The Right To Bear Arms

[sakinago]

Again why were the founders so scared of a standing army?

Why is the right wing for socialism on a national basis?

In what way did I suggest that? Obviously you lack any valid retort, so you went with a nonsensical one. So I’ll ask again. Why would the founders create an oxymoron, paradox amendment? One that could arm and both disarm its people/militia as they saw fit?

They didn't. Well regulated militia of the People may not Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

So your just gonna add words?

I have a valid argument. You have nothing but repeal.

That doesn’t mean anything. That was straight jibberish. How high are you right now? Cut back, you probably have a very skewed self image that you’re making a lot of sense, but your not. Your like a freaking robot that you’ve given too hard a question to process, and it just keeps waving it’s arms say “can not compute, can not compute,” over and over until it’s head explodes. The only difference is that you say “people are the militia, well regulated,” and “end war on drugs, reduce spending” instead, and your head sadly never explodes, because you aren’t trying to compute anything.

New rule for dan, don’t post high. Think about adopting that.

 

[sakinago]

I never saw a lick of evidence from you, you threatened it, but didn’t present. Not to me at least. Only thing I got from you is that you feel like guns exacerbate socioeconomic problems, and I’ve presented evidence that it isn’t at all, and that crimes are going down and down, while guns are going up and up. Your other argument is that our murder rate is higher than it is in Europe or whatever other select country you choose. I presented you with Switzerland, you said it’s not it’s not the same since it isn’t a fair comparison, while you dismiss when I say comparing us to these other countries isn’t a fair comparison either. On top of that, I’ve shown you that in these countries looking at them in a vaccuum (which is the best way to look at them, since they’ve been safer than America even before their strict gun controls/bans) when they have implement gun control their murder rates and gun crime rates skyrocket. Your cherry picking your stats. You only try compare our murder rate to theirs, but ignore everything else.

Well, clearly you don't have your eyes open.

Fine you want evidence.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

If you haven't seen this, then I don't know what you've been looking at.

They were discussing the clause "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

It's clear here that Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" and instead he used the term "militia duty". Why would he talk about giving discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around with you in the street on a normal day?

'Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Mr Jackson wanted to change the wording, and change "bear arms" to "render military service".

In fact during the debates the wording of the clause changed several times.


June 8th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."


August 17th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."


August 24th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, clearly here "bear arms" and "render military service" were being used synonymously.

There is no hint in this document that "bear arms" mean "carry arms around"

It's clear here that "bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.

In Sentiments on a Peace Establishment from 1783, George Washington said:

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

"borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past participle of the very "bear". It's clear here that you could be "borne on the Militia Rolls", rather than simply "bear arms" being to carry guns around.

Then he goes and says "bear arms" and then talks about "Military duties".

Why would he say all of this if "bear arms" had the meaning of just carrying guns around with you on a normal day?

Then you have the Presser case which says

"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, if the 2A protected the right to carry guns around, why would then Supreme Court then say that carrying guns around is NOT protected by the 2A? Why then would Heller then back this up?

Then you have ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Also on top of this you have carry and conceal laws in the US. Even after the 2A has applied to the states, no one has challenged carry and conceal laws. If carrying guns is a protected right, then carry and conceal is a protected right which means you don't need carry and conceal permits.

The Fight to Bring Guns Across State Lines: The NRA’s Next Big Push, Explained

"
By requiring states to recognize one another's gun permits, the legislation would dramatically expand where gun owners can bring their weapons."

NRA-ILA | NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate

"
NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate"

And yet the NRA is pushing for carry and conceal permits.

Now, why would the NRA be pushing for "Constitutional Concealed Carry" if it already existed? Beats me, maybe you can tell me. It must either be that the NRA has amnesia or they're just stupid. Which one are you going to choose?


And on the other hand, you have quotes which only support your opinion if you struggle really hard to make them fit.

Wow you missed a lot in your own article. Why was it again they went against a standing army? According to this article?

I'm sorry, what?

