Why was the second amendment written?

[Flash]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

It was put there so the STATES could take back control, hence the part about "Well-Regulated Militias".

They never envisioned Adam Lanza with a semi-automatic going through a school. Probably because the 1789 "School Shooter" would get off one shot and then everyone would flee in the three minutes it would take to reload his muzzle loaded musket.

The thing was, in 1789, guns were only effective in mass volleys. Hence, "Well-regulated". It wasn't one maniac with a gun running through a church or a school or a shopping mall, which is what we have today.

I know you are an uneducated low information Moon Bat and get many things wrong but to keep from seeming to be a fool on threads like this you really should read the Miller case. In that case the Supremes said that the Second applied to firearms in use by the military.

 

[JoeB131]

I know you are an uneducated low information Moon Bat and get many things wrong but to keep from seeming to be a fool on threads like this you really should read the Miller case. In that case the Supremes said that the Second applied to firearms in use by the military.

Maybe you should read the Miller Case... it clearly stated the government can regulate the kind of firearms available and who can get them.

 

[zaangalewa]

Q: Why was the second amendment written?

A: Red Indian wars.

Fake news.

That's not a news - I think so, that's all. The Red Indians of North America were a long time able to resist against the migrants from all over the world, who call themselves today "Americans". The [semi-]automatic rifles were used to genocide the Red Indian tribes in masses during the 18th and 19th century. I guess the people, who buy today in masses war weapons for private use, live in fear of themselves - and in the hope to be able to live forever in their deadly senility.

So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.

You are a democracy. You say here the people of the USA prefer to be governed from tyrants. Perhaps the weapon-fetishists of the USA are indeed self-fullfilling their ideas about corrupt tyrants by voting for Donald Trump and his very strange ideas about nothing what's important - and his lack of good ideas about anything what's real.

You are full of crap. We are a constitutional republic.

Your are a union of democratic states. The USA seems meanwhile to accelerate its own degeneration under king Donald, the idiot, who separates the world into his personal spitlickers and enemies of the USA! With his "ambassadors" like Richard Grenell, who know less than nothing about the job ambassador and support all over the world enemies and Nazi movements! With soldiers, who got orders to have to betray their allies, while their supreme commander was unfit for the war in Vietnam and tries to make out of heroes criminals , if they are not ready to be his personal loyal spitlickers! With an health care system, which produced not a long time ago masses of drug addicts with a widespread wrong medicamentation with opioids - and which is practically nearly helpless in case of the current pandemy, because Trump made also nonsense some years ago with the health care system of the USA and had closed research institutions for pandemy. How much information did Trump destroy including US-American institutions, who took care for the living conditions and a sane nature in the USA? Trump is a clear enemy of the nature and of natural science. And now his spitlickers are spitlicking the USA to death. You have 1300 dead citizens today. What for heavens sake do you defend?

The 2A is about just what I posted it was. I ain't got a GD thing to do with Indians.

The NRA is a criminal organisation. Your weapon fetishists should be in prison. A serios plan to fight against a pandemy could produce in your country a civil war. I don't think this was the idea of anyone, who had lived once in one of the thirteen states of the East coast in 1779.

View attachment 317423

You say nothing very loud.

 

[zaangalewa]

An extremely violent anarchistic structure.

Only to those who would attack it. Our try to subvert the Constitution.

You are an idiot - and you know it. And you find it nice that idiots are able to govern the world with the help of weapons. Every professor in every university has do what an idiot with a gun in his hands tells him to do. You are an absurde actor in a surrealistic game with rules which you don't understand. You are the apocaloditie your parents warned you never to be.

And...........LOL

You done pouting..........We aren't fucking Europe........deal with it........We will not go down PEACEFULLY......

You don't have to go down. You are down.

 

[Flash]

I know you are an uneducated low information Moon Bat and get many things wrong but to keep from seeming to be a fool on threads like this you really should read the Miller case. In that case the Supremes said that the Second applied to firearms in use by the military.

Maybe you should read the Miller Case... it clearly stated the government can regulate the kind of firearms available and who can get them.

LOL! You are confused Moon Bat. Either that you are doubling down on your stupidity.

It said that the Second applied to weapons used by the military. They found Miller to be guilty because the saw off shotgun that he had was not used by the military. However, they were wrong because the military did use sawed off shotguns in WWI. They didn't do their homework. If they had then Miller would have been found innocent under their criteria.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL! You are confused Moon Bat. Either that you are doubling down on your stupidity.

