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

[westwall]

The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that. According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong. Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind. Enjoy.

So what. Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.

Judicial activism, is simply that.

The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.

So you're claiming the second claus isn't there. It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight. I think it's called "indoctrination".

The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.

Then I have the right to own guns. I'm part of "the people" as you claim. Correct?

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

Incorrect. The COTUS codifies them quite plainly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Whether the Second Amendment recognizes a collective right or individual right is a distinction without a difference.

Related or unrelated to militia service, an individual right remains necessary for a citizen to either defend his Nation as a member of his state’s militia or to defend himself from crime as an individual.

Advocates of the collective right interpretation perceived it as a means by which to justify more restrictive firearm regulation – in the case of Heller an outright prohibition of the possession of handguns.

Absent the relevance of state militias in the Era of the modern military/industrial complex, they argued, absent too would be the need for individuals to possess firearms, and thus absent that right.

Consequently, Scalia was compelled to contrive an individual right justification.

Scalia first engages in a tedious, protracted, and ultimately pointless analysis of the wording the Second Amendment itself – an analysis far from compelling.

More compelling is Scalia’s review of laws, measures, and legal precedent recognizing a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.

Last, Scalia determines that because handguns are the overwhelming means by which Americans seek to defend themselves, to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.

It was therefore the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, that those rights are in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ and that government has the authority to place restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[danielpalos]

So what. Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.

Judicial activism, is simply that.

The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.

So you're claiming the second claus isn't there. It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight. I think it's called "indoctrination".

The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.

Then I have the right to own guns. I'm part of "the people" as you claim. Correct?

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

Incorrect. The COTUS codifies them quite plainly.

Where?

 

[danielpalos]

Whether the Second Amendment recognizes a collective right or individual right is a distinction without a difference.

Related or unrelated to militia service, an individual right remains necessary for a citizen to either defend his Nation as a member of his state’s militia or to defend himself from crime as an individual.

Advocates of the collective right interpretation perceived it as a means by which to justify more restrictive firearm regulation – in the case of Heller an outright prohibition of the possession of handguns.

Absent the relevance of state militias in the Era of the modern military/industrial complex, they argued, absent too would be the need for individuals to possess firearms, and thus absent that right.

Consequently, Scalia was compelled to contrive an individual right justification.

Scalia first engages in a tedious, protracted, and ultimately pointless analysis of the wording the Second Amendment itself – an analysis far from compelling.

More compelling is Scalia’s review of laws, measures, and legal precedent recognizing a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.

Last, Scalia determines that because handguns are the overwhelming means by which Americans seek to defend themselves, to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.

It was therefore the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, that those rights are in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ and that government has the authority to place restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The People are the militia.

 

[westwall]

Whether the Second Amendment recognizes a collective right or individual right is a distinction without a difference.

Related or unrelated to militia service, an individual right remains necessary for a citizen to either defend his Nation as a member of his state’s militia or to defend himself from crime as an individual.

Advocates of the collective right interpretation perceived it as a means by which to justify more restrictive firearm regulation – in the case of Heller an outright prohibition of the possession of handguns.

Absent the relevance of state militias in the Era of the modern military/industrial complex, they argued, absent too would be the need for individuals to possess firearms, and thus absent that right.

Consequently, Scalia was compelled to contrive an individual right justification.

Scalia first engages in a tedious, protracted, and ultimately pointless analysis of the wording the Second Amendment itself – an analysis far from compelling.

More compelling is Scalia’s review of laws, measures, and legal precedent recognizing a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.

Last, Scalia determines that because handguns are the overwhelming means by which Americans seek to defend themselves, to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.

It was therefore the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, that those rights are in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ and that government has the authority to place restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

You silly people crack me up. There was no need to "contrive" an individual Right component. It is EXPLICIT in the wording you blithering fool.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What’s both telling and amusing, of course, is that conservatives have come to loath Heller, and have come to feel ‘betrayed’ by Scalia.

That’s particularly the case with rightwing extremists who incorrectly believe that the Second Amendment is ‘absolute,’ and that government has no authority to place restrictions on firearms, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

So the premise of the linked article in the OP is essentially correct: it was the original understanding and intent of the Framers to place limits on the possession of firearms, that the Second Amendment right “is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ibid

 

[Weatherman2020]

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).

