The assault weapon ban? Not about mass shooters, it’s about Rittenhouse and McCloskys…..

[Smokin' OP]

You fascists will never give up........the Right of the People to keep and bear arms is direct and straightforward...by you will never stop trying to lie about it.

Oh' darn.
ANOTHER, RWNJ gun nut chimes in.
The FIRST part is direct and straight forward too.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".
Why did they put THAT FIRST?
OR put that in the amendment............AT ALL, Q NUT?

 

[Smokin' OP]

How much do the chinese pay people like you these days? We know they control tik tok, and that they are infiltrating our society at all levels...is this your only assignment, or do you go around and lie about climate change to.......?

The Chinese know more about US history than any Q NUT.
That isn't saying much, a grade school graduate knows more than a Trumptard.

 

[2aguy]

Oh' darn.
ANOTHER, RWNJ gun nut chimes in.
The FIRST part is direct and straight forward too.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".
Why did they put THAT FIRST?
OR put that in the amendment............AT ALL, Q NUT?

And it doesn't say anything that the militia has a Right to keep and bear arms.........

That you morons keep pushing that just confirms over and over that under no circumstances should we ever give up our guns or let you have total power.......history is full of mass graves created by people who first disarmed their victims....

Read Heller, Scalia explains it so that even a moron, half wit like you can understand.....but, you already understand, you simply need to take our guns away because they keep you from doing everything you want to do to us.......

 

[2aguy]

The Chinese know more about US history than any Q NUT.
That isn't saying much, a grade school graduate knows more than a Trumptard.

I just want to know how much you get paid...or are you simply a part of their military or intelligence apparatus? So you just get the crap pay of a soldier or career spook........

 

[Abatis]

WTF?
At the time, the PEOPLE were the militia, you dumbass.

How can a right expressly stated to be secured for the people, not include ALL the people?

Not all the people, only a, "free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" was obligated BY LAW to serve and was enrolled as set out in law, in the militia.

Among those select "people" chosen to serve, please explain to me what aspect of a citizen's legal militia duty was a "right" or how any gun acquisition (including the mandated type of gun) and possession undertaken to fulfil a citizen's legal mandate, can be defined or described as a "right"? And while you are at it, please explain how any gun use during that mandated in LAW militia duty, can be defined or described as a "right"?

If every aspect of a militia member's gun acquisition, possession and use as a enrolled militia member was set out in law and had legal penalties for evasion / avoidance, what exactly does the 2nd Amendment protect under your goofy interpretation?

You could be drafted into a militia, on a moments notice.

Wrong, Those selected citizens specified in LAW as obligated to serve, were automatically enrolled in the militia, unless specifically exempted from service.

 

[Smokin' OP]

And it doesn't say anything that the militia has a Right to keep and bear arms.........

YES, they do you fucking brain dead, moron.
They're in the militia

That you morons keep pushing that just confirms over and over that under no circumstances should we ever give up our guns or let you have total power

MORONS, like you keep thinking that idiot.
A 30-year-old fucking lie but gullible, Q NUTS, like yourself keep repeating it like FOX, THEN,it becomes 'the truth"

.......history is full of mass graves created by people who first disarmed their victims....

Yeah, you fucking moron, and lately that is because worthless fucks like you NEED 30 rounds of ammo to wound a turtle, because you haven't been trained on how to shoot.
Like giving the keys to a car to a 10 -year -old and praying, of course, NOTHING bad will happen.
30 rounds, no experience, pull the trigger...........what could go wrong?

Read Heller, Scalia explains it so that even a moron, half wit like you can understand

DUH, you're the half-wit.

The case had been brought by a District of Columbia courthouse guard who wanted to buy and maintain a gun at home, despite D.C.'s sweeping handgun ban. Scalia ruled that the Constitution entitled the man, Dick Heller, to own a gun and use it at home for self-protection. For good measure, Scalia not only knocked down the city's handgun ban but also declared that its requirement that guns be kept disassembled or with trigger locks was unconstitutional. No, Scalia ruled, the founders meant for guns to be available for self-defense, and trigger locks would make it too hard to take on an intruder.

Antonin was right.
You should be able to defend yourself, your family and people that are a threat to your safety.

That doesn't mean unreasonable force, just like police.

.....but, you already understand, you simply need to take our guns away because they keep you from doing everything you want to do to us.......

Sure, Q NUT.

 

[Smokin' OP]

How can a right expressly stated to be secured for the people, not include ALL the people?

