Salon article: US founded on gun control? Madison/2nd Amendment meant state militias?

[emilynghiem]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

 

[Pogo]

The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."

Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows. Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis. No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll". No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.

It's just odd. Looks grossly unfinished.

 

[Kosh]

Salon.com is a far left hack site. So one should understand that the far left wants only the criminals to have guns. Anything from a far left hack site should never be used for any type of "facts".

The second amendment is what it is, for the people to be armed. It was created in a time where there was people living in space areas that did not have protections like police and military. These people needed arms to defend their lands. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals.

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

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

During the war between Iraq and Iran, houses in Iraq were required to have a room specifically dedicated for arms to help drive out any invading force. This was done in the spirit of keeping Iranian forces out of the country, but these rooms existed in the Iraq war days. If the people did not want the US in their country they were supplied with arms to attack any invading force.

There are many cities that have strict gun control laws and have some of the highest murder rates. Even countries with strict gun control laws still have many problems with murder. Gun control laws only affect those that abide by the laws. Gun control laws will not stop anyone with the intent of doing harm.

For every new law that is created, a new potential criminal is created.

However just like J walking, if you do not enforce what is currently on the books, creating new ones will do no good. Just look at immigration.

Maybe you should have used this:

In an effort to further dissuade fears over a national military force, Madison indicates that, at any point, the maximum force that can be brought to bear by the government to enforce its mandates is but a small fraction (~1/5) the might of a militia:

... Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

---snip---

Military and militia[edit]

During the ratification debate, many Americans feared that the federal government would become too powerful and too similar to the monarchy in Great Britain. Madison calculated while writing Federalist Paper 46 that the standing military, controlled by the federal government, should be kept under a maximum of 30,000 troops, enough to defend America against other nations but not enough to oppress the states. The states themselves, to protect themselves from the federal government from overpowering them with the threat of a standing army like Great Britain did when King George III sent his battalion to America, were allowed a total militia of 500,000 people. The purpose of the militia changed with the passing years as well. Instead of being there to protect the states from being too controlled by the federal government, the militia’s purpose now is to respond to natural disasters and protect individuals stuck in those situations.

Federalist No. 46 - Wikipedia

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, Emily, the "Socialist Democrat Party" will never stop trying to take guns from the citizens, it`s only one of their many Agenda`s!!! They want total control of the people, without weapons, we`re totally screwed!!! Salon, it`s a subsidiary of the Socialist Democrat Party, simple!!!

"GTP"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."

Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows. Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis. No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll". No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.

It's just odd. Looks grossly unfinished.

Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia"

It means well supplied. Smoothly operating.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only,

Every other of the first 10 Amendments limits government to protect individual rights.
Why would the 2nd Amendment be needed to protect a state right?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The 10th seems to cover that.
If they meant militia only, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".....

changing people to militia would have made their intentions unmistakable.

 

[jwoodie]

A point which is frequently overlooked is that the Second Amendment was a prohibition against the Federal government interfering with a State's right to defend itself. (At least prior to 1860.)

 

[PredFan]

1. It’s Salon.com
2. It’s already been thoroughly debunked numerous times.
3. Time to give more money to the NRA.

 

[ding]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.

 

[PredFan]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.

It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.

 

[emilynghiem]

The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."

Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows. Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis. No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll". No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.

It's just odd. Looks grossly unfinished.

Thanks Pogo
I think it is because there are conditions that come with the responsibility for armed defense.
I think it is part of natural law that
lawful use of force is based on defending the law not violating it.

This is similar to the First Amendment including both
freedom as in freedom of speech and free exercise of religion,
and peace/security as in the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
So this is another area where there is an inherent qualifier:
you can't take freedom of speech/press or free exercise of religion
"out of context" where it disrupts or causes a breach of the peace,
because the right of the people peaceably to assemble is included in the same context.

Likewise, if you take this further,
the right to bear arms cannot be abused to violate the
right of people to security in our persons houses and effects
which is another principle within the same Bill of Right.

So this means the use of arms can't be abused to violate other rights or laws
or else it conflicts with the very Constitutional principles it is part of.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to delineate the
rights of individuals that were otherwise not spelled out as were
the duties and powers given to collective Federal Govt in the body of the Constitution;
so taken together, all these principles serve to CHECK and BALANCE each other.

No part or principle including the Second Amendment can be taken out of
context to violate any other part or principle in the same Constitution including
the Bill of Rights that was added as an agreed Condition for ratifying the Constitution.

 

[yiostheoy]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

Heller v. DC pretty much settled this.

Scalia went through an exhaustive study and write-up to point out that militias have nothing to do with it.

Of course Ginsberg and her fellow activist justices disagree.

It was a close split decision.

 

[yiostheoy]

Anytime the SCOTUS splits 5 to 4 on anything you can argue it until Hell freezes over.

 

[LOki]

If gun-control advocates didn't have arguments that rely upon disinformation and logical fallacy, they'd have no arguments at all.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

Heller v. DC pretty much settled this.

Scalia went through an exhaustive study and write-up to point out that militias have nothing to do with it.

Of course Ginsberg and her fellow activist justices disagree.

It was a close split decision.