I don't know what's funnier. The premise of the OP or you thinking Salon is a reputable source.

 

[Weatherman2020]

All guns should be confiscated so Trump can solidify his dictatorship.

 

[sakinago]

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 Idea that the 2nd amendment only applies to state militias is nonsensical, as well as intellectually dishonest. It shows an extreme ignorance to the philosophy that lead to the bill of rights, an ignorance to the historical context, and a purposeful ignorance to the text itself.

First and foremost, the text of the 2nd. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It really doesn't need to be any clearer than that. It clearly states PEOPLE, not states, not government, not governors, not militias, but people.

IF it were true that militias were to be controlled strictly by the states...then state legislature would be appointing the leaders of the militia, much like they appointed senators at the time, because the senate was there to represent the states. That was not the case, the people who made up the militias elected their own leaders. Could the governors call upon the militia it times of common defense, yes, but the duly elected militia leaders still had control over their militia. The individuality of the militias made them a pretty shitty tool to repel actual standing armies, they did not move in unison as a single unit, they did not have a top down structured hierarchy much like a standing army that can coordinate mass numbers of troops into a single much more effective attack or defense. To give governors and/or states total control of the militias goes totally against the philosophy at the time, which was a government in control of force is dangerous and short sighted. Sure its not the fed government, but that still gives states to power to not only ignore protest of their constituents, since "i control the militia, what are you going to do about it," but to also swoop in on selective counties and use those counties militias against them. NO, a well armed PEOPLE makes a respectable government. Giving governors total control over militias, also gave them standing armies, which the founders were deathly afraid of, and why they banned standing armies in times of peace, even though standing armies were much more effective at common defense. Do you really believe the founders were ok changing one standing army with another standing arm? NO, just a ridiculous notion.

Dear sakinago
While I agree with the traditional interpretation as more consistent with historical context and Constitutional meaning, I also acknowledge that opponents and dissenters have equal right to their beliefs, however contradictory or irrational, provided they keep these beliefs to themselves and dont impose on others. They have equal right to govern themselves under beliefs that health care is a right through govt and that arms are reserved for militia regulated by govt as well.

The problem then becomes imposing this belief through govt. But if we recognize this as a belief, then it cant be imposed or it violates Amendment One.

If we keep arguing back and forth, both sides claiming historic or judicial precedent as justification for imposing one belief or another, we risk losing our right to the interpretation we believe in. If the only way that the liberals feel they can protect their right to their belief is to override the Constitution by abusing judicial or executive power, this invites if not necessitates such abuse! To prevent that, I argue it is better to recognize the liberal rights to their beliefs as a Political Religion, then they have free exercise without prohibition by govt and also the same laws prevent such political beliefs from being established by govt.

Similar with LGBT beliefs, beliefs in health care and in marriage as a right. Acknowledging these as Political Beliefs protects them as part of free exercise of religion, while at the same time barring govt from establishing such beliefs by law. The protection is mutual!

Well this is the problem with post-modernism thinking, that there are an infinite number of interpretations of the world/theory/text/etc, which is kind of true, and therefore no interpretation should be given priority over another and by doing that you're playing into a power/dominance hierarchy and that's a bad thing...which is completely false. Its false because there's a narrow window of interpretations that will effect beliefs which will in turn effect actions, and having those actions lead to success in life. I could interpret that the stove will make a good hand rest, but that's not going to be true every time for obvious reasons. The idea of a "dominance hierarchy" being a force of "bad' is also false, because there isn't a dominance hierarchy, its really a competence hierarchy. In chimps its not necessarily the biggest, meanest, strongest chimp that's the alpha male, it does happen, but if that chimp is brutal to the other chimps, doesn't socialize well, or do things like reciprocate in grooming, what will happen is a couple of beta chimps will get together and brutally kill the tyrannical chimp. Whats a more stable chimp tribe is an alpha male that's very good at socializing, takes care of the young, etc. Theres still a clear hierarchy there, but the tribe is very much better off, because the alpha chimp is playing by a set of mutually agreed upon rules among chimps. To say the entire hierarchy structure itself bad is also false, and its false because its such a integral part of not only our humanity, but also animal life. The hierarchy structure in animals has been around longer than the trees have been around, literally. Its how we successfully learn to socialize amongst each other, and if you socialize successfully it has tremendous positive effects on our brain chemistry and make up. If not, it has very bad effects on our brain chemistry and make up. Its such a vital part to us.