WTF?
It didn't.
American Indians were excluded as well as black slaves.

Not all the people, only a, "free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" was obligated BY LAW to serve and was enrolled as set out in law, in the militia.

See above.

Among those select "people" chosen to serve, please explain to me what aspect of a citizen's legal militia duty was a "right" or how any gun acquisition (including the mandated type of gun) and possession undertaken to fulfil a citizen's legal mandate, can be defined or described as a "right"? And while you are at it, please explain how any gun use during that mandated in LAW militia duty, can be defined or described as a "right"?

Another, WTF?
If you were in the militia, the towns within a colony couldn't prevent you from owning a weapon.

If every aspect of a militia member's gun acquisition, possession and use as a enrolled militia member was set out in law and had legal penalties for evasion / avoidance, what exactly does the 2nd Amendment protect under your goofy interpretation?

People IN a militia from a colony/city/ town rule.

Wrong, Those selected citizens specified in LAW as obligated to serve, were automatically enrolled in the militia, unless specifically exempted from service.

WRONG, NO, they weren't.
They had to be found and sworn in by a commander of the state's militia.

 

[2aguy]

YES, they do you fucking brain dead, moron.
They're in the militia

MORONS, like you keep thinking that idiot.
A 30-year-old fucking lie but gullible, Q NUTS, like yourself keep repeating it like FOX, THEN,it becomes 'the truth"

Yeah, you fucking moron, and lately that is because worthless fucks like you NEED 30 rounds of ammo to wound a turtle, because you haven't been trained on how to shoot.
Like giving the keys to a car to a 10 -year -old and praying, of course, NOTHING bad will happen.
30 rounds, no experience, pull the trigger...........what could go wrong?

DUH, you're the half-wit.

The case had been brought by a District of Columbia courthouse guard who wanted to buy and maintain a gun at home, despite D.C.'s sweeping handgun ban. Scalia ruled that the Constitution entitled the man, Dick Heller, to own a gun and use it at home for self-protection. For good measure, Scalia not only knocked down the city's handgun ban but also declared that its requirement that guns be kept disassembled or with trigger locks was unconstitutional. No, Scalia ruled, the founders meant for guns to be available for self-defense, and trigger locks would make it too hard to take on an intruder.

Antonin was right.
You should be able to defend yourself, your family and people that are a threat to your safety.

That doesn't mean unreasonable force, just like police.

Sure, Q NUT.

We need whatever magazines we want because morons like you keep releasing the most violent criminals over and over again and during election season, you have now decided that turning loose your brown shirts, blm and antifa, to loot, burn and murder in black neighborhoods is a good strategy .....and that if we don't have guns in the suburbs, you can turn them loose there too.....

Right now, you and the democrats have made the cities you control gun free zones...so that your blm and antifa brownshirts can loot, burn and murder without consequences....Kyle Rittenhouse demonstrated what happens to your convicted felon, pedophile brown shirts when they attack armed normal people...

That is why you have ramped up your attacks on semi-automatic guns........if democrat party brown shirts, blm and antifa, can get shot when they attack normal people....then their value as murderous thugs is reduced........

 

[progressive hunter]

No shit, moron.
That's why a weapon was provided..............by the militia.

While town militia usually only had their personal weapons, of local, “cottage” make, and Roger’s Rangers often carried rifles, also of local make, the arms of those soldiers of the new provisional regiments fighting the French were decidedly British. It was established that each soldier of the Virginia Regiment, for example, be issued a “Sea Service or a Commercial Contract Long Land Type musket with flash guard, hammer cap (hammerstall), bayonet and scabbard.” This musket is best known as the Brown Bess.

you have yet to back up your claim with any proof,,,
while on the otherhand we all know from their writings that the founders meant weapons if war since thats what they would be used for,,

 

[woodwork201]

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It has been less than a month since the Bruen ruling and already the Democrats are infringing.

How many Republicans and other so-called conservatives on this site have argued that the law is the law and it is constitutional unless or until the Supreme Court declares otherwise.

There are those on this site who are not, or at least pretend to not to be, leftists or Democrats or gun controllers who have empowered and approved the Congress passing any law they wish, Constitution be damned, knowing it will be years to decades before it ever, if it ever, gets to the Supreme Court.

Right now, they're just hoping to hold out for Biden or another Democrat, or even another Republican, president to appoint even more Justices that do not care about the Constitution.

