What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
68,679
Reaction score
18,791
Points
2,220
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
There is no states militia anymore.
Citizen Soldiers otherwise known as the National Guard.
If there were a ban it would be a civilian one. No one would take arms from the Guard.
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
83,321
Reaction score
27,546
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
Thirdly, "the militia" now is the "unorganized militia" which is every male from a certain age to a certain age, and the National Guard. The "unorganized militia" exists as a non-entity to stop people demanding their right to "bear arms", otherwise known as the right to be in the militia.
This is the area that interests me. The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear: 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.

Okay. So, a couple of points:

First, it doesn't say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's saying the people can join an actual militia to protect their security.

You are right, it does not say that so one wonders why you even bring it up as it is not relevant in any way.

What it CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY states is that the right of the people. Not the right of the state, not the right of the government, not the power of a state, not anything other than the right of the people. Period. End of story. ESDG

The second is clearly an individual right as are EVERY SINGLE OTHER RIGHT mentioned in the BoR. The BoR is, was and forever will be limitations on what the federal government can do. EVERY. SINGLE. AMENDMENT. All of them in the BoR are limitations on the feds in respect to the people. They are not prescriptions on powers the feds have which is exactly what you are making this out to be - a power that the feds or the state has rather than a right the people have.

That the AND is missing from the amendment does not mean the right of the people does not exist. Rather it directly contradicts your statement, if the and had existed THEN you might have a point in claiming you have the 'right' to join a militia however it does not. Even then it would be take pretzel logic to make that key point go away, that the amendment directly states the right of the people. The prefatory clause is clearly outlining the purpose of the right: Well regulated militias are important for a free state as the founders knew because the 'well regulated' militia was key in making the US a free state. Because the militia is made up of the people, they must both be armed and in well regulated order. That is exactly what Miller found:

" The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998). "

Heller also covers the idea that you 'can join' a militia as something you are simply interjecting into the meaning. The militia is, essentially, everyone.
"Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men."

Second, it's pretty clear when it says "well regulated". That means that the governing authority can regulate militias as it sees fit, just as it can regulate an army as it sees fit. So those who join the militia must submit to regulations.
Well, no and Heller addressed that as well:

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Which has actually been used in the past but fell out of traditional use pretty quickly after the nation was established. Either way, the prefatory statement not only does not remove the individual right but it would be rather nonsensical to demand that the necessity of a well trained militia being necessary for a free state would somehow equate to removing the right that such a well regulated force would require to exist at all. It is an illogical conclusion to draw.

Nowhere does it infer that individuals can be running around like Yosemite Sam.
Nope, it never says we can run around like Yosemite Sam but no one anywhere is advocating for that so your straw man is pointless. You start out stating that the meaning of the second is pretty clear, make a statement about what it does not say and then go on to utterly and unequivocally ignore the text of the second applying what you want it to mean.

Here is the bottom line - it is a simple fact that the second protects your individual right to bear arms that are both in common use throughout the nation and in military use, period. Trying to read that out of the amendment is simply not possible while being honest with its intent or wording. I get it that many think the amendment is outdated and incorrect in a modern society considering the changes that have happened to arms in the intervening 2 centuries. However, it requires an amendment to change the second and nothing less will do. The left has been trying to pretend basic terminology means something it does not because they know that bar is high but that is simply not going to work. Stop trying to reinterpret the second to something it is not.
I just read the Amendment. I didn't add anything, I didn't subtract anything. Looks pretty clear.
No, you made up what you wanted the amendment to say as it does not say anything even remotely what you claim. I have shown you quotes from Heller that establish what those phrases actually mean.

Then, you ignore all of that, ignore the plan reading of the text and reassert you just 'read' the amendment. Try again.
Just reading the actual Amendment. I don't expect you folks to like it.
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
83,321
Reaction score
27,546
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
Thirdly, "the militia" now is the "unorganized militia" which is every male from a certain age to a certain age, and the National Guard. The "unorganized militia" exists as a non-entity to stop people demanding their right to "bear arms", otherwise known as the right to be in the militia.
This is the area that interests me. The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear: 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.

