The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

I see you know enough to not address the 10A argument or the 9A one-there is no honest way to claim that the federal government was actually given a power to regulate small arms-

the rest of your stuff is silly. Look, I have been dealing with anti gun arguments since I was 15. I am 55 now. I have seen everything. the bottom line-federal gun control is one of the most dishonest things in US History. Senile former Justice Stevens whined recently about the 2A-he refused to address the 10A angle because it destroys the anti gun side when it comes to honesty

the founders knew the several states had time place and use restrictions and that was proper-they never intended overlapping federal jurisdiction

even those who like what FDR did with the commerce clause admit it wasn't consistent with either the language or the intent.

Later-BBT

Silly huh? Jeez. You want to ignore the truth, that's your problem. To be honest I've found about 2 people who have ever acknowledged that what I'm saying exists.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

Question. Is this document real or not?

So you've been doing this for 40 years. And what do you have? I'm being serious here. You've not used much in the way of anything. You've ignored the founding fathers and what they've said. You've talked about Heller but vaguely, and nothing that really is in anyway convincing towards your argument.

Time does not, and will not, make your argument better if you're ignoring the reality of what is there. All I ask is for your to look at what I have and debate it.

The founders knew a lot, and we can see what they said, said article above is one major piece of document that I have NEVER, EVER seen a person who is pro-gun use, it gets ignored. Why?

But I'd also say you should take what I have to say not from the point of view that you think you know my argument because you've seen it 100 times, the reality is you haven't. Take it as if you've never seen it. Don't make assumptions about what I think, it's happens quite a few times today already, where I get told I think this or that, when clearly I don't, clearly others do, and I'm being tarred with the same brush.

 

[jon_berzerk]

remind me where the federal government was given any power to regulate small arms?

the government couldn't take away arms. they don't have the proper power.

the founders believed in the natural right of self defense-why would they allow the federal government a power to render that natural right moot


you really are demonstrating that you have spent a little bit of time on this but you really do not know the subject.

It's not about which power the feds were given to regulate small arms.
What power is there to do half the things the US govt does? The point is the US govt DOES THESE THINGS and the founding fathers were not so stupid to believe the govt would just stick to what it is allowed to do in the constitution.

So I'll ask a question.
Is it possible for the US federal govt to change the constitution so that it bans guns with an amendment? Yes or no.

Is it possible for the US federal govt to call up every single militiaman, requiring him to bring all of his weapons (this is a power they have in article 1 section 8, this allows them to make militia acts, which they have done since 1792, which can regulated how the militiaman turns up, see italics below) and then under the power they have to regulate the military to take these weapons away and leave the militia with absolutely no weapons?

The Militia Act of 1792

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. "

Your argument is that there is no point in having a right to be in the militia because there's nothing there to stop the feds from stopping people being in the militia.

So why then did Mr Gerry and other founding fathers say things like:

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; "

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. "

I mean, it's there for you to see that the founding fathers were debating this at the time, and they wanted to prevent this from happening. Now you have managed to completely ignore a part of US history because you think you know better.

Is it possible for the US federal govt to call up every single militiaman, requiring him to bring all of his weapons (this is a power they have in article 1 section 8, this allows them to make militia acts, which they have done since 1792, which can regulated how the militiaman turns up, see italics below) and then under the power they have to regulate the military to take these weapons away and leave the militia with absolutely no weapons?

no not according to perpich vs department of defense

Congress has provided by statute that, in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. See 32 U.S.C. § 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the founders never intended the federal government have any power to regulate firearms. You simply cannot find any evidence they did. So under the tenth amendment, federal gun control is an abomination so ranting about what the 2A says means little. Under the 9th amendment, the natural right of self defense and its corollary of free citizens to be armed are recognized. so putting your gun ban eggs in the basket of the 2A is a losing strategy

The founders made a clause that allows the US govt and the states to alter the US Constitution. They also knew that no matter what the constitution says the govt might do as it pleases anyway. Hence why the ultimate check and balance is the militia.
They also worried that a militia without control of the govt would go rouge, so they put constraints on the militia, ie power to the US govt.

The US govt could call up the militia. Now, imagine you call up the militia, then take away all the guns that the militia has, because hey, they're in the army now, and then you send them back home. That power is there. Right?

So, your argument here is I shouldn't bother to discuss the 2A because it's all irrelevant anyway. So tell me this. Why did they write the 2A if it is irrelevant? That makes no sense at all.