You asked for evidence. I presented it. Now you're saying I missed a lot.

What did I miss exactly?

"Why was it again they went against a standing army?" What are you talking about.

"According to this article?" Which article would you be talking about?

You just repeated what I said in a question.

Yes you provided evidence, evidence that involved discussing the militia, where they were playing around with the idea of including everyone (able bodied men) in the militia, much like Switzerland at the time and today, that our republic is based off of. This was also a discussion before the actual BOR (including the 2nd) was drafted, and since they later defined that any able bodied man was ELIGIBLE for the militia (meaning as well as practiced that it was a choice to join), that whole conversation of “what about the passivist Quaker’s” was made moot, since they decided to go with a volunteer force. In this very same “evidence” you provided, what did they say about standing armies? Try to answer the question instead of repeating it.

So, your argument, again, is that the 2A is changed by laws?

You've got to be kidding me. You'd get laughed out of court.

You're telling me that the US Congress CAN CHANGE THE US CONSTITUTION without following the procedures in Article 5 of the Constitution? I think not

Nope never said that once, nor hinted, nor implied. Don’t even know where you’re getting that from. What you posted to me, was a convo, before the 2nd was even created. In that convo they debated what would go wrong if we made everyone join the militia, but what about the passivist quakers. They also stated what they feared about a standing army.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, clearly you don't have your eyes open.

Fine you want evidence.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

If you haven't seen this, then I don't know what you've been looking at.

They were discussing the clause "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

It's clear here that Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" and instead he used the term "militia duty". Why would he talk about giving discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around with you in the street on a normal day?

'Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Mr Jackson wanted to change the wording, and change "bear arms" to "render military service".

In fact during the debates the wording of the clause changed several times.


June 8th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."


August 17th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."


August 24th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, clearly here "bear arms" and "render military service" were being used synonymously.

There is no hint in this document that "bear arms" mean "carry arms around"

It's clear here that "bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.

In Sentiments on a Peace Establishment from 1783, George Washington said:

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

"borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past participle of the very "bear". It's clear here that you could be "borne on the Militia Rolls", rather than simply "bear arms" being to carry guns around.

Then he goes and says "bear arms" and then talks about "Military duties".

Why would he say all of this if "bear arms" had the meaning of just carrying guns around with you on a normal day?

Then you have the Presser case which says

"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, if the 2A protected the right to carry guns around, why would then Supreme Court then say that carrying guns around is NOT protected by the 2A? Why then would Heller then back this up?

Then you have ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Also on top of this you have carry and conceal laws in the US. Even after the 2A has applied to the states, no one has challenged carry and conceal laws. If carrying guns is a protected right, then carry and conceal is a protected right which means you don't need carry and conceal permits.

The Fight to Bring Guns Across State Lines: The NRA’s Next Big Push, Explained

"
By requiring states to recognize one another's gun permits, the legislation would dramatically expand where gun owners can bring their weapons."

NRA-ILA | NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate

"
NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate"

And yet the NRA is pushing for carry and conceal permits.

Now, why would the NRA be pushing for "Constitutional Concealed Carry" if it already existed? Beats me, maybe you can tell me. It must either be that the NRA has amnesia or they're just stupid. Which one are you going to choose?


And on the other hand, you have quotes which only support your opinion if you struggle really hard to make them fit.

Wow you missed a lot in your own article. Why was it again they went against a standing army? According to this article?

I'm sorry, what?

You asked for evidence. I presented it. Now you're saying I missed a lot.

What did I miss exactly?

"Why was it again they went against a standing army?" What are you talking about.

"According to this article?" Which article would you be talking about?

You just repeated what I said in a question.

Yes you provided evidence, evidence that involved discussing the militia, where they were playing around with the idea of including everyone (able bodied men) in the militia, much like Switzerland at the time and today, that our republic is based off of. This was also a discussion before the actual BOR (including the 2nd) was drafted, and since they later defined that any able bodied man was ELIGIBLE for the militia (meaning as well as practiced that it was a choice to join), that whole conversation of “what about the passivist Quaker’s” was made moot, since they decided to go with a volunteer force. In this very same “evidence” you provided, what did they say about standing armies? Try to answer the question instead of repeating it.

