CDZ Food for thought: Right to keep and bear arms.

[Auld Phart]

History is full of examples of a lesser armed rebellion defeating a better armed government force.

Here in the US if it really came down to fighting against a tyrannical government then I suspect many in the military would switch sides.

It is best for the US people to be well armed. The worse thing would be for only the filthy ass government and the crooks to have arms. We have seen how that works out in other countries, haven't we?

that is just right wing special pleading. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Your response is nothing more that asinine extreme Left Wing hate of the Bill of Rights. Go read the Heller case that put an end to the silliness of the militia definition and established the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Judicial activism. 10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers. Don't be illegal to federal law.

as has been pointed out, 10USC246 only covers certain people, not the populace as a whole.

Whereas, the 2nd does cover the populace.

Thank you for finally recognizing that well regulated militia of the populace, has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

You really do have a reading problem.

I said just the opposite.

 

[Flash]

History is full of examples of a lesser armed rebellion defeating a better armed government force.

Here in the US if it really came down to fighting against a tyrannical government then I suspect many in the military would switch sides.

It is best for the US people to be well armed. The worse thing would be for only the filthy ass government and the crooks to have arms. We have seen how that works out in other countries, haven't we?

that is just right wing special pleading. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Your response is nothing more that asinine extreme Left Wing hate of the Bill of Rights. Go read the Heller case that put an end to the silliness of the militia definition and established the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Judicial activism. 10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers. Don't be illegal to federal law.

as has been pointed out, 10USC246 only covers certain people, not the populace as a whole.

Whereas, the 2nd does cover the populace.

I have found out that explaining the Second Amendment to Liberals is like trying to Jewish culture to Nazis. No matter what you say they will never get it.

The agenda of the Liberals is not Individual Liberty as envisioned by our Founding fathers but to prevent the people from ever challenging the government and the right to keep and bear arms is a threat to the concept of the socialist state that they desire so much.

 

[danielpalos]

that is just right wing special pleading. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Your response is nothing more that asinine extreme Left Wing hate of the Bill of Rights. Go read the Heller case that put an end to the silliness of the militia definition and established the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Judicial activism. 10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers. Don't be illegal to federal law.

as has been pointed out, 10USC246 only covers certain people, not the populace as a whole.

Whereas, the 2nd does cover the populace.

Thank you for finally recognizing that well regulated militia of the populace, has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

You really do have a reading problem.

I said just the opposite.

lol. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control, right wingers.

 

[danielpalos]

History is full of examples of a lesser armed rebellion defeating a better armed government force.

Here in the US if it really came down to fighting against a tyrannical government then I suspect many in the military would switch sides.

It is best for the US people to be well armed. The worse thing would be for only the filthy ass government and the crooks to have arms. We have seen how that works out in other countries, haven't we?

that is just right wing special pleading. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Your response is nothing more that asinine extreme Left Wing hate of the Bill of Rights. Go read the Heller case that put an end to the silliness of the militia definition and established the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Judicial activism. 10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers. Don't be illegal to federal law.

as has been pointed out, 10USC246 only covers certain people, not the populace as a whole.

Whereas, the 2nd does cover the populace.

I have found out that explaining the Second Amendment to Liberals is like trying to Jewish culture to Nazis. No matter what you say they will never get it.

The agenda of the Liberals is not Individual Liberty as envisioned by our Founding fathers but to prevent the people from ever challenging the government and the right to keep and bear arms is a threat to the concept of the socialist state that they desire so much.

Because the right wing is usually just, clueless and Causeless.

We have a First Amendment.

 

[WinterBorn]

that is just right wing special pleading. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Your response is nothing more that asinine extreme Left Wing hate of the Bill of Rights. Go read the Heller case that put an end to the silliness of the militia definition and established the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Judicial activism. 10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers. Don't be illegal to federal law.

as has been pointed out, 10USC246 only covers certain people, not the populace as a whole.

Whereas, the 2nd does cover the populace.

I have found out that explaining the Second Amendment to Liberals is like trying to Jewish culture to Nazis. No matter what you say they will never get it.

