CDZ The second amendment allows for multiple use under the keep and bear doctrine.

[Hossfly]

Problem is, they control a whole army. You don't stand a chance.

Wouldn't it be better to elect a better government? To have a better electoral system that leads to a better government? One with more oversight?

Yes, a better government, The current one is anti-American. And the electoral system is fair. The nosy government shouldn't have oversight; that's socialism.

 

[ralfy]

What the Second doesn't say:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, for the sole purpose of hunting, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, for the sole purpose of self defense, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, solely for the purposes of self defense and hunting, shall not be infringed.

What it does say:

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.

Not any qualifications in that, are there?

Check out Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts, as well as various comments by framers as they were revising 2A. For example,

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

memory.loc.gov

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

memory.loc.gov

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

memory.loc.gov

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

rs6.loc.gov

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

Here's the gist:

They were dealing with three issues:

1. the individual right to bear arms

2. states' desire to maintain armed groups

3. states' desire to keep the standing army small

The conclusion is that the first is part of English common law and exists even without 2A. However, it justifies the need for the second in order to prevent tyranny, but it also allows the government to use regulated militias to support the Continental Army.

 

[ralfy]

Not really. After they disbanded the Continental Army, what remained was a mere skeleton of a fighting force.

It was still a standing army.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because a well regulated militia is a necessary item for a free people to remain free they

Wrong.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with the people ‘remaining free’ – there is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes insurrectionist dogma.

The Second Amendment codifies in individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense unconnected with militia service.

The ‘remaining free’ nonsense is a lie contrived by the dishonest right in a bad faith effort to promote the wrongheaded notion that private citizens may ‘take up arms’ against a government incorrectly and subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Framers did not authorize private armed citizens to overthrow a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people, absent the consent of the people; the Framers did not amend the Constitution to facilitate the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It makes me feel safe from the government. If they come for me and I've done nothing wrong, they're going to learn why the 2d Amendment was put in place.

It’s a false sense of security – in addition to being ignorant and wrong.

And to ‘take up arms’ against government is lawless, criminal rebellion and treason.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Being armed -is- a political statement.

The politics of lies and dishonesty – such as the right’s lie that guns are going to be ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated,’ intended to keep the political base frightened, angry, and going to the polls.

 

[Hossfly]

It’s a false sense of security – in addition to being ignorant and wrong.

And to ‘take up arms’ against government is lawless, criminal rebellion and treason.

Tell that to the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They detail specific instructions for the proper use of the 2d Amendment. We need it now more than ever.

 

[BothWings]

I prefer the original 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.

This Amendment was a specific prohibition against the newly created federal government infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. I don't see how any Lefty can argue with this.

Keyword: "keep"

 

[frigidweirdo]

That sounds like the basis for an interesting discussion.

I've said it a hundred times on here, most of the time I get insults.

Basically it works like this:

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The is from the House debating a clause of what would become the Second Amendment.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." This was essentially tacked onto the end of what would, more or less, become the 2A. They got rid of it eventually.

My point here is that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Or, in other words, the US federal government cannot stop individuals from being in the militia.'

It's how you protect the militia. If the government can't stop individuals from having guns, and can stop those armed individuals from being in the militia, then they can't destroy the militia.

If the term "bear arms" would mean "carry arms" as in, carry them around in their daily lives, then it seems a bit weird that people would be "compelled to..." carry arms around in their daily lives.

Mr Gerry (from gerrymandering fame) 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."

They could destroy the constitution by preventing individuals from carrying arms in daily life.... doesn't seem likely. Seems more likely they could destroy the constitution by destroying the ultimate check and balance, the militia, by preventing individuals from being in the militia by claiming they're all "religiously scrupulous".

It's also obvious that they're talking about the militia, not about daily lives.

Mr Gerry said: "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. 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. "

Now we come to the meaning of the term "Bear arms". In certain modern Supreme Court cases, the SC essentially said "bear means carry" but also "bear arms" could mean something different. They were trying to be true to the meaning of the 2A, while at the same time pandering to the right wing gun crowd. They said things, but tried to downplay their meaning.

