CDZ How The Second Amendment Comes From Something That Happened In The 2nd Century BCE

[progressive hunter]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

 

[DudleySmith]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

 

[progressive hunter]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

got a link to that??
cause 240 yrs of history say different,,,

 

[2aguy]

Every Supreme Court since 1789 disagrees with your interpretation.

That's 232 years worth of the best legal minds America has ever produced.

You are most definitely wrong. It was not until the Heller case in 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment applied to the states and individuals. Even Heller ruled, that the 2nd amendment did not grant a carte blanche right to own guns and that states could regulate certain firearms.

Wrong, as Scalia states throughout Heller.

And more to the point....the Bill of Rights didn't grant the Right, it codified a pre-existing Right.......and the First Amendment doesn't apply only to the federal government.....just as the 2nd Amendment didn't apply only to the federal government.

 

[2aguy]

Somebody already beat me to the Heller argument. That being said, the whole idea of a "well regulated militia" has already been differentiated. And it doesn't apply. It's one of the reasons that the modern day National Guard doesn't like being associated with the word "militia". I support any law abiding citizens right to own, operate, and carry a firearm. But gun regulations aren't gun grabs. I see nothing wrong with a national gun registry, closing all the gunshow loopholes, forcing private sales to either be handled through a licensed firearms dealer or pass registration in your state, and expanded background checks. These are just common sense.

So, About That "Well-Regulated Militia" Part of the Constitution

Bay Area demonstrations by right-wing groups scheduled over the weekend fizzled in face of massive opposition protests, defusing fears that Charlottesville-like violence could erupt in San Francisco and Berkeley. Indeed, protests in San Francisco were peaceful, and the few scuffles that did...

alumni.berkeley.edu

The Germans, French, Russians, Australians, Canadians, British, New Zealand didn't see anything wrong with a national gun registry either.....in fact, they liked it so much, they used it when they decided to ban and confiscate guns...



There is no gun show loophole.

Registration is the goal, so you can later ban and confiscate without having to worry about people hiding their guns...which is the only reason you want universal background checks....it is the trojan horse for gun registration.

 

[2aguy]

Every Supreme Court since 1789 disagrees with your interpretation.

That's 232 years worth of the best legal minds America has ever produced.

This isn’t an interpretation. It is an accurate summary of history. Your reply is taken as the vague generalization, with no specific valid content, or link to any valid history, is so noted.

Scalia...

Held: 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
----

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. Pp. 22–28.

(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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

Daily Kos

Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

‘The militia isn’t there to oppose the regular military. It’s there to supplement it. The Second and Third Amendments are designed to limit the scope of the military by providing an alternative.

It doesn’t matter if you define the militia as the National Guard or as “all the people,” the purpose of the Second Amendment was to stake out room for a force to operate alongside the professional army, not in opposition.’ ibid

Correct.

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the wrongheaded notion that citizens may take up arms against a lawfully elected government with the intent to overthrow that government because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive it to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Framers would not have amended the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

 

[2aguy]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

Daily Kos

Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

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

 

[2aguy]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

Daily Kos

Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

And here...

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”

The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause.

The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).

All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Every Supreme Court since 1789 disagrees with your interpretation.

That's 232 years worth of the best legal minds America has ever produced.

You are most definitely wrong. It was not until the Heller case in 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment applied to the states and individuals. Even Heller ruled, that the 2nd amendment did not grant a carte blanche right to own guns and that states could regulate certain firearms.

Actually it was McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.

Otherwise correct – it wasn’t until Heller that the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm.

The Heller Court also reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment in no manner authorizes citizens to ‘overthrow’ the Federal government through force of arms.

 

[2aguy]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

Daily Kos

Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose.

No, they were not.

The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,


NOT the Militia

Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.

Wrong.

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 infringe

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

Daily Kos

Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose.

No, they were not.

The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,


NOT the Militia

Wrong.

As already correctly noted: it wasn’t until Heller that the individual right to possess a firearm was recognized by the Court.

 

[2aguy]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

Daily Kos

Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose.

No, they were not.

The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,


NOT the Militia

Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.

The Constitution 'applied' it much earlier.

" 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. "

That is your opinion. That was not the law until 2008.

That is your opinion.

no, that's a fact.

the law was based on what the 2nd actually said.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008. Even Heller, states that the government still has the power to regulate certain firearms.

Except, no, it doesn't. Please quote that for us....

Here...

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

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

------

And....From Caetano v Massachusetts..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

-

--

 

[2aguy]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

Daily Kos

Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose.

No, they were not.

The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,


NOT the Militia

Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.

The Constitution 'applied' it much earlier.

" 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. "

That is your opinion. That was not the law until 2008.

That is your opinion.

no, that's a fact.

the law was based on what the 2nd actually said.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008. Even Heller, states that the government still has the power to regulate certain firearms.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008.

It's been the 'status' since the Constitution was ratified, despite YOUR 'opinion'.

Deal with it.

You are wrong. All Supreme Court cases prior to Heller, stated that the second amendment DID NOT apply to the states or individuals, only to the national government. You can argue with me till the chickens come home to roost but that will not change past Supreme Court opinions.

The First Amendment wasn't surrendered to the will of the states...... Freedom of Religion wasn't left up to the states.....the Bill of Rights covered Rights in existence....

 

[candycorn]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

Daily Kos

Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"

 

[Carl in Michigan]

all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms

"Permitted"??? Our government doesnt "permit" the 2and Amendment. It RECOGNIZES that the right of self defense comes from GOD

 

[2aguy]

Not sure why we have a problem that one requirement of owning a gun wouldn't include being trained in gun safety.

That's easy....in Europe, they use training requirements as a tool to keep people from being able to own a gun and carry it....the requirements are so immense, that only the rich and politcally connected can afford the time and money to own the few hunting guns they are allowed to own...that's why.

 

[2aguy]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

Daily Kos

Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"

No...we know why....the Germans didn't want a 2nd Amendment because you can't murder 12 million men, women and children if the 12 million have easy access to guns........

 

[candycorn]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

Daily Kos

Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"

No...we know why....the Germans didn't want a 2nd Amendment because you can't murder 12 million men, women and children if the 12 million have easy access to guns........

That was 80 years ago. Why hasn't the Germans (or the other 200 nations) decided to get their own 2nd Amendment if it such a good idea?

 

[2aguy]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years. I already posted to an essay that covered the politics of militias , so I don't need to repeat myself over and over just because your mantras don't allow you to discuss anything outside your box.

Did states Rights trump the 1st Amendment? Did the Constitution allow the states to suppress Speech, the press, religious practice? No, of course not.......there are Rights that pre-existed the Constitution that we have with or without the Constitution, and the Right to keep and bear arms is one of those Rights.