Where is it written that 2nd Amend is to keep Govt. in Check?

[NYcarbineer]

Whether or not an individual could own a personal firearm was not in any way an issue at the time of the framing of the Constitution. It is therefore hard to imagine that the founders were debating individual gun ownership when they were putting the Bill of Rights together.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Something no gun grabber wants to address.

Oh but they do.

That's what this attempted marginalization of gun owners and dancing on the graves of children is all about.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Reasonable people can and have disagreed about the exact meaning of that part of our freedom. Most people and SCOTUS have agreed to general terms with regards to practical limits and liberties. Future reasonable debates will happen, but those choosing to demonize (as opposed to those just poking fun or being hyperbolic) gun owners have an agenda that is clear - total disarmament in favor of a government that can and will dictate the terms of liberty.

It has failed each and every time it's been tried.

That directly conflicts with "well regulated".

well regulated is a 18th century term meaning as to be expected in working order.
Anyone who trains with a firearm is well regulated.

 

[Synthaholic]

Oh but they do.

That's what this attempted marginalization of gun owners and dancing on the graves of children is all about.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Reasonable people can and have disagreed about the exact meaning of that part of our freedom. Most people and SCOTUS have agreed to general terms with regards to practical limits and liberties. Future reasonable debates will happen, but those choosing to demonize (as opposed to those just poking fun or being hyperbolic) gun owners have an agenda that is clear - total disarmament in favor of a government that can and will dictate the terms of liberty.

It has failed each and every time it's been tried.

That directly conflicts with "well regulated".

Again, its the milita that has to be well regulated. They did not want a mob of people with no organization. The fact that the states have decided not to even muster the unorganized milita in the recent past does not eliminate the second part of the amendment, which give the right to be armed directly to the people.

You want to divide the 2nd into two completely different subjects: a) well regulated militias and b) unfettered right for individuals to bear arms. Yet the founders decided to put them together. Was there an ink or paper shortage that precluded them from separating these two issues? They could have easily spelled out the unchallengeable right to own guns in the 3rd amendment, with no doubts or fuzziness. But they didn't.

 

[Synthaholic]

Oh but they do.

That's what this attempted marginalization of gun owners and dancing on the graves of children is all about.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Reasonable people can and have disagreed about the exact meaning of that part of our freedom. Most people and SCOTUS have agreed to general terms with regards to practical limits and liberties. Future reasonable debates will happen, but those choosing to demonize (as opposed to those just poking fun or being hyperbolic) gun owners have an agenda that is clear - total disarmament in favor of a government that can and will dictate the terms of liberty.

It has failed each and every time it's been tried.

That directly conflicts with "well regulated".

well regulated is a 18th century term meaning as to be expected in working order.
Anyone who trains with a firearm is well regulated.

Ahh, you want to go strictly by original intent?

What were they intending when they used the word "arms"?

Muskets.

 

[peach174]

Whether or not an individual could own a personal firearm was not in any way an issue at the time of the framing of the Constitution. It is therefore hard to imagine that the founders were debating individual gun ownership when they were putting the Bill of Rights together.

Yes it was. That is why the states ratified it.
The States wanted the 2nd amendment to mean the individual rights not just the Militia.

The only thing ratified by the states in what congress passed was the capital letter M in militia and the placement of the comma.

As passed by the Congress:A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States: 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.

Why the states ratified the 2nd amendment.
It’s difficult to determine the difference between having a capital M and a lower-case m in the word militia. Generally, a capital letter means a proper noun. In that case, the upper case M, as in the Congressional version, references a particular militia, that being the armed forces of the United States. The lower-case m in the second version would refer to a group of individuals who form an ad hoc army, most likely to oppose the armed forces of the United States. Therefore, it would be okay to keep and bear arms only as part of the official armed forces of the United States. This argument supports a limited version of the right to bear arms; only when serving in the official armed forces of the United States.

The comma in the first version (between the words Arms and shall) also changes the meaning of the amendment. The first version with the comma maintains the reference to the official armed forces of the United States. That is further evidence that the right to bear arms is limited to serving in the official military of the United States. The lack of a comma (between arms and shall) in the second version, implies that there is equality or parity between bearing arms for the official forces of the United States and for personal use of firearms.

