The real meaning of the 2nd Amendment

[JoeB131]

They would think how the law ran by scum like you failed again.

Except they were able to buy guns under YOUR laws.

My law, they wouldn't be able to buy guns. If that means you can't buy a gun, either, so much the better.

 

[2aguy]

Ammosexuals proving the best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.



No, man, I'm terrified of you gun nuts shooting stuff up.

The Founding Slave Rapists didn't want to have the great unwashed have guns... Not the slaves, not the Indians, not the urban poor.



no, responsible is keeping a dangerous product away from dangerous people.



Say hi to David Koresh for me.



Yes, you keep saying that... but still not true.

The problem isn't "criminals" having these weapons... it's mentally unwell people like Holmes, Crimo, Lanza, because no one bothered to do even minor background checks.

You vote for the political party founded by slave rapists, the democrat party….a party that went to war to be able to keep raping their slaves

You vote for them

 

[Ralph Norton]

So who do you think handled law enforcement before they started organizing police forces?
Why do you think police departments have Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains, just like the Army does?
Why do you think the National Guard is trained to supplement the police.

The fact is, yes, at a certain point, the Army and Police were interchangeable, and around the 19th century, the concept of a "militia" was largely found to be obsolete...

So we have the Second and Third Amendments as these anomalies in the constitution that are ripe for misinterpretation.



Actually, what happened between "the British leaving" and "the Constitution" was a six year period where they tried to be a loosely organized Confederation under the Articles of Confederation, which clearly didn't work.

This entire post as it relates to policing is complete horse shit.
Prior to police departments, most towns utilized night watchman/ constables - NOT the Army.
Police departments are paramilitary organizations with a command structure - thus ranks.
The Army and police were NEVER interchangeable. Ever.
The National Guard may assist local LE only in times of emergency under the command of state governors and have only very limited police powers..

Do you just make shit up as you go or are you blatantly lying?

 

[2aguy]

Except they were able to buy guns under YOUR laws.

My law, they wouldn't be able to buy guns. If that means you can't buy a gun, either, so much the better.

No, your god, government, failed. The gun maker and gun stores did their jobs, obeyed your laws….the minions of your god, government, failed to arrest or commit these guys, that is the problem.

 

[JoeB131]

You vote for the political party

No, your god, government, failed. T

Wow, do you ever have an original thought.... you are like one of those religious nutters who spouts bible verses whenever they have to actually think about something

 

[JoeB131]

This entire post as it relates to policing is complete horse shit.
Prior to police departments, most towns utilized night watchman/ constables - NOT the Army.
Police departments are paramilitary organizations with a command structure - thus ranks.
The Army and police were NEVER interchangeable. Ever.
The National Guard may assist local LE only in times of emergency under the command of state governors and have only very limited police powers..

Do you just make shit up as you go or are you blatantly lying?

Most towns.. we weren't talking about towns, we were talking about cities.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Most towns.. we weren't talking about towns, we were talking about cities.

Cities also used town watch not militia. While in a pinch a town watch COULD function as militia that wasn't its purpose.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah, what should the Store owner think when they see THIS...

View attachment 670536
or THIS...
View attachment 670537

Now, I see a couple of deranged freaks... but apparently, the gun industry sees them as prime customers.

If they had not sold them the firearms according to the law they could be sued and lose their license.

 

[Ralph Norton]

Most towns.. we weren't talking about towns, we were talking about cities.

Boston: 1st police department 1838. Prior to that the people of the town of Boston established a Watch in 1631. Shortly after that, the Town Meeting assumed control of the Watch in 1636. Watchmen patrolled the streets of Boston at night to protect the public from criminals, wild animals, and fire. The Watchmen’s responsibilities grew along with the town, which became the City of Boston in 1822. Less than 20 years later, the City founded a police force of six men under the supervision of a City Marshall. The Boston Watch of 120 men continued to operate separately.

This is just one example.
Please provide an example of a city using the Army for routine policing. EVER.
We'll wait.

 

[sparky]

The Constitution still demands that we have a well-regulated militia. And people still have the right to use their guns for private self defense.

I agree Mr Bolt, but to do so effectively would mean at least equally trained as well as equally armed

I see our own gub'mit tipping the scales THIER way on each, and to their favor

~S~

 

[sparky]

Please provide an example of a city using the Army for routine policing.

this is a start>>>>

~S~

 

[Open Bolt]

I agree Mr Bolt, but to do so effectively would mean at least equally trained as well as equally armed

The term "well-regulated" covers training.

A well-regulated militia is one that is a highly effective fighting force because they have trained sufficiently enough to fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

It is like a well-regulated watch is one that keeps accurate time because all of the gears in the watch are in perfect sync with each other.

So when the Second Amendment mandates that the government keep up a well-regulated militia, it is mandating that the government keep the militia highly trained.

I see our own gub'mit tipping the scales THIER way on each, and to their favor

That is why we need to keep pressing the courts to enforce the Constitution, and keep supporting groups like the NRA that prevent Congress from passing unconstitutional laws.

 

[woodwork201]

I've read ahead and seen that your question has already been answered. But I want to reiterate that the Miller ruling itself says that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

The government had tried to get them to rule that it was a collective right. But the Supreme Court rejected that argument and said that it is an individual right.

It was only lower courts that claimed that the Second Amendment is a collective right.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court never actually forced the lower courts to adhere to the Miller ruling after they issued it.

I never said otherwise. Miller raised the question of being tied to militia service, though, by saying the 2nd Amendment only protected military weapons. Read more in Heller. From Miller, the left is now making the argument to connect the 2nd Amendment protections to militia service.

 

[woodwork201]

This is a lie.