 

[woodwork201]

WTF?
At the time, the PEOPLE were the militia, you dumbass.
You could be drafted into a militia, on a moments notice.

I'm not going to side track this thread by going over it all again, but I've already proven, more than once, that the right to keep and bear arms is a separate thing, and was a separate thing in 1789 and in 1791. What you're referring to is an edit made for clarity that everyone at the time of ratification understood what we call the prefatory clause was a binding on the government to maintain the militia and that the militia is a constitutionally required first defense against invasion and rebellion, not a limit on the right to keep and bear arms.

So your claim that we no longer use a militia so the right to keep and bear arms cannot possibly be true; the thing that is wrong in the current government is that they no longer keep up the militia as the primary first-defense for the nation as they are explicitly required by the Constitution to do.

 

[woodwork201]

Goes without stating YOU ARE.

No shit moron, it also allowed other exemptions as well.

NO, it didn't idiot.

Guns were common in colonial and revolutionary America, so were gun restrictions. Laws included banning the sale of guns to Native Americans (though colonists frequently traded guns with Native Americans for goods such as corn and fur); banning indentured servants (mainly the Irish) and slaves from owning guns; and exempting a variety of professions from owning guns (including doctors, school masters, lawyers, and millers).

From the 1700s through the 1800s, so-called “slave codes” and, after slavery was abolished in 1865, “black codes” (and, still later, “Jim Crow” laws) prohibited black people from owning guns and laws allowing the ownership of guns frequently specified “free white men.”

For example, an 1833 Georgia law stated, “it shall not be lawful for any free person of colour in this state, to own, use, or carry fire arms of any description whatever… that the free person of colour, so detected in owning, using, or carrying fire arms, shall receive upon his bare back, thirty-nine lashes, and that the fire arm so found in the possession of said free person of colour, shall be exposed for public sale.”

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)

"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. “Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't.” Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.


View attachment 676292

Yours did.

Yes, violations of the Constitution began almost immediately after the ratification. So what? Can you think of any modern violations of the Constitution? Do you believe we should ignore those because of what a Justice said?

 

[woodwork201]

The Right of the people to keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The PEOPLE got the Right, not just the militia.

There is no need to further prove you're an idiot.

Everyone is well aware of it,

In another thread, I posted every use of the word "People" in the Constitution and in the Amendments. In not any single use of the word does the left try to claim that People means the state, or the community, or the government, or anything other than individual persons.

And yet, somehow, the use in the 2nd Amendment says something completely different from every other case in the Constitution as amended.

 

[woodwork201]

It has been explained a hundred thousand times, and still you folks don't get it.

The first half of the Amendment is an explanatory clause that provides the justification for the Amendment and does NOT alter the meat of the sentence which is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".

That declaration is as specific as it gets. The right to the "People". That is all of us. The reason we have this right? Is to fight tyranny, which is what the Militia was used for in our war of independence against the most powerful army on the planet; using the most modern weapons of the time they lived.

It is not an explanatory clause in any way. It is a requirement that the government maintain a militia and consider and use it as the primary first defense of the security of the state. It is a compound sentence. It could even be considered a running-on sentence, where the author communicated two unrelated topics separated by a comma or semi-colon rather than a period.

Five different States included in their statements/documents ratifying the Constitution that it was done so on the agreement that there would be an amendment protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

New Hampshire's was stated in the simplest of terms: Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

The other four that demanded the right had variations on this, with some including even more differing ideas in the same sentence: That the people have a right to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

Notice the order of the two statements: The right to keep and bear arms first and the militia clause, clearly stating that the militia is a mandatory part of the defense of a free state, as the second clause. Was the right to keep and bear arms explanatory of, the reason for, the requirement that the militia be composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, and be the natural and safe defense of a free state? Of course not.

The biggest mistake modern lawyers, legislators, Courts, and even the Supreme Court Justices, make is to attribute today's grammar rules, standards, practices, and even mistakes, to the writing style of the late 18th century. Instead, they need to look at other writings with similar constructs, logic, and statements, to understand how things were written at the time.

James Madison and his committee had to look at all of the proposed or demanded amendments and consolidate them. When states or other authors said the same thing but with different words or formatting or grammar, he had to consolidate that into a common statement. He consolidated the various statements into the 2nd Amendment, with some parts of the statements also going into the 3rd Amendment and some not making the cut from committee or Congress.