Dear yiostheoy
the reason liberals don't agree is if they don't believe in natural laws in the Constitution coming from God first as the default where govt doesn't create those rights but the Constitution reflects and expresses them.

both sides have their own default beliefs.

and govt including judges in courts can't be abused to establish beliefs for the nation against the will and beliefs of dissenters who believe otherwise, and can't be forced to change or abandon their beliefs by govt coercion.

if it is equally wrong for courts to establish the political belief in the right to marriage or right to health care which violates beliefs of others, it is equally wrong to depend on courts to establish beliefs in gun rights that not all people follow or believe in either.

Sorry but there has to be a consensus if there is going to be a real agreement on what these laws mean, where BELIEFS are involved. for other matters that are secular and don't involve people's inherent beliefs, those can be agreed to give authority to courts and govt to settle. but not issues of beliefs, that obviously don't work that way.

it would violate the establishment clause where govt can neither prohibit nor establish religious belief or bias. with the gun rights and meaning of the 2nd Amendment, this has become a political religion, similar to beliefs that health care is a right or marriage is a right. so people will need to vote on a resolution that equally recognizes includes and protects the political beliefs on both sides, instead of favoring one over the other, if we expect to settle this issue.

 

[danielpalos]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.

It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.

Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.

It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.

Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.

Dear danielpalos
if the Second Amendment required govt regulation through state militias as a requirement for individuals
to keep and bear arms, then Texas and Texans would never have agreed to join the Union.
No Texan I know would give up their individual rights to federal controls of state militias.

However, the natural law that gives human beings "free exercise of religion"
allows for liberals like you to believe in govt controls of gun regulations and state militias,
similar to your belief that health care is a natural right.
That belief is your right to exercise under freedom of religion.

Otherwise, liberals like you would never agree to live in the same country
under the same laws as people who believe in individual gun rights outside state militias.
Clearly Constitutional principles allow people of all beliefs to coexist peacefully by agreeing
NOT to impose on each other's beliefs through govt. And looking at the Second Amendment,
it is written in such a way that BOTH sides can use it to express their opposite beliefs.

Free exercise of religion covers both beliefs.
You have no right to abuse govt to dictate your beliefs by law,
by the very First Amendment principle that defends your equal right to your own beliefs.

Can we agree to respect each other's beliefs equally,
in keeping with equal protection of the laws?

 

[Picaro]

The original intent of the Constitution was to define limits of Federal power, and states had the powers to regulate themselves internally, hence gun control laws in many states, mostly raced based early on, due to fear of slave revolts and such events as the tax resistors in western PA Washington dealt with and Jefferson's enforcing his embargoes during his second term, etc.

This system has gradually broken down over the decades, with political hacks and corrupt Federal judges, particularly the Chase Court during Lincoln's illegal war, with judges gradually destroying the Bill Of Rights and Congress refusing to do its job and ceding power to other branches, to the point where the U.S, is essentially lawless and unable to govern itself any more. Patrick Moynihan pointed this out a long time ago. Most citizens of the U.S. just don't want to be responsible citizens any more, can't be bothered to care, either.

People who keep pretending the Constitution is still empowered are ostriches with their heads stuck in the sand. It's no longer the law of the land, hasn't been since the Civil War at best, some scholars say since Jefferson's Presidency. It's fantasy, with Constitutional law changing based purely on judicial whims and pet ideological beliefs and silly fads, not law or precedent, which is to be expected when the Judges are all just political hacks appointed for every reason other than patriotism and the Constitution's enforcement.

When you have such dysfunctional weirdness as neurotic, harmful sex fetishes and pop psycho-babble being politicized and taken seriously as the basis for 'civil rights' hoaxes and the like, you know the system of checks and balances is completely dead, and your 'citizens' are mentally retarded and regressive de-evolution is well along. Mindless self-indulgence isn't the same as freedom and respect for law, and having some 300,000,000 separate sets of laws tailored to every individual's whims is an impossibility only dumbasses and lunatics think is viable.

There is a very real difference between having an open mind and tolerance for other beliefs, and having a huge gaping hole in your head.

 

[Picaro]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.

It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.

Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.

Dear danielpalos
if the Second Amendment required govt regulation through state militias as a requirement for individuals
to keep and bear arms, then Texas and Texans would never have agreed to join the Union.
No Texan I know would give up their individual rights to federal controls of state militias.

However, the natural law that gives human beings "free exercise of religion"
allows for liberals like you to believe in govt controls of gun regulations and state militias,
similar to your belief that health care is a natural right.
That belief is your right to exercise under freedom of religion.

Otherwise, liberals like you would never agree to live in the same country
under the same laws as people who believe in individual gun rights outside state militias.
Clearly Constitutional principles allow people of all beliefs to coexist peacefully by agreeing
NOT to impose on each other's beliefs through govt. And looking at the Second Amendment,
it is written in such a way that BOTH sides can use it to express their opposite beliefs.

Free exercise of religion covers both beliefs.
You have no right to abuse govt to dictate your beliefs by law,
by the very First Amendment principle that defends your equal right to your own beliefs.

Can we agree to respect each other's beliefs equally,
in keeping with equal protection of the laws?

Not all beliefs are equal, or to be taken seriously as legitimate beliefs. Is some loon's belief in a 'right to marry my favorite puppy' to carry equal weight with anything else in national discourse and 'human rights'??? Seriously???