The Right To Bear Arms

[Lakhota]

Who belongs to the militia you ask?

No need to ask. It's not a matter of SCOTUS opinion or anyone else. It's a matter of law:

Article 10, US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Sooo, what gun rights does this give the "unorganized militia" in relation to the 2nd Amendment...?

 

[Charles_Main]

By Jeffrey Toobin

Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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 had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

But the N.R.A. kept pushing—and there’s a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)

The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find “clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.” The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outré constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.

And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment.

More: So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker

Gotta love the way racists ignored the 14th Amendment to justify gun control. Ever wonder why progressive Democrats want to firce anyone who gets a gun to have an ID, yet refuses to require an ID for voting?

Yep.

 

[Charles_Main]

Who belongs to the militia you ask?

No need to ask. It's not a matter of SCOTUS opinion or anyone else. It's a matter of law:

Article 10, US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Sooo, what gun rights does this give the "unorganized militia" in relation to the 2nd Amendment...?

Lefties like to Ignore the Comma.

 

[williepete]

Sooo, what gun rights does this give the "unorganized militia" in relation to the 2nd Amendment...?

Americans are not "given" rights by any law, document or opinion. Our rights are inherent, endowed by our creator. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are restrictions on government--not the people. This is a common misunderstanding.

The Militia consists of all the people. The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government. The government, under our constitution, is granted its power from the consent of the people. Not the other way around.

I admire your anti Second Amendment passion although I disagree with it. If you are so disposed, perhaps using the amendment process would be a better course than continuing to state that the law of the land is invalid.

Prohibition was brought about by the 18th Amendment and was later repealed by the 21st Amendment. The Constitution can be changed. But we as a people, who loan our power to the government, must agree within our legal framework.

 

[whitehall]

When Toobin and the New Yorker start picking apart the 1st Amendment we are really going to be in trouble.

 

[Lakhota]

Sooo, what gun rights does this give the "unorganized militia" in relation to the 2nd Amendment...?

Americans are not "given" rights by any law, document or opinion. Our rights are inherent, endowed by our creator. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are restrictions on government--not the people. This is a common misunderstanding.

The Militia consists of all the people. The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government. The government, under our constitution, is granted its power from the consent of the people. Not the other way around.

I admire your anti Second Amendment passion although I disagree with it. If you are so disposed, perhaps using the amendment process would be a better course than continuing to state that the law of the land is invalid.

Prohibition was brought about by the 18th Amendment and was later repealed by the 21st Amendment. The Constitution can be changed. But we as a people, who loan our power to the government, must agree within our legal framework.

"Endowed by their creator" is in the Declaration of Independence - which is NOT a governing document. The DoI was basically filing for divorce from England.

 

[williepete]

Lakhota,

I understand and respect your position. Do you understand our rights are inherent?

Let's look at this from the opposite angle. Why do you want to disarm citizens? Why do you want the government to have a monopoly on guns? When governments have had a monopoly on guns, how has that worked out in history? Is that something we want to repeat?

Not to sound condescending, but a working knowledge of the Federalist Papers and why they were published might clear up most of this discussion.


With all due respect.

 

[Lakhota]

Lakhota,

I understand and respect your position. Do you understand our rights are inherent?

Let's look at this from the opposite angle. Why do you want to disarm citizens? Why do you want the government to have a monopoly on guns? When governments have had a monopoly on guns, how has that worked out in history? Is that something we want to repeat?

With all due respect.

I'm a gun lover and hunter. I have no wish to disarm qualified citizens. I simply want some common sense gun control. I'm 66, and was a longtime NRA member - until they became extreme in the late 70's. IMO, the 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

By Jeffrey Toobin

Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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 had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

But the N.R.A. kept pushing—and there’s a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)

The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find “clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.” The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outré constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.

And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment.

More: So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker

Someone from New York trying to tell me about the second amendment? When that person from New York explains how their assault weapons ban was allowed I listen too him.
This has got to be the moist stupidest thread start by shitting bull EVER.

 

[PaulS1950]

The fact is that our rights extend from our birth. The bill of rights was installed to prevent the government, including popular vote, from touching them.

There is a tremendous amount of history, even beyond the Magna Carta, that states that our rights come from the Creator, as a birthrite and not from government. Even in the twenty-third century BCE the People of Sumer accepted that even slaves had the right to defend themselves, buy their own freedom and work for themselves once their duties for their master were complete.

The concept that the Creator endowed us with certain rights at birth is nothing new and it is not likely to change.

 

[williepete]

I'm a gun lover and hunter. I have no wish to disarm qualified citizens. I simply want some common sense gun control. I'm 66, and was a longtime NRA member - until they became extreme in the late 70's. IMO, the 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete.

Now we have common ground my friend. I'm glad because I'm tired of seeing you so abused on this forum by people who share my opinion. I apologize for putting words in your mouth about wishing to disarm qualified citizens. I was never a NRA member because I found their rhetoric too extreme. I too found the 2nd Amendment wording confusing until I did just a little research. People of the 18th century spoke differently than we do today. The intent remains true. If you and I and our fellow countrymen feel it's time to repeal or adjust the 2nd Amendment, we have a vehicle for that in Article V.