That, in editing, Madison reversed the order of the two statements is not in any way indicative of an intent to change the meaning or intent of the two statements. This is proven by the fact that every one of the five states, plus others, ratified the 4th proposed amendment (which became the 2nd Amendment).

Had the thing that those five states demanded, even as a stated condition of understanding in their ratification of the Constitution itself, been stripped by what became the 2nd Amendment, they surely would never have ratified that amendment. That they all five ratified the Amendment proves that, in the minds of all of the State Legislatures voting on the Bill of Rights, these statements:

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.​

Meant EXACTLY the same as:

As voted out of Congress:​

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.​

Which meant EXACTLY the same as:

As Ratified:​

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 word games between those three, played by the lawyers, the States, the gun controllers especially, the Courts and even the Justices of the Supreme Court are all self-serving by each.

There were multiple scribes who took what Madison edited, and copied it for Congress. When Congress passed it, multiple scribes copied from what Congress wrote to make copies for the States. That's why there are differences in what Congress received from Committee, what they voted on to go to the States, and what the States ratified.

In fact, considering the complete proposed Bill of Rights as a whole, different States got different versions. Commas were added or removed; some scribes used semi-colons where a different scribe used a comma. Some copies used the word "and" in places where other scribes used the ampersand (&) in the same places. They didn't have computers to guarantee that everything was perfectly alike across the entire process.

But, what the words meant, and that they all meant the same to the Founders, to the entire Congress, to each and every State Legislature, and that a comma here or there didn't change the meaning in any way, and that the order of the two statements does not change the way, is ABSOLUTELY proven by the fact that no one at all in the Congress or the State Legislatures challenged any of these differences at the time.

What many today call the prefatory clause is not a prefatory clause at all. It is a distinct and separate requirement on the government of the United States.

 

[Failzero]

They know as it stands the MIL /NG and LEOs will not do their bidding if 2A/ RTKBA is not severely hamstrung

 

[Darkwind]

It is not an explanatory clause in any way. It is a requirement that the government maintain a militia and consider and use it as the primary first defense of the security of the state. It is a compound sentence. It could even be considered a running-on sentence, where the author communicated two unrelated topics separated by a comma or semi-colon rather than a period.

Five different States included in their statements/documents ratifying the Constitution that it was done so on the agreement that there would be an amendment protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

New Hampshire's was stated in the simplest of terms: Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

The other four that demanded the right had variations on this, with some including even more differing ideas in the same sentence: That the people have a right to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

Notice the order of the two statements: The right to keep and bear arms first and the militia clause, clearly stating that the militia is a mandatory part of the defense of a free state, as the second clause. Was the right to keep and bear arms explanatory of, the reason for, the requirement that the militia be composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, and be the natural and safe defense of a free state? Of course not.

The biggest mistake modern lawyers, legislators, Courts, and even the Supreme Court Justices, make is to attribute today's grammar rules, standards, practices, and even mistakes, to the writing style of the late 18th century. Instead, they need to look at other writings with similar constructs, logic, and statements, to understand how things were written at the time.

James Madison and his committee had to look at all of the proposed or demanded amendments and consolidate them. When states or other authors said the same thing but with different words or formatting or grammar, he had to consolidate that into a common statement. He consolidated the various statements into the 2nd Amendment, with some parts of the statements also going into the 3rd Amendment and some not making the cut from committee or Congress.

That, in editing, Madison reversed the order of the two statements is not in any way indicative of an intent to change the meaning or intent of the two statements. This is proven by the fact that every one of the five states, plus others, ratified the 4th proposed amendment (which became the 2nd Amendment).

Had the thing that those five states demanded, even as a stated condition of understanding in their ratification of the Constitution itself, been stripped by what became the 2nd Amendment, they surely would never have ratified that amendment. That they all five ratified the Amendment proves that, in the minds of all of the State Legislatures voting on the Bill of Rights, these statements:

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.​

Meant EXACTLY the same as:

As voted out of Congress:​

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.​

Which meant EXACTLY the same as:

As Ratified:​

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 word games between those three, played by the lawyers, the States, the gun controllers especially, the Courts and even the Justices of the Supreme Court are all self-serving by each.

There were multiple scribes who took what Madison edited, and copied it for Congress. When Congress passed it, multiple scribes copied from what Congress wrote to make copies for the States. That's why there are differences in what Congress received from Committee, what they voted on to go to the States, and what the States ratified.