You're talking self defence. I'm sorry to have to ask, WHY? What has this got to do with what we're talking about?

You can defend yourself with your hands, with a TV, with a car, with a dog, with a spoon, with a rock, with water, with just about ANYTHING. Are you trying to claim that because you can defend yourself with a gun and the 2A says "arms" that therefore the 2A protects the right to self defence?

The right to self defence exists, it's there in the constitution but unwritten, that doesn't mean the 2A protects the right to self defence. It allows individuals to have guns and be in the militia. If they use the guns in self defence woopdiedoo for them, but what has it got to do with this topic and the 2A?

The answer is sweet FA. (Nothing)

The right to self defense exists, it's there in the constitution but unwritten, that doesn't mean the 2A protects the right to self defense.

Heller says it does

and McDonald said it is the law of the land

 

[Missourian]

I love these left wing "gun owners" that want to gut the 2nd.

They remind me of the Vichy.

I love people who make comments that have nothing to do with anything, can't make an argument and wouldn't be able to back it up even if they could.

So you want to debate or just make "I love" statements?????

I love popcorn exploding in space. Blast from exploding stars trapped Earth in space bubble NASA says - Yahoo News UK

He's calling you a liar.

The old "Sure, I'm a gun owner, I just hate the 2nd Amendment" routine.

No one buys it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is it possible for the US federal govt to call up every single militiaman, requiring him to bring all of his weapons (this is a power they have in article 1 section 8, this allows them to make militia acts, which they have done since 1792, which can regulated how the militiaman turns up, see italics below) and then under the power they have to regulate the military to take these weapons away and leave the militia with absolutely no weapons?

no not according to perpich vs department of defense

Congress has provided by statute that, in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. See 32 U.S.C. § 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own.

Yes, but you're talking about something else here, going off on a tangent. This is something new, also proving my point that things can change. In 1791 this wasn't the case, and we're dealing with what was going on at this time.

In 1791 was it possible for the feds to call up all militiamen and take their weapons?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The right to self defense exists, it's there in the constitution but unwritten, that doesn't mean the 2A protects the right to self defense.

Heller says it does

and McDonald said it is the law of the land

McDonald doesn't say the 2A is about self defence.

"Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. "

This is about incorporation of the 14A into the 2A which means the 2A is subject to the states as well as the feds.
The language used here is pandering to the gun lobby massively, but doesn't actually mean much. It doesn't say the 2A is about self defence. It means you can keep guns, which is the 2A, and you can defend yourself with guns, which is elsewhere.

Heller you have more of a case, but not much.

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. "

This has nothing to do with with self defence being a part of the 2A. It merely says you can own a weapons and you can use it for "lawful purposes" and NOT for a right protected by the 2A. Lawful purposes would cover a lot of things. Like using your gun to scratch your back, protected by the constitution? Like propping up the TV when the stand breaks, protected by the constitution?

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

The second part is the Supreme Court basically saying that while there is an individual right, it can be infringed upon (and they list the infringements) and they also say that carrying weapons in certain places is not protected either.

"(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."

And here's your best bet, still it seems to say that you have the right to own weapons and you can lawfully use them for self defence. Nowhere does it say that the 2A protects the right to self defence.

Unless of course you have something I don't.

 

[frigidweirdo]

He's calling you a liar.

The old "Sure, I'm a gun owner, I just hate the 2nd Amendment" routine.

No one buys it.

He's calling me a liar and I'm calling him a.......... well we don't need to go there.

 

[jon_berzerk]

there is no reputable legal scholar who agrees with that even though Amar sort of tries to give lip service to that opinion. The USSC rejected it in Heller and so have almost every major scholar. why would a bill of rights designed to recognize natural rights be limited to serving in a militia which is not a natural right

How many "reputable legal scholars" know much about an amendment that hardly ever comes up in the course of their job that isn't as biased as hell?

Also, they didn't reject this, that's the point.

Here's how.

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. "

The right to keep arms = the right to own a weapon not connected to militia duty. This is what I'm saying.
The right to bear arms is not mentioned here.

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:"

Tricky language. They talk about the right to carry, saying it's not unlimited. Well there is no right to carry, so whatever. They're sort of pretending there is, using language suggesting there is, without actually having to refer to it.

"(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."

So this is about the ownership of arms, ie, keep arms, and not bear arms.