The agenda of the Liberals is not Individual Liberty as envisioned by our Founding fathers but to prevent the people from ever challenging the government and the right to keep and bear arms is a threat to the concept of the socialist state that they desire so much.

Because the right wing is usually just, clueless and Causeless.

We have a First Amendment.

Yes we do. Which uses the word "people". Look in any dictionary. It is plural. It must be a collective right, according to you logic.

 

[Auld Phart]

Your response is nothing more that asinine extreme Left Wing hate of the Bill of Rights. Go read the Heller case that put an end to the silliness of the militia definition and established the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Judicial activism. 10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers. Don't be illegal to federal law.

as has been pointed out, 10USC246 only covers certain people, not the populace as a whole.

Whereas, the 2nd does cover the populace.

Thank you for finally recognizing that well regulated militia of the populace, has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

You really do have a reading problem.

I said just the opposite.

lol. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control, right wingers.

only the unorganized militia?


a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.



(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

NOT what the founders intended, is it?

 

[jillian]

You don't know what you are talking about.

This is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or even politics.

You must have slept through civics class. There is a little things called the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution.

from: Supremacy Clause
"Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect."

The Supremacy Clause states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

When the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, do you actually think the southern states would have accepted it if they had ANY choice in the matter?

No, the US Constitution is the law of the land. When there is a conflict between state constitutions and the US Constitution, the states lose to the law of the land.

one has to love when states' righters suddenly find the supremacy clause.

that said there is nothing in Heller that says regulation is unconstitutional -- only total bans are unconstitutional. (and heller was pretty way out there extremist and didn't go as far as you want)

Are you claiming that I am a "states righter"? I'd love to see your justification for that. lol

you might want to try responding to the rest of what I said.

or we can spend all day debating whether you're a states' rights type or not.

There is no debate in whether I am a states righter. I am also not one who has claimed the should be no regulation of firearms.

YOu must have me confused with someone else.

that might be. if so, I apologize.

 

[jillian]

Judicial activism. 10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers. Don't be illegal to federal law.

as has been pointed out, 10USC246 only covers certain people, not the populace as a whole.

Whereas, the 2nd does cover the populace.

Thank you for finally recognizing that well regulated militia of the populace, has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

You really do have a reading problem.

I said just the opposite.

lol. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control, right wingers.

only the unorganized militia?


a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.



(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

NOT what the founders intended, is it?

32 USC 3313 refers to enlistment in the national guard.

32 U.S. Code § 313 - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

• US Code
• Notes

prev | next
§ 313.
Appointments and enlistments: age limitations
National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
National Guard, a person must—
(1)
be a citizen of the United States; and
(2)
be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

the section says nothing about an "unorganized militia". There ARE no legitimate "militia" members who are not part of the national guard. no matter what rightwing extremists call themselves

 

[Auld Phart]

as has been pointed out, 10USC246 only covers certain people, not the populace as a whole.

Whereas, the 2nd does cover the populace.

Thank you for finally recognizing that well regulated militia of the populace, has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

You really do have a reading problem.

I said just the opposite.

lol. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control, right wingers.

only the unorganized militia?


a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.



(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

NOT what the founders intended, is it?

32 USC 3313 refers to enlistment in the national guard.

32 U.S. Code § 313 - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

• US Code
• Notes

prev | next
§ 313.
Appointments and enlistments: age limitations
National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
National Guard, a person must—
(1)
be a citizen of the United States; and
(2)
be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

the section says nothing about an "unorganized militia". There ARE no legitimate "militia" members who are not part of the national guard. no matter what rightwing extremists call themselves

10 USC 246 does

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

 

[WinterBorn]

You must have slept through civics class. There is a little things called the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution.

from: Supremacy Clause
"Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect."

The Supremacy Clause states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

When the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, do you actually think the southern states would have accepted it if they had ANY choice in the matter?

No, the US Constitution is the law of the land. When there is a conflict between state constitutions and the US Constitution, the states lose to the law of the land.

one has to love when states' righters suddenly find the supremacy clause.

that said there is nothing in Heller that says regulation is unconstitutional -- only total bans are unconstitutional. (and heller was pretty way out there extremist and didn't go as far as you want)

Are you claiming that I am a "states righter"? I'd love to see your justification for that. lol

you might want to try responding to the rest of what I said.

or we can spend all day debating whether you're a states' rights type or not.

