Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[CurveLight]

do some of you goofs who think we don't have the right to bear arms need more quotes and facts?

What the ****? Are dumbasses drinking from the same Dumb Water Well? Show us one person......just one who has stated in this thread we don't have the right to bear arms.

 

[CurveLight]

I do not agree with everything you said, but I like the reasoning behind al of it.

Wow! Thank you QW. So my question is what do you disagree with and why?

I believe that COTUS makes an exception to the general rule about not mentioning ownership of items with the second amendment for a couple of reasons.

You have to remember, the Founders were familiar with societies that took away the right to bear arms from its citizens. Noblemen routinely denied peasants the right to own swords, even though they needed these same peasants to fight the battles they were constantly getting into with their neighbors. I believe they deliberately phrased the second amendment as the right to keep and bear arms for that reason.

If they wanted this to simply be about the rights of citizens to form a militia it would have simply said the right to bear arms shall not be restricted, and we could have had centralized armories in communities to arm people as it was needed, and they could check them in every night.

Even if you are 100% correct about your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the Constitution still protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. After the civil war laws were written that denied former slaves the right to own guns. It is quite clear from the debate surrounding the 14th amendment when it was written that it was intended to counter this erosion of rights, and give the individual freemen the right to protect themselves from state militias. The 14th amendment modified the rest of the constitution to protect the civil rights of every individual in America from encroachment from the states.

Slaughterhouse needs to be overturned ASAP.

But I don't need to remember what I've already pointed out. I'm well aware of their intentions for the militia and even used the Revolutionary War as an example. If they had intended simply for individuals to have weapons they would not have said it is a well regulated militia that provides State security. Since they were fearful of the State taking away weapons the Militia was not intended to be under control of the State. It was intended to be under control of the people who were not in the military.

The biggest problem is bipolar viewing of the 2nd. It's a false dilemma to say the 2nd means either it is a State run military or it is about individuals. There is a third option which is my position. The Militia was run by the people in the local communities. This makes the most sense of the 2nd because it explains why they said a well regulated militia is the tool for State security. You cannot have State security if the government alone was allowed to have weapons. You cannot have State security just because a bunch of bozos went out and bought guns.

 

[JakeStarkey]

State Security, in this day and age, is not vested in the 'militia' of the various states, despite Curved's contention. Someone said the government would not be able to collect guns. Yeah, if the government roles in a couple of IFVs, armored infantry, and puts gunships in the sky over the community, yes, it can.

The safety of the community rests in civic virtue, which is represented by an American community of citizens aware of their rights. That is slipping away. Should the government ever come to the point of collecting weapons, the social construct of the Republic will already have eroded away, and the few protestors will be summarily executed.

Want to prevent that day? Educational awareness of the masses.

 

[daveman]

Exactly. It is a matter of FREE MEN Defending their God Given right to Life, Liberty, And Persuit Of Happiness [Property] by whatever means.

And this scares the Shit out of the Statists...having the people with the power over THEM...and the Government they so proudly Hail...

And this is their prayer:

The Government's Prayer

Our Government in D.C.,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy nanny state come.
Thy mandate be done
on flyover country as it is in the coasts.
Give us this month our monthly check,
and audit us our trespasses,
as we file suit against those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into liberty,
but deliver us from ourselves.
For thine is the oligarchy,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.

You speak directly and succinctly to those that worship Momma Government...

As for the rest of us? We take our cue to be suspect to even those that we grant power over us...And ever mindful that *we* can remove that power despite their best effort.

Indeed. Never forget that they work for us. Statists believe they work for the government.

I'm a citizen. Statists are subjects.

 

[daveman]

When are you gun lovers going to put up or shut up? Like you I love the 2nd but when will you stop quoting the fathers ad nauseum and start loading your own ammunition and prepare for the time to put your money where your big mouths are and turn your weapons against the government? What will it take? Another execution order by the puppet in chief against american citizens?

Isn't it funny how the folks who hated government when Bush was in office now willingly turn their soft white underbellies to it?

 

[daveman]

Pffft. What do THEY know?


Did I get that right, CurveLight?

Holy **** you are embarrassingly stoopid. I've been saying all along the Militia is made up of the people so all those quotes didn't accomplish a ******* thing. It may be best if you learn what my position entails before making an ass of yourself. Again.

Still waiting for your qualifications to pontificate on the Constitution. So far, all we've got is a Comparative Religion class.

 

[skookerasbil]

*************************
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun
control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------


In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From
1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------


Germany established gun control in 1938 and from
1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to
defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------


China established gun control in 1935. From
1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------


Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to
1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------


Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to
1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to
1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.

 

[CurveLight]

*************************
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun
control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------


In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From
1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------


Germany established gun control in 1938 and from
1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to
defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------


China established gun control in 1935. From
1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------


Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to
1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------


Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to
1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to
1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.

Looks more like a history of genocide versus guns.

 

[CurveLight]

Pffft. What do THEY know?


Did I get that right, CurveLight?

Holy **** you are embarrassingly stoopid. I've been saying all along the Militia is made up of the people so all those quotes didn't accomplish a ******* thing. It may be best if you learn what my position entails before making an ass of yourself. Again.

Still waiting for your qualifications to pontificate on the Constitution. So far, all we've got is a Comparative Religion class.

Did Gunny institute a new rule about needing to be experts on thread topics before debating them? Or are you so *****-slapped-drunk your blurred vision leaves you wandering in the fields of distraction desperation?

 

[CurveLight]

State Security, in this day and age, is not vested in the 'militia' of the various states, despite Curved's contention. Someone said the government would not be able to collect guns. Yeah, if the government roles in a couple of IFVs, armored infantry, and puts gunships in the sky over the community, yes, it can.

The safety of the community rests in civic virtue, which is represented by an American community of citizens aware of their rights. That is slipping away. Should the government ever come to the point of collecting weapons, the social construct of the Republic will already have eroded away, and the few protestors will be summarily executed.

Want to prevent that day? Educational awareness of the masses.

The thread is not about State security and you simply cannot respond to my points so like your twin sister dave all you have left are empty rice paper gloves of distraction.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Curved, you want to talk about the right to own guns. The right exists. Can it be taken away. Sure, anytime the government wants to. Your philosophical basis for your belief has no impact culturally or politically. So keep on expounding. It's your right.

 

[ConHog]

I was going to give you a treatise on the original meaning of the words, but I can see I'm far too late in the game for that. Some VERY good work in that direction has already been done by several other on this thread, so while there is no kill like overkill, I'll dispense with the additional quotes demonstrating the meaning of terms like "well regulated" "militia" etc.

What must be understood is that the Amendment must be read with the same understanding as they were written at the time they were set down. Just because militia happens to mean something else today, you can't expect even a genius like George Mason to have known 220 years ago that the meaning of the word militia would undergo a chance 150 years in the future. That's asking a bit much don't you think? Therefore, you must review the writings of the day and determine the meaning of the words they wrote at the time they wrote them. Not a very difficult task, although those on the left act as if it's all but impossible. After the meaning for each word is derived and some research done on particular phases to determine the same, then give the words their common meaning at the time of the writing.

In this case, contra your assertion that nothing in the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to own anything, that the right belongs to the state because of the word militia, when you understand that the term militia was meant to be all of the men of "military age" as a mass and that the reference to "well regulated" merely means that there should be training, then it is clear that the plain and unchanged statement that "the right of the people to keep...arms" is just about as clear as it can be that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was that all of us were to have the right to OWN weapons should we choose.

You practically have to stand on your head to find a different result. Now, while I agree with Justice Thomas that this is probably really a "privilege or immunity" under the 14th Amendment and that Slaughterhouse needs revisiting, I think that if Justice Alito had done that in this case people's heads would have exploded. Additionally, people need to realize that once you overturn Slaughterhouse, you open a Pandora's box as to what privileges might be. You might not like all of them.

You pretty much glossed right over my post. One of my majors in school was the Study of Religion so I'm well into the habit of seeking contemporary comprehension for older texts and I examined the 2nd through that lens. There is absolutely no where near enough gap between the meanings of the key words in the 18th century and today.

You attempted to give your interpretation more strength by simply seeking synonyms that assuage the sharper meanings of the words. Ironically, you helped prove it was not about individuals by highlighting Militia as meaning military aged men. Let me put your distractions in context of the 2nd and show why you don't even stand by your own interpretation of those words:

Militia: military aged males.

By your interpretation the 2nd does not permit women nor younger or older men to own weapons.

Well regulated: training

Where is the place people go to get trained in order to be in compliance with the 2nd? If you say they don't have to get trained to own weapons you just contradicted your own interpretation. Your interpretation of the 2nd is so damn weak SCOTUS had to incorporate the 14th to try and justify their ruling. (Yes I'm aware amendments are often cross-referenced)

So do you plan on responding to the rest of my points or are you going to ignore them again?

Your religious major means nothing in this discussion. I'll see that and raise you a few US History degrees.