Okay. So, a couple of points:

First, it doesn't say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's saying the people can join an actual militia to protect their security.

You are right, it does not say that so one wonders why you even bring it up as it is not relevant in any way.

What it CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY states is that the right of the people. Not the right of the state, not the right of the government, not the power of a state, not anything other than the right of the people. Period. End of story. ESDG

The second is clearly an individual right as are EVERY SINGLE OTHER RIGHT mentioned in the BoR. The BoR is, was and forever will be limitations on what the federal government can do. EVERY. SINGLE. AMENDMENT. All of them in the BoR are limitations on the feds in respect to the people. They are not prescriptions on powers the feds have which is exactly what you are making this out to be - a power that the feds or the state has rather than a right the people have.

That the AND is missing from the amendment does not mean the right of the people does not exist. Rather it directly contradicts your statement, if the and had existed THEN you might have a point in claiming you have the 'right' to join a militia however it does not. Even then it would be take pretzel logic to make that key point go away, that the amendment directly states the right of the people. The prefatory clause is clearly outlining the purpose of the right: Well regulated militias are important for a free state as the founders knew because the 'well regulated' militia was key in making the US a free state. Because the militia is made up of the people, they must both be armed and in well regulated order. That is exactly what Miller found:

" The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998). "

Heller also covers the idea that you 'can join' a militia as something you are simply interjecting into the meaning. The militia is, essentially, everyone.
"Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men."

Second, it's pretty clear when it says "well regulated". That means that the governing authority can regulate militias as it sees fit, just as it can regulate an army as it sees fit. So those who join the militia must submit to regulations.
Well, no and Heller addressed that as well:

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Which has actually been used in the past but fell out of traditional use pretty quickly after the nation was established. Either way, the prefatory statement not only does not remove the individual right but it would be rather nonsensical to demand that the necessity of a well trained militia being necessary for a free state would somehow equate to removing the right that such a well regulated force would require to exist at all. It is an illogical conclusion to draw.

Nowhere does it infer that individuals can be running around like Yosemite Sam.
Nope, it never says we can run around like Yosemite Sam but no one anywhere is advocating for that so your straw man is pointless. You start out stating that the meaning of the second is pretty clear, make a statement about what it does not say and then go on to utterly and unequivocally ignore the text of the second applying what you want it to mean.

Here is the bottom line - it is a simple fact that the second protects your individual right to bear arms that are both in common use throughout the nation and in military use, period. Trying to read that out of the amendment is simply not possible while being honest with its intent or wording. I get it that many think the amendment is outdated and incorrect in a modern society considering the changes that have happened to arms in the intervening 2 centuries. However, it requires an amendment to change the second and nothing less will do. The left has been trying to pretend basic terminology means something it does not because they know that bar is high but that is simply not going to work. Stop trying to reinterpret the second to something it is not.
I just read the Amendment. I didn't add anything, I didn't subtract anything. Looks pretty clear.
No, you made up what you wanted the amendment to say as it does not say anything even remotely what you claim. I have shown you quotes from Heller that establish what those phrases actually mean.

Then, you ignore all of that, ignore the plan reading of the text and reassert you just 'read' the amendment. Try again.

Funny, the second amendment actually says something about a militia, it doesn't say damn thing about self-defense. You reckon the founders just forgot to put it in?
The fantasy world allows for that.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
222,679
Reaction score
48,456
Points
2,190

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,037
Reaction score
2,052
Points
290
Location
GNO
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
There is no states militia anymore.
Citizen Soldiers otherwise known as the National Guard.
If there were a ban it would be a civilian one. No one would take arms from the Guard.
So an unconstitutional ban. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,037
Reaction score
2,052
Points
290
Location
GNO

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
7,317
Points
290
You must be dyslexic or something is really fucked up with you comprehension skills, because no where in that quote does it mention the Militia.
It also doesn't say anything about personal protection.