In fact, considering the complete proposed Bill of Rights as a whole, different States got different versions. Commas were added or removed; some scribes used semi-colons where a different scribe used a comma. Some copies used the word "and" in places where other scribes used the ampersand (&) in the same places. They didn't have computers to guarantee that everything was perfectly alike across the entire process.

But, what the words meant, and that they all meant the same to the Founders, to the entire Congress, to each and every State Legislature, and that a comma here or there didn't change the meaning in any way, and that the order of the two statements does not change the way, is ABSOLUTELY proven by the fact that no one at all in the Congress or the State Legislatures challenged any of these differences at the time.

What many today call the prefatory clause is not a prefatory clause at all. It is a distinct and separate requirement on the government of the United States.

Incorrect. I posted a link that details and breaks down the language of the Second. I suggest reading it.

 

[woodwork201]

No shit.
Buuuuuut what are the regulations, fees and tracking possessions and transfers?
Oh' darn.

All of those regulations, fees, tracking possessions and transfers, are unconstitutional.

 

[woodwork201]

YES, it does.
If you didn't have a weapon, and were drafted in the militia, a weapon would be provided but you couldn't take it home, it had to be return to the militia.

Darn, just like the National Guard does now.

That's a complete lie. The requirement was that you must have a weapon and were, by default, required to provide your own. In some cases, there were efforts, definitely important historically but not terribly wide spread, to provide arms to those who couldn't afford them or even just to standardize.

But the requirement in all militias was to show up for appointed training or drills with your weapon in hand, whether owned by the State or otherwise.

In Pennsylvania, there was an order by the governor to have all government owned militia weapons turned in for maintenance and the militia members refused, fearing it was an attempt to disarm them - proving that even then the people feared the State would take their arms and that the state provide arms were kept in the hands and homes of the militia members.

I proved you wrong on this point once before and you know it. You just continue with the lie because you're a Democrat - which means "one who lies".

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=wmborj
In the terms of the day, public arms were those provided by, ultimately owned by, the Government. Private arms were those purchased by and owned by individuals.

The Government did, as they do today, establish armories and caches of arms, powder, and ammunition, but they also provided thousands of public weapons to the States that went directly into the hands of the militia expressly because they had property to protect. You can't protect property with a gun in an armory somewhere.

arms and/or funds should be offered to themore vulnerable states, to enable "our governments to arm every free man, who has personal rights or property to watch, maintain and defend."'63 This would deter any potential aggressor from attack:To encounter a nation of 5 or 6 millions of armed free men ...would be a conflict unpromising of any kind or degree of real advantage ....In short, it is confidently believed, that completely armed--duly temperate-and reasonably just, we may rely, under heaven, on the preservation of our accustomed peace, our liberty and our safety.
The custom was that militia members controlled their public weapons and kept them with them in their homes. In one case, the Pennsylvania militia members refused to, in the case of Pennsylvania wanting to collect them just for cleaning, refused to turn ub their public arms.
While the proposed United States Constitution was debated, the government of Pennsylvania attempted to collect the public arms for cleaning and maintenance. A very large number of Pennsylvanians, however, refused to surrender their public arms even temporarily-fearing that the new federal government might be oppressive

 

[Abatis]

WTF?
It didn't.
American Indians were excluded as well as black slaves.

Stay focused! I am exploring / asking about your theory that the 2ndA "collective" right is for the militia and the Militia Act is a good explainer of the extent and purpose of the right.

My question, "How can a right expressly stated to be secured for the people, not include ALL the people?" assumed that you and I were only discussing the particular "people" called out in the Militia Act (which of course would exclude Blacks and Native Americans) who you argue are the "people" who possess and can exercise 2ndA's right to arms.

It is you arguing the 2ndA is very discriminatory because it is restricted to only those "people" the Militia Act recognizes as liable to serve in the militia.

I guess we should do the remedial Militia Act coverage here, if you can't maintain continuity of argument . . .

The Militia Act states only the "free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" are in the militia.

Clearly, a member of that class are the only individuals in the entire nation that the Militia Act operates on, since that determination is demanded by the canon of statutory interpretation of, expressio unius est exclusio alterius -- the express mention of one thing excludes all others.

My question was about those "free able-bodied white male citizen(s)" who are excluded in the law, exempted from militia duty and the operation of militia law.

I'm asking because your position demands that these citizens, who otherwise meet the Militia Act's requirements, have no 2ndA right to keep and bear arms:

"the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."​

See above.

