CDZ The 2nd Amendment

[The Sage of Main Street]

And get Congress has the ability to change those laws.

It's how the separation of powers work.

The Constitution Is Real Easy To Just Change Through The Legislatures

That's Why Radicals Need The Courts

SCOTUS Has Said There Are Penumbras Within Our Constitution

That's How Roe v Wade
Was Found Within The Constitution

And The Legislature Doesn't Have Time
To Scribble Up New Legislation
To Over-Turn Precedent Rulings
To The Satisfaction Of The Courts That Set Them

Pretty Simplistic Assertion, fridgid....

The Constitution can be changed. If the Constitution is out of date and a majority of people think it should be changed because of bad interpretation.

But the Constitution has to be interpreted by someone. Who is to say what is the "correct" way of viewing it?

It was the Framers' intent that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

Actually the 'Framers' intended for Congress to overshadow the Supreme Court, ans as we know from the historical record they let the states handle their own gun laws as the individual states saw fit .

Actually, The Supreme Court declared themselves to be the final arbitrator of the Constitution. The states should have opposed that power grab, but did not, and now we are pretty much stuck with it.

Bury Marbury

We aren't stuck with SCROTUS's usurpation of the power that belongs to us, the people. Saying that we are is a clever way of supporting the side you pretend to oppose. It is not realism to say it is hopeless to overrule the just-us's Star Chamber; it is fatalism and political sadism.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

ignorant of your Constitutional, standing Orders?

huh? are you drunk?

I am not the one who Only has appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land.

Can right wing Bakers, be any more moral.

pisss OVER HERE HERE.... THE SECOND AMENDMENT DISCUSSION IS OVER HERE.
You're drifting.

Our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

You merely appeal to ignorance.

So what is the constitution for?

Perpetuating Tyranny by the Static 1%

To empower a hereditary oligarchy by establishing an American House of Lords.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution Is Real Easy To Just Change Through The Legislatures

That's Why Radicals Need The Courts

SCOTUS Has Said There Are Penumbras Within Our Constitution

That's How Roe v Wade
Was Found Within The Constitution

And The Legislature Doesn't Have Time
To Scribble Up New Legislation
To Over-Turn Precedent Rulings
To The Satisfaction Of The Courts That Set Them

Pretty Simplistic Assertion, fridgid....

The Constitution can be changed. If the Constitution is out of date and a majority of people think it should be changed because of bad interpretation.

But the Constitution has to be interpreted by someone. Who is to say what is the "correct" way of viewing it?

It was the Framers' intent that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

Actually the 'Framers' intended for Congress to overshadow the Supreme Court, ans as we know from the historical record they let the states handle their own gun laws as the individual states saw fit .

Actually, The Supreme Court declared themselves to be the final arbitrator of the Constitution. The states should have opposed that power grab, but did not, and now we are pretty much stuck with it.

Bury Marbury

We aren't stuck with SCROTUS's usurpation of the power that belongs to us, the people. Saying that we are is a clever way of supporting the side you pretend to oppose. It is not realism to say it is hopeless to overrule the just-us's Star Chamber; it is fatalism and political sadism.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Found this....

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 and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

Ok... Explain to me, where is the right to self-defense protected?

Drooling Idiots Support the Rest of the Constitution Only Because of the 2A

Only your gun protects your right to have a gun, not some anti-democratic document that creates a tyranny in the rest of its basic structure.

 

[Picaro]

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

Ok... Explain to me, where is the right to self-defense protected?

Drooling Idiots Support the Rest of the Constitution Only Because of the 2A

Only your gun protects your right to have a gun, not some anti-democratic document that creates a tyranny in the rest of its basic structure.

Yes, we pretty much have the 'right' to bear arms by fiat, since there are many millions who own them and aren't going to turn them in, no matter what, don't need any SC ruling one way or the other to exercise that right. They can never enforce it.

 

[Picaro]

Natural rights come from theology and philosophy, period. They aren't 'natural' in the sense atheists mean 'natural'; Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about 'rights'. Rights are enforced by civil authorities, not animals and trees.

Natural Rights - Constitutional Rights Foundation

It doesn't matter what they believe natural rights are. It has been well defined and understood by the framers of the Constitution.