The ‘left’ knows exactly what the Second Amendment means and supports Second Amendment jurisprudence – unlike many on the right.

What the ‘left’ is referring to is the Second Amendment prior to Heller, when for over 200 years the Amendment was interpreted as a collective – not individual – right.

Indeed, it’s conservatives who lie about the Second Amendment – their most idiotic lie is that the Amendment codifies insurrectionist dogma when in fact there’s nothing in the history, text, or caselaw of the Second Amendment that authorizes private armed citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people.

Have you ever read Scalia's opinion in Heller? He presents an amazingly good treatise on the question of individual versus collective right. One thing he makes absolutely clear, fully supported and documented, is that your claim of a historical collective interpretation is a lie. It was universally understood to be an individual right from proposal, through ratification, up to the 20th century.

From Heller:
As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42

What do you think they meant by "intervention of society"? That meant the militia - their neighbors. There was no police. Then, as today, help could not come in time to save you so you saved yourself - not until the Army came or the Police came but until society came - your neighbors, the militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What the ‘left’ is referring to is the Second Amendment prior to Heller, when for over 200 years the Amendment was interpreted as a collective – not individual – right.

This is a lie. Not once did the USSC interpret the 2nd an a collective right,
Disagree?
Cite the ruling and copy/past the text tot hat effect.
You won't, of course, because you know it does not exist.
Thus, your lie.

 

[Synthaholic]

BOOM!!!

 

[badbob85037]

The left often argues that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says; mostly lying, sometimes just ignorantly, they claim that the first half of the sentence sets a reason or requirement for the second half.

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.

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.

The Courts continue to try to parse the extra comma as though it changes the meaning. If they were right, if it did change the meaning, then the 2nd Amendment would not be valid at all. It is not possible for the States to ratify something other than what Congress proposed. No provision of Article V permits the Constitution to be amended that way.

So, comma or no comma, the meaning is exactly the same. And this is a very important point. Different writers and transcribers may have different styles (and the Internet Grammar Police didn't yet exist to tell them if their style wasn't perfect). Comma or no comma, the Amendment ratified has the exact same meaning and interpretation as the Amendment from Congress. Were it not so, the issue of the comma would have been raised in 1791.

So, now we accept that writers and transcribers might write something differently but it is accepted by the Founders to be exactly the same and requiring not even a discussion of the difference.

So let's look at what is referred to as the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. The left claims that it sets up a prerequisite that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the State and only necessary for those who serve in the militia. But consider what was originally written and proposed for the right to keep and bear arms.

It will be interesting to discuss first, though, that many claim that James Madison is the author of the Bill of Rights. This could not be further from the truth. James Madison was the editor of the Bill of Rights but variations on each and every theme were discussed and written multiple times by multiple people in multiple ways. Even then, many of the concepts were taken directly from the Magna Carte.

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. In several of those ratifying document, the States included the very amendments they insisted should be passed immediately. After ratification, other states and scholars proposed additional sets of amendments.

No, Madison did not author the Bill of Rights; he simply compiled it.

In the ratifying documents to the Constitution, as I said, several States included what they wanted in the first amendments to the Constitution - phrased and paraphrased as a bill of rights but not yet titled the Bill of Rights. In red below is the first page mentioning ratify for those States and then which page to find that State's demand for the right to keep and bear arms.

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

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 cir- cumstances 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.


In each of these, other than New Hampshire - which is really the best, there are multiple concepts combined into what we'd call a long-running sentence today. Things like a standing army, housing soldiers, the militia and martial law, and military subordination to civil power are only connected in the loosest of ways and yet were all in the same sentence. Just because multiple ideas are in the same sentence, in the style of the day, does not mean that one idea is dependent on the other ideas.

Considering the multiple ideas, note that in each case where the militia is mentioned in the same sentence as the right to keep and bear arms, the right to keep and bear arms came first. Quoting Rhode Island as example: 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 ;

There's no confusion about how that is written. The same sentences explicitly recognizes that the people have an individual right to keep and bear arms and the, separately, states that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bear arms, JUST AS I HAVE BEEN POSTING in many threads, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state. Two different ideas in the same sentence.

So how did it get reversed? Notice that in the Rhode Island version, there is the right to keep and bear arms, quartering soldiers, standing army, and the militia as the proper defense of the nation. Others were similar but not exactly the same. This is where James Madison comes in as editor. From all of the input that came from all of the States and others, he had to standardize the specific protections to send to the Congress for approval to send to the States. That meant clarifying, simplifying, separating, ordering, and even choosing some ideas over others. Even then, he didn't do that in a vacuum sitting alone in his house; it was a collaboration.

So, in that clean up of the diverse writing styles of the various States, 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 ; became, 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 this change was not hotly debated and was broadly accepted, is proof that, to the Founders, to the Congress, to the Legislatures of the period, the two versions had EXACTLY the same meaning, just as did two commas versus three commas. They all, to the people of the time, meant EXACTLY the same thing.

This completely destroys the militia argument against the individual right to keep and bear arms and proves, absolutely and without doubt, that what I have been saying, that what is called the prefatory phrase, is simply a requirement that the militia, consisting of all those who can bear arms, be the first line of defense against invasion and insurrection.

I have proven beyond question that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not connected to militia service.

You are an idiot. You need to read the Federalist Papers but be warned it is something you know nothing about.

 

[woodwork201]

You are an idiot. You need to read the Federalist Papers but be warned it is something you know nothing about.

Do you have something to offer? I've read the Federalist Papers; many times. If there's something in them that you're suggesting challenges the 2nd Amendment or says it is not an individual right separate from the militia, please feel free to share it.

I think you'll be embarrassed before this discussion is over, though. I think your reading comprehension skills are weak and you've jumped into something by mistake.