What they didn't do was show this document which clearly shows what "bear arms" means in the context of the 2A.

"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.""

See here, he used "render military service" in place of "bear arms", but to mean the same thing. This happened various times during the debates, because they kept changing the wording backwards and forwards from these two.

Mr Gerry also 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. "

Clearly he's talking about "bear arms", but said "militia duty"

So, based on this text alone, the meaning of "bear arms" is clearly "militia duty" or "render military service".

Then again Washington in

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783​

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,""

"borne of the Militia Rolls", borne being the past participle of the verb "bear"

and: "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.“

It's clear that Washington also saw this.

In fact the state legislators at the time seemed to see something similar.

1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State

Clearly the right to bear arms was ONLY from the defence of the state.

1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;

Here it gets a little more complicated. "defence of themselves". What does this mean?

It could mean the plural of "himself", or it could mean "the people". Vermont said the same thing.

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

Here the term becomes "common defence". I believe "in defence of themselves" is "common defence".

Why?
Because of this: 1817 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State.

Here they use "himself". Why use "themselves"? It's kind of the fact that the people can get together and defend themselves as a group, make their own militia, do things without government help.

It took 26 years to get around to using the individual, Pennsylvania changed their wording to "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

They kept with the "defense of themselves".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, a better government, The current one is anti-American. And the electoral system is fair. The nosy government shouldn't have oversight; that's socialism.

The system is hardly "fair". Many people get disenfranchised because of the system.

 

[Open Bolt]

I've said it a hundred times on here, most of the time I get insults.

I agree that there is too much name-calling here. I prefer the clean debate zone.

I also agree with 99% of your post. The only part where I differ is "defense of themselves". I see "defense of themselves" as referring to private self defense. Collective self defense in that clause is covered by "defense of the state".

The militia connotations of the phrase "bear arms" is the key to my claim that the Second Amendment protects our right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.

 

[Open Bolt]

Wrong.
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with the people ‘remaining free’

The Second Amendment would beg to differ. "being necessary for a free state"

And then there is the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is one of the pillars of freedom.

there is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes insurrectionist dogma.

Perhaps. But the Second Amendment still protects our right to keep and bear arms, which is a necessary component of our freedom.

The Second Amendment codifies in individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense unconnected with militia service.

In part, yes.

But there is a militia-service aspect of the right as well. That's how we have the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.

The ‘remaining free’ nonsense is a lie contrived by the dishonest right in a bad faith effort to promote the wrongheaded notion that private citizens may ‘take up arms’ against a government incorrectly and subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

It is neither nonsense nor a lie that free people have the right to keep and bear arms and the Second Amendment protects that right.

It is neither nonsense nor a lie that the Second Amendment directly addresses a necessary component of a free state.

The Framers did not authorize private armed citizens to overthrow a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people, absent the consent of the people; the Framers did not amend the Constitution to facilitate the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

That's nice. But free people still have the right to keep and bear arms, and the Second Amendment still protects this right.

The politics of lies and dishonesty – such as the right’s lie that guns are going to be ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated,’ intended to keep the political base frightened, angry, and going to the polls.

The right is not lying. That is exactly what progressives mean to do if people are foolish enough to elect them.

Progressives hate our freedom with the passion of a million burning suns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I agree that there is too much name-calling here. I prefer the clean debate zone.

I also agree with 99% of your post. The only part where I differ is "defense of themselves". I see "defense of themselves" as referring to private self defense. Collective self defense in that clause is covered by "defense of the state".

The militia connotations of the phrase "bear arms" is the key to my claim that the Second Amendment protects our right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.

You see it because you want to see it, or because it's what it is?

Why would some use "themselves" and others "himself"?

Why would some use "common defence" and others, in the same era, use "defence of themselves"?

There's NOTHING that points to it being individual.

These were RBA clauses in a time when they were worried about their ability to defend themselves from the government and invading forces. They wanted to protect the militias they had in place. Nothing points to defense from criminals as being needed in a clause about the militia.
Might as well had added in defense against allidiles in there.

 

[Open Bolt]

You see it because you want to see it, or because it's what it is?