Doesn't matter; they were wrong, that's all. They were trying to follow the pseudo-intellectual fads of their day, and avoid crediting religion as the foundation of modern law and civil society; even the concept of three branches of government come from the Old Testament.Your own link says as much, except they try and imply Jefferson actually believed what he was writing, and there is no evidence for that in his life.

" Natural Rights' is just infantile libertarian drivel.


And, Jefferson's beliefs were based on 'Bolingbrokism', not Locke. Just because they cited philosophers in their propaganda doesn't mean they actually believed what they were writing themselves, they were trying to sway others, not themselves. See Jefferson's early writing on slavery as an example; in real life he highly recommended slave trading to his friends ans one of the best businesses to be in, bringing in a steady 10%-20% returns per year. He financed Monticello with his earnings from the slave trade, and unlike most if his peers he didn't free hardly any of them in his will.

Natural rights and natural law go hand in hand.

True enough; they're both mythical inventions.

They believed in natural law too.

Obviously not; it was just a gimmick and a fad, is all. They didn't practice it in real life; that would mean they would have had to work for a living, and none of the 'Founders', except maybe Franklin, liked that idea at all.

I don't believe that natural rights is wrong at all.

Well, good luck with your fusion of that with Christianity, since they don't mix even little bit.

Moral laws say otherwise. Or don't you believe in those either?

Straw man. Just because rights aren't' natural' doesn't mean nobody supports rights and morals; that's just silly. As I said before, squirrels don't have courts and trials, and they don't carry guns, so obviously those aren't 'natural rights'.

 

[Picaro]

The Constitution can be changed. If the Constitution is out of date and a majority of people think it should be changed because of bad interpretation.

But the Constitution has to be interpreted by someone. Who is to say what is the "correct" way of viewing it?

It was the Framers' intent that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

Actually the 'Framers' intended for Congress to overshadow the Supreme Court, ans as we know from the historical record they let the states handle their own gun laws as the individual states saw fit .

Actually, The Supreme Court declared themselves to be the final arbitrator of the Constitution. The states should have opposed that power grab, but did not, and now we are pretty much stuck with it.

Bury Marbury

We aren't stuck with SCROTUS's usurpation of the power that belongs to us, the people. Saying that we are is a clever way of supporting the side you pretend to oppose. It is not realism to say it is hopeless to overrule the just-us's Star Chamber; it is fatalism and political sadism.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Not at all; Congress has itself conceded many of its responsibilities to the Federal Courts, illegally so in the literal sense, and Courts are deciding issues that are clearly Congresses decisions and laws to make.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary, not the unorganized militia, expressly.

The words well regulated does not mean what you think it means

“Well regulated” means what the Supreme Court says it means:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

ibid

No, it doesn't. Well regulated means what Congress prescribes it to mean, for the Militia of the United States.

Nope that's why they didn't want a standing army

We got one anyway, because it became immediately obvious we had to have one, and they didn't hesitate to create one and didn't spend years of 'debate' over whether it was 'Constitutional' or not, they just did it, and din't see the Constitution as any kind of hindrance to respond to existential realities that arose, either. Most seem to miss the irony of Jefferson being the first President to engage us in 'overseas entanglements', and also the first to use Federal troops against American citizens, in enforcing the embargoes.

So much for how some 'Founders' viewed certain clauses. Obviously their 'original intent' doesn't much resemble what many people today think it is.

and the more reason why we need an armed populous

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As the Heller Court explained, ‘the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.’ ibid

Because the Second Amendment right is an individual right that belongs to all Americans – separate and apart from militia service – the notion that an armed population serving in a militia would act as a ‘deterrent’ to ‘tyranny’ is clearly false; it is an individual, not collective, right, intended to facilitate lawful self-defense against the tyranny of crime, not the perceived tyranny of government.

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Syllabus of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

Pompous Politics Hides Selfish Motives

The prefatory clause is a selling point directed at the plutocracy, which didn't want to pay for a standing army or its weapons. They also didn't want their sons to have to serve, which would have been necessary to keep the plebeian standing-army troops in line.

no not really they didn't want a standing army

 

[karpenter]

Actually, The Supreme Court declared themselves to be the final arbitrator of the Constitution. The states should have opposed that power grab, but did not, and now we are pretty much stuck with it.

The Courts Have Become Our Mullas
Sam Alito Said As Much In His ACA Dissent

 

[danielpalos]

We don't need our alleged wars on, crime, drugs, and terror. We have a Second Amendment.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Found this....

