The Most Ignored Document In Us History.

[frigidweirdo]

This document has got to be the most ignored document in US history.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

It is the debate in the House about the Second Amendment and its meaning.

The funny thing about this document is that it uses "bear arms" in the same manner and synonymously as "render military service" and "militia duty".

Not only that it is clear that they had the meaning of "bear arms" being the right to be in the militia. They were debating this version of what would become the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

"Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. "

"besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. " (in reference to the religious scruples clause discussing "bear arms)

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So here it is cleat what "bear arms" means in the context of the 2A.
Below we have some that would make the version of "bear arms" being "carry arms" seem a little strange.

"or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, "

"It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. "

"For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of bearing arms."

Who would be religiously scrupulous enough to carry arms that they'd need protection so that they wouldn't be forced to walk around town carrying arms? It seems ridiculous that the founding fathers would even bother with such a thing.

So, now, the big question again.

Why does everyone ignore this document? Why did the Supreme Court ignore this document in Heller and McDonald? Why did the left ignore this document when they made their (extremely poor) case? Why do people on this forum continually ignore this document and claim that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and will always shy away from discussing this document and pretend that it doesn't exist?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not bad, viewed 30 times, no one bothers to respond...... hmmm, irony?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Getting on for 41 views and still ignored, hmm, interesting.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Getting on for 41 views and still ignored, hmm, interesting.

Whats to answer? The 2nd provides a right to own, possess and carry firearms regardless of membership in a Militia. Further according to US Law the unorganized militia is the entire US male population that is fit to serve age 17 to 45.

 

[HenryBHough]

Minds are made up.

Nobody wants to be bored with facts or things purporting to be facts.

The lines are drawn and logical people would simply agree to disagree. Then we can settle down to eliminating those who disagree with our respective positions. One with arms; the other by, well, foot boxing(?).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Getting on for 41 views and still ignored, hmm, interesting.

Whats to answer? The 2nd provides a right to own, possess and carry firearms regardless of membership in a Militia. Further according to US Law the unorganized militia is the entire US male population that is fit to serve age 17 to 45.

10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia composition and classes LII Legal Information Institute

 

[frigidweirdo]

Minds are made up.

Nobody wants to be bored with facts or things purporting to be facts.

The lines are drawn and logical people would simply agree to disagree. Then we can settle down to eliminating those who disagree with our respective positions. One with arms; the other by, well, foot boxing(?).

Kind of seems sad that History has become, well, history. That people, not even the Supreme Court, gives a damn what the Founding Fathers thought, meant, desired, people just go for what they want and anything that gets in their way just sort of, disappears.

Then you wonder how the US govt can go around the world invading/bombing OPEC countries and claiming to have the higher moral ground.

 

[regent]

Minds are made up.

Nobody wants to be bored with facts or things purporting to be facts.

The lines are drawn and logical people would simply agree to disagree. Then we can settle down to eliminating those who disagree with our respective positions. One with arms; the other by, well, foot boxing(?).

Kind of seems sad that History has become, well, history. That people, not even the Supreme Court, gives a damn what the Founding Fathers thought, meant, desired, people just go for what they want and anything that gets in their way just sort of, disappears.

Then you wonder how the US govt can go around the world invading/bombing OPEC countries and claiming to have the higher moral ground.

"The Constitution is what the Court say it is." Justice Hughes

 

[frigidweirdo]

Getting on for 41 views and still ignored, hmm, interesting.

Whats to answer? The 2nd provides a right to own, possess and carry firearms regardless of membership in a Militia. Further according to US Law the unorganized militia is the entire US male population that is fit to serve age 17 to 45.

The point I'm making is, DOES IT?

You're not talking about the Second Amendment at all. You're talking about Article 1 Section 8 which gives Congress the power to organise and discipline the militia. The militia acts have always defined who is in the militia.

This has nothing to do with the right to be in the militia. Well actually it does. If the US Congress says all males 17-45 are in the militia they're far less likely to be taken to court for not allowing people to be in the militia, don't you think?

There are a lot of fallacies out there concerning the 2A. Such as "the 2A says arms, therefore it protects everything to do with arms" "the 2A say arms so it clearly protects the right to self defence, even if I can defend myself with my hands, or a TV" "one definition of 'bear' is carry, therefore it MUST mean carry".

And the list is endless.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"The Constitution is what the Court say it is." Justice Hughes

Which is the point being made with this thread.

The Supreme Court and most individuals ignore this document. Therefore what the Supreme Court has said is based on either ignorance of what the Founding Fathers set this amendment up for, or it's based on clear avoidance of what the Founding Fathers wanted.

The question here is, WHY?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Getting on for 41 views and still ignored, hmm, interesting.

Whats to answer? The 2nd provides a right to own, possess and carry firearms regardless of membership in a Militia. Further according to US Law the unorganized militia is the entire US male population that is fit to serve age 17 to 45.

10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia composition and classes LII Legal Information Institute

Which is power given to Congress in Article 1 Section 8.

 

[blackhawk]

People on sides of the political spectrum try to twist the founding fathers intentions to suit their own agenda.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why does everyone ignore this document? Why did the Supreme Court ignore this document in Heller and McDonald? Why did the left ignore this document when they made their (extremely poor) case? Why do people on this forum continually ignore this document and claim that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and will always shy away from discussing this document and pretend that it doesn't exist?