Oh, and who says that the right to be in the militia is not a natural right? Natural and guns, guns aren't natural, they don't grow on trees.

So this is about the ownership of arms, ie, keep arms, and not bear arms.

LOL! That's funny.

Funny you want me to back everything I said up instead of just spouting simple sentences? Right you are then.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

During the debates in the House (Senate records were kept a secret) they debated the inclusion of the clause (which changed) over the course of the debate with two distinct types.

1st: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

2nd:but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

Now, here it looks like they're using "bear arms" and "render military service" synonymously to me. What do you think?

Well to back this up I'll look at the debate.

Mr Gerry said:"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Now, if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around, why would declaring those who couldn't carry guns around (but still own them) allow people in power to destroy the constitution? Because they can't use self defence? Doesn't make sense.
It does make sense that if people were not allowed to "render military service" then this might take away from the actual purpose of the 2A which is to protect the militia from the US govt.

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. "

Well that's what Mr Gerry thinks this is all about. You see self defence, carrying weapons around individually here?

"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."

They're talking about excluding people from militia duty. "render military service", "bear arms", "militia duty", they are the same thing.

"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.""

And here they even use the two same things, to mean the same thing, next to each other.

There's more in there. But shall we move on?

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;”

This is a case which makes a claim that has been upheld, even in the relevant cases recently. Simply said, the right to keep and bear arms does not prevent the govt from stopping people carrying concealed weapons.

You don't think it's funny the NRA supports carry and conceal permits?

Surely this would go against licensing a right.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"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."

This case was one where they looked at whether men drilling, but not part of the militia, was a right, they said it wasn't.

We also have state constitutions from before the 2A was ratified that show there was a right to be in the militia for the protection of the militia, so the common defence would be served.

"1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

"1790 Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

And the biggest joke of all is George Washington

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783
George Washington


"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.“

He uses the term "bear arms" in the sense of "render military service" and "militia duty".

So now, I'm going to see what you've got. Will it be insults and not much else, or will be hardcore facts or will it be quotes taken massively out of context????

Hmmmmm.

This is a case which makes a claim that has been upheld, even in the relevant cases recently. Simply said, the right to keep and bear arms does not prevent the govt from stopping people carrying concealed weapons.

the 7th circuit of appeals differs

and says the right to self defense extends to outside of the home

in other works to bear arms

The right to self defense exists, it's there in the constitution but unwritten, that doesn't mean the 2A protects the right to self defense.

Heller says it does

and McDonald said it is the law of the land

McDonald doesn't say the 2A is about self defence.

"Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. "

This is about incorporation of the 14A into the 2A which means the 2A is subject to the states as well as the feds.
The language used here is pandering to the gun lobby massively, but doesn't actually mean much. It doesn't say the 2A is about self defence. It means you can keep guns, which is the 2A, and you can defend yourself with guns, which is elsewhere.

Heller you have more of a case, but not much.

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. "

This has nothing to do with with self defence being a part of the 2A. It merely says you can own a weapons and you can use it for "lawful purposes" and NOT for a right protected by the 2A. Lawful purposes would cover a lot of things. Like using your gun to scratch your back, protected by the constitution? Like propping up the TV when the stand breaks, protected by the constitution?

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

The second part is the Supreme Court basically saying that while there is an individual right, it can be infringed upon (and they list the infringements) and they also say that carrying weapons in certain places is not protected either.

"(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."

And here's your best bet, still it seems to say that you have the right to own weapons and you can lawfully use them for self defence. Nowhere does it say that the 2A protects the right to self defence.

Unless of course you have something I don't.

the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized inHeller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense

Is it possible for the US federal govt to call up every single militiaman, requiring him to bring all of his weapons (this is a power they have in article 1 section 8, this allows them to make militia acts, which they have done since 1792, which can regulated how the militiaman turns up, see italics below) and then under the power they have to regulate the military to take these weapons away and leave the militia with absolutely no weapons?

no not according to perpich vs department of defense

Congress has provided by statute that, in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. See 32 U.S.C. § 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own.

Yes, but you're talking about something else here, going off on a tangent. This is something new, also proving my point that things can change. In 1791 this wasn't the case, and we're dealing with what was going on at this time.