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 and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

Ok... Explain to me, where is the right to self-defense protected?

Tenth Amendment


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.

There was simply no need to have the right to self defense written explicitly in the Bill of Rights.

The whole Bill of Rights were about the government and making government better.

Freedom of speech to prevent the govt stifling free speech so people could talk about politics.

Freedom of religion to prevent government becoming a religious entity.

RKBA to act as an ultimate check on the government should all the other things fail.

Not quartering troops in people's houses to prevent government abuse of private property.

Simply said, self defense at an individual level has nothing to do with the government. It's not about making government better, so it wasn't written explicitly into the Bill of Rights.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ah, my favorite word: believe.

Believe means you think something you just made up that doesn't have that much basis in reality.

In this case, it seems to have no basis in reality.

OK...I MADE it.

Fine, and I'm telling you I didn't get it.

So, two choices. Be proud and pretend you made it and everyone can get it, or explain it again so people can get it.

Leo's point is actually quite obvious, if one can put aside bias, and see through the poor choice of wording....

No one ever claimed that the 2nd was not about self defense.

Really? I've claimed it.

The Supreme Court's claimed it.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Now, drilling or parading with arms, would be carrying arms. If carrying arms were protected by the 2A, then drilling and carrying arms would also be protected. They're not.

The NRA also says the this is not the case.

If there's a protection for carrying arms, then there's no need for carry and conceal laws, as it would already be protected.

The NRA’s dream bill could soon become law after quietly moving through Congress

"
NRA bill requiring all states to recognise conceal carry permits set to pass through Congress"

So, why would the NRA support such a thing if there is already a right to carry arms around as one wishes?

First of all, you are barking up the wrong tree. It was not MY point, I was merely attempting to clarify LEO's point, sinse you missed it.

Second, the SCOTUS case you cited, does it actually use the phrase "self-defense"? I do not know, as I am unfamiliar with it. You seem to be, so maybe you can save me the time of reading the entire ruling.

Third, concealed carry is viewed by most (correctly IMHO) to be quite different from "open carry". Concealing (or hiding) a weapon is a tactic that can (and often times is) used by those who wish to do harm but don't want to be "seen" as such until they are ready. Therefore, there needs to be higher standards for those who wish to engage in such things. It is no different for knives, or anything else that could reasonably be construed as a lethal weapon. That said, I do understand that virtually anything can be used as a lethal weapon, but I doubt many people would see a spoon in my pocket as a potential problem.

Your point was that "No one ever claimed that the 2nd was not about self defense."

I'm telling you this is rubbish.

I presented evidence and you've admitted you don't know about this topic to actually be able to make such a claim.

Why does it matter if the Supreme Court used the term "self defense" or not?

If the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms (which is what is being discussed right now) then an individual would always be able to carry their arms. But the Supreme Court said this isn't so.

Now, I'm assuming you're taking the term "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" which in turn then becomes "self defense", tenuous at best.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

If we look at this document we KNOW that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty".

I pointed out in my previous post that there's no logical reason to protect individual self defense in the Bill of Rights. This document does not include the term "self defense" for a reason. Because the Founding Fathers were not discussing individual self defense when talking about the Second Amendment.

Okay, concealed carry is considered different to open carry. I'm quite sure that if "bear arms" meant "carry arms" that it doesn't distinguish between open carry and concealed carry.

I mean, do you have a single shred of evidence that the Founding Fathers were even talking about "carry arms" let along distinguishing between open and concealed?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Constitution Is Real Easy To Just Change Through The Legislatures

That's Why Radicals Need The Courts

SCOTUS Has Said There Are Penumbras Within Our Constitution

That's How Roe v Wade
Was Found Within The Constitution

And The Legislature Doesn't Have Time
To Scribble Up New Legislation
To Over-Turn Precedent Rulings
To The Satisfaction Of The Courts That Set Them

Pretty Simplistic Assertion, fridgid....

The Constitution can be changed. If the Constitution is out of date and a majority of people think it should be changed because of bad interpretation.

But the Constitution has to be interpreted by someone. Who is to say what is the "correct" way of viewing it?

It was the Framers' intent that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

Actually the 'Framers' intended for Congress to overshadow the Supreme Court, ans as we know from the historical record they let the states handle their own gun laws as the individual states saw fit .