So, your argument, again, is that the 2A is changed by laws?

You've got to be kidding me. You'd get laughed out of court.

You're telling me that the US Congress CAN CHANGE THE US CONSTITUTION without following the procedures in Article 5 of the Constitution? I think not

Nope never said that once, nor hinted, nor implied. Don’t even know where you’re getting that from. What you posted to me, was a convo, before the 2nd was even created. In that convo they debated what would go wrong if we made everyone join the militia, but what about the passivist quakers. They also stated what they feared about a standing army.

No, they didn't debate what would happen if they made everyone join the militia. They were talking about what if they excused people from Militia Duty because they were religiously opposed to fighting. And it was excusing people from MILITIA DUTY and not excusing people from walking about with guns.

Yes, they feared a standing army, but also realized a standing army was necessary. On this I'm not sure what you're trying to show.

 

[sakinago]

Wow you missed a lot in your own article. Why was it again they went against a standing army? According to this article?

I'm sorry, what?

You asked for evidence. I presented it. Now you're saying I missed a lot.

What did I miss exactly?

"Why was it again they went against a standing army?" What are you talking about.

"According to this article?" Which article would you be talking about?

You just repeated what I said in a question.

Yes you provided evidence, evidence that involved discussing the militia, where they were playing around with the idea of including everyone (able bodied men) in the militia, much like Switzerland at the time and today, that our republic is based off of. This was also a discussion before the actual BOR (including the 2nd) was drafted, and since they later defined that any able bodied man was ELIGIBLE for the militia (meaning as well as practiced that it was a choice to join), that whole conversation of “what about the passivist Quaker’s” was made moot, since they decided to go with a volunteer force. In this very same “evidence” you provided, what did they say about standing armies? Try to answer the question instead of repeating it.

So, your argument, again, is that the 2A is changed by laws?

You've got to be kidding me. You'd get laughed out of court.

You're telling me that the US Congress CAN CHANGE THE US CONSTITUTION without following the procedures in Article 5 of the Constitution? I think not

Nope never said that once, nor hinted, nor implied. Don’t even know where you’re getting that from. What you posted to me, was a convo, before the 2nd was even created. In that convo they debated what would go wrong if we made everyone join the militia, but what about the passivist quakers. They also stated what they feared about a standing army.

No, they didn't debate what would happen if they made everyone join the militia. They were talking about what if they excused people from Militia Duty because they were religiously opposed to fighting. And it was excusing people from MILITIA DUTY and not excusing people from walking about with guns.

Yes, they feared a standing army, but also realized a standing army was necessary. On this I'm not sure what you're trying to show.

Ok but they didn’t go with a mandatory militia, so militia “duty” wasn’t a thing, since quakers weren’t obliged to join, ipso facto they didn’t have to be excused... If the militia was controlled by the state, you’ve just replaced one standing army with another. The whole point of militia was that it’s under the control of the people in their respective militia, not the state. So if need be the militia could stand up to the state (but also acted as a deterrent against the state). So if the state could “regulate” the militia, made up by the people, the 2nd is a paradoxical statement.

 

[Freewill]

Aye yai yai. What a thread.

Since someone mentioned states rights, I'll share a relevant and correct snippet from a great book on the topic. The American Ideal of 1776 The Twelve Basic American Principles by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976.

It is as follows....and all that needs to be said, really.

"With regard to use by the States of force, use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms), in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.

This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (posses comitatus) and any civilian police forces. (See also Par. 12 of Principle 5.)

The traditional American philosophy requires, as a fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, for example, made this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the Constitution (Article VI) that all Federal officials--both civil and military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with the result that all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution. The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means: by force in last resort.

The truly American formula, in accordance with the traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring self-government by means of constitutionally limited government with adequate protection assured for Individual Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty."

Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.