It said that the Second applied to weapons used by the military. They found Miller to be guilty because the saw off shotgun that he had was not used by the military. However, they were wrong because the military did use sawed off shotguns in WWI. They didn't do their homework. If they had then Miller would have been found innocent under their criteria.

What they found was that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was constitutional. That was always the intention of the ruling, because they picked a case where the government would appeal and Miller (a convicted bank robber with no resources) wouldn't be able to make a case. (Miller was in fact, shot and killed by associates before the ruling was rendered.)

The thing is, the NFA worked. The US had a murder rate of 9.6 per 100,000 in 1933, with bank robbers and gangsters shooting each other with tommy guns. By 1940, it declined to 5 per 100K and stayed there until the 1960's when the gun industry started flooding our streets with guns again.

 

[Flash]

LOL! You are confused Moon Bat. Either that you are doubling down on your stupidity.

It said that the Second applied to weapons used by the military. They found Miller to be guilty because the saw off shotgun that he had was not used by the military. However, they were wrong because the military did use sawed off shotguns in WWI. They didn't do their homework. If they had then Miller would have been found innocent under their criteria.

What they found was that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was constitutional. That was always the intention of the ruling, because they picked a case where the government would appeal and Miller (a convicted bank robber with no resources) wouldn't be able to make a case. (Miller was in fact, shot and killed by associates before the ruling was rendered.)

The thing is, the NFA worked. The US had a murder rate of 9.6 per 100,000 in 1933, with bank robbers and gangsters shooting each other with tommy guns. By 1940, it declined to 5 per 100K and stayed there until the 1960's when the gun industry started flooding our streets with guns again.

View attachment 317427

You are really an idiot aren't you?

Luke Miller was not at the hearing and there was not a rigorous defense. If there had been the defense would have showed that the sawed off shotgun was in use by the military and therefore not prohibited under the stupid NFA laws.

According to the Miller ruling my Class III M-16 should not be covered under the filthy NFA laws.

The Miller case protected arms in use by the military, which you denied in your post above proving once again that you are simply a confused Moon Bat that don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

From Wikipedia.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It said that the Second applied to weapons used by the military. They found Miller to be guilty because the saw off shotgun that he had was not used by the military. However, they were wrong because the military did use sawed off shotguns in WWI. They didn't do their homework. If they had then Miller would have been found innocent under their criteria.

A more important point is that the Supreme Court heard only one side of the argument. After his conviction was overturned by a lower court, and he was set loose, Jack Miller went into hiding. Nobody appeared before the Supreme Court to argue his side of the case; the court only heard the government's side of the case.

It's possible, and in fact, probably very likely, that had a competent argument been presented for Miller's side, the court might have been dissuaded from the conclusion that the Second Amendment only applied to weapons that had a military application. Such an argument would certainly have called the court's attention to the fact that the sawed-off shotgun that Miller was originally convicted of taking across state lines was, in fact, comparable to weapons that were in use by our military at that time; and by all the other logic that the court employed, they would have had no choice but to conclude that Miller did, indeed, have the right to posses that weapon, and that prosecuting him for it was a violation of the Second Amendment. By that logic, if cases came before them involving machine guns, submachine guns, and various other weapons regulated under the NFA that were, in fact, comparable to weapons in use by our military, then they would have had to find that the right to possess these was also protected under the Second Amendment.

And if that logic were applied today, they'd have to hold that we have the right to possess weapons comparable to those with which our own soldiers are equipped. At the very least, this would mean, not the fraudulently-designated “assault weapons”, but true assault rifles capable of fully-automatic or burst-fire operation, as well as, at least light machine guns.

It is truly ignorant for JoeB131 to think that the U.S. vs. Miller case helps support any of his positions.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That was always the intention of the ruling, because they picked a case where the government would appeal and Miller (a convicted bank robber with no resources) wouldn't be able to make a case.

I do not know if that is true, but it certainly seems plausible. And you're OK with that? If true, then what this means is that government blatantly cheated in this case, picking a case where they knew that the opposing side would not get a fair chance to have its arguments heard. It's an indication that they knew the principles that they were trying to establish were illegitimate, and would not stand if given a fair hearing.