All those quotes were in the context OF the militia...which no longer exists
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
7,317
Points
290
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.
What is an "assault weapon" ? I keep asking this question an none of you can give a straight answer.
It is essentially semi-auto magazine fed long gun.
And you have described many types of hunting rifles. I'm still waiting.
You had your answer. A hunting rifle does not require a detachable magazine...unless you are a VERY bad shot. If you're that bad a shot you shouldn't be hunting
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,037
Reaction score
2,052
Points
290
Location
GNO
Thirdly, "the militia" now is the "unorganized militia" which is every male from a certain age to a certain age, and the National Guard. The "unorganized militia" exists as a non-entity to stop people demanding their right to "bear arms", otherwise known as the right to be in the militia.
This is the area that interests me. The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear: 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.

Okay. So, a couple of points:

First, it doesn't say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's saying the people can join an actual militia to protect their security.

You are right, it does not say that so one wonders why you even bring it up as it is not relevant in any way.

What it CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY states is that the right of the people. Not the right of the state, not the right of the government, not the power of a state, not anything other than the right of the people. Period. End of story. ESDG

The second is clearly an individual right as are EVERY SINGLE OTHER RIGHT mentioned in the BoR. The BoR is, was and forever will be limitations on what the federal government can do. EVERY. SINGLE. AMENDMENT. All of them in the BoR are limitations on the feds in respect to the people. They are not prescriptions on powers the feds have which is exactly what you are making this out to be - a power that the feds or the state has rather than a right the people have.

That the AND is missing from the amendment does not mean the right of the people does not exist. Rather it directly contradicts your statement, if the and had existed THEN you might have a point in claiming you have the 'right' to join a militia however it does not. Even then it would be take pretzel logic to make that key point go away, that the amendment directly states the right of the people. The prefatory clause is clearly outlining the purpose of the right: Well regulated militias are important for a free state as the founders knew because the 'well regulated' militia was key in making the US a free state. Because the militia is made up of the people, they must both be armed and in well regulated order. That is exactly what Miller found:

" The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998). "

Heller also covers the idea that you 'can join' a militia as something you are simply interjecting into the meaning. The militia is, essentially, everyone.
"Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men."

Second, it's pretty clear when it says "well regulated". That means that the governing authority can regulate militias as it sees fit, just as it can regulate an army as it sees fit. So those who join the militia must submit to regulations.
Well, no and Heller addressed that as well:

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Which has actually been used in the past but fell out of traditional use pretty quickly after the nation was established. Either way, the prefatory statement not only does not remove the individual right but it would be rather nonsensical to demand that the necessity of a well trained militia being necessary for a free state would somehow equate to removing the right that such a well regulated force would require to exist at all. It is an illogical conclusion to draw.

Nowhere does it infer that individuals can be running around like Yosemite Sam.
Nope, it never says we can run around like Yosemite Sam but no one anywhere is advocating for that so your straw man is pointless. You start out stating that the meaning of the second is pretty clear, make a statement about what it does not say and then go on to utterly and unequivocally ignore the text of the second applying what you want it to mean.

Here is the bottom line - it is a simple fact that the second protects your individual right to bear arms that are both in common use throughout the nation and in military use, period. Trying to read that out of the amendment is simply not possible while being honest with its intent or wording. I get it that many think the amendment is outdated and incorrect in a modern society considering the changes that have happened to arms in the intervening 2 centuries. However, it requires an amendment to change the second and nothing less will do. The left has been trying to pretend basic terminology means something it does not because they know that bar is high but that is simply not going to work. Stop trying to reinterpret the second to something it is not.
I just read the Amendment. I didn't add anything, I didn't subtract anything. Looks pretty clear.
No, you made up what you wanted the amendment to say as it does not say anything even remotely what you claim. I have shown you quotes from Heller that establish what those phrases actually mean.

Then, you ignore all of that, ignore the plan reading of the text and reassert you just 'read' the amendment. Try again.

Funny, the second amendment actually says something about a militia, it doesn't say damn thing about self-defense. You reckon the founders just forgot to put it in?
Funny how the 2nd Amendment also doesn't have an except for clause, no mentions of bans, but is pretty damn specific about the rights of the people.

I've also posted several quotes by the founding fathers that verify an individuals right to self-defense.
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
7,317
Points
290
Funny how the 2nd Amendment also doesn't have an except for clause, no mentions of bans, but is pretty damn specific about the rights of the people.
In the context of a "Well Regulated Militia..."
I've also posted several quotes by the founding fathers that verify an individuals right to self-defense.
I must have missed those. Can you post those (only) again?
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,037
Reaction score
2,052
Points
290
Location
GNO
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.
What is an "assault weapon" ? I keep asking this question an none of you can give a straight answer.
It is essentially semi-auto magazine fed long gun.
And you have described many types of hunting rifles. I'm still waiting.
You had your answer. A hunting rifle does not require a detachable magazine...unless you are a VERY bad shot. If you're that bad a shot you shouldn't be hunting
You gave a broad brush bullshit answer.
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,037
Reaction score
2,052
Points
290
Location
GNO
Funny how the 2nd Amendment also doesn't have an except for clause, no mentions of bans, but is pretty damn specific about the rights of the people.
In the context of a "Well Regulated Militia..."
I've also posted several quotes by the founding fathers that verify an individuals right to self-defense.
I must have missed those. Can you post those (only) again?
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine
 

Wild Bill Kelsoe

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
671
Reaction score
627
Points
873
Thr 2nd Amendment doesn't have a damned thing to do with militias. It says "the right of the people", not, "the right of members of the militia".
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,037
Reaction score
2,052
Points
290
Location
GNO
Funny how the 2nd Amendment also doesn't have an except for clause, no mentions of bans, but is pretty damn specific about the rights of the people.
In the context of a "Well Regulated Militia..."
I've also posted several quotes by the founding fathers that verify an individuals right to self-defense.
I must have missed those. Can you post those (only) again?
. the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,037
Reaction score
2,052
Points
290
Location
GNO
Funny how the 2nd Amendment also doesn't have an except for clause, no mentions of bans, but is pretty damn specific about the rights of the people.
In the context of a "Well Regulated Militia..."
I've also posted several quotes by the founding fathers that verify an individuals right to self-defense.
I must have missed those. Can you post those (only) again?


"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
 

Wild Bill Kelsoe

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
671
Reaction score
627
Points
873
An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,037
Reaction score
2,052
Points
290
Location
GNO
Funny how the 2nd Amendment also doesn't have an except for clause, no mentions of bans, but is pretty damn specific about the rights of the people.
In the context of a "Well Regulated Militia..."
I've also posted several quotes by the founding fathers that verify an individuals right to self-defense.
I must have missed those. Can you post those (only) again?
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,037
Reaction score
2,052
Points
290
Location
GNO
Funny how the 2nd Amendment also doesn't have an except for clause, no mentions of bans, but is pretty damn specific about the rights of the people.
In the context of a "Well Regulated Militia..."
I've also posted several quotes by the founding fathers that verify an individuals right to self-defense.
I must have missed those. Can you post those (only) again?
“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
 

airplanemechanic

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,588
Reaction score
6,363
Points
1,065
Funny how the 2nd Amendment also doesn't have an except for clause, no mentions of bans, but is pretty damn specific about the rights of the people.
In the context of a "Well Regulated Militia..."
I've also posted several quotes by the founding fathers that verify an individuals right to self-defense.
I must have missed those. Can you post those (only) again?

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

The coauthor of the amendment said clearly it is the whole people. Not the military.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
 
Last edited:

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,037
Reaction score
2,052
Points
290
Location
GNO
Funny how the 2nd Amendment also doesn't have an except for clause, no mentions of bans, but is pretty damn specific about the rights of the people.
In the context of a "Well Regulated Militia..."
I've also posted several quotes by the founding fathers that verify an individuals right to self-defense.
I must have missed those. Can you post those (only) again?
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top