The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.

You of course para pharse it so you can get it wrong trying to sound right.

Here is the text: "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."

What it says, is that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms," Sorry for you the commas get in the way. Clearly the wording says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE. Not the right of a militia.

The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.

Don't know your point but it is clear, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm sorry, what?

You asked for evidence. I presented it. Now you're saying I missed a lot.

What did I miss exactly?

"Why was it again they went against a standing army?" What are you talking about.

"According to this article?" Which article would you be talking about?

You just repeated what I said in a question.

Yes you provided evidence, evidence that involved discussing the militia, where they were playing around with the idea of including everyone (able bodied men) in the militia, much like Switzerland at the time and today, that our republic is based off of. This was also a discussion before the actual BOR (including the 2nd) was drafted, and since they later defined that any able bodied man was ELIGIBLE for the militia (meaning as well as practiced that it was a choice to join), that whole conversation of “what about the passivist Quaker’s” was made moot, since they decided to go with a volunteer force. In this very same “evidence” you provided, what did they say about standing armies? Try to answer the question instead of repeating it.

So, your argument, again, is that the 2A is changed by laws?

You've got to be kidding me. You'd get laughed out of court.

You're telling me that the US Congress CAN CHANGE THE US CONSTITUTION without following the procedures in Article 5 of the Constitution? I think not

Nope never said that once, nor hinted, nor implied. Don’t even know where you’re getting that from. What you posted to me, was a convo, before the 2nd was even created. In that convo they debated what would go wrong if we made everyone join the militia, but what about the passivist quakers. They also stated what they feared about a standing army.

No, they didn't debate what would happen if they made everyone join the militia. They were talking about what if they excused people from Militia Duty because they were religiously opposed to fighting. And it was excusing people from MILITIA DUTY and not excusing people from walking about with guns.

Yes, they feared a standing army, but also realized a standing army was necessary. On this I'm not sure what you're trying to show.

Ok but they didn’t go with a mandatory militia, so militia “duty” wasn’t a thing, since quakers weren’t obliged to join, ipso facto they didn’t have to be excused... If the militia was controlled by the state, you’ve just replaced one standing army with another. The whole point of militia was that it’s under the control of the people in their respective militia, not the state. So if need be the militia could stand up to the state (but also acted as a deterrent against the state). So if the state could “regulate” the militia, made up by the people, the 2nd is a paradoxical statement.

Right, so, they're talking about "Militia Duty" and apparently it wasn't a thing. Er... WTF are you talking about? You're just making this up as you go along, right?

At the time the US felt it was a duty of the people to be in the militia. In fact people could be called up to the Militia, it can happen today, it hasn't happened since Vietnam and they chose to go through conscription to the Armed Forces, mainly because the Militia lost credibility in the war against Mexico and a few other wars, and so it hasn't been used since, except for the National Guard.

In fact some of the evidence I showed you showed such a thing.

George Washington in Sentiments on a Peace Establishment said:

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

In other words individuals should carry out their duty.

The problem is that with FREE GOVERNMENT the people have the duty to be in the Militia to protect the country, with tyrannical govt it's the exact opposite, you need a right to prevent the tyrannical govt getting rid of the Militia. If they do get rid of the Militia, you know they're tyrannical enough to fight back.

But the Constitution was supposed to be valid over a long period of time, while the laws were to deal with the here and now. So that's why there have been plenty of Militia Acts, the 1792 one, the Dick Act of 1903 etc etc.

You're wrong on the whole control of the militia.

If you allow individual groups to have their own militias, who can then try and take over the government, you put the Constitution and free government at risk. They went for a healthy medium.

The people have the guns and personnel, and they can join the militia, but the states have the control of the officers. The theory being that if the Federal govt is tyrannical, then the states would do something to stop the tyrannical federal govt. If the states and the feds are corrupt, you're fucked anyway and you don't need to protect a militia, you just fight.

 

[danielpalos]

Why is the right wing for socialism on a national basis?

