CDZ The 2nd Amendment

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As the Heller Court explained, ‘the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.’ ibid

Because the Second Amendment right is an individual right that belongs to all Americans – separate and apart from militia service – the notion that an armed population serving in a militia would act as a ‘deterrent’ to ‘tyranny’ is clearly false; it is an individual, not collective, right, intended to facilitate lawful self-defense against the tyranny of crime, not the perceived tyranny of government.

 

[2aguy]

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“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, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

And that case law holds that the Second Amendment recognizes a right to self-defense, along with an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

That was the original intent and understanding of the Framers of the Second Amendment.

A simple error. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would Express it in the first clause.

Self defense is a natural right

Danielpalos is a troll who will post his silliness over and over....

 

[danielpalos]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment codifies a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right to self-defense:

…the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

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

No, it clearly does not.

That's the Heller majority opinion. A very political piece of writing designed to not be too far from the meaning of the 2A, but pretending to give the right wing what it wants.

I knew a guy who helped on this case. He didn't believe that it gave the right to self defense until he got on this case. They pulled up some stuff from England and used it, while complete ignoring half of what happened in the US. Why? Because that's what they wanted. They wanted to make it about self defense.

No, the 2A NEVER, EVER meant self defense, the right are trying to make it so.

Did you read Heller, you twit..... they cite case law and court rulings gong back to before the foundint, here in the states....whoever you talked to is an idiot with an agenda against the 2nd Amenemdment....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Page 19.....

A pre exisitng right

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16
------------------------

Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

----

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d)


The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f)


None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.

Means nothing; our Constitution is Express and clear, not Implied.

 

[2aguy]

As the Heller Court explained, ‘the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.’ ibid

Because the Second Amendment right is an individual right that belongs to all Americans – separate and apart from militia service – the notion that an armed population serving in a militia would act as a ‘deterrent’ to ‘tyranny’ is clearly false; it is an individual, not collective, right, intended to facilitate lawful self-defense against the tyranny of crime, not the perceived tyranny of government.

wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about......

 

[danielpalos]

all you have is right wing propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is Express, not Implied.

I have personal testimony of the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified it.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment expressly forbids the government from removing our God given right to defend our self from the government.

don't understand How words have Meaning, either?

all you have is right wing propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is Express, not Implied.

Sure I understand words have meanings. The second amendment clearly forbids the government from removing our right to defend our self from the government.

Didn't you read the personal testimony from the Founding Fathers I provided?

lol. No, I didn't. You didn't understand the express concept or the implication on external, implied contexts.

I understand that if you didn't read the personal testimony of the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment then you are ignorant on what they believed.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment expressly precludes the government from removing our natural right to defend our self from the government.

I understand that no other part of the Constitution or any other amendment can supersede any other part of the Constitution or the amendments.

I understand the only way to alter an amendment is through the process prescribed by the constitution.

I understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check upon a standing army.

I understand that the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

And I understand that restricting government oversight was the intention of the Amendment.

Can you tell me what I got wrong and how it is wrong?

Express excludes implied, if we have to quibble.

 

[danielpalos]

As the Heller Court explained, ‘the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.’ ibid

Because the Second Amendment right is an individual right that belongs to all Americans – separate and apart from militia service – the notion that an armed population serving in a militia would act as a ‘deterrent’ to ‘tyranny’ is clearly false; it is an individual, not collective, right, intended to facilitate lawful self-defense against the tyranny of crime, not the perceived tyranny of government.

The People are the Militia. The Only subsets recognizable for Second Amendment purposes are well regulated or unorganized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“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, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

And that case law holds that the Second Amendment recognizes a right to self-defense, along with an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

That was the original intent and understanding of the Framers of the Second Amendment.

A simple error. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would Express it in the first clause.

Self defense is a natural right

Danielpalos is a troll who will post his silliness over and over....

says the troll with nothing but ad hominems.

in the land of right wing fantasy, the true witness bearer could be King.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As the Heller Court explained, ‘the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.’ ibid

Because the Second Amendment right is an individual right that belongs to all Americans – separate and apart from militia service – the notion that an armed population serving in a militia would act as a ‘deterrent’ to ‘tyranny’ is clearly false; it is an individual, not collective, right, intended to facilitate lawful self-defense against the tyranny of crime, not the perceived tyranny of government.

1. 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. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Syllabus of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As the Heller Court explained, ‘the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.’ ibid

Because the Second Amendment right is an individual right that belongs to all Americans – separate and apart from militia service – the notion that an armed population serving in a militia would act as a ‘deterrent’ to ‘tyranny’ is clearly false; it is an individual, not collective, right, intended to facilitate lawful self-defense against the tyranny of crime, not the perceived tyranny of government.

The People are the Militia. The Only subsets recognizable for Second Amendment purposes are well regulated or unorganized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

the right to self-defense is a natural right
The second amendment is the means to ensure that right is protected.