It was the militia LAW that was discriminatory, you can't argue it was the RKBA because TO YOU they were one in the same!

The express specific criteria of who was under militia law impressment, means that everyone else was excluded from militia law (plus those, as we see above, who met the criteria but are excluded from militia law).

That was the basis for the discriminatory gun laws and the genesis of the "militia right" interpretation. The Southern states justified their gun prohibitions on Blacks by citing the exclusion of Blacks from militia service in federal militia law, not any interpretation of the 2ndA (which did not have any action on state law).

Another, WTF?
If you were in the militia, the towns within a colony couldn't prevent you from owning a weapon.

Fail . . . The 2ndA had no effect on any state or local laws -- either to protect what I argue, a individual right to arms of private citizens without any militia conditioning or your militia members' "right" to be armed while obeying federal militia law.

People IN a militia from a colony/city/ town rule.

No, again, the 2ndA had no effect on any state or local laws.

What protected the arms of militia members was federal militia law, not the 2ndA.

Milita law did operate on state and local laws and the federal militia law mandating the arms acquisition and use of militia members, was preemptive of state and local laws, by the doctrine of supremacy.

This is why I'm asking those questions. I just can't follow your "logic" and settle the conflicts -- why any militia member would need any claim to any "right" to arms . . . Everything he does with his gun as a militia member is an obligation in federal law that is superior to all state and local laws.

.

 

[woodwork201]

Incorrect. I posted a link that details and breaks down the language of the Second. I suggest reading it.

I've read it many times over many years of study of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and how we got to where we are today. The author is wrong. You are wrong. Scalia was wrong. Alito is wrong. I am right.

Yes, I said all those learned people are wrong and that I am right on this.

Now, some in this thread have accused Smokin' OP and others on the left of not reading what is written here with an open mind. So, let's see if you can read with an open mind. Don't skim, don't ignore, but read all of this post.

If you don't read it all, then you are doing as I pointed out to some leftist on here today, purposefully working to remain ignorant. If you want to understand the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, then you will read this all with an open mind and you will know that I am right.

Don't read it as an Internet forum post; read it as you would any other research paper by any other expert on the origins of the 2nd Amendment. Are you ready? Do you think you're up to this?

When the Continental Congress was debating the Constitution, as you're no doubt aware, there was much disagreement between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. One of the biggest concerns of the Anti-Federalists was that there was no bill of rights in the Constitution and that would lead to abuses. On the other hand, the Federalists argued that since the Constitution empowered the Government then government had only those powers explicit in the Constitution. The Federalists believed that listing some rights would lead to an assumption that those were the only rights. While you might think this is condescending, it is a critical setup for the facts I am going to teach you. There were differing opinions on the need for a delineated list of rights protected for the people by the Constitution.

Given that the Anti-Federalists insisted on a bill of rights, and that several States were resisting ratifying the Constitution without one, there was a concession made that if the Anti-Federalists would agree to ratification, then in the very first Congress, the Congress would pass a bill of rights to satisfy the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists agreed to ratify based on the commitment for a bill of rights and the Constitution was ratified.

This difference on the need for a bill of rights is critical to keep in mind because what happened in ratification of the Constitution is key to the proof that the militia clause had no bearing on the right to keep and bear arms.

In keeping with the agreement Madison and Jefferson promised to the Anti-Federalists, five states included their demands or proposals for what should go into the bill of rights as part of their ratification documents.

Three states, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, didn't mention in ratification any demands or expectations of future amendments but Ten out of the thirteen states did list the changes they expected immediately after ratification. Out of the ten, five didn't mention the right to keep and bear arms in their expectations: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Georgia, Maryland, and South Carolina. The remaining five states, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, all explicitly stated their expectations/demands that the right to keep and bear arms would be protected in the coming bill of rights.

The document, Journal, Acts and Proceedings, The Convention Assembled at Philadelphia, Monday, May 14, and Dissolved Monday, September 17, 1787, which Formed the Constitution of the United States, includes the exact writings of the various State conventions upon ratifying the Constitution.