———

[Later edit]

On doing some reading, it appears that something very similar to this is very likely the case. A judge Heartsill Ragon immediately dismissed the indictment against Jack Miller and Frank Layton for transporting the short-barreled shotgun across state lines, stating that the NFA violated the Second Amendment. But on many other occasions, Ragon expressed strong support for much more extreme gun-control positions, and there seems to be, if not outright proof, string circumstantial indication that he intentionally set Miler and Layton up to be a test case for the Supreme Court, knowing that neither Miller nor Layton would show up nor hire an attorney to represent their side, giving the government the chance to present its case one-sided, with no opposition.

Two relevant Wikipedia article state this outright, but the supporting documents to which they link are someone less definite.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, '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.'" Judge Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.

In reality, Ragon was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would be a sure win because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.​

I note that shortly thereafter, in this article, it states this…

On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

​

Point 1 is a outright lie. Nobody believes that the NFA was meant merely to collect revenue. The very name of the act, “National Firearm Act”, refutes that, making it clear that its intent and purpose has to do with firearms, and not with revenue collection.

Commerce involves buying, selling, trading, manufacturing things, not merely possessing or transporting them. Point #2 is also an outright lie, unless it could be established that Layton and Miller transported the shotgun that they bought in one state, with the intent of selling or trading it to someone else in another state.

Point #3 is a stretch. Surely, if anyone had been present to argue the opposing case, they would have argued against this claim, and probably succeeded in convincing the court that this point was wrong.

Point #4 is not quite an outright lie, but a very obvious bit of deception. It depends on point #3 to establish that the Second Amendment only protects arms that are appropriate for use in an organized militia. But then, instead of arguing whether this type of weapon meets that criterion, they argued that the very specific shotgun for which Miller and Layton were prosecuted had not, itself been used in any such application, completely avoiding the question of whether that type of arm in general might have a military application, or might in fact be in current military use (which it was).

So, not only was the government's side set up to be argued unopposed, but the lawyers arguing that side absolutely committed perjury at least twice, and made at least one more statement that, while not an outright lie, was blatantly deceptive enough in intent that it could very well have been treated as perjury as well. It's surprising that out of the nine members of the court, none of them caught this deception, or if they did, they ignored it in the subsequent ruling.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.​

Heartsill Ragon - Wikipedia

In 1939, Ragon authored an opinion in United States v. Miller, 26 F. Supp. 1002, stating that a federal statute violated the Second Amendment. Ragon was in reality, in favor of the gun control law and was part of an elaborate plan to give the government a sure win when they appealed to the supreme court which they promptly did. Miller, who was a known bank robber, had just testified in court against his whole gang and would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. Ragon knew that Miller would not pay for an attorney to argue the case at the supreme court and so the government would have a sure win because the other side would not show up. The plan worked perfectly. His opinion was reversed by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Miller (1939).​

So, really, the evidence seems to strongly indicate that yes, government cheated. On that basis alone, the U.S. vs. Miller ruling ought to be thrown out as illegitimate.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

From my personal files...too much to type...oughta clear the question up rather well.

 

[JoeB131]

You are really an idiot aren't you?

Luke Miller was not at the hearing and there was not a rigorous defense. If there had been the defense would have showed that the sawed off shotgun was in use by the military and therefore not prohibited under the stupid NFA laws.

Well, yeah, he wasn't there because he was a career criminal being murdered by other career criminals, which kind proved why we needed a NFA law.

You didn't think this through at all, did you?

 

[JoeB131]

I do not know if that is true, but it certainly seems plausible. And you're OK with that? If true, then what this means is that government blatantly cheated in this case, picking a case where they knew that the opposing side would not get a fair chance to have its arguments heard. It's an indication that they knew the principles that they were trying to establish were illegitimate, and would not stand if given a fair hearing.

OR they were dealing with a country where people were shooting each other in the streets, where gangsters were overthrowing local governments, where banks were being robbed on a daily basis...

So they picked a case where a CAREER CRIMINAL had been caught with guns he was using in crimes, which was a great case to prove WHY we needed an NFA.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

OR they were dealing with a country where people were shooting each other in the streets, where gangsters were overthrowing local governments, where banks were being robbed on a daily basis...

So they picked a case where a CAREER CRIMINAL had been caught with guns he was using in crimes, which was a great case to prove WHY we needed an NFA.

They didn't prove that at all. They didn't even try to prove that.

They CHEATED. Indications are that they knew that they could not win this case legitimately, that the NFA was, in fact, blatantly unconstitutional, and would be so found by any court in which a fair hearing was given. So they illegitimately set up a case, where they knew the defendants' side would not be presented, and they committed perjury in presenting their own unopposed case.