The Constitution of the United States

* * * * * * * * * *

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i'm a gun lover and hunter. I have no wish to disarm qualified citizens. I simply want some common sense gun control. I'm 66, and was a longtime nra member - until they became extreme in the late 70's. Imo, the 2nd amendment is confusing and obsolete.

now we have common ground my friend. I'm glad because i'm tired of seeing you so abused on this forum by people who share my opinion. I apologize for putting words in your mouth about wishing to disarm qualified citizens. I was never a nra member because i found their rhetoric too extreme. I too found the 2nd amendment wording confusing until i did just a little research. People of the 18th century spoke differently than we do today. The intent remains true. If you and i and our fellow countrymen feel it's time to repeal or adjust the 2nd amendment, we have a vehicle for that in article v.




the constitution of the united states

* * * * * * * * * *

article v

the congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate.

oh god damn how in the **** is the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in fringed confusing?

 

[PaulS1950]

Williepetet,
If you research the bill of rights, its history and the fight over its inclusion you will find that it cannot be changed by any political power. It is above governmental powers and even the popular vote. It is a list of rights that precede the constitution and are not a part of the constitution. The listing is there to notify the government of what is to be defended and protected.
Simply put the rights they defend are not granted by law - they are granted by birth.

 

[williepete]

Williepetet,
If you research the bill of rights, its history and the fight over its inclusion you will find that it cannot be changed by any political power. It is above governmental powers and even the popular vote. It is a list of rights that precede the constitution and are not a part of the constitution. The listing is there to notify the government of what is to be defended and protected.
Simply put the rights they defend are not granted by law - they are granted by birth.

Thank you Sir,

I'm currently reading the Federalist Papers, I'm a relatively new student of our Constitution of only 10 years and my interest continues to grow. Any and all recommendations for study are greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Bill

 

[Lakhota]

I'm a gun lover and hunter. I have no wish to disarm qualified citizens. I simply want some common sense gun control. I'm 66, and was a longtime NRA member - until they became extreme in the late 70's. IMO, the 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete.

Now we have common ground my friend. I'm glad because I'm tired of seeing you so abused on this forum by people who share my opinion. I apologize for putting words in your mouth about wishing to disarm qualified citizens. I was never a NRA member because I found their rhetoric too extreme. I too found the 2nd Amendment wording confusing until I did just a little research. People of the 18th century spoke differently than we do today. The intent remains true. If you and I and our fellow countrymen feel it's time to repeal or adjust the 2nd Amendment, we have a vehicle for that in Article V.



The Constitution of the United States

* * * * * * * * * *

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

williepete, I applaud your wisdom and open mind. It's a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.

 

[westwall]

Lakhota,

I understand and respect your position. Do you understand our rights are inherent?

Let's look at this from the opposite angle. Why do you want to disarm citizens? Why do you want the government to have a monopoly on guns? When governments have had a monopoly on guns, how has that worked out in history? Is that something we want to repeat?

Not to sound condescending, but a working knowledge of the Federalist Papers and why they were published might clear up most of this discussion.


With all due respect.

lacky is an avowed Marxist/Stalinist. He WANTS the gulags...

 

[Lakhota]

I admit the Federalist Papers are important historical documents, but I question how much weight they should carry in today's constitutional interpretations.

Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers.[27] They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v. Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v. Bull, apparently the first decision to mention The Federalist).[28] By 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.[29]

Federalist Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Harry Dresden]

Hey Lakhota...How many threads on the same thing are you going to post idiot? Perhaps you might try responding in the last thread you created about the same subject.

he does not respond to Questions he brings up in threads he starts......plus he thinks if he words the thread title differently no one will know....he lacks honesty and integrity and he is a phony.....so its expected with meatballs like this.........

 

[williepete]

williepete, I applaud your wisdom and open mind. It's a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.

Cheers Lakhota.

If Westwall is correct and you are a Marxist, all the better. More to discuss. The Gulag idea, not so much.

The reasons I'm fascinated with 2A discussions are the ones you bring up. Even though I consider myself to be a right-wing gun nut, I do see your points in the 2A's relevance in today's society considering modern technology.

If the Founding Fathers could have envisioned modern weaponry, would that have changed the wording of the 2A? In their day, a musket or rifle was their assault weapon. That it fired once every 90 seconds and not at all when it rained, how does that equate with today's weapons? Would they still want citizens to have the same assault weapons as the standing army--a standing army that they never wanted?

I believe from my readings that their intent was to have an armed citizenry to keep tyranny in check. I think this is the kernel of our 2A discussion. Do we surrender our arms and trust our current government will protect us in the hopes that in generations to come, that trusted government does not oppress us in our defenselessness? Do we seek a middle ground and put restrictions on who owns firearms and what firearms they are allowed to have? What we have now. Or do we stick to the strict 18th century wording of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

As a right-wing gun nut, I find the more specific questions you place in front of me, the more hypocritical I become. My going in position is a strict adherence to the 2A. When you bring in the obvious qualifications of those with mental illness, I of course agree to restrict. When you point out that certain overcrowded areas where crime is rampant, I again agree measures should be taken. Not so much a slippery slope than pragmatic measures. Now when restrictions are presented as they are now with the Feinstein bill against ME--a law abiding, tax paying home owner and veteran, I rear up on my hind legs and rebel. I see my own hypocrisy in agreeing to restrict them and them and them but not me. What makes this debate important, passionate and potentially volatile is that it is a right that people like me will fight and die for.

An interesting debate.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I'm a gun lover and hunter. I have no wish to disarm qualified citizens. I simply want some common sense gun control. I'm 66, and was a longtime NRA member - until they became extreme in the late 70's. IMO, the 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete.

oh bullshit you lying sack of shit.....your ******* posts sure dont back that up.....how come in the other gun threads you started you STATED to posters there.....you do not need or should have guns........and dont tell me you did not say these things.....when me and a few other posters called you on this.....you did what you do best.....ignored everybody......your a ******* phony LaKota......its called CHARACTER....try getting some....