The Most Ignored Document In Us History.

[TemplarKormac]

Sorry, I'm failing to see your point here.

You asked:

Why did the Supreme Court ignore this document in Heller and McDonald?

Clayton showed you that they didn't ignore this document at all, as it was referenced by the dissent.

Which implies that the Court's opinion ignored this document, which is the point I am making.

Disagree. It seems to me that they knew of it and simply rejected the reasoning of the minority in that case.

Why do people on this forum continually ignore this document and claim that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and will always shy away from discussing this document and pretend that it doesn't exist?

I must borrow from your post here: I'm failing to see your point. Are you trying to bash the "open carry" hardliners? The phrase "bear arms" in the Second Amendment seems to me to refer to using the weapons rather than merely carrying them. For example, "bring to bear" is defined as meaning, "To aim a weapon at a target." The document you posted seems to reinforce this, as the debate was largely centered around military/militia service exemption for religious conscientious objectors.

I'm not bashing anyone. The term "bear arms" seems to me to be using the weapons in the militia, rather than just using them in general. And this document seems to reinforce this I believe.

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;"

This makes clear the meaning and intent. The militia was to be composed of the body of the people, or the entirety of the people of a state. The conversation in your link rails against standing armies--at one point they are named "the bane of liberty"--and proposes a state militia as a safeguard against a standing army. To ensure that a militia has readily-available recruits/volunteers, "the people" of a state are given the right to keep and bear arms. The language here makes it abundantly clear that:

A) The militia is composed of the people; and

B) The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not to the militia or its specific members from among the body of the people.

All the more reason to see the Second Amendment repealed. Individuals have absolutely no legitimate reason to ever have their own weapons of any kind at all.

Even if this was true, a repeal of the 2nd Amendment would disarm our militias. Smooth move slick.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sorry, I'm failing to see your point here.

You asked:

Why did the Supreme Court ignore this document in Heller and McDonald?

Clayton showed you that they didn't ignore this document at all, as it was referenced by the dissent.

Which implies that the Court's opinion ignored this document, which is the point I am making.

Disagree. It seems to me that they knew of it and simply rejected the reasoning of the minority in that case.

At what point does a Justice merely take the argument of the case, and at what point do they look at the evidence for themselves? The fact that justices will come up with different opinions, use different arguments, and take input from what they previously know, I'd say it depends on what result they want at the end.

Justices are far from biased, I mean they're appointed from one political spectrum, to be a Justice you have to catch the eye of one political spectrum, being biased is part of the nature of the job.

So i'm not saying you're wrong in that they rejected it, however rejection could easily come about just to justices choosing to ignore.

Why do people on this forum continually ignore this document and claim that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and will always shy away from discussing this document and pretend that it doesn't exist?

I must borrow from your post here: I'm failing to see your point. Are you trying to bash the "open carry" hardliners? The phrase "bear arms" in the Second Amendment seems to me to refer to using the weapons rather than merely carrying them. For example, "bring to bear" is defined as meaning, "To aim a weapon at a target." The document you posted seems to reinforce this, as the debate was largely centered around military/militia service exemption for religious conscientious objectors.

I'm not bashing anyone. The term "bear arms" seems to me to be using the weapons in the militia, rather than just using them in general. And this document seems to reinforce this I believe.

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;"

This makes clear the meaning and intent. The militia was to be composed of the body of the people, or the entirety of the people of a state. The conversation in your link rails against standing armies--at one point they are named "the bane of liberty"--and proposes a state militia as a safeguard against a standing army. To ensure that a militia has readily-available recruits/volunteers, "the people" of a state are given the right to keep and bear arms. The language here makes it abundantly clear that:

A) The militia is composed of the people; and

B) The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not to the militia or its specific members from among the body of the people.

All the more reason to see the Second Amendment repealed. Individuals have absolutely no legitimate reason to ever have their own weapons of any kind at all.

You say it makes it clear with the intent. Does it? I mean in the 21st almost nobody can figure out what it means. You have one side which says it gives a collective right, another side which says it protects the right to walk around with a gun. Neither are right.

Also, I believe you are wrong in that it wants a state militia to protect against the "bane of liberty". The 2A was passed 2 years after Article 1 Section 8 which has already formed a militia which is both state and federal in nature, this is the militia they were talking about. It's not just a state militia.

But yes, the language states that the 2A protects the militia having enough personnel and arms. But is it clear? It's not clear for about 300 million Americans who don't know this.

However I'm not sure I agree with you about the repealing of the 2A.

 

[AtticusF]

Getting on for 41 views and still ignored, hmm, interesting.

Whats to answer? The 2nd provides a right to own, possess and carry firearms regardless of membership in a Militia. Further according to US Law the unorganized militia is the entire US male population that is fit to serve age 17 to 45.

10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia composition and classes LII Legal Information Institute

So when are all the old guys gonna turn in their weapons? That'll be a good start.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Which is the point being made with this thread.

The Supreme Court and most individuals ignore this document. Therefore what the Supreme Court has said is based on either ignorance of what the Founding Fathers set this amendment up for, or it's based on clear avoidance of what the Founding Fathers wanted.

The question here is, WHY?

That's a great point! The OP is very thought provoking which is what's kept the Progs from responding.

Any student of history knows that Progressives need to disarm their citizens in order to turns them into subjects, slaves and fertilizer.

 

[g5000]

So, now, the big question again.

Why does everyone ignore this document? Why did the Supreme Court ignore this document in Heller and McDonald? Why did the left ignore this document when they made their (extremely poor) case? Why do people on this forum continually ignore this document and claim that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and will always shy away from discussing this document and pretend that it doesn't exist?

Why are you ignoring that Mr. Gerry said?

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why are you ignoring that Mr. Gerry said?

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed.

I'm not.

This is probably one of those "you're assuming you know what I'm saying so you don't bother to actually see me say it" sort of thing, when actually you don't know what I'm going to say, because I'm not anyone's puppet.

The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of arms.
The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel.