Need help settling something...Read thread before polling

[kaz]

"State" refers to the nation. For example, when someone is considered an "enemy of the state", it doesn't mean they're an "enemy of Ohio" (or some other state), it means they're an enemy of our nation.

With all due respect it doesn't. I suggest you read Federalist 46 if you don't believe me.

The U.S. Constitution does not apply to some states but not others. That makes no sense. And Federalist 46 is not saying that the right to keep and bear arms is left up to the states. If that were the case, no one living in Democrat controlled states would have the right to own a firearm.

When the Constitution was written, actually the Bill of Rights was only a limit on Federal power. The States could and did have the right to violate them. It wasn't until the 14th amendment after the civil war that Constitutional amendment limits on Federal power was applied to the States as well

 

[Doc1]

"State" refers to the nation. For example, when someone is considered an "enemy of the state", it doesn't mean they're an "enemy of Ohio" (or some other state), it means they're an enemy of our nation.

With all due respect it doesn't. I suggest you read Federalist 46 if you don't believe me.

The U.S. Constitution does not apply to some states but not others. That makes no sense. And Federalist 46 is not saying that the right to keep and bear arms is left up to the states. If that were the case, no one living in Democrat controlled states would have the right to own a firearm.

I didn't say it did. It says that the "States" (peoples) right to own arms shall not be infringed because they (the individual states) need to be able to defend themselves from a despotic central government. Madison makes it very clear.

 

[S.J.]

We're arguing over a non-argument here.

 

[Doc1]

We're arguing over a non-argument here.

We aren't arguing at all. But a document designed to prohibit despotic centralized government will not use words in a way that does not support it's central premise and purpose.

 

[sakinago]

When they created the greatest document in history the Founding Fathers were focused on the power of the federal government as opposed to the monarchy they had lived under. They wouldn't have used the term "a free state" to define a geographical area. The "free state" was a free state of being..

That’s a much better way to phrase it. Almost like “free state”, as in philosophy of freedom to be followed.

Although we’re starting to cross over into the realm of narcissism of minor differences. The point of this thread was that it doesn’t mean individual states.

 

[Tehon]

When they created the greatest document in history the Founding Fathers were focused on the power of the federal government as opposed to the monarchy they had lived under. They wouldn't have used the term "a free state" to define a geographical area. The "free state" was a free state of being..

That’s a much better way to phrase it. Almost like “free state”, as in philosophy of freedom to be followed.

Although we’re starting to cross over into the realm of narcissism of minor differences. The point of this thread was that it doesn’t mean individual states.

I thought the point was to settle a dispute, not to reaffirm your misguided belief.

 

[Tehon]

The free state obviously relates to the individual states.


Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. 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.
The Federalist 46 < The Complete Federalist Papers < 1786-1800 < Documents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In the text of the second amendment, what does the term “free State” refer too?

"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."

Does State refer to the individuals states like Virginia

Or is State synonymous with a nation

The Heller Court reaffirmed that the phrase ‘free state’ refers to the individual states:

‘The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.’

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html

Today, of course, the question is moot – given the fact Heller recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

 

[sakinago]

The free state obviously relates to the individual states.


Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. 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.
The Federalist 46 < The Complete Federalist Papers < 1786-1800 < Documents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

Y’all realize that most of the federalist papers were written before the ratification of the constitution and bill of rights? And that they were written from the perspective of one half of the debate going on at the time, that is the federalist half (mainly Hamilton and Madison), vs the anti-federalist perspective. AND more importantly that federalist like Madison (who authored F46) were opposed to the creation of a bill of rights. Madison did eventually author the bill of rights, to bring aboard the anti-federalist, adding the 9th and 10th amendment into them.

Jeez peps, add in a bit of context. Learn some history. And no, it doesn’t “obviously” mean individual states. That’s just about the siliest thang I’ve ever heard. Did Madison somehow insert a typo? Forgot to make the word “state” plural? Did he strangely add in a right pertaining to the states, unlike the rest of the individual rights that made up the other first 8 amendments? Why does it say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” instead the right of the states? Why doesn’t our state department deal with the individual states, but instead foreign countries? Lawd have mercy, the mental pretzeling people will do.

 

[sakinago]

In the text of the second amendment, what does the term “free State” refer too?

"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."

Does State refer to the individuals states like Virginia

Or is State synonymous with a nation

The Heller Court reaffirmed that the phrase ‘free state’ refers to the individual states:

‘The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.’

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html

Today, of course, the question is moot – given the fact Heller recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

Huhwhat!?!? Where on earth do you see in what you just quoted, that Heller affirmed it meant individual states? Do you read your own articles? How on earth do you read that and get from it, “the Heller ruling says that the State referenced means the individual states, but then they said it doesnt, it’s an individual right that, not a states right.” How in the world does that make sense, and how in the world did you type that all out, and not say, wait a second, that doesn’t add up. You’re either purposefully dishonest, or probably shouldn’t be apart of this conversation if you don’t understand your own posts.

Jeez you people are like ufo hunters, you see what you want to see, not what is actual. Any bright light in the sky, “dude that’s totally a UFO.” Any noise in the woods, “oh that’s totally a Sasquatch.” Any breeze in an old house, “omg it’s a ghost.”