balls". '

God, how I hate lying scumbag liberal/commie/socialist filth.


Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:10:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 5:10:39 PM EST by SteyrAUG]
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:23:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
It DOES mean the militia which is "the people."

The Militia did NOT become the National Guard until 1903 with the Dick Bill so clearly the "militia" of the BoR is "the people."

Furthermore the 2nd is contained within the first 10 which are "individual rights."

If gun rights refer to the "state militia" then freedom of the press refers to the "state press" and freedom of religion must refer to the "state religion."



OT for a moment...

Does the Dick Bill protect the eyes when wearing an ass hat?
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:26:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 5:29:37 PM EST by A_Free_Man]
Riotgun said: You've got some nice one liners, but I have yet to see anyone post a detailed refutation with specific historical citations to back up your "opinions".

I'll take that as a challenge.

As stated, the government has the POWER to raise an army, and makes provisons for that elsewhere in the Constitution.

The 2nd clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Not the government, not the army, the people.

They didn't stutter. They didn't misspeak. When writing each article they debated every word, every phrase, they went through many drafts. They were precise. They said what they meant, and meant what they said.

And the 2nd Amendment does not grant a right. It merely recognizes that that right already exists. In its very wording, shall not be infringed it forbids the government and anyone else, no limits, from preventing the people (that's you and me, folks, not just John Kerry or the ATF) to keep (to own or possess) and bear (to carry, to go about armed at all times) arms. No limiting words there. Arms. This might be swords, hatchets, firearms, whatever.

Some just can't read plain English (mostly lawyers have this problem, and politicians). But for those that can't quite make it out, let's clarify.

Some of my favorites quotes by our Founding Fathers
www.sightm1911.com/Care/Gun_Quotes.htm

Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

Noah Webster: "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops" (Noah Webster, 1787)

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)

Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Thomas Paine: "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."

There, even the dimmest bulb should have no doubt what the Forefathers meant!

But what about our "living, breathing" constitution?

As far as current opinions, polls, or will of the people:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights," Justice Jackson wrote in the 1943 flag-salute case, "was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

William Pitt: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (Nov. 18, 1783)

OK, let's get back to that M word... "Militia"

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)

Joseph Story: "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people." (Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.)

President James Madison: "...to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;... to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics--that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;..." President James Madison, First Inaugural address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.

And I think this says it best:

Tenche Coxe: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

But you don't have to believe me, you just have to read the words of the men who WROTE the Bill of Rights.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:31:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
.



That was wonderful. Congratulations on an exceptional composition. It is worthy of publication and print.


Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:48:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
There WAS no organized militia in existence at the time the 2nd Amendment was written.

So it CAN'T refer to an organized militia now, can it?

That leaves only the NON-organized militia, which is pretty much anyone who's able and willing to arm themselves.

CJ



Obviously, you're not listening to Senator Kerry. It's gotta refer to an organized militia. He said that the NATIONAL GUARD has been protecting us for the last three centuries. That put them organized long about 1704. Not bad since we weren't even an independant country then. It's gotta be true. Johnny boy wouldn't lie to us. Would he?
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:52:04 PM EST
Thank you very much. I was on one of my occasional rolls.

I have read these many times over the years, but found that site that has them all. Excellent resource. No judge, even Supreme Court judges, can argue with these quotes without revealing themselves to be basically dishonest.

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

Thus my pen name--

"A Free Man"
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:57:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
Thank you very much. I was on one of my occasional rolls.

I have read these many times over the years, but found that site that has them all. Excellent resource. No judge, even Supreme Court judges, can argue with these quotes without revealing themselves to be basically dishonest.

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

Thus my pen name--

"A Free Man"



Your recognition should be multiplied. I hope you maintain a presence here, at AR15.com - you are appreciated.

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 6:16:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 6:20:20 PM EST by ZEN]
Please read my previous post.


The problem with the whole "we the people are the militia" argument is that it justifies the liberal argument of passing all of the gun laws. Therefore "regulating" of US the "militia".


And they have drumed this lie so hard for so many years that they have convinced gun owners that they are the militia refered to.

And gun owners themselve run around saying "we are the militia" "we are the militia". Which makes us easy targets for socialist scum who say: "Yes, you are the militia spoken of in the 2nd and therefore we can regulate you with all sorts of gun laws"

See what I mean?

There were militias back in those old days. And it is the militias who the govt might use to oppress the people.