In what way did I suggest that? Obviously you lack any valid retort, so you went with a nonsensical one. So I’ll ask again. Why would the founders create an oxymoron, paradox amendment? One that could arm and both disarm its people/militia as they saw fit?

They didn't. Well regulated militia of the People may not Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

So your just gonna add words?

I have a valid argument. You have nothing but repeal.

That doesn’t mean anything. That was straight jibberish. How high are you right now? Cut back, you probably have a very skewed self image that you’re making a lot of sense, but your not. Your like a freaking robot that you’ve given too hard a question to process, and it just keeps waving it’s arms say “can not compute, can not compute,” over and over until it’s head explodes. The only difference is that you say “people are the militia, well regulated,” and “end war on drugs, reduce spending” instead, and your head sadly never explodes, because you aren’t trying to compute anything.

New rule for dan, don’t post high. Think about adopting that.

You have nothing but diversion.

 

[danielpalos]

Aye yai yai. What a thread.

Since someone mentioned states rights, I'll share a relevant and correct snippet from a great book on the topic. The American Ideal of 1776 The Twelve Basic American Principles by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976.

It is as follows....and all that needs to be said, really.

"With regard to use by the States of force, use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms), in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.

This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (posses comitatus) and any civilian police forces. (See also Par. 12 of Principle 5.)

The traditional American philosophy requires, as a fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, for example, made this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the Constitution (Article VI) that all Federal officials--both civil and military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with the result that all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution. The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means: by force in last resort.

The truly American formula, in accordance with the traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring self-government by means of constitutionally limited government with adequate protection assured for Individual Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty."

Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.

The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.

You of course para pharse it so you can get it wrong trying to sound right.

Here is the text: "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."

What it says, is that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms," Sorry for you the commas get in the way. Clearly the wording says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE. Not the right of a militia.

The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.

Don't know your point but it is clear, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.

The People = the militia.

You are either well regulated or not.

 

[Freewill]

Aye yai yai. What a thread.

Since someone mentioned states rights, I'll share a relevant and correct snippet from a great book on the topic. The American Ideal of 1776 The Twelve Basic American Principles by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976.

It is as follows....and all that needs to be said, really.

"With regard to use by the States of force, use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms), in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.

This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (posses comitatus) and any civilian police forces. (See also Par. 12 of Principle 5.)

The traditional American philosophy requires, as a fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, for example, made this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the Constitution (Article VI) that all Federal officials--both civil and military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with the result that all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution. The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means: by force in last resort.

The truly American formula, in accordance with the traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring self-government by means of constitutionally limited government with adequate protection assured for Individual Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty."

Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.

The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.

You of course para pharse it so you can get it wrong trying to sound right.

Here is the text: "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."

What it says, is that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms," Sorry for you the commas get in the way. Clearly the wording says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE. Not the right of a militia.

The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.

Don't know your point but it is clear, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.

The People = the militia.

You are either well regulated or not.

People = Right to bear arms People = Right to form militias (whether formed or not)

 

[danielpalos]

Just clueless and Causeless, right winger?

You left out pro-American

Dude, being clueless and Causeless is not, pro American.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.

The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.

You of course para pharse it so you can get it wrong trying to sound right.

Here is the text: "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."

What it says, is that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms," Sorry for you the commas get in the way. Clearly the wording says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE. Not the right of a militia.

The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.

Don't know your point but it is clear, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.

The People = the militia.

You are either well regulated or not.

People = Right to bear arms People = Right to form militias (whether formed or not)

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary. The unorganized militia is not.

It really is that simple.

 

[sakinago]

You just repeated what I said in a question.

Yes you provided evidence, evidence that involved discussing the militia, where they were playing around with the idea of including everyone (able bodied men) in the militia, much like Switzerland at the time and today, that our republic is based off of. This was also a discussion before the actual BOR (including the 2nd) was drafted, and since they later defined that any able bodied man was ELIGIBLE for the militia (meaning as well as practiced that it was a choice to join), that whole conversation of “what about the passivist Quaker’s” was made moot, since they decided to go with a volunteer force. In this very same “evidence” you provided, what did they say about standing armies? Try to answer the question instead of repeating it.