So it is important to stand up against post modernism, because it leads to very dark and bad places in humanity. The problems we are seeing in our society, things like the rise of Antifa, the social constraint on free speech, the lack of rhetoric (not in the political term sense, but the liberal art of rhetoric and reason), the echo chambers, etc, is a direct result of the philosophies of the humanities being dominated by post-modernism in our universities. Post-modernism leads into tyranny because it fails to recognize that the competence hierarchy is so imbedded in us, and that the post modernist are still playing into it even thought they claim to be against it, and the play into it in a form divorced from the rules we evolutionarily agree to play by that lead to good results. Its the "Gods of the Copybook Headings" poem by Rudyard Kipling, if you haven't read it, read it now, one of the most profound poems out there. Post modernism is the tyrannical alpha chimp, that requires a very brutal battle to unseat. Its why so many college students/millennials are against the true "liberal" ideas like diversity of thought, marketplace of ideas, free speech, etc. Fighting against post modernism, is the fight against tyranny.

 

[danielpalos]

Whether the Second Amendment recognizes a collective right or individual right is a distinction without a difference.

Related or unrelated to militia service, an individual right remains necessary for a citizen to either defend his Nation as a member of his state’s militia or to defend himself from crime as an individual.

Advocates of the collective right interpretation perceived it as a means by which to justify more restrictive firearm regulation – in the case of Heller an outright prohibition of the possession of handguns.

Absent the relevance of state militias in the Era of the modern military/industrial complex, they argued, absent too would be the need for individuals to possess firearms, and thus absent that right.

Consequently, Scalia was compelled to contrive an individual right justification.

Scalia first engages in a tedious, protracted, and ultimately pointless analysis of the wording the Second Amendment itself – an analysis far from compelling.

More compelling is Scalia’s review of laws, measures, and legal precedent recognizing a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.

Last, Scalia determines that because handguns are the overwhelming means by which Americans seek to defend themselves, to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.

It was therefore the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, that those rights are in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ and that government has the authority to place restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

You silly people crack me up. There was no need to "contrive" an individual Right component. It is EXPLICIT in the wording you blithering fool.

The People are the Militia. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.

 

[westwall]

Whether the Second Amendment recognizes a collective right or individual right is a distinction without a difference.

Related or unrelated to militia service, an individual right remains necessary for a citizen to either defend his Nation as a member of his state’s militia or to defend himself from crime as an individual.

Advocates of the collective right interpretation perceived it as a means by which to justify more restrictive firearm regulation – in the case of Heller an outright prohibition of the possession of handguns.

Absent the relevance of state militias in the Era of the modern military/industrial complex, they argued, absent too would be the need for individuals to possess firearms, and thus absent that right.

Consequently, Scalia was compelled to contrive an individual right justification.

Scalia first engages in a tedious, protracted, and ultimately pointless analysis of the wording the Second Amendment itself – an analysis far from compelling.

More compelling is Scalia’s review of laws, measures, and legal precedent recognizing a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.

Last, Scalia determines that because handguns are the overwhelming means by which Americans seek to defend themselves, to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.

It was therefore the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, that those rights are in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ and that government has the authority to place restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

You silly people crack me up. There was no need to "contrive" an individual Right component. It is EXPLICIT in the wording you blithering fool.

The People are the Militia. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.

The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE", not the right of the government. Now piss off.

 

[danielpalos]

Whether the Second Amendment recognizes a collective right or individual right is a distinction without a difference.

Related or unrelated to militia service, an individual right remains necessary for a citizen to either defend his Nation as a member of his state’s militia or to defend himself from crime as an individual.

Advocates of the collective right interpretation perceived it as a means by which to justify more restrictive firearm regulation – in the case of Heller an outright prohibition of the possession of handguns.