Therefore WE the people need weapons to REGULATE that MILITIA so it does not oppress US. (the people)

The right to keep and bear arms, to regulate the militia.

Not the right to keep and bear arms to regulate ourselves.

If we were the militia, and the right to own arms is an individual peoples right, why would we need arms to regulate ourselves?

It is an individual right (ours) to regulate the militia. (the govts militia)

If you don't believe me, watch the History channels special on the war of 1812. In that special historians refer to our countries armys as various militias. It was the same thirty odd years earlier when we had our revolution. Each state had militias at it's disposal. And this right refered to is NOT the right for the states to have militias.

It is the right of individual citizens to regulate (oppose) the state militias so that they do not get out of hand.

The forefathers knew that they could not give the govt the power to restrict the right to such things as speech and ownership of firearms or the govt could oppress it's people the same way the british had done.

"THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

And that is why ALL gun laws are ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!

Every single last one of them.

Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 6:18:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 6:25:42 PM EST by BobP]
Try these references:

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as it's interpretation by every major comentator and court in the first half-century after it's ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

Conclusion of the Report of the Sub-committee on the Constitution
United States Senate
97th Congress


The following link contains a discussion of the 2nd Amendment with a journalism professor and expert on English style and usage. It dissects the grammar used in the amendment.
www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

Edit: spelling, Again.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 6:22:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 6:23:05 PM EST by Palo_Duro]

Originally Posted By ZEN:






Well... I feel like a dumbass. That was overly enlightening. Thank you.

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 6:31:38 PM EST
So, we're into this discussion a bit, and the only persons who I see have attempted to answer with any substance are ZEN, my old friend who may not recognize me, and A_Free_Man, who gives forth valiant effort.

But evreyone, in whole, has fallen short of reposting the entire argument and disassembling it piece by piece with fact and historical reference.

And I put forth the two following suppositions:

1. That as this board has grown, we have become enamored of the short post, the "fast food" answer. How many of us have seen or said " that post is too long, I won't read it, give me the summary".

2. The Second Amendment is no longer relevant, regardless of it's original intent.

I say again:

The Second Amendment is no longer relevant, regardless of it's original intent.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 6:36:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By Riotgun:
Take a look at this. It's a LONG read.

groups.google.com/groups?q=guns&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.*&selm=3DC04962.5940B2BA%40krulick.com&rnum=5

This guy argues that the 2A is about the militia, and it is well written and full of historical references.

It's an old newsgroup thread from 2002, but I find his arguments somewhat disturbing.

So, let's see some of you historical and Constitutional scholars tear this argument down as effectively as he built it up.

Here are a couple of snippets to whet your appetite:


The term was a verb phrase, analogous today to one like
"practice medicine." Sure, if you mistakenly break down the
phrases you can get bear=carry + arms=guns = carry guns, or
practice=keep trying + medicine=pills in a bottle = keep trying
pills in a bottle. But any literate person today knows that
"practice medicine" means to serve as a doctor, just as any
literate person of 1790 knew that "bear arms" meant to serve as
a soldier.




Had they wanted to be more broad and inclusive, the framers
could have "clearly" written something as simple as "The right
of individuals to own and carry guns shall not be infringed."
That they didn't write that, in itself speaks volumes. The first
two phrases are not window dressing, or "subordinate" clauses,
in the legal sense, rather than the grammatical sense.


"Main" clause is a grammatical, NOT a legal term; there IS no
subordinate "clauses" in Constitutional interpretation... the
law MUST be interpreted in its entirety. The ENTIRE 2nd Amen is
rightly seen as a militia amendment, not a gun amendment,
particularly when the phrase "bear arms" is properly understood
as MEANING "serve as soldier," which is the RIGHT the particular
individuals who qualify to serve have -- to serve in the
STATE-RUN militias -- and it is THAT right the feds can't
infringe upon.




Well, some people thought that the book by Bellistre (spelling?) saying that early America was not well armed was well written and full of historical references too. It turned out to be just so much bullshit, just like this article.

As has been mentioned, why would one admendment in the Bill of Rights apply to any government, when all the other admendments in the Bill of Rights apply to individuals? I have yet to get a legitimate answer to that question.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 6:37:08 PM EST
You might check out the Aymette case, which was referenced by the US Supreme Court in Miller.

Google "us v miller" and "aymette".

Aymette (Tenn state case from 1840) makes the point that there is an individual right to own arms, but the arms in question are those of value to the militia--not weapons only useful for personal brawls (read: nunchucks, dirks, dikes, and the like). The Miller court used this case to justify the ban of short barreled shotguns.