So, your argument, again, is that the 2A is changed by laws?

You've got to be kidding me. You'd get laughed out of court.

You're telling me that the US Congress CAN CHANGE THE US CONSTITUTION without following the procedures in Article 5 of the Constitution? I think not

Nope never said that once, nor hinted, nor implied. Don’t even know where you’re getting that from. What you posted to me, was a convo, before the 2nd was even created. In that convo they debated what would go wrong if we made everyone join the militia, but what about the passivist quakers. They also stated what they feared about a standing army.

No, they didn't debate what would happen if they made everyone join the militia. They were talking about what if they excused people from Militia Duty because they were religiously opposed to fighting. And it was excusing people from MILITIA DUTY and not excusing people from walking about with guns.

Yes, they feared a standing army, but also realized a standing army was necessary. On this I'm not sure what you're trying to show.

Ok but they didn’t go with a mandatory militia, so militia “duty” wasn’t a thing, since quakers weren’t obliged to join, ipso facto they didn’t have to be excused... If the militia was controlled by the state, you’ve just replaced one standing army with another. The whole point of militia was that it’s under the control of the people in their respective militia, not the state. So if need be the militia could stand up to the state (but also acted as a deterrent against the state). So if the state could “regulate” the militia, made up by the people, the 2nd is a paradoxical statement.

Right, so, they're talking about "Militia Duty" and apparently it wasn't a thing. Er... WTF are you talking about? You're just making this up as you go along, right?

At the time the US felt it was a duty of the people to be in the militia. In fact people could be called up to the Militia, it can happen today, it hasn't happened since Vietnam and they chose to go through conscription to the Armed Forces, mainly because the Militia lost credibility in the war against Mexico and a few other wars, and so it hasn't been used since, except for the National Guard.

In fact some of the evidence I showed you showed such a thing.

George Washington in Sentiments on a Peace Establishment said:

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

In other words individuals should carry out their duty.

The problem is that with FREE GOVERNMENT the people have the duty to be in the Militia to protect the country, with tyrannical govt it's the exact opposite, you need a right to prevent the tyrannical govt getting rid of the Militia. If they do get rid of the Militia, you know they're tyrannical enough to fight back.

But the Constitution was supposed to be valid over a long period of time, while the laws were to deal with the here and now. So that's why there have been plenty of Militia Acts, the 1792 one, the Dick Act of 1903 etc etc.

You're wrong on the whole control of the militia.

If you allow individual groups to have their own militias, who can then try and take over the government, you put the Constitution and free government at risk. They went for a healthy medium.

The people have the guns and personnel, and they can join the militia, but the states have the control of the officers. The theory being that if the Federal govt is tyrannical, then the states would do something to stop the tyrannical federal govt. If the states and the feds are corrupt, you're fucked anyway and you don't need to protect a militia, you just fight.

No no no, the militias were still independent, and a volunteer force. The governors could call upon the militia in case of invasion until a standing army was established. But the militia leaders (elected by the members of that militia) still controlled their miltias. Militias weren’t very effective against armies, because it was like herding cats having multiple smaller independently operating forces, vs a single force with a clear command structure. Having a governor call upon these forces was to help provide a little bit of structure in the situation of common defense, but the leaders still had control. So it was basically just aiming a herd of cats. So a governor could call upon his miltias against the Indians, but the leader of such and such county could say no, we like them, or we have important trade with them or whatever...or they could say yes and an individual could say I’m against this and no longer wish to be in the militia.

And the founders were confident that militias with nefarious intentions wouldn’t be able to take over the republic, because there’d be another militia or group of militias out there to stop them. In other words they could check and balance themselves. But if the miltias collectively felt that there was governmental abuse and action was needed (enough of them would have to agree) so it would have to be pretty obvious, they could purge the tyrannical government, or get it back in line. Jefferson and other founders supposed that this wouldn’t be a totally uncommon occurrence, that it would happen every once in a while, and it kind of did in the civil war, it just wasn’t the fed, but a confed of states.