I do not need clauses in state constitutions in order to confirm the existence of the right to have guns for private self defense.

The right to keep and bear arms existed in England for more than a thousand years, and it clearly included the right to use those arms for private self defense.

Why would some use "themselves" and others "himself"?

They had to pick one or the other. The words seem interchangeable.

Why would some use "common defence" and others, in the same era, use "defence of themselves"?

People used "common defense" when they wanted to refer to collective defense, and "defense of themselves" when they wanted to refer to private self defense.

There's NOTHING that points to it being individual.

Sure there is. "Selves" refers to individuals.

Plus, those clauses also refer to defense of the state. If "defense of themselves" is a reference to collective defense, then what does "defense of the state" refer to?

These were RBA clauses in a time when they were worried about their ability to defend themselves from the government and invading forces. They wanted to protect the militias they had in place.

That doesn't mean that people didn't also value the right to use guns for private self defense and want to protect that as well.

Nothing points to defense from criminals as being needed in a clause about the militia.

But something points to it in a clause about "defense of themselves".

Might as well had added in defense against allidiles in there.

I am unaware of such a right.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I do not need clauses in state constitutions in order to confirm the existence of the right to have guns for private self defense.

The right to keep and bear arms existed in England for more than a thousand years, and it clearly included the right to use those arms for private self defense.



They had to pick one or the other. The words seem interchangeable.



People used "common defense" when they wanted to refer to collective defense, and "defense of themselves" when they wanted to refer to private self defense.



Sure there is. "Selves" refers to individuals.

Plus, those clauses also refer to defense of the state. If "defense of themselves" is a reference to collective defense, then what does "defense of the state" refer to?



That doesn't mean that people didn't also value the right to use guns for private self defense and want to protect that as well.



But something points to it in a clause about "defense of themselves".



I am unaware of such a right.

You don't need a clause in any constitution at all to think there's a right to anything and everything. That isn't the point here.

The right to bear arms existed in the UK, not for 1,000 years before, because the Magna Carta was in 1215, meaning there haven't been "rights" for 1,000 years no matter how you look at anything. And what was the right to bear arms? Certainly it wasn't a "right" as we see rights today. It was more a privilege for the rich who owned land. Not for all people.

The words "himself" and "themselves" could be interchangeable, but the chances are they're not. Why? Because constitutions weren't written willy nilly. Yes, they had "bear arms" and "render military service" and they debated which one they should put in, changed them around and then went for "bear arms". There doesn't seem to be a recorded reason why they switched and why they decided, ultimately, to go for "bear arms". Certainly "render military service" would have been clearer, but maybe too clear. Maybe people would have taken it to mean service in the military and not just the militia. They did not use "militia duty" in any version of the amendment, probably because "duty" suggests being forced to do it, rather than wanting to do it. Who knows?

However the fact that A) Mississippi decided to come up with "himself" and B) that "common defence" or "defence of the state" seemed to be the two prevailing ways of talking about "bear arms", along with what other people, like Washington said... everything points to "bear arms" being something to do with servicing in the militia.

NOTHING points to the right to bear arms as meaning "self defense". At least not until Mississippi in 1812. Also I'd be very surprised if that was even "self defense" in terms of from criminals, but more in terms of protecting one's family from the government, external forces etc.

Unless of course you have some evidence I've missed. The reality is I've asked the question of what evidence points to this being "self defense" a lot of times. You know how much real evidence I've been given? Nothing. Nada.

You've said people used "defense of themselves" for "private self defense", so go ahead, prove it.

Defense of "themselves" can mean many individuals. As in the community they live in. As opposed (the reason why they wrote it) to the State. The State is the government. Part of the point of the Militia was to go against the Federal government. What happened if the STATE GOVT went rogue? Defense of themselves. That was the sort of thing they were discussing in those days.

Yes, you're right. It doesn't mean people didn't value guns for personal self defense. The problem here is they also might have valued a lot of things that they would not have considered worth putting in an amendment designed to protect the militia.

Can you imagine such an amendment: A well preserved TV with internet capability, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed?

