Discussion in 'US Constitution' started by capego, Jul 4, 2018.
The Militia was the cops as well back then.
only the people in the military
only those between the ages of 18-45, NOT in the military.
Maybe it was. Doesn't have any bearing on this.
Look, just because it says "militia", that doesn't mean it protects all things the militia might like to do.
Our military can't even beat third world monkeys using 40 year old guns and no capability to make their own ammo.
Pretty sure the US population, which purchases more guns and ammunition each black friday than would be required to fully equip the entire USMC would absolutely never succumb to the military.
The idea that a conventional war against the population, by its own military, would involve anything more powerful than conventional weapons is missing the point.
Any attempt to "take over" a country means to seize its wealth, not destroy it. The military would be forced to occupy and subjugate. Good luck with that in a country where private citizens own half of the entire world's guns and more than 2/3 of its ammo.
There is no scenario where our military, or any military, benefits from scorched earth tactics on that scale. Nobody would nuke the cities of this country, nor kill off its population. What would be the gain?
The citizen militia has orders of magnitude more resources of war than the military does. They would lose by attrition alone.
There is no force on this earth more feared than the US public. It is far more powerful and more capable than the military. The gun control nuts know this which is why they try their damnedest to disarm us. Their dream dictatorship is impossible so long as the citizens have their constitutional mandate to be the hard counter against such authoritarianism.
Our military keeps the world honest. We keep our military honest.
The People are the Militia under the common law.
It's incredible how authoritarians try to twist the meaning of this phrase, but alas, it is very plain and obvious what it states.
First, it should be noted that the 2nd amendment ( and all amendments in the Bill of Rights) is addressing the government not the people. It isn't granting people any right. Rather, it is reminding the government of an infringement it has not the power to impose.
Everyone, by natural law according to the core constitution, has inalienable rights. All such rights imaginable, listed or not, are available to the people so long as they do not impose upon the rights of others. These rights are not granted by the government, and so cannot be removed by the government. Furthermore, they are inalienable and thus can never be revoked or overwritten by the states either.
This means that the 2nd amendment can never be revoked, nor can it be overwritten. It is not, in any way, a limitation or a granted privilege upon the citizens. Like the rest of The Bill of Rights, it is merely a reminder to the government of its own limitations, and those limitations are not exclusive to that list. The government is restricted from all things unless explicitly stated otherwise. For the people, it is the opposite, they have every right, unless it infringes on the rights of others.
The above is important, because sometimes I think us pro 2nd amendment people set ourselves up for a weakened position by relying too much on the amendment itself. It's easy to fall back on, but it's important to realize that the right to bear arms is not just one asterisk in the document. It is a fundamental right that no man, nor government of man can EVER remove or infringe upon.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
This is merely context. It's stating an objective, not a requirement or a restriction.
",the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"
This is the object of the sentence. It mentions nothing of a militia. It refers merely to the people and their right to bear arms. No restrictions are built into this object. It doesn't say "right to bear small arms" or right to "bear arms on tuesdays". It is quite succinctly, the right to bear arms without any conditions attached.
, shall not be infringed.
This is the directive. As such, you'll note that it is not directed toward the people. It is directed towards the government. The reader, in this case, isn't the people, it is those elected to run the government.
There is absolutely no ambiguity. The location of the commas is very important. Every attempt I've seen to bastardize the meaning of the 2nd amendment involves either eliminating or moving the commas or claiming that the amendment itself is granting the right, when in fact, it does not.
We could talk day in and day out about things the Founding Father's didn't know about- like pocket nukes or grenades that are often used to debate these principles. My goal here is not to argue for or against such debates. What I can tell you is that simply put, the right to bear arms can't be infringed. It's pretty simple.
The Founding Fathers lived in a time where it was fine and reasonable for any person to own the most sophisticated military tech of the time. If you wanted, you could have the newest gun or war galley. There was literally no restriction. Would they change their tune if they saw a bazooka, or a grenade, or an A10? I don't know, but honestly, I doubt it. They were tough sons of Bitches who thought the best way to live was to throw the dice and go with the results.
We are seeing a similar trend with nukes anyways. As more countries get them, the world becomes more peaceful. You could consider this the country sized version of armed against tyranny. Can you blame North Korea for wanting nukes? No, you may not like it, but for them, it's the same insurance policy against imperialism that our AR 15s are against tyranny.
So really, I don't know where to draw that line. If I had to choose between everyone having literally any weapon or nobody having any weapon, I'll take the former. To remove weapons from the equation is to return us to the days of governance by force rather than reason.
It is the legislative Intent and Purpose. No amount of Judicial activism, can change that.
, shall not be infringed.
This makes it quite clear that the only legislative intent is no legislation at all. It is after all the only part of the statement directing any action, and that action is no action.
Our Second Amendment is about, the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.
It's about neither of those. The entire Bill of Rights is merely an addendum reminding the government of things that it cannot do. It's not an inclusive list, and it doesn't grant any rights to the people. The core constitution makes it clear that the people have a right to do all things which do not directly infringe on the rights of another person.
The Bill of Rights is a list of examples of restrictions on the federal government. Nothing more.
The Bill of Rights (including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights)
The Bill of Rights adds nothing to the core constitution. They are merely clarifications and declarations of intent. They do not modify, in any way, the fundamental rights inalienable to the people as prescribed by the constitution itself.
At the time, the anti federalists didn't trust that future governments would interpret the constitution honestly (how wise they were). They wouldn't ratify it without first having these clarifications placed in the document. Since they do not violate or modify the core constitution, they were added to the end as an addendum.
Separate names with a comma.