If all of the states had only written the right to keep and bear arms as plainly as did New Hampshire, we wouldn't at all be in this discussion today but, unfortunately, the rest weren't so succinct. Remember that word, succinct; it's going to come up again soon. Here's what New Hampshire said on the subject:

New Hampshire 412 - see 415 for RKBA: XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.​

Though the remaining four weren't as succinct (keep remembering this word) as was New Hampshire, they were clear just the same:

Virginia 417 - see bottom of 420 to 421 for RKBA: XVII. That the people have aright to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.​

​

New York 431 - see page 427 for New Yorks RKBA clause: That the people have a right to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state. ​

​

North Carolina 452 - see 443 for RKBA: XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit ; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.​

​

Rhode Island 452 (same page as NC) see 456 for RKBA: xvii. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection; that standing armies in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrate in such manner as the law directs.​

What's the common theme in each and every one of these last four? The right to keep and bear arms comes before the militia clause. Is, as you and the author of your reference must say using the logic you apply to the 2nd Amendment as ratified, the militia clause is dependent upon the right to keep and bear arms. But let's look at it closer using Rhode Island as an example.

The quoted section, xvii, starts with the word, "That". So let's look for context of the word, "That". The rights section of Rhode Island's ratification statement, see page 452, starts with:

We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in convention, having maturely considered the constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, by the convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents ; ) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of this state, do declare and make known,​

I. That... (and goes on to talk about private property rights)​

II. That... (and goes on to talk about power naturally belonging to the people)​

III. ... XVI​

XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms...​

And so on until paragraph XVII that we're concerned with. So we can restate, exactly as in the original but in context to section XVII, the introduction and paragraph XVII as:

We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do declare and make known, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection; that standing armies in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrate in such manner as the law directs.​

Or, even more simply stated, remember that each clause begins with "that", meaning that each clause stands on its own in context:

We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do declare and make known, that the people have a right to keep and bear arms : ​

​

We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do declare and make known, ​

that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ; ​

​

We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do declare and make known, that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection; ​

​

We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do declare and make known, that standing armies in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; ​

​

We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do declare and make known, that in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrate in such manner as the law directs.​

You can see that the right to keep and bear arms is completely separate from the militia clause, requiring the Federal Government to maintain the militia and that the militia is the first and best initial response in defense of a free nation. Those two restrictions on government were combined, in the statements by the four states who used this pattern, with variations of zero to three additional clauses IN THE SAME SENTENCE.

That left James Madison with the task of combining and consolidating all of the rights that the states wanted. He worked to make the bill of rights meet the demands of the Anti-Federalists and to combine the variations on text and style of the different states. Here's the word again: He wanted it to be clear and succinct.

Each of the four variations above, again, have the same theme: THAT a well regulated militia is the "proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state." But the definition of the militia, contained within the four variations differed ever so slightly so, to make it common and SUCCINCT, he took out the definition of militia.

Having the definition of militia in the statement would be like Georgia saying it is the peach, a fruit that develops from a single ovary that ripens into both a fleshy juicy exterior that forms the edible part of the fruit and a hard interior, called the stone or pit, that encloses the seed, state. Not very succinct, is it? It's pretty pointless to include the definition of a peach in the declaration; everyone knows what a peach is.

In the same way, it was not necessary to put in a definition of the militia; everyone knew what the militia was. So, James Madison took these two very separate and distinct requirements on the government:

​

that the people have a right to keep and bear arms​

and

​

that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ​

and, writing succinctly, and in the style of the day, combining independent statements into a single sentence, stated them as follows:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.​

That he reversed the order of the two restrictions did not matter. Everyone knew that they were separate and distinct restrictions on government. The order did not matter just as the order in the statements by the four states that wrote it all had the right to keep and bear arms first.

I'm going to have pie and ice cream for dessert. Or I am going to have ice cream and pie for dessert. What's the difference? Nothing at all.

If the order changed the understanding or the meaning of the words, then why did not a single one of those states who wrote them in a different order object or vote against the amendment for ratification? Do you really believe that the four states and New Hampshire were all convinced that the right to keep and bear arms could be taken or tied to the militia? Do you really believe that they didn't very clearly intend that the militia clause was a separate, equal citizen, to their demand of a right to keep and bear arms or that soldiers not be quartered in the homes of Americans or that a standing army should be avoided or that the military should be under the strict control of civil power? It is extremely clear that the militia clause was equal in intent and importance as the other clauses of the same sentences. In fact, only three of the several clauses made it to the floor for a vote from Congress; the standing army and the civil power clauses didn't survive and the militia clause did.

So, it may not be in a nutshell but it is absolutely certain, proven one-hundred per cent by their own writings, that there is no prefatory clause, no explaining clause, but, instead, a separate and independent intent as I have stated.