There is no debate in whether I am a states righter. I am also not one who has claimed the should be no regulation of firearms.

YOu must have me confused with someone else.

that might be. if so, I apologize.

Thanks.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm not the one leaving out "the Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms" from my posts.

Those are 'actual and literal' words in the 2nd.

Nothing but special pleading?

The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?

the fallacy is yours, if you believe the Founders didn't mean ALL the people.

This is why, I Always question every Thing, about the right Wing.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

That is the common law.

organized militia?

Other than the National Guard, does the United States still support an 'organized Militia'?

and what is the 'unorganized militia' you kept bringing up?

simply appealing to ignorance of the unorganized militia of the People who are specifically not, well regulated?

The question of this OP is not about whether Americans are armed for militia or not. There are DOZENS of statements by the drafters and signers of the Constitution clarifying that people possessing weapons is an ultimate deterrent to tryanny or Govt abuse. Not just FEDERAL abuse -- but govt abuse at all levels.

It's not about ad hoc militias facing down the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. It's about the DETERRENT effect of 40Million armed citizens. You didn't have 30% of Iraq, Afghan, or N. Ireland heavily armed --- and yet those became the longest, most fatiguing conflicts in recent history. It's about RESPECT for the law and Constitution when in the hands of elected officials. It's the ultimate accountability motivator.

 

[Flash]

Judicial activism. 10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers. Don't be illegal to federal law.

as has been pointed out, 10USC246 only covers certain people, not the populace as a whole.

Whereas, the 2nd does cover the populace.

Thank you for finally recognizing that well regulated militia of the populace, has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

You really do have a reading problem.

I said just the opposite.

lol. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control, right wingers.

only the unorganized militia?


a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.



(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

NOT what the founders intended, is it?

Trying to explain it to the Liberals is a waste of time. The Heller case pretty well put that discussion to an end by emphatically declaring that it was an individual right.

 

[danielpalos]

Your response is nothing more that asinine extreme Left Wing hate of the Bill of Rights. Go read the Heller case that put an end to the silliness of the militia definition and established the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Judicial activism. 10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers. Don't be illegal to federal law.

as has been pointed out, 10USC246 only covers certain people, not the populace as a whole.

Whereas, the 2nd does cover the populace.

I have found out that explaining the Second Amendment to Liberals is like trying to Jewish culture to Nazis. No matter what you say they will never get it.

The agenda of the Liberals is not Individual Liberty as envisioned by our Founding fathers but to prevent the people from ever challenging the government and the right to keep and bear arms is a threat to the concept of the socialist state that they desire so much.

Because the right wing is usually just, clueless and Causeless.

We have a First Amendment.

Yes we do. Which uses the word "people". Look in any dictionary. It is plural. It must be a collective right, according to you logic.

The People, is the Body Politic. It is a collective right of our Body Politic.

 

[danielpalos]

Judicial activism. 10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers. Don't be illegal to federal law.

as has been pointed out, 10USC246 only covers certain people, not the populace as a whole.

Whereas, the 2nd does cover the populace.

Thank you for finally recognizing that well regulated militia of the populace, has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

You really do have a reading problem.

I said just the opposite.

lol. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control, right wingers.

only the unorganized militia?


a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.



(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

NOT what the founders intended, is it?

Yes, only the unorganized militia complains, not well regulated militia; who enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

George Mason, of Virginia:
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia?

They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification
convention, 1788

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787





Are we all clear now on the Founder's intent now whether the 2nd Amendment was JUST about a militia or National Guard?

In fact, the 2nd Amendment was written to concisely COMBINE two concepts into one Amendment. The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms. And the right of the States to field militias.. It's that simple if you actually read their words and speeches..

 

[OldLady]

No contradiction.

You need guns to: repel the government from becoming tyrannical, and to overthrow a tyrannical government. Let me put it in perspective for you. The founding fathers were rebel warlords. They talked with the British but when that did not work, they organized with guns and shot the British. It was a bloody revolution. Only one third of the colonial population supported independence at the time. The others were split evenly between loyalism and indifference.