 

[EGR one]

Not a fan of the 'natural rights' rubbish, no such thing, and as far as the Constitution goes, states' rights reflect original intent, and the individual states could and did pass laws restricting ownership of firearms, just as they did laws giving preferences and taxing powers to specific religious denominations. I'm not now or ever was personally a fan of the 'states' rights' legal status, but that was the way it was set up, and some consistency is needed in legal precedents, otherwise one ends up with what we have now, rule by judicial whim and fiat, i.e. a lot of political hack appointees with mental illnesses, and assorted fetishists, and half-wits with high esteem making unilateral proclamations, not a functioning legal system.

There is no rule of law, even in lower courts, for most Americans now, so also no respect for government functions and no binding obligations or support for laws any more.

Congratulations on the Third World corruption levels and two Parties run by vile traitors who can't gets themselves enough of Red China and it's 'capitalist system'(snicker); you think Venezuela is bad, do you? ....

Are you saying you don't have a right to live?

Are you trying to be clever? If so, come up with better strawmen.

The 'natural rights' rubbish is an 'Enlightenment' era fiction dreamed up to avoid giving credit to the long march of pagan Greeks and their philosophies, through the Greek influence on Judaism, from there through the long rise of Christian influences on law, culture, traditions, and society. It's just that simple. No such thing as 'Natural Rights', it's just some rubbish sophistry invented by Catholic bashers, trying to peddle moral relativism and other stupid regressive concepts as 'valid'. All the silly fad of 'rationalism' has managed to produce is mass murderers like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.

You have a natural right to life, but you are saying you don't have a right to live

Your point makes no sense. People die all the time, it's part of the life cycle. there is no 'natural law' that says you can't get sick, die in childbirth, have accidents, etc., and live forever. Rights are social constructs and don't derive from nature, that's a fictional premise.

A right to life does not mean that you will live, it means that you have a right to use whatever means is necessary and available to protect your life. That is a God given or natural right that every living creature has. You can call it survival instinct, or anything else you desire, but it exists in all of us, and does not depend on the opinion of others.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is inherent in all humans, and is therefore God given, or natural law. The Declaration of Independence just recognizes the obvious.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

James Mason Who is the Militia the people, of course,
holy shit you think the government needs a protected right to have a firearm

well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary. First Sergeants know that.

spoken in the terminology from the 18th century in working order as to be expected
Why do you think the government needs a protected right to have firearms?

You Only appeal to Ignorance. First Sergeants know their Orders.

Why do you believe the government needs a second amendment right?

We have a federal form of Government. Every First Sergeant knows this.

WHUT?????
Why do you think the federal government needs a right to have firearms?

 

[EGR one]

And get Congress has the ability to change those laws.

It's how the separation of powers work.

The Constitution Is Real Easy To Just Change Through The Legislatures

That's Why Radicals Need The Courts

SCOTUS Has Said There Are Penumbras Within Our Constitution

That's How Roe v Wade
Was Found Within The Constitution

And The Legislature Doesn't Have Time
To Scribble Up New Legislation
To Over-Turn Precedent Rulings
To The Satisfaction Of The Courts That Set Them

Pretty Simplistic Assertion, fridgid....

The Constitution can be changed. If the Constitution is out of date and a majority of people think it should be changed because of bad interpretation.

But the Constitution has to be interpreted by someone. Who is to say what is the "correct" way of viewing it?

It was the Framers' intent that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

Actually the 'Framers' intended for Congress to overshadow the Supreme Court, ans as we know from the historical record they let the states handle their own gun laws as the individual states saw fit .

The Bill of Rights was a restraint on the federal government until the 14th amendment was ratified, and that amendment extended the individual rights of the Bill of Rights to the states.

Actually, The Supreme Court declared themselves to be the final arbitrator of the Constitution. The states should have opposed that power grab, but did not, and now we are pretty much stuck with it.

 

[2aguy]

well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary. First Sergeants know that.

spoken in the terminology from the 18th century in working order as to be expected
Why do you think the government needs a protected right to have firearms?

You Only appeal to Ignorance. First Sergeants know their Orders.

Why do you believe the government needs a second amendment right?

We have a federal form of Government. Every First Sergeant knows this.

WHUT?????
Why do you think the federal government needs a right to have firearms?

Debating danielpalos is like hitting a punching bag..... both are filled with sand and can help you develop your skills, one punching the other debating, but at the end, the punching bag and daniel end up being filled with sand.

 

[danielpalos]

As the Heller Court explained, ‘the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.’ ibid

Because the Second Amendment right is an individual right that belongs to all Americans – separate and apart from militia service – the notion that an armed population serving in a militia would act as a ‘deterrent’ to ‘tyranny’ is clearly false; it is an individual, not collective, right, intended to facilitate lawful self-defense against the tyranny of crime, not the perceived tyranny of government.