Doesn't make sense. Wouldn't have made sense in those days to talk about individual self defense in an amendment that was about something else.

 

[Flash]

Check out Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts, as well as various comments by framers as they were revising 2A. For example,

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

memory.loc.gov

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

memory.loc.gov

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

memory.loc.gov

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

rs6.loc.gov

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

rs6.loc.gov

Here's the gist:

They were dealing with three issues:

1. the individual right to bear arms

2. states' desire to maintain armed groups

3. states' desire to keep the standing army small

The conclusion is that the first is part of English common law and exists even without 2A. However, it justifies the need for the second in order to prevent tyranny, but it also allows the government to use regulated militias to support the Continental Army.

Any discussion about the militia in relation to the American concept of a militia is like discussing how many angels dance on the head of a pin. It is moot. The Heller case put that puppy to bed by affirming that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not connected to any membership in any organization. Later affirmed even further by the McDonald and (more recently) Bruen cases. It is settled law that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

Liberals don't like it because like all Leftest Revolutionaries their agenda is to do away with the right to keep and bear arms. That is always a threat to their authoritative takeover of a government. If not outright do away with it then make it extremely restrictive like banning AR-15 and other firearms in common use.

 

[flan327]

Yes, a better government, The current one is anti-American. And the electoral system is fair. The nosy government shouldn't have oversight; that's socialism.

Then MOVE

 

[Missourian]

I've posted before that the 2nd Amendment says 'a well regulated militia'. That militia has never mustered and probably never will. In the mean time, we have more guns than people in this country and the guns are getting more and more powerful and deadly. How many more Uvalde school children type massacres will happen before we say enough is enough?

A lady killed six people doing a hundred miles an hour in a 35 zone in her Mercedes...one of the woman...23 years old...was pregnant and on her way to a neonatal appointment.

Yet...not a single person is calling for common sense car control...

Driver in Los Angeles crash that killed 6 identified as nurse going 100mph: officials

A horrific West Los Angeles crash left six people dead and multiple others injured on Thursday afternoon after a driver in a Mercedes-Benz sped through a red light.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Missourian]

Sick of people using personal weapons' for political reasons. They are a tool not a political statement.

Why do you believe they shouldn't be both?

 

[Open Bolt]

The right to bear arms existed in the UK, not for 1,000 years before, because the Magna Carta was in 1215, meaning there haven't been "rights" for 1,000 years no matter how you look at anything.

Here is the right to keep and bear arms at it existed in England 1400 years ago:

"Ceorl, also spelled Churl, the free peasant who formed the basis of society in Anglo-Saxon England. His free status was marked by his right to bear arms, his attendance at local courts, and his payment of dues directly to the king. His wergild, the sum that his family could accept in place of vengeance if he were killed, was valued at 200 shillings."

Ceorl | Medieval, Feudalism, Manorialism | Britannica

Ceorl, the free peasant who formed the basis of society in Anglo-Saxon England. His free status was marked by his right to bear arms, his attendance at local courts, and his payment of dues directly to the king. His wergild, the sum that his family could accept in place of vengeance if he were

www.britannica.com

"Fyrd, tribal militia-like arrangement existing in Anglo-Saxon England from approximately AD 605. Local in character, it imposed military service upon every able-bodied free male. It was probably the duty of the ealderman, or sheriff, to call out and lead the fyrd. Fines imposed for neglecting the fyrd varied with the status of the individual, landholders receiving the heaviest fines and common labourers the lightest."

Fyrd | Anglo-Saxon, Mercian, Wessex | Britannica

Fyrd, tribal militia-like arrangement existing in Anglo-Saxon England from approximately ad 605. Local in character, it imposed military service upon every able-bodied free male. It was probably the duty of the ealderman, or sheriff, to call out and lead the fyrd. Fines imposed for neglecting the

www.britannica.com

And what was the right to bear arms? Certainly it wasn't a "right" as we see rights today. It was more a privilege for the rich who owned land. Not for all people.

I'd hardly call a peasant farmer rich even if he does own a small plot of land.

The words "himself" and "themselves" could be interchangeable, but the chances are they're not. Why? Because constitutions weren't written willy nilly.