 

[regent]

Hard to believe the framers would put into the constitution the means, guns, and legality to destroy the new nation they were designing. True, they had put into the Declaration of Independence the rationale to become free, but it took a war to do it, and our history seems to enforce that same premise: want to be free from the nation, you have to win a war. The evidence of that win-a-war theme, are the challenges, over the years, that our government has met with force. The Civil War being the best example of that evidence. At state may secede or a group may take over the government, but it will have to win a war to do it. So all the verbal arguments are meaningless.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hard to believe the framers would put into the constitution the means, guns, and legality to destroy the new nation they were designing. True, they had put into the Declaration of Independence the rationale to become free, but it took a war to do it, and our history seems to enforce that same premise: want to be free from the nation, you have to win a war. The evidence of that win-a-war theme, are the challenges, over the years, that our government has met with force. The Civil War being the best example of that evidence. At state may secede or a group may take over the government, but it will have to win a war to do it. So all the verbal arguments are meaningless.

Some of the things the founders did were changed by democrats,
The seventeenth Amendment voting for Senators, was originally done by the states legislators

 

[eflatminor]

If Congress passes a law, the President signs the law, and SCOTUS reviews and upholds the law - then it's the law. No matter what you may think it infringes upon. Period.

Get thee a dictionary

Nullification - the action of a state impeding or attempting to prevent the operation and enforcement within its territory of a law of the United States.

The rest of your post was whining bullshit.

Nullification?

You’ve got to be kidding.

Nullification was invalidated at the outset of the Republic.

In United States v. Peters (1809), the Court held that states cannot void Federal court rulings, or deny rights recognized by the courts – to do so violates the Constitution

Wow did you miss the point. OF COURSE the courts would not support nullification as the entire idea is to ignore a law upheld by the those courts! Duh.

Tell us, do you support as Constitutional ALL the SC rulings???

And further, nullification can be practiced by a state or by individuals serving on a jury. Nullification is a matter of the people expressing their free will by determining their own destiny. Courts get it wrong in the eyes of some citizens (Dred Scott anyone?). Nullification of bad laws is the second to last step to stop tyranny. Tough if you don't like it.

 

[Dubya]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

It wasn't. If you study history in detail, the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to preserve liberty. The Founders had concerns about foreign invasion, but they feared having a standing army. They set up a system where men of a certain age were required to join a militia and train. The milita was organized with a chain of command and the people donated their time for the common defense. Giving the populace the right to keep and bear arms was a check to prevent even a militia seizing power. That's why disarming the populace was forbidden.

The rest of the government, federal and state, was elected at the ballot box and subject to change there.

Today we have a standing army and then some. The military isn't going to allow a tyrant to take over the government.

 

[Contumacious]

So the founders were well aware of this idea that guns should be allowed in order to secure people's right to wage war on the United States and THEY LEFT IT OUT.

So it appears that it was a deliberate decision NOT to include this rationale in the Constitution.

You've always seemed to be a pretty level header poster to me (up to now). I can't believe you are supporting this absurd idea that the 2nd secures your "right" to wage war on the U.S.

Actually, the phrase "a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country" does indeed, in a brevity of words, directly reflect the intent of the Declaration of Independence, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."...

i.e., the best means of keeping the government hereby formed from ever threatening the freedom and security of its own citizens is for the citizens to be armed...

Hmm..lots of logical leaps here.

The Declaration is a one shot deal. Never meant to be used for legislative challenges.

The Constitution, however, frowns down upon insurrection and rebellion.

And says so in multiple clauses.

It also grants the federal government a plethora of powers to deal with that.

Amazing.

The colonists had rebelled against the British. They did not trust the new federal government.

Nevertheless, you have concluded , without any historical evidence that the Founding Fathers did not want us to repeal tyranny.

You are one massive retard.

.