Actually, The Supreme Court declared themselves to be the final arbitrator of the Constitution. The states should have opposed that power grab, but did not, and now we are pretty much stuck with it.

Bury Marbury

We aren't stuck with SCROTUS's usurpation of the power that belongs to us, the people. Saying that we are is a clever way of supporting the side you pretend to oppose. It is not realism to say it is hopeless to overrule the just-us's Star Chamber; it is fatalism and political sadism.

Never heard of checks and balances then?

 

[danielpalos]

OK...I MADE it.

Fine, and I'm telling you I didn't get it.

So, two choices. Be proud and pretend you made it and everyone can get it, or explain it again so people can get it.

Leo's point is actually quite obvious, if one can put aside bias, and see through the poor choice of wording....

No one ever claimed that the 2nd was not about self defense.

Really? I've claimed it.

The Supreme Court's claimed it.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Now, drilling or parading with arms, would be carrying arms. If carrying arms were protected by the 2A, then drilling and carrying arms would also be protected. They're not.

The NRA also says the this is not the case.

If there's a protection for carrying arms, then there's no need for carry and conceal laws, as it would already be protected.

The NRA’s dream bill could soon become law after quietly moving through Congress

"
NRA bill requiring all states to recognise conceal carry permits set to pass through Congress"

So, why would the NRA support such a thing if there is already a right to carry arms around as one wishes?

First of all, you are barking up the wrong tree. It was not MY point, I was merely attempting to clarify LEO's point, sinse you missed it.

Second, the SCOTUS case you cited, does it actually use the phrase "self-defense"? I do not know, as I am unfamiliar with it. You seem to be, so maybe you can save me the time of reading the entire ruling.

Third, concealed carry is viewed by most (correctly IMHO) to be quite different from "open carry". Concealing (or hiding) a weapon is a tactic that can (and often times is) used by those who wish to do harm but don't want to be "seen" as such until they are ready. Therefore, there needs to be higher standards for those who wish to engage in such things. It is no different for knives, or anything else that could reasonably be construed as a lethal weapon. That said, I do understand that virtually anything can be used as a lethal weapon, but I doubt many people would see a spoon in my pocket as a potential problem.

Your point was that "No one ever claimed that the 2nd was not about self defense."

I'm telling you this is rubbish.

I presented evidence and you've admitted you don't know about this topic to actually be able to make such a claim.

Why does it matter if the Supreme Court used the term "self defense" or not?

If the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms (which is what is being discussed right now) then an individual would always be able to carry their arms. But the Supreme Court said this isn't so.

Now, I'm assuming you're taking the term "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" which in turn then becomes "self defense", tenuous at best.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

If we look at this document we KNOW that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty".

I pointed out in my previous post that there's no logical reason to protect individual self defense in the Bill of Rights. This document does not include the term "self defense" for a reason. Because the Founding Fathers were not discussing individual self defense when talking about the Second Amendment.

Okay, concealed carry is considered different to open carry. I'm quite sure that if "bear arms" meant "carry arms" that it doesn't distinguish between open carry and concealed carry.

I mean, do you have a single shred of evidence that the Founding Fathers were even talking about "carry arms" let along distinguishing between open and concealed?

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Actually, The Supreme Court declared themselves to be the final arbitrator of the Constitution. The states should have opposed that power grab, but did not, and now we are pretty much stuck with it.

The Courts Have Become Our Mullas
Sam Alito Said As Much In His ACA Dissent

Marbury Belongs With Selling Indulgences and the Inquisition

The Constitution is treated like the Bible is by Evangelicals. If it is such, then SCROTUS is the Papacy that provoked the Protestant Reformation. As long as we treat the Constitution as if it is divinely inspired, we need a Martin Luther to overthrow the Nine Clowns With Gavels and Gowns, who think it is their private message from the Supreme Being.

 

[oldsoul]

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

Ok... Explain to me, where is the right to self-defense protected?

Tenth Amendment


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.

There was simply no need to have the right to self defense written explicitly in the Bill of Rights.

The whole Bill of Rights were about the government and making government better.

Freedom of speech to prevent the govt stifling free speech so people could talk about politics.

Freedom of religion to prevent government becoming a religious entity.

RKBA to act as an ultimate check on the government should all the other things fail.

Not quartering troops in people's houses to prevent government abuse of private property.