The impetus for the war was that the British we're marching on Lexington and Concord to seize militia arms stockpiles. When the government comes for the guns, that is the point where those who refuse to submit to the will of others start firing.

The founding fathers were well aware that the government they created was not foolproof. Even in a completely homogeneous European white society (as it used to be), the difference of ideals meant the Constitution, and therefore our government, is a conflicted organism born of negotiation of fundamentally different ideas. The potential for it to become tyrannical by moving too far in one direction or the other meant that the populace may need to revolt again, violently. And now today you see that tyrannical government feared by the founding fathers fully formed. We are there.

The current framework of the argument that the 2nd amendment should be eliminated is that people don't need military style weapons and that violence is otherwise never justified unless used by the government itself (e.g. police).

Citizens do need, not just semi auto weapons, but full auto military style weapons because the purpose and intent behind the 2nd amendment is that the citizens need to be able to: protect themselves from tyrannical government, or to overthrow the tyrannical government. But allowing citizens only to have plunking single shot rifles, it eliminates this ability and makes the 2nd amendment nugatory.

Second, violence can be justified. That is how our nation was born. Not every individual is willing to use violence to defend themselves or their loved ones. And that is their lot in life, or their decision. But there are those who do want to exercise the right to defend themselves and others using violence and the 2nd amendment means that even if 99 people oppose that person's decision, their opposition is irrelevant.

The 2nd amendment is somehow, let's say "anti-democratic" in that sense because, of course, the first thing a tyrannical government would do to ensure it's survival prior to implementing more tyrannical measures would be to use the Democratic process, the idea of majority rule, to dispossess the minority view of the right to defend itself against total tyranny.

Can't you defend yourself against the drones and missiles with a shotgun? Must it be an AR?

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing but special pleading?

The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?

the fallacy is yours, if you believe the Founders didn't mean ALL the people.

This is why, I Always question every Thing, about the right Wing.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

That is the common law.

organized militia?

Other than the National Guard, does the United States still support an 'organized Militia'?

and what is the 'unorganized militia' you kept bringing up?

simply appealing to ignorance of the unorganized militia of the People who are specifically not, well regulated?

The question of this OP is not about whether Americans are armed for militia or not. There are DOZENS of statements by the drafters and signers of the Constitution clarifying that people possessing weapons is an ultimate deterrent to tryanny or Govt abuse. Not just FEDERAL abuse -- but govt abuse at all levels.

It's not about ad hoc militias facing down the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. It's about the DETERRENT effect of 40Million armed citizens. You didn't have 30% of Iraq, Afghan, or N. Ireland heavily armed --- and yet those became the longest, most fatiguing conflicts in recent history. It's about RESPECT for the law and Constitution when in the hands of elected officials. It's the ultimate accountability motivator.

wellness of regulation is a deterrent.

 

[danielpalos]

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

George Mason, of Virginia:
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia?

They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification
convention, 1788

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787





Are we all clear now on the Founder's intent now whether the 2nd Amendment was JUST about a militia or National Guard?

In fact, the 2nd Amendment was written to concisely COMBINE two concepts into one Amendment. The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms. And the right of the States to field militias.. It's that simple if you actually read their words and speeches..

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

[OldLady]

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

George Mason, of Virginia:
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia?

They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification
convention, 1788

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787





Are we all clear now on the Founder's intent now whether the 2nd Amendment was JUST about a militia or National Guard?

In fact, the 2nd Amendment was written to concisely COMBINE two concepts into one Amendment. The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms. And the right of the States to field militias.. It's that simple if you actually read their words and speeches..

They also had legal slavery then. Times change.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

George Mason, of Virginia:
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia?

They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification
convention, 1788

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787





Are we all clear now on the Founder's intent now whether the 2nd Amendment was JUST about a militia or National Guard?

In fact, the 2nd Amendment was written to concisely COMBINE two concepts into one Amendment. The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms. And the right of the States to field militias.. It's that simple if you actually read their words and speeches..

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Where does THAT assertion come from? The US Constitution was INSPIRED by folks who were LARGELY believers in "Natural Rights" and who helped WRITE their State Constitutions as well. Your assertion is weak and not validated by historical fact..