 

[martybegan]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

It wasn't. If you study history in detail, the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to preserve liberty. The Founders had concerns about foreign invasion, but they feared having a standing army. They set up a system where men of a certain age were required to join a militia and train. The milita was organized with a chain of command and the people donated their time for the common defense. Giving the populace the right to keep and bear arms was a check to prevent even a militia seizing power. That's why disarming the populace was forbidden.

The rest of the government, federal and state, was elected at the ballot box and subject to change there.

Today we have a standing army and then some. The military isn't going to allow a tyrant to take over the government.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

You and your ancestors have grown in a country and a time period with minimal internal unrest, and foreign wars that have not struck the continental US in force since the war of 1812. If you can honestly say that there could never be a situation where the US government and/or military cound end up as a tyranical force, I admire your optimism, while shaking my head at you naiveness.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Whether or not an individual could own a personal firearm was not in any way an issue at the time of the framing of the Constitution. It is therefore hard to imagine that the founders were debating individual gun ownership when they were putting the Bill of Rights together.

Yes it was. That is why the states ratified it.
The States wanted the 2nd amendment to mean the individual rights not just the Militia.

The only thing ratified by the states in what congress passed was the capital letter M in militia and the placement of the comma.

As passed by the Congress:A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States: 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.

Why the states ratified the 2nd amendment.
It’s difficult to determine the difference between having a capital M and a lower-case m in the word militia. Generally, a capital letter means a proper noun. In that case, the upper case M, as in the Congressional version, references a particular militia, that being the armed forces of the United States. The lower-case m in the second version would refer to a group of individuals who form an ad hoc army, most likely to oppose the armed forces of the United States. Therefore, it would be okay to keep and bear arms only as part of the official armed forces of the United States. This argument supports a limited version of the right to bear arms; only when serving in the official armed forces of the United States.

The comma in the first version (between the words Arms and shall) also changes the meaning of the amendment. The first version with the comma maintains the reference to the official armed forces of the United States. That is further evidence that the right to bear arms is limited to serving in the official military of the United States. The lack of a comma (between arms and shall) in the second version, implies that there is equality or parity between bearing arms for the official forces of the United States and for personal use of firearms.

Nonsense. Nobody in 1787 was debating whether or not the average citizen could own a flintlock pistol. It was not an issue. Show us otherwise.

The individual right to own guns exists as an unenumerated right similar to the right of privacy.

Unfortunately for certain constitutional literalists who seem obsessed with arguing that the Constitution has to say explicitly what a right is for it to be a right, especially when they are arguing against other claimed rights, such as abortion or same sex marriage,

they manage to forfeit their opportunity to argue for the right to own guns as a right whether it is explicitly stated or not.

 

[jillian]

your right to own a specific gun isn't constitutionally protected

Actually it is. Exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?

perhaps you should actuallly read some con law instead of pretending it is what you want it to be.

you might learn something.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Get thee a dictionary

Nullification - the action of a state impeding or attempting to prevent the operation and enforcement within its territory of a law of the United States.

The rest of your post was whining bullshit.

Nullification?

You’ve got to be kidding.

Nullification was invalidated at the outset of the Republic.

In United States v. Peters (1809), the Court held that states cannot void Federal court rulings, or deny rights recognized by the courts – to do so violates the Constitution

Wow did you miss the point. OF COURSE the courts would not support nullification as the entire idea is to ignore a law upheld by the those courts! Duh.

Tell us, do you support as Constitutional ALL the SC rulings???

And further, nullification can be practiced by a state or by individuals serving on a jury. Nullification is a matter of the people expressing their free will by determining their own destiny. Courts get it wrong in the eyes of some citizens (Dred Scott anyone?). Nullification of bad laws is the second to last step to stop tyranny. Tough if you don't like it.

Nullification is a big step towards anarchy. If you believe the principle of nullification,

then the states can nullify a federal law, the counties can nullify a state law, the townships can nullify a county law,

and you, the individual property owner, can nullify a township law.

And there you are, at anarchy.

 

[Meathead]

Since the Second Amendment reads as it does, can you imagine if large movement of citizens wanted to actually form a militia, instead of the small groups of lunatic fringers scattered across the country?