Simply said, self defense at an individual level has nothing to do with the government. It's not about making government better, so it wasn't written explicitly into the Bill of Rights.

That is certainly one way of looking at it, not incorrect either. You make a strong case, Thank you.

 

[oldsoul]

OK...I MADE it.

Fine, and I'm telling you I didn't get it.

So, two choices. Be proud and pretend you made it and everyone can get it, or explain it again so people can get it.

Leo's point is actually quite obvious, if one can put aside bias, and see through the poor choice of wording....

No one ever claimed that the 2nd was not about self defense.

Really? I've claimed it.

The Supreme Court's claimed it.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Now, drilling or parading with arms, would be carrying arms. If carrying arms were protected by the 2A, then drilling and carrying arms would also be protected. They're not.

The NRA also says the this is not the case.

If there's a protection for carrying arms, then there's no need for carry and conceal laws, as it would already be protected.

The NRA’s dream bill could soon become law after quietly moving through Congress

"
NRA bill requiring all states to recognise conceal carry permits set to pass through Congress"

So, why would the NRA support such a thing if there is already a right to carry arms around as one wishes?

First of all, you are barking up the wrong tree. It was not MY point, I was merely attempting to clarify LEO's point, sinse you missed it.

Second, the SCOTUS case you cited, does it actually use the phrase "self-defense"? I do not know, as I am unfamiliar with it. You seem to be, so maybe you can save me the time of reading the entire ruling.

Third, concealed carry is viewed by most (correctly IMHO) to be quite different from "open carry". Concealing (or hiding) a weapon is a tactic that can (and often times is) used by those who wish to do harm but don't want to be "seen" as such until they are ready. Therefore, there needs to be higher standards for those who wish to engage in such things. It is no different for knives, or anything else that could reasonably be construed as a lethal weapon. That said, I do understand that virtually anything can be used as a lethal weapon, but I doubt many people would see a spoon in my pocket as a potential problem.

Your point was that "No one ever claimed that the 2nd was not about self defense."

I'm telling you this is rubbish.

I presented evidence and you've admitted you don't know about this topic to actually be able to make such a claim.

Why does it matter if the Supreme Court used the term "self defense" or not?

If the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms (which is what is being discussed right now) then an individual would always be able to carry their arms. But the Supreme Court said this isn't so.

Now, I'm assuming you're taking the term "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" which in turn then becomes "self defense", tenuous at best.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

If we look at this document we KNOW that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty".

I pointed out in my previous post that there's no logical reason to protect individual self defense in the Bill of Rights. This document does not include the term "self defense" for a reason. Because the Founding Fathers were not discussing individual self defense when talking about the Second Amendment.

Okay, concealed carry is considered different to open carry. I'm quite sure that if "bear arms" meant "carry arms" that it doesn't distinguish between open carry and concealed carry.

I mean, do you have a single shred of evidence that the Founding Fathers were even talking about "carry arms" let along distinguishing between open and concealed?

Your point was that "No one ever claimed that the 2nd was not about self defense."

Wrong, That was LEO's point, as I said. I was merely clarifying for you. Therefore, the rest of your argument about this is irrelevant, as I do not disagree with you, and never have.

I mean, do you have a single shred of evidence that the Founding Fathers were even talking about "carry arms" let along distinguishing between open and concealed?

Considering that "concealable" firearms of the day were far different that today (not to mention very expensive, and therefore rare), they likely did not see any point in discussing them. They were very short range, and inaccurate (at best), even by contemporary standards. I would guess, and it is only a guess, that they saw concealed knives, swords, and the like to be of far more concern at the time. However, I am unaware of any serious discussions of them in the context of rights, or the COTUS.

 

[danielpalos]

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

Ok... Explain to me, where is the right to self-defense protected?

Tenth Amendment


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.

There was simply no need to have the right to self defense written explicitly in the Bill of Rights.

The whole Bill of Rights were about the government and making government better.

Freedom of speech to prevent the govt stifling free speech so people could talk about politics.

Freedom of religion to prevent government becoming a religious entity.

RKBA to act as an ultimate check on the government should all the other things fail.

Not quartering troops in people's houses to prevent government abuse of private property.

Simply said, self defense at an individual level has nothing to do with the government. It's not about making government better, so it wasn't written explicitly into the Bill of Rights.

That is certainly one way of looking at it, not incorrect either. You make a strong case, Thank you.

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.