Aymette also argued the "bear arms" meant "bear arms" for the general defense, any and all carrying of arms is not protected.

So the bottom line according to these cases: we have an individual right to own arms useful to the militia, and to use them in the common defense. My problem with this is that it doesn't make any allowances for self defense.

However, at the same time I don't believe the Second means that any and all types of weapons can be carried by citizens anywhere and anytime they want.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 6:38:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 6:41:37 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Riotgun:
Take a look at this. It's a LONG read.

groups.google.com/groups?q=guns&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.*&selm=3DC04962.5940B2BA%40krulick.com&rnum=5

This guy argues that the 2A is about the militia, and it is well written and full of historical references.

It's an old newsgroup thread from 2002, but I find his arguments somewhat disturbing.

So, let's see some of you historical and Constitutional scholars tear this argument down as effectively as he built it up.

Here are a couple of snippets to whet your appetite:


The term was a verb phrase, analogous today to one like
"practice medicine." Sure, if you mistakenly break down the
phrases you can get bear=carry + arms=guns = carry guns, or
practice=keep trying + medicine=pills in a bottle = keep trying
pills in a bottle. But any literate person today knows that
"practice medicine" means to serve as a doctor, just as any
literate person of 1790 knew that "bear arms" meant to serve as
a soldier.




Had they wanted to be more broad and inclusive, the framers
could have "clearly" written something as simple as "The right
of individuals to own and carry guns shall not be infringed."
That they didn't write that, in itself speaks volumes. The first
two phrases are not window dressing, or "subordinate" clauses,
in the legal sense, rather than the grammatical sense.


"Main" clause is a grammatical, NOT a legal term; there IS no
subordinate "clauses" in Constitutional interpretation... the
law MUST be interpreted in its entirety. The ENTIRE 2nd Amen is
rightly seen as a militia amendment, not a gun amendment,
particularly when the phrase "bear arms" is properly understood
as MEANING "serve as soldier," which is the RIGHT the particular
individuals who qualify to serve have -- to serve in the
STATE-RUN militias -- and it is THAT right the feds can't
infringe upon.




Grammar... Although he attempts to refute it, laws are governed by the same rules of grammar as everything else. Look at the construction of any law - there is an explanatory introduction, and the actual 'act'. Same applies here. You read it with the same literal rules of language that you read anything else.

The statement "A well regulated militia being neccicary..." is an explanatory preface of sorts (I don't know the correct term, I'm not an english teacher). In the same way that the preamble of the Constitution is not enforcable law (only the articles & ammendments), the preface to the 2nd is not either.

Gramattically, the declaratory portion "The right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed" is the only part that has force of law.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 6:42:49 PM EST
Ask him to answer you this:

Why on earth would the 2nd ammendment apply to a state run militia (National Guard) when every single other ammendment in the Bill of Rights applies to the individual and are designed to protect the individual from the government? ALL of the Bill of Rights are freedoms explicitly spelled out for the individual, yet the 2nd does not? That makes no sense. The Bill of Rights is to protect the individual from an over zealous government, IE oppression.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 6:43:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By Palo_Duro:

Originally Posted By Tortfeasor:
This is the only argument you need.

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311. Next

Sec. 311. - 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




Which means everyone. Good post, torf.


Not really. It means that I am too old to have my guns. Damn![>(] Age discrimination, age discrimination!
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 6:44:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By Riotgun:
So, we're into this discussion a bit, and the only persons who I see have attempted to answer with any substance are ZEN, my old friend who may not recognize me, and A_Free_Man, who gives forth valiant effort.

But evreyone, in whole, has fallen short of reposting the entire argument and disassembling it piece by piece with fact and historical reference.

And I put forth the two following suppositions:

1. That as this board has grown, we have become enamored of the short post, the "fast food" answer. How many of us have seen or said " that post is too long, I won't read it, give me the summary".

2. The Second Amendment is no longer relevant, regardless of it's original intent.

I say again:

The Second Amendment is no longer relevant, regardless of it's original intent.



You should read the link I provided, but I'll append some of the text here since not everyone wants to go there. Copperud is the Usage and Style expert.



[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 6:49:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By Riotgun:
So, we're into this discussion a bit, and the only persons who I see have attempted to answer with any substance are ZEN, my old friend who may not recognize me, and A_Free_Man, who gives forth valiant effort.