Absent the relevance of state militias in the Era of the modern military/industrial complex, they argued, absent too would be the need for individuals to possess firearms, and thus absent that right.

Consequently, Scalia was compelled to contrive an individual right justification.

Scalia first engages in a tedious, protracted, and ultimately pointless analysis of the wording the Second Amendment itself – an analysis far from compelling.

More compelling is Scalia’s review of laws, measures, and legal precedent recognizing a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.

Last, Scalia determines that because handguns are the overwhelming means by which Americans seek to defend themselves, to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.

It was therefore the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, that those rights are in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ and that government has the authority to place restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

You silly people crack me up. There was no need to "contrive" an individual Right component. It is EXPLICIT in the wording you blithering fool.

The People are the Militia. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.

The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE", not the right of the government. Now piss off.

This is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or economics.

The People are the Militia. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.

 

[westwall]

Whether the Second Amendment recognizes a collective right or individual right is a distinction without a difference.

Related or unrelated to militia service, an individual right remains necessary for a citizen to either defend his Nation as a member of his state’s militia or to defend himself from crime as an individual.

Advocates of the collective right interpretation perceived it as a means by which to justify more restrictive firearm regulation – in the case of Heller an outright prohibition of the possession of handguns.

Absent the relevance of state militias in the Era of the modern military/industrial complex, they argued, absent too would be the need for individuals to possess firearms, and thus absent that right.

Consequently, Scalia was compelled to contrive an individual right justification.

Scalia first engages in a tedious, protracted, and ultimately pointless analysis of the wording the Second Amendment itself – an analysis far from compelling.

More compelling is Scalia’s review of laws, measures, and legal precedent recognizing a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.

Last, Scalia determines that because handguns are the overwhelming means by which Americans seek to defend themselves, to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.

It was therefore the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, that those rights are in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ and that government has the authority to place restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

You silly people crack me up. There was no need to "contrive" an individual Right component. It is EXPLICIT in the wording you blithering fool.

The People are the Militia. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.

The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE", not the right of the government. Now piss off.

This is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or economics.

The People are the Militia. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.

Wrong dumbass. It's why no one takes you and your ilk serious. Numerous Courts have recognized it is an individual Right even when there was significant pressure placed upon them to find otherwise, and the English language says you're an idiot. Only anti gun authoritarians have to resort to twisting language to try and support their idiocy.

That would be you...

 

[danielpalos]

Whether the Second Amendment recognizes a collective right or individual right is a distinction without a difference.

Related or unrelated to militia service, an individual right remains necessary for a citizen to either defend his Nation as a member of his state’s militia or to defend himself from crime as an individual.

Advocates of the collective right interpretation perceived it as a means by which to justify more restrictive firearm regulation – in the case of Heller an outright prohibition of the possession of handguns.

Absent the relevance of state militias in the Era of the modern military/industrial complex, they argued, absent too would be the need for individuals to possess firearms, and thus absent that right.

Consequently, Scalia was compelled to contrive an individual right justification.

Scalia first engages in a tedious, protracted, and ultimately pointless analysis of the wording the Second Amendment itself – an analysis far from compelling.

More compelling is Scalia’s review of laws, measures, and legal precedent recognizing a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.

Last, Scalia determines that because handguns are the overwhelming means by which Americans seek to defend themselves, to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.

It was therefore the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, that those rights are in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ and that government has the authority to place restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

You silly people crack me up. There was no need to "contrive" an individual Right component. It is EXPLICIT in the wording you blithering fool.

The People are the Militia. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.

The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE", not the right of the government. Now piss off.

This is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or economics.

The People are the Militia. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.

Wrong dumbass. It's why no one takes you and your ilk serious. Numerous Courts have recognized it is an individual Right even when there was significant pressure placed upon them to find otherwise, and the English language says you're an idiot. Only anti gun authoritarians have to resort to twisting language to try and support their idiocy.

That would be you...

Fallacy is all the right wing has, not Any form of better solution at lower cost.

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason

 

[westwall]

You silly people crack me up. There was no need to "contrive" an individual Right component. It is EXPLICIT in the wording you blithering fool.

The People are the Militia. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.

The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE", not the right of the government. Now piss off.