 

[Synthaholic]

Whether or not an individual could own a personal firearm was not in any way an issue at the time of the framing of the Constitution. It is therefore hard to imagine that the founders were debating individual gun ownership when they were putting the Bill of Rights together.

Yes it was. That is why the states ratified it.
The States wanted the 2nd amendment to mean the individual rights not just the Militia.

The only thing ratified by the states in what congress passed was the capital letter M in militia and the placement of the comma.

As passed by the Congress:A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States: 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.

Why the states ratified the 2nd amendment.
It’s difficult to determine the difference between having a capital M and a lower-case m in the word militia. Generally, a capital letter means a proper noun. In that case, the upper case M, as in the Congressional version, references a particular militia, that being the armed forces of the United States. The lower-case m in the second version would refer to a group of individuals who form an ad hoc army, most likely to oppose the armed forces of the United States. Therefore, it would be okay to keep and bear arms only as part of the official armed forces of the United States. This argument supports a limited version of the right to bear arms; only when serving in the official armed forces of the United States.

The comma in the first version (between the words Arms and shall) also changes the meaning of the amendment. The first version with the comma maintains the reference to the official armed forces of the United States. That is further evidence that the right to bear arms is limited to serving in the official military of the United States. The lack of a comma (between arms and shall) in the second version, implies that there is equality or parity between bearing arms for the official forces of the United States and for personal use of firearms.

Nonsense. Nobody in 1787 was debating whether or not the average citizen could own a flintlock pistol. It was not an issue. Show us otherwise.

The individual right to own guns exists as an unenumerated right similar to the right of privacy.

Unfortunately for certain constitutional literalists who seem obsessed with arguing that the Constitution has to say explicitly what a right is for it to be a right, especially when they are arguing against other claimed rights, such as abortion or same sex marriage,

they manage to forfeit their opportunity to argue for the right to own guns as a right whether it is explicitly stated or not.

Correct. It would be like debating whether anyone had a right to own a shovel or a pickaxe.

 

[eflatminor]

your right to own a specific gun isn't constitutionally protected

Actually it is. Exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?

perhaps you should actuallly read some con law instead of pretending it is what you want it to be.

you might learn something.

I have. And SC rulings. You're wrong...again.

 

[eflatminor]

Nullification?

You’ve got to be kidding.

Nullification was invalidated at the outset of the Republic.

In United States v. Peters (1809), the Court held that states cannot void Federal court rulings, or deny rights recognized by the courts – to do so violates the Constitution

Wow did you miss the point. OF COURSE the courts would not support nullification as the entire idea is to ignore a law upheld by the those courts! Duh.

Tell us, do you support as Constitutional ALL the SC rulings???

And further, nullification can be practiced by a state or by individuals serving on a jury. Nullification is a matter of the people expressing their free will by determining their own destiny. Courts get it wrong in the eyes of some citizens (Dred Scott anyone?). Nullification of bad laws is the second to last step to stop tyranny. Tough if you don't like it.

Nullification is a big step towards anarchy. If you believe the principle of nullification,

then the states can nullify a federal law, the counties can nullify a state law, the townships can nullify a county law,

and you, the individual property owner, can nullify a township law.

And there you are, at anarchy.

Someone needs a dictionary.

Nullifying a law is not a rejection of all law.

 

[Synthaholic]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

Whenever someone says, "Show me where X is in the Constitution", they are speaking from ignorance. Whether it is about gay marriage or automobiles or guns.

There is a whole body of evidence as to the intents behind the words in the Constitution, as well as an even larger body of legal precedents which flesh out those words.

One which specifically addresses your question can be found in the Federalist Papers written by the men who knew better than any of us what the intentions behind the second amendment were. This one in particular was written by James Madison, my favorite of the Publius triad:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 46

Then why don't our lawmakers swear an oath to defend the Federalist Papers?

Still waiting for an answer to this....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

your right to own a specific gun isn't constitutionally protected

Actually it is. Exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?

perhaps you should actuallly read some con law instead of pretending it is what you want it to be.

you might learn something.

Would Miller vs. US be precedence enough for you?