In 1791 was it possible for the feds to call up all militiamen and take their weapons?

no we are not talking about something else here

the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich

the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is a case which makes a claim that has been upheld, even in the relevant cases recently. Simply said, the right to keep and bear arms does not prevent the govt from stopping people carrying concealed weapons.

the 7th circuit of appeals differs

and says the right to self defense extends to outside of the home

in other works to bear arms

Well there are plenty of examples of circuit courts differing from the Supreme Court. Most judges have bias.

That does not mean that the whole history of the founding fathers in this matter didn't happen, does it?

Is it so easy to just completely ignore history?

the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized inHeller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense

No. It recognises it for the doing things that are lawful, self defence just happens to be one of these. You can't use Heller to prove that the 2A specifically protects self defence. Inherently by protecting the right to keep arms, it allows for ONE FORM of self defence to be protected.
Otherwise ANYTHING that allows for self defence is protected and the Supreme Court rejects this by saying that many weapons are not protected.

no we are not talking about something else here

the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich

the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia

This is getting a little absurd. The point being made was that the 2A could not possibly protect the right to be in the militia because the feds do not have the power and could never, ever, possibly gain the power to take away arms from individuals therefore necessitating the right to be in the militia.

It's absurd because the founding fathers CLEARLY made the case that the right to bear arms, or "render military service" or "militia duty" was there because they stated:

"This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government;"

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

So not only were the founding fathers worried about the government, which had been set up under the present constitution minus any amendments, taking away liberty, but they felt the govt had this power. Now 200 odd years later and we have people claiming that A) this was never the case and B) this could never be the case.

 

[Sallow]

shit happens.

Sadly, that's exactly how the nutters see this.

That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the nutter's don't feel anything more about his death than the death of a 8yo who accidentally shot himself at a shooting range not long ago.

They'll do damn near anything for a fetus but not a damn thing for a living human being.

you know, some kid taking his driving test got into an accident and killed the poor guy administering the test. That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the lunatic left is still ok to let kids keep on getting their drivers license.

Cars are not guns.
Swimming pools are not guns.
Bread boxes are not guns.

The scary thing is, the damn dumb gun nutters really don't seem to know that.

But, since you nutters think cars and guns are the same ...

cars kill more than guns, more people drown each year than are killed by guns. ban cars and swimming, they are more dangerous than guns

Even if this were true, which I doubt..most guns have one purpose.

To kill human beings.

 

[Sallow]

no we are not talking about something else here

the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich

the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia

Which is another fine example of the perversion of original intent when it comes to the second amendment.

 

[turtledude]

Is it possible for the US federal govt to call up every single militiaman, requiring him to bring all of his weapons (this is a power they have in article 1 section 8, this allows them to make militia acts, which they have done since 1792, which can regulated how the militiaman turns up, see italics below) and then under the power they have to regulate the military to take these weapons away and leave the militia with absolutely no weapons?

no not according to perpich vs department of defense

Congress has provided by statute that, in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. See 32 U.S.C. § 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own.

Yes, but you're talking about something else here, going off on a tangent. This is something new, also proving my point that things can change. In 1791 this wasn't the case, and we're dealing with what was going on at this time.

In 1791 was it possible for the feds to call up all militiamen and take their weapons?

NO

 

[turtledude]

no we are not talking about something else here

the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich

the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia

Which is another fine example of the perversion of original intent when it comes to the second amendment.

original intent of the founders

the federal government has no jurisdiction over what arms private citizens own

at best, the federal government can tell members of the federal militia what arms to use while serving

 

[frigidweirdo]

original intent of the founders

the federal government has no jurisdiction over what arms private citizens own

at best, the federal government can tell members of the federal militia what arms to use while serving

Actually the Right to Keep arms is a limit on federal power. The feds cannot stop people from owning weapons. They can limit weapons. A ban on fully automatic weapons is not limited by the 2A.

 

[frigidweirdo]

In 1791 was it possible for the feds to call up all militiamen and take their weapons?

NO[/QUOTE]

So there was no way possible for feds to call someone up and then take their weapons?

Again, it's still moot because the founding fathers were clearly concerned that the feds could take the weapons away from the people, and also prevent them from being in the militia, hence why they protected this.

I bet you can't find a single instance where the founding fathers spoke about the need to protect the right to carry weapons.

 

[Sallow]

no we are not talking about something else here

the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich

the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia

Which is another fine example of the perversion of original intent when it comes to the second amendment.

original intent of the founders

the federal government has no jurisdiction over what arms private citizens own

at best, the federal government can tell members of the federal militia what arms to use while serving

That's not "at best".