The fact that constitutions were not written willy nilly doesn't do much to establish that those two terms are not interchangeable.

Keep in mind also that everyone has a natural right to self defense. If you possess a weapon for any reason (including for militia service) then you have the right to use it to defend yourself if someone is attacking you with enough force that you need the use of that weapon to save your life.

Yes, they had "bear arms" and "render military service" and they debated which one they should put in, changed them around and then went for "bear arms". There doesn't seem to be a recorded reason why they switched and why they decided, ultimately, to go for "bear arms". Certainly "render military service" would have been clearer, but maybe too clear. Maybe people would have taken it to mean service in the military and not just the militia.

Those two terms as well seem interchangeable.

However the fact that A) Mississippi decided to come up with "himself" and B) that "common defence" or "defence of the state" seemed to be the two prevailing ways of talking about "bear arms", along with what other people, like Washington said... everything points to "bear arms" being something to do with servicing in the militia.

Remember, I already agree that bear arms means service in the militia. The only thing that I disagreed with was "defense of themselves".

NOTHING points to the right to bear arms as meaning "self defense". At least not until Mississippi in 1812.

1541:
"And be it further enacted by authority aforesaid, that no person or persons from the last day of June shall in anyways shoot in or with any handgun demyhake or hagbutt at any thing at large, within any city, borough, or market town or within one quarter of a mile of any city, borough or market town, except it be at a butt or bank of earth in place convenient, or for the defense of his person or house, upon pain to forfeit for every such shot ten pounds; the present act or anything therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding."

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/33-hen-8-c-6-§-1-an-act-concernin-crossbows-and-handguns-1541/

Also I'd be very surprised if that was even "self defense" in terms of from criminals, but more in terms of protecting one's family from the government, external forces etc.
Unless of course you have some evidence I've missed. The reality is I've asked the question of what evidence points to this being "self defense" a lot of times. You know how much real evidence I've been given? Nothing. Nada.

Here are some old court rulings mentioning the right to use a gun to defend your home:

Rex v. Gardner (1739): "And they do not extend to prohibit a man from keeping a gun for his necessary defence, but only from making that forbidden use of it. And the word 'gun' being purposely omitted in this act, the defendant is not within the penalty."

Mallock v. Eastley (1744): "the mere having a gun was no offense within the game laws, for a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family."

Wingfield v. Stratford (1752): "It is not to be imagined, that it was the Intention of the Legislature, in making the 5 Ann.c.14 to disarm all the People of England. As Greyhounds, Setting Dogs ... are expressly mentioned in that Statute, it is never necessary to alledge, that any of these have been used for killing or destroying the Game; and the rather, as they can scarcely be kept for any other Purpose than to kill or destroy the Game. But as Guns are not expressly mentioned in that Statute, and as a Gun may be kept for the Defence of a Man's House, and for divers other lawful Purposes, it was necessary to alledge, in order to its being comprehended within the Meaning of the Words 'any other Engines to kill the Game', that the Gun had been used for killing the Game."

You've said people used "defense of themselves" for "private self defense", so go ahead, prove it.

"Defense of themselves" and "self defense" are really the same two words just switched in order. "Selves" refers to individuals.

Defense of "themselves" can mean many individuals. As in the community they live in. As opposed (the reason why they wrote it) to the State. The State is the government. Part of the point of the Militia was to go against the Federal government. What happened if the STATE GOVT went rogue? Defense of themselves. That was the sort of thing they were discussing in those days.

Actually the point of the militia was to fight for the federal government. They thought that a standing army would lead to tyranny. By ensuring that the federal government would always have a competent militia to fight for it, they hoped to avoid raising a standing army.

Yes, you're right. It doesn't mean people didn't value guns for personal self defense. The problem here is they also might have valued a lot of things that they would not have considered worth putting in an amendment designed to protect the militia.
Can you imagine such an amendment: A well preserved TV with internet capability, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed?
Doesn't make sense. Wouldn't have made sense in those days to talk about individual self defense in an amendment that was about something else.

I see nothing particularly awkward about these sentences:
The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.
Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defense of himself and the state.