Now if you gave 100% of power of the miltia to the governor, we’ll now you just replaced one standing army with another. Sure not a national standing army, but certainly a still powerful one enough to threaten the republic and the citizens of the state. Virginia could stake a coup, or could use its militia against its own people. Remember coups are rarely ever carried out by the entire army, it’s usually a single general and the troops loyal to him.And let’s say a town in such and such county is upset by some new statute screwing them, the governor could call up the militia in that county and surrounding ones to shut them up. And they would have to fight their own people. They no longer have a control, 1 single man had control. The founders were not about centralizing power. Localities were to hedge against the states, states were to hedge against the fed.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia of the United States get their wellness of regulation from Congress, not Individuals.

 

[sakinago]

Well regulated militia of the United States get their wellness of regulation from Congress, not Individuals.

Except they elected their leaders. Congress/state congress’s did not.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The unorganized militia may be infringed.

 

[sakinago]

Well regulated militia of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The unorganized militia may be infringed.

Because it makes total sense that a government would give itself the right to keep and bear arms, and that it shall not infringe upon its own right.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia of the United States get their wellness of regulation from Congress, not Individuals.

Except they elected their leaders. Congress/state congress’s did not.

Well regulated militia of the United States are authorized their own colors, standards, banners, and guidons.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, your argument, again, is that the 2A is changed by laws?

You've got to be kidding me. You'd get laughed out of court.

You're telling me that the US Congress CAN CHANGE THE US CONSTITUTION without following the procedures in Article 5 of the Constitution? I think not

Nope never said that once, nor hinted, nor implied. Don’t even know where you’re getting that from. What you posted to me, was a convo, before the 2nd was even created. In that convo they debated what would go wrong if we made everyone join the militia, but what about the passivist quakers. They also stated what they feared about a standing army.

No, they didn't debate what would happen if they made everyone join the militia. They were talking about what if they excused people from Militia Duty because they were religiously opposed to fighting. And it was excusing people from MILITIA DUTY and not excusing people from walking about with guns.

Yes, they feared a standing army, but also realized a standing army was necessary. On this I'm not sure what you're trying to show.

Ok but they didn’t go with a mandatory militia, so militia “duty” wasn’t a thing, since quakers weren’t obliged to join, ipso facto they didn’t have to be excused... If the militia was controlled by the state, you’ve just replaced one standing army with another. The whole point of militia was that it’s under the control of the people in their respective militia, not the state. So if need be the militia could stand up to the state (but also acted as a deterrent against the state). So if the state could “regulate” the militia, made up by the people, the 2nd is a paradoxical statement.

Right, so, they're talking about "Militia Duty" and apparently it wasn't a thing. Er... WTF are you talking about? You're just making this up as you go along, right?

At the time the US felt it was a duty of the people to be in the militia. In fact people could be called up to the Militia, it can happen today, it hasn't happened since Vietnam and they chose to go through conscription to the Armed Forces, mainly because the Militia lost credibility in the war against Mexico and a few other wars, and so it hasn't been used since, except for the National Guard.

In fact some of the evidence I showed you showed such a thing.

George Washington in Sentiments on a Peace Establishment said:

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

In other words individuals should carry out their duty.

The problem is that with FREE GOVERNMENT the people have the duty to be in the Militia to protect the country, with tyrannical govt it's the exact opposite, you need a right to prevent the tyrannical govt getting rid of the Militia. If they do get rid of the Militia, you know they're tyrannical enough to fight back.

But the Constitution was supposed to be valid over a long period of time, while the laws were to deal with the here and now. So that's why there have been plenty of Militia Acts, the 1792 one, the Dick Act of 1903 etc etc.

You're wrong on the whole control of the militia.

If you allow individual groups to have their own militias, who can then try and take over the government, you put the Constitution and free government at risk. They went for a healthy medium.