This is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or economics.

The People are the Militia. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.

Wrong dumbass. It's why no one takes you and your ilk serious. Numerous Courts have recognized it is an individual Right even when there was significant pressure placed upon them to find otherwise, and the English language says you're an idiot. Only anti gun authoritarians have to resort to twisting language to try and support their idiocy.

That would be you...

Fallacy is all the right wing has, not Any form of better solution at lower cost.

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason

Yes, the WHOLE PEOPLE. Not the government, or any FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Now go twist your head around a logic fallacy again.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.

The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE", not the right of the government. Now piss off.

This is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or economics.

The People are the Militia. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.

Wrong dumbass. It's why no one takes you and your ilk serious. Numerous Courts have recognized it is an individual Right even when there was significant pressure placed upon them to find otherwise, and the English language says you're an idiot. Only anti gun authoritarians have to resort to twisting language to try and support their idiocy.

That would be you...

Fallacy is all the right wing has, not Any form of better solution at lower cost.

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason

Yes, the WHOLE PEOPLE. Not the government, or any FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Now go twist your head around a logic fallacy again.

lol. only in right wing legal fantasy.

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.

The Intent and Purpose of the second clause, is in the first clause. Be Patriotic.

 

[westwall]

The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE", not the right of the government. Now piss off.

This is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or economics.

The People are the Militia. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.

Wrong dumbass. It's why no one takes you and your ilk serious. Numerous Courts have recognized it is an individual Right even when there was significant pressure placed upon them to find otherwise, and the English language says you're an idiot. Only anti gun authoritarians have to resort to twisting language to try and support their idiocy.

That would be you...

Fallacy is all the right wing has, not Any form of better solution at lower cost.

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason

Yes, the WHOLE PEOPLE. Not the government, or any FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Now go twist your head around a logic fallacy again.

lol. only in right wing legal fantasy.

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.

The Intent and Purpose of the second clause, is in the first clause. Be Patriotic.

Patriotism has nothing to do with the English language, nor the intent of the 2nd which was to ensure the ability of the American People the ability to remove an illegitimate government, which the Founders knew would eventually happen because they were way smarter than you.

"As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."



The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

 

[sakinago]

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 Idea that the 2nd amendment only applies to state militias is nonsensical, as well as intellectually dishonest. It shows an extreme ignorance to the philosophy that lead to the bill of rights, an ignorance to the historical context, and a purposeful ignorance to the text itself.

First and foremost, the text of the 2nd. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It really doesn't need to be any clearer than that. It clearly states PEOPLE, not states, not government, not governors, not militias, but people.

IF it were true that militias were to be controlled strictly by the states...then state legislature would be appointing the leaders of the militia, much like they appointed senators at the time, because the senate was there to represent the states. That was not the case, the people who made up the militias elected their own leaders. Could the governors call upon the militia it times of common defense, yes, but the duly elected militia leaders still had control over their militia. The individuality of the militias made them a pretty shitty tool to repel actual standing armies, they did not move in unison as a single unit, they did not have a top down structured hierarchy much like a standing army that can coordinate mass numbers of troops into a single much more effective attack or defense. To give governors and/or states total control of the militias goes totally against the philosophy at the time, which was a government in control of force is dangerous and short sighted. Sure its not the fed government, but that still gives states to power to not only ignore protest of their constituents, since "i control the militia, what are you going to do about it," but to also swoop in on selective counties and use those counties militias against them. NO, a well armed PEOPLE makes a respectable government. Giving governors total control over militias, also gave them standing armies, which the founders were deathly afraid of, and why they banned standing armies in times of peace, even though standing armies were much more effective at common defense. Do you really believe the founders were ok changing one standing army with another standing arm? NO, just a ridiculous notion.

Wrong.

Again, the Constitution prohibited the establishment of a National army, which is why its funding was limited to two years.

The states’ militia would defend the Nation until a Federal army could be mobilized.

What was wrong about what I said?

 

[regent]

Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.

So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?

it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.

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.

Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots. Why are their words humorous to you?

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

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment cannot do what is claimed by the fantastical right wing Because, it would have to be a Constitution unto itself, instead of merely a Second Article of Amendment.