The People are the Militia. The Only subsets recognizable for Second Amendment purposes are well regulated or unorganized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

the right to self-defense is a natural right
The second amendment is the means to ensure that right is protected.

The Second Amendment clearly expresses what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary. First Sergeants know that.

spoken in the terminology from the 18th century in working order as to be expected
Why do you think the government needs a protected right to have firearms?

You Only appeal to Ignorance. First Sergeants know their Orders.

Why do you believe the government needs a second amendment right?

We have a federal form of Government. Every First Sergeant knows this.

WHUT?????
Why do you think the federal government needs a right to have firearms?

First Sergeants, know better.

 

[danielpalos]

spoken in the terminology from the 18th century in working order as to be expected
Why do you think the government needs a protected right to have firearms?

You Only appeal to Ignorance. First Sergeants know their Orders.

Why do you believe the government needs a second amendment right?

We have a federal form of Government. Every First Sergeant knows this.

WHUT?????
Why do you think the federal government needs a right to have firearms?

Debating danielpalos is like hitting a punching bag..... both are filled with sand and can help you develop your skills, one punching the other debating, but at the end, the punching bag and daniel end up being filled with sand.

only the unorganized debaters whine about it; and have nothing but fallacy to show for it.

 

[Picaro]

we Are Quibbling, right winger.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Natural rights are not granted by man.

Natural rights are Recognized and guaranteed, in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment; Only, clearly expressed, civil rights.

All individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away.

Natural rights come from theology and philosophy, period. They aren't 'natural' in the sense atheists mean 'natural'; Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about 'rights'. Rights are enforced by civil authorities, not animals and trees.

Natural Rights - Constitutional Rights Foundation

It doesn't matter what they believe natural rights are. It has been well defined and understood by the framers of the Constitution.

Doesn't matter; they were wrong, that's all. They were trying to follow the pseudo-intellectual fads of their day, and avoid crediting religion as the foundation of modern law and civil society; even the concept of three branches of government come from the Old Testament.Your own link says as much, except they try and imply Jefferson actually believed what he was writing, and there is no evidence for that in his life.

" Natural Rights' is just infantile libertarian drivel.


And, Jefferson's beliefs were based on 'Bolingbrokism', not Locke. Just because they cited philosophers in their propaganda doesn't mean they actually believed what they were writing themselves, they were trying to sway others, not themselves. See Jefferson's early writing on slavery as an example; in real life he highly recommended slave trading to his friends ans one of the best businesses to be in, bringing in a steady 10%-20% returns per year. He financed Monticello with his earnings from the slave trade, and unlike most if his peers he didn't free hardly any of them in his will.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

spoken in the terminology from the 18th century in working order as to be expected
Why do you think the government needs a protected right to have firearms?

You Only appeal to Ignorance. First Sergeants know their Orders.

Why do you believe the government needs a second amendment right?

We have a federal form of Government. Every First Sergeant knows this.

WHUT?????
Why do you think the federal government needs a right to have firearms?

First Sergeants, know better.

what ever the fvck that means but why do you think the government needs a right to have firearms?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Natural rights are not granted by man.

Natural rights are Recognized and guaranteed, in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment; Only, clearly expressed, civil rights.

All individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away.

Natural rights come from theology and philosophy, period. They aren't 'natural' in the sense atheists mean 'natural'; Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about 'rights'. Rights are enforced by civil authorities, not animals and trees.

Natural Rights - Constitutional Rights Foundation

It doesn't matter what they believe natural rights are. It has been well defined and understood by the framers of the Constitution.

Doesn't matter; they were wrong, that's all. They were trying to follow the pseudo-intellectual fads of their day, and avoid crediting religion as the foundation of modern law and civil society; even the concept of three branches of government come from the Old Testament.Your own link says as much, except they try and imply Jefferson actually believed what he was writing, and there is no evidence for that in his life.

" Natural Rights' is just infantile libertarian drivel.


And, Jefferson's beliefs were based on 'Bolingbrokism', not Locke. Just because they cited philosophers in their propaganda doesn't mean they actually believed what they were writing themselves, they were trying to sway others, not themselves. See Jefferson's early writing on slavery as an example; in real life he highly recommended slave trading to his friends ans one of the best businesses to be in, bringing in a steady 10%-20% returns per year. He financed Monticello with his earnings from the slave trade, and unlike most if his peers he didn't free hardly any of them in his will.

No, what they were saying is the government doesn't give rights the government is supposed to protect those God-given rights.

 

[danielpalos]

You Only appeal to Ignorance. First Sergeants know their Orders.

Why do you believe the government needs a second amendment right?

We have a federal form of Government. Every First Sergeant knows this.

WHUT?????
Why do you think the federal government needs a right to have firearms?

First Sergeants, know better.

what ever the fvck that means but why do you think the government needs a right to have firearms?

It says so in our Second Amendment; have Faith, brother.