But evreyone, in whole, has fallen short of reposting the entire argument and disassembling it piece by piece with fact and historical reference.

And I put forth the two following suppositions:

1. That as this board has grown, we have become enamored of the short post, the "fast food" answer. How many of us have seen or said " that post is too long, I won't read it, give me the summary".

2. The Second Amendment is no longer relevant, regardless of it's original intent.

I say again:

The Second Amendment is no longer relevant, regardless of it's original intent.



Who decides that it is no longer relevant.........YOU? Based upon what?

If that is the case, then I put forth this supposition:
None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are relevant any more. Now tell me how that is different.

I think your question has more than sufficiently been answered, you are just stirring the pot.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 6:52:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By Palo_Duro:

Originally Posted By ZEN:






Well... I feel like a dumbass. That was overly enlightening. Thank you.




Yes, that was a very interesting and different take on the matter and I believe he may have hit the ball out of the park with that.

I never considered it in that light before, but now I have to decide which way I see it now. Damn.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 6:53:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By Alien:
Ask him to answer you this:

Why on earth would the 2nd ammendment apply to a state run militia (National Guard) when every single other ammendment in the Bill of Rights applies to the individual and are designed to protect the individual from the government? ALL of the Bill of Rights are freedoms explicitly spelled out for the individual, yet the 2nd does not? That makes no sense. The Bill of Rights is to protect the individual from an over zealous government, IE oppression.



I'm not asking him to answer anything. I'm not sure he even cares anymore, the post is so old.

What I'm asking, is that you refute it, piece by piece, line by line, with fact and historical citation.

There was a time when I could do so, and I might even have done so, had I known of the post at the time.

But the truth is, I no longer care, because as sharp as my my arguments are, they cannot sway those whose convictions are as deeply seated as mine.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 7:24:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Who decides that it is no longer relevant.........YOU?



No, all of us. The Second Amendment can be argued to death, and it doesn't matter a bit what it says.

What matters is what we are willing to believe in and fight for. That may fall within or beyond the scope of the Second Amendment. That is why it is no longer relevant. Because our rights are what we exercise.

Regardless of what the 2A says, WE ONLY HOLD THE GUN RIGHTS THAT WE FIGHT TO DEFEND.

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 7:24:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 7:27:59 PM EST by thejokker]
even if you accept his premise that the amendment refers to a militia it is illogical to assume that a militia MUST be a state militia. the battle of lexington and concord was related to a "village" militia and it is reasonable to propose that there may be circumstances even in modern times where men may band together in a "neighborhood" militia (ie protecting ones property during a riot or preventing looting after a natural disaster). the second amendment guarantees our right to band together (armed) for self protection under any situation. militias are comprised of individuals who are part-timed "soldiers" so the right to own and bear arms is individual.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 7:52:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By thejokker:
even if you accept his premise that the amendment refers to a militia it is illogical to assume that a militia MUST be a state militia. the battle of lexington and concord was related to a "village" militia and it is reasonable to propose that there may be circumstances even in modern times where men may band together in a "neighborhood" militia (ie protecting ones property during a riot or preventing looting after a natural disaster). the second amendment guarantees our right to band together (armed) for self protection under any situation. militias are comprised of individuals who are part-timed "soldiers" so the right to own and bear arms is individual.




Your point is taken. But I must clairify my position. I did not mean to convey that only states could have militias or that people could not band together to form militias.

My point was that the Militia spoken of in the 2nd is the state controled militias that could be fielded, controled and led by the state govt.

And I must also ad, that these are my opinions. Based on my study of the past twenty years into this subject and into what history I could gleen.

I understand part of what riotgun is saying.

The second ammendment doesn't give us anything, and if it did not exist we would still have the right to own guns.

I don't care what lawyer or judge or a senator, or a president says , it will never make my right to own firearms cease to exist. Period.

And if need be, I and others like me, will remind big brother with force of arms why we have that right.

And why we will never, ever, let it be taken from us.

I liked what Dave_A had to say as well. I wanted to say something likek that to but I could not find words as he did.


Zen



"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"


Link Posted: 9/17/2004 8:15:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tortfeasor:
This is the only argument you need. Check mate, my friend! YOU WIN! What follows is the United States Code - the FEDERAL LAW OF THE US, enforceable both in state and federal courts!

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311. Next

Sec. 311. - 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



So....if you have a boat, and a gun....does this mean that there is an unorganized naval militia?

Can you imagine the look on all the duck hunters' faces to find out that they're actually part of the militia?
Top Top