Let's discuss first your incorrect view of the second amendment and the word militia.

The following is the opinion of a noted constitutional lawyer, Daniel J. Schultz

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "A well regulat
led 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 reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

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."

It is also helpful to contemplate the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights in general. To secure ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists, urging passage of the Constitution by the States had committed themselves to the addition of the Bill of Rights, to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread.

It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.

By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."

Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).

The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."


The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

Once again, well regulated does NOT mean regulated by the State, for what good would that do in the case of needing to overthrow the State?

Your definition of militia is likewise wrong because the framers believed that the militia was any individual capable of bearing arms. Including young, old, black,white, male or female, whomever.

Does this really need to go on Curved?

 

[ConHog]

Curved, you want to talk about the right to own guns. The right exists. Can it be taken away. Sure, anytime the government wants to. Your philosophical basis for your belief has no impact culturally or politically. So keep on expounding. It's your right.

You are wrong.

shall not be infringed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Curved, you want to talk about the right to own guns. The right exists. Can it be taken away. Sure, anytime the government wants to. Your philosophical basis for your belief has no impact culturally or politically. So keep on expounding. It's your right.

You are wrong.

shall not be infringed.

Don't be mental on me, conhog. You are right about what the constitution says. However, a constitution is not going to stop the government if it decides to take your gun, son, because a constitution does not have an army. Only the peoples' civic virtue will make sure that will not happen.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Curved, you want to talk about the right to own guns. The right exists. Can it be taken away. Sure, anytime the government wants to. Your philosophical basis for your belief has no impact culturally or politically. So keep on expounding. It's your right.

You are wrong.

shall not be infringed.

Don't be mental on me, conhog. You are right about what the constitution says. However, a constitution is not going to stop the government if it decides to take your gun, son, because a constitution does not have an army. Only the peoples' civic virtue will make sure that will not happen.

Thats EXACTLY why the Founders insisted we have an armed citizenry.

They read Machiavelli, did you?

 

[ConHog]

Curved, you want to talk about the right to own guns. The right exists. Can it be taken away. Sure, anytime the government wants to. Your philosophical basis for your belief has no impact culturally or politically. So keep on expounding. It's your right.

You are wrong.

shall not be infringed.

Don't be mental on me, conhog. You are right about what the constitution says. However, a constitution is not going to stop the government if it decides to take your gun, son, because a constitution does not have an army. Only the peoples' civic virtue will make sure that will not happen.

Oh, but the CON DOES have an army. the very militia referred to in the second amendment, and that is exactly why it was included.

Now could the people fight off the US military in straight up fight? Of course not, but you have no idea how many would desert the military if ordered to fire upon US citizens. I'd bet half , at least, would turn their weapons on the government

 

[CurveLight]

do some of you goofs who think we don't have the right to bear arms need more quotes and facts?

Show us one person in this thread who has stated we don't have the right to bear arms.

(Ignore it again *****)

 

[ConHog]

do some of you goofs who think we don't have the right to bear arms need more quotes and facts?

Show us one person in this thread who has stated we don't have the right to bear arms.

(Ignore it again *****)

Don't even try those games you jackass. You do this in every thread. You claim to be for something then you post drivel after drivel stating why it's wrong.

You believe all the guns should be locked up at some militia office somewhere, that's obvious to anyone who's even glanced at this thread. Same as in the Boy Scout thread you believe they have a right to keep gays out as long as they pay enough blood money.

Your games bore me. Your understanding of the COTUS is elementary at best, and you are a liar.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now could the people fight off the US military in straight up fight? Of course not, but you have no idea how many would desert the military if ordered to fire upon US citizens. I'd bet half , at least, would turn their weapons on the government

The military without a doubt would fire on nuts. Militias, my butt. As if. As fricking if. You live in la la land if you think you and your militia would have the slightest chance.

Conhog thinks he is Paul fricking Revere pounding through the night.

 

[CurveLight]

Your definition of militia is likewise wrong because the framers believed that the militia was any individual capable of bearing arms. Including young, old, black,white, male or female, whomever.

Does this really need to go on Curved?

You

Are

One

Dumb

******

I never said the Militia was a strictly government run organization. Even though I've explained my position you're so ******* stoopid you don't know what it is so you create strawmen then ask "if it needs to go on." No. It doesn't need to go on. You need to read my posts so you can stop making an ass of yourself.

Your claim that the framers viewed every able bodied person regardless of gender or race as being the Militia is ******* unbelievable ignorant I don't know how in the **** you got any degrees in history unless you bought them on ebay.