They didn't:

The relevant proposals sent by the Virginia Ratifying Convention read as follows:


“17th, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.” Elliot 659.


“19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.” Ibid.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER



They simply were not in the majority.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why does everyone ignore this document? Why did the Supreme Court ignore this document in Heller and McDonald? Why did the left ignore this document when they made their (extremely poor) case? Why do people on this forum continually ignore this document and claim that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and will always shy away from discussing this document and pretend that it doesn't exist?

They didn't:

The relevant proposals sent by the Virginia Ratifying Convention read as follows:


“17th, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.” Elliot 659.


“19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.” Ibid.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER



They simply were not in the majority.

Sorry, I'm failing to see your point here.

 

[OKTexas]

Seems the op fails to realize, what was debated and what actually passed are two separate things. You only need to "read" to see that.

 

[regent]

For more on the topic might check out the State's Bill of Rights found in the State Constitutions. I would suspect most if not all have an article on the right to bear arms.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Sorry, I'm failing to see your point here.

You asked:

Why did the Supreme Court ignore this document in Heller and McDonald?

Clayton showed you that they didn't ignore this document at all, as it was referenced by the dissent.

Why do people on this forum continually ignore this document and claim that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and will always shy away from discussing this document and pretend that it doesn't exist?

I must borrow from your post here: I'm failing to see your point. Are you trying to bash the "open carry" hardliners? The phrase "bear arms" in the Second Amendment seems to me to refer to using the weapons rather than merely carrying them. For example, "bring to bear" is defined as meaning, "To aim a weapon at a target." The document you posted seems to reinforce this, as the debate was largely centered around military/militia service exemption for religious conscientious objectors.

 

[frigidweirdo]

For more on the topic might check out the State's Bill of Rights found in the State Constitutions. I would suspect most if not all have an article on the right to bear arms.

Oh, they do. I'm not ignoring these. They're actually quite interesting.

North Carolina 1776 “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;“

Massachusetts declaration of rights of 1780 "XVII.--The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

Pennsylvania “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;“.

Delware 1776 "ART. 28. To prevent any violence or force being used at the said elections, no person shall come armed to any of them, and no muster of the militia shall be made on that day; "

So we have two states which clearly had a right to bear arms for the state. Not for self defence, not for carrying around, but for the defence of the state.
We have one, and Vermont is similar too, which has the defece of "themselves" as well as the state. What does the term "themselves" mean? Self defence? Defence of the people within the state? Self defence?

In 1790 they changed their constitution.
Article 9 Sec. 21. That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.

Why did they change it to "right of citizens" instead of "the people"? I'm not sure it matters that much.

Well in 1874 they had it at "
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Not much difference.

I'd say it points to an individual right, rather than "bear arms" being self defence.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sorry, I'm failing to see your point here.

You asked:

Why did the Supreme Court ignore this document in Heller and McDonald?

Clayton showed you that they didn't ignore this document at all, as it was referenced by the dissent.

Which implies that the Court's opinion ignored this document, which is the point I am making.

Why do people on this forum continually ignore this document and claim that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and will always shy away from discussing this document and pretend that it doesn't exist?

I must borrow from your post here: I'm failing to see your point. Are you trying to bash the "open carry" hardliners? The phrase "bear arms" in the Second Amendment seems to me to refer to using the weapons rather than merely carrying them. For example, "bring to bear" is defined as meaning, "To aim a weapon at a target." The document you posted seems to reinforce this, as the debate was largely centered around military/militia service exemption for religious conscientious objectors.

I'm not bashing anyone. The term "bear arms" seems to me to be using the weapons in the militia, rather than just using them in general. And this document seems to reinforce this I believe.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Sorry, I'm failing to see your point here.

You asked:

Why did the Supreme Court ignore this document in Heller and McDonald?

Clayton showed you that they didn't ignore this document at all, as it was referenced by the dissent.

Which implies that the Court's opinion ignored this document, which is the point I am making.

Disagree. It seems to me that they knew of it and simply rejected the reasoning of the minority in that case.

Why do people on this forum continually ignore this document and claim that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and will always shy away from discussing this document and pretend that it doesn't exist?

I must borrow from your post here: I'm failing to see your point. Are you trying to bash the "open carry" hardliners? The phrase "bear arms" in the Second Amendment seems to me to refer to using the weapons rather than merely carrying them. For example, "bring to bear" is defined as meaning, "To aim a weapon at a target." The document you posted seems to reinforce this, as the debate was largely centered around military/militia service exemption for religious conscientious objectors.

I'm not bashing anyone. The term "bear arms" seems to me to be using the weapons in the militia, rather than just using them in general. And this document seems to reinforce this I believe.

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;"

This makes clear the meaning and intent. The militia was to be composed of the body of the people, or the entirety of the people of a state. The conversation in your link rails against standing armies--at one point they are named "the bane of liberty"--and proposes a state militia as a safeguard against a standing army. To ensure that a militia has readily-available recruits/volunteers, "the people" of a state are given the right to keep and bear arms. The language here makes it abundantly clear that:

A) The militia is composed of the people; and

B) The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not to the militia or its specific members from among the body of the people.

All the more reason to see the Second Amendment repealed. Individuals have absolutely no legitimate reason to ever have their own weapons of any kind at all.