And for all their skulduggery, they got a ruling, which, if further applied in cases where both sides were given a fair hearing and competent representation, would have resulting in most of the NFA being thrown out anyway. They only won this case, because nobody was there argue against their premise that only weapons suitable for military use were covered by the Second Amendment, or to inform the court that the short-barreled shotgun was, in fact, a standard item of military equipment at the time. For that matter, so was the infamous Thompson submachine gun, which is popularly perceived as the weapon with which these gangsters were shooting each other in the street, overthrowing local governments, and robbing banks, and so were several other weapons to which the NFA applied.

 

[JoeB131]

They didn't prove that at all. They didn't even try to prove that.

They CHEATED. Indications are that they knew that they could not win this case legitimately, that the NFA was, in fact, blatantly unconstitutional, and would be so found by any court in which a fair hearing was given. So they illegitimately set up a case, where they knew the defendants' side would not be presented, and they committed perjury in presenting their own unopposed case.

Sorry, man, the Supreme Court picks cases all the time based on what would be the best representation of why the law needs to be changed or ruled upon.

The country had collapsed into complete chaos with gun violence. The very fact someone like Miller was running about the country sticking up banks because he had easy access to guns was a problem. But by the logic of second amendment nuts, he had a GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO OWN A GUN, DAMMIT.

And for all their skulduggery, they got a ruling, which, if further applied in cases where both sides were given a fair hearing and competent representation, would have resulting in most of the NFA being thrown out anyway. They only won this case, because nobody was there argue against their premise that only weapons suitable for military use were covered by the Second Amendment, or to inform the court that the short-barreled shotgun was, in fact, a standard item of military equipment at the time. For that matter, so was the infamous Thompson submachine gun, which is popularly perceived as the weapon with which these gangsters were shooting each other in the street, overthrowing local governments, and robbing banks, and so were several other weapons to which the NFA applied.

But that was the point. Those guns were gotten out of the hands of criminals with the NFA. And funny thing, back in those days, the NRA supported these kinds of common sense gun laws.

Now we have Crazy Nancy Lanza stocking up for the Zombie Apocalypse, and guys like you are just fine with that until her nutty kid shoots up a school.

 

[Polishprince]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

Conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as an INDIVIDUAL right, the right of the people as individuals to be armed.

Libs see the 2nd Amendment as a GOVERNMENTAL right, the right of the people as a whole, in the Military, to have firearms. Libs feel that if it wasn't for the 2nd Amendment, the Army- as well as the Marines and other service branches- would have to give up their guns.

 

[JoeB131]

Conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as an INDIVIDUAL right, the right of the people as individuals to be armed.

Libs see the 2nd Amendment as a GOVERNMENTAL right, the right of the people as a whole, in the Military, to have firearms. Libs feel that if it wasn't for the 2nd Amendment, the Army- as well as the Marines and other service branches- would have to give up their guns.

Well, it's pretty clear that the Second Amendment was about Militias, and not guns.

 

[OldLady]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

It was to arm the local militias. The Founders were opposed to a standing army, but they wanted people ready to fight. Militia participation was required and regular, and you needed to bring your own firearm. European countries wanting a piece of the action was NOT over yet, in 1789. We were newborn, broke and without any powerful allies. We were vulnerable.

If it had been written "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," no one could argue with it. Others believe it was so the people could again, if they had to, revolt against their government. Others interpret it as arming the local militias, since we had no standing army, and would therefore no longer apply. However, the point is moot now, because AR-15's aren't going to stop our military. An uprising against our government means an uprising against our military. The idea of doing it with our guns is preposterous. The only danger guns pose now is the danger to fellow citizens.

 

[rightwinger]

According to the Federalist Papers, the Second Amendment was written so that future generations would have the proper weapons to slaughter young schoolchildren, shoot up shopping malls and terrorize the local population.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Q: Why was the second amendment written?

A: Red Indian wars.

Fake news. So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Justice Story was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by President James Madison. Madison wrote the Second Amendment.

 

[rightwinger]

Q: Why was the second amendment written?

A: Red Indian wars.

Fake news. So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Justice Story was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by President James Madison. Madison wrote the Second Amendment.

In almost 250 years, our citizens have never had to use private arms against the government.

We rely on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the vote to keep our Government in check.

THAT is what Madison intended