The Original intent was that you were required to keep arms for the defense of the country.

They weren't for hunting or self defense.

Essentially, you were in the "army" and at the ready in cases of insurrection or invasion.

By the way? You were prohibited from using those arms against the government.

There are multiple clauses in the Constitution that specifically address this.

Case law has corrupted the original intent.

Which was that a permanent standing army under Federal control would not be needed and that citizens would perform that function.

 

[Sallow]

original intent of the founders

the federal government has no jurisdiction over what arms private citizens own

at best, the federal government can tell members of the federal militia what arms to use while serving

Actually the Right to Keep arms is a limit on federal power. The feds cannot stop people from owning weapons. They can limit weapons. A ban on fully automatic weapons is not limited by the 2A.

No it is not.

The "limits" on Federal Power can be found in clauses regarding the quartering of soldiers and similar references.

Citizens have no right, at all, as codified in the Constitution, to take up arms against the government. None.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL! That's funny.

Funny you want me to back everything I said up instead of just spouting simple sentences? Right you are then.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

During the debates in the House (Senate records were kept a secret) they debated the inclusion of the clause (which changed) over the course of the debate with two distinct types.

1st: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

2nd:but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

Now, here it looks like they're using "bear arms" and "render military service" synonymously to me. What do you think?

Well to back this up I'll look at the debate.

Mr Gerry said:"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Now, if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around, why would declaring those who couldn't carry guns around (but still own them) allow people in power to destroy the constitution? Because they can't use self defence? Doesn't make sense.
It does make sense that if people were not allowed to "render military service" then this might take away from the actual purpose of the 2A which is to protect the militia from the US govt.

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. "

Well that's what Mr Gerry thinks this is all about. You see self defence, carrying weapons around individually here?

"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."

They're talking about excluding people from militia duty. "render military service", "bear arms", "militia duty", they are the same thing.

"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.""

And here they even use the two same things, to mean the same thing, next to each other.

There's more in there. But shall we move on?

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;”

This is a case which makes a claim that has been upheld, even in the relevant cases recently. Simply said, the right to keep and bear arms does not prevent the govt from stopping people carrying concealed weapons.

You don't think it's funny the NRA supports carry and conceal permits?

Surely this would go against licensing a right.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"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."

This case was one where they looked at whether men drilling, but not part of the militia, was a right, they said it wasn't.

We also have state constitutions from before the 2A was ratified that show there was a right to be in the militia for the protection of the militia, so the common defence would be served.

"1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

"1790 Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

And the biggest joke of all is George Washington

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783
George Washington


"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.“

He uses the term "bear arms" in the sense of "render military service" and "militia duty".

So now, I'm going to see what you've got. Will it be insults and not much else, or will be hardcore facts or will it be quotes taken massively out of context????

Hmmmmm.

Thanks.
I love a good laugh in the morning.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No it is not.

The "limits" on Federal Power can be found in clauses regarding the quartering of soldiers and similar references.

Citizens have no right, at all, as codified in the Constitution, to take up arms against the government. None.

Of course it is. What do you think the constitution is? It defines the powers the govt has, both powers it has and powers it explicitly doesn't have.

You think there are just limits to their power in those clauses you have mentioned in article 1? I don't thinks so.

The Bill of Rights was mainly a limit on the power of the federal govt.

Bill of Rights Institute Bill of Rights

"The first 10 amendments to the Constitutionmake up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. "

How can the Constitution limit Government power 1995

"A Bill of Rights as contained in the Amendments to the US Constitution, provides an admirable philosophical statement, for application in concrete situations, of the basis on which the power of legislatures and governments may be limited. "

I mean, this is BASIC political theory.

Citizens have no rights codified into the constitution at all. Rights are assumed to exist. The constitution merely protects those rights by LIMITING GOVT POWER.....

No, there is no right to take up arms against the government. However I bet I can find a million quotes from the time which talks about the potential need to take up arms.

The reason the militia is there and has a certain amount of federal input is so that only this militia will rise up and restore the constitution, or at least it was hoped this would be the case, rather than a rabble taking over and doing what it liked.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Thanks.
I love a good laugh in the morning.

You actually bothered to read it all and then make such an idiotic statement afterwards? Wow, I'm impressed with your staying power.

So, what exactly do you find funny? Because you know what would be funny? You actually being able to form an opinion on this and debate with me.