The people have the guns and personnel, and they can join the militia, but the states have the control of the officers. The theory being that if the Federal govt is tyrannical, then the states would do something to stop the tyrannical federal govt. If the states and the feds are corrupt, you're fucked anyway and you don't need to protect a militia, you just fight.

No no no, the militias were still independent, and a volunteer force. The governors could call upon the militia in case of invasion until a standing army was established. But the militia leaders (elected by the members of that militia) still controlled their miltias. Militias weren’t very effective against armies, because it was like herding cats having multiple smaller independently operating forces, vs a single force with a clear command structure. Having a governor call upon these forces was to help provide a little bit of structure in the situation of common defense, but the leaders still had control. So it was basically just aiming a herd of cats. So a governor could call upon his miltias against the Indians, but the leader of such and such county could say no, we like them, or we have important trade with them or whatever...or they could say yes and an individual could say I’m against this and no longer wish to be in the militia.

And the founders were confident that militias with nefarious intentions wouldn’t be able to take over the republic, because there’d be another militia or group of militias out there to stop them. In other words they could check and balance themselves. But if the miltias collectively felt that there was governmental abuse and action was needed (enough of them would have to agree) so it would have to be pretty obvious, they could purge the tyrannical government, or get it back in line. Jefferson and other founders supposed that this wouldn’t be a totally uncommon occurrence, that it would happen every once in a while, and it kind of did in the civil war, it just wasn’t the fed, but a confed of states.

Now if you gave 100% of power of the miltia to the governor, we’ll now you just replaced one standing army with another. Sure not a national standing army, but certainly a still powerful one enough to threaten the republic and the citizens of the state. Virginia could stake a coup, or could use its militia against its own people. Remember coups are rarely ever carried out by the entire army, it’s usually a single general and the troops loyal to him.And let’s say a town in such and such county is upset by some new statute screwing them, the governor could call up the militia in that county and surrounding ones to shut them up. And they would have to fight their own people. They no longer have a control, 1 single man had control. The founders were not about centralizing power. Localities were to hedge against the states, states were to hedge against the fed.

I didn't say that the militias weren't volunteer, but independent, no, they weren't. Independent was a danger to country as much as a standing army.

Before the Constitution was passed, Militias were often local affairs. However there was a change with the passing of the Constitution, Article 1 Section 8 which said: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,"

Now, the word "the" means "one of one" or "two of two". It didn't say "a Militia". There was one militia and Congress had the power to organize, arm and discipline this militia. There were no other militias.

By 1789, the state could call upon the Militia, and it was THE Militia. If a bunch of drunks got together with their guns and called themselves a militia, they couldn't be called up into service. They had to join THE MILITIA and the state or the feds could disband any militia that someone decided they wanted to set up.

West Point was created in part to deal with the problems of the militia.

The first time the militia was used was in the Whiskey Rebellion. The Feds called up the state militias from New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania.

For example, you have the Nauvoo Legion in Illinois

Nauvoo Legion - Wikipedia

"The Nauvoo Legion was a state authorized militia of the city of Nauvoo, Illinois."

"To curry political favor with the Saints, the Illinois state legislature granted Nauvoo a liberal city charter that gave the Nauvoo Legion extraordinary independence even though it was still a component of the Illinois State Militia and under the ultimate authority of the Governor of Illinois."

Even this militia was under state control, and could be called up by the feds. If it wasn't approved by the state, it wasn't part of the militia.

So, where's the evidence that Founders thought that one militia not under state control would be controlled by other militias?

You make the claim, BACK IT UP.

There wasn't 100% power, because people didn't have to join up the militia. In the Whiskey Rebellion they struggled to get enough people to go, and actually had rebellions in Virginia when they tried to draft up the militia. The point here is also that the feds COULD try and called up EVERY SINGLE MALE in the country to federal service. It was their power, they could force people into the Militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is a States right.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"The wellness of regulation, being necessary for a clueless and causelese state, rhe right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."