Salon article: US founded on gun control? Madison/2nd Amendment meant state militias?

[danielpalos]

just right wing special pleading.

No special pleading was submitted.

Little guys like you should look up big words before you use them.

The People are the Militia;...

Point not in contention. You are most certainly right... however, the militia is not necessarily the people.

The people who, BTW, who are unambiguously in possession of the right; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

... you are either well regulated or you are not.

Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

You are either, well regulated or you are not.

Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.

 

[BS Filter]

No special pleading was submitted.

Little guys like you should look up big words before you use them.

Point not in contention. You are most certainly right... however, the militia is not necessarily the people.

The people who, BTW, who are unambiguously in possession of the right; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

You are either, well regulated or you are not.

Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms. The people.

 

[danielpalos]

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

You are either, well regulated or you are not.

Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms. The people.

The People are the militia. Only the right wing never gets it.

 

[LOki]

No special pleading was submitted.

Little guys like you should look up big words before you use them.

Point not in contention. You are most certainly right... however, the militia is not necessarily the people.

The people who, BTW, who are unambiguously in possession of the right; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

You are either, well regulated or you are not.

Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.

Incorrect. The intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is expressed in the main, independent, and operative clause; which is obvious to anyone who understands the English language.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The dependent clause in the second only serves to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people, as the possession of such arms are prerequisite for a well-regulated militia--the precise militia, BTW, which the federal government is constitutionally empowered to draw upon to assure the security of a free state.

Any interpretation of, or assignment of priority to, the dependent clause of the 2nd Amendment which renders it (or the entire sentence)repugnant to itself is inherently (and obviously) invalid.

 

[BS Filter]

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms. The people.

The People are the militia. Only the right wing never gets it.

Okay, then the militia are also the people. I'm a people.

 

[sakinago]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

The Idea that the 2nd amendment only applies to state militias is nonsensical, as well as intellectually dishonest. It shows an extreme ignorance to the philosophy that lead to the bill of rights, an ignorance to the historical context, and a purposeful ignorance to the text itself.

First and foremost, the text of the 2nd. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It really doesn't need to be any clearer than that. It clearly states PEOPLE, not states, not government, not governors, not militias, but people.

IF it were true that militias were to be controlled strictly by the states...then state legislature would be appointing the leaders of the militia, much like they appointed senators at the time, because the senate was there to represent the states. That was not the case, the people who made up the militias elected their own leaders. Could the governors call upon the militia it times of common defense, yes, but the duly elected militia leaders still had control over their militia. The individuality of the militias made them a pretty shitty tool to repel actual standing armies, they did not move in unison as a single unit, they did not have a top down structured hierarchy much like a standing army that can coordinate mass numbers of troops into a single much more effective attack or defense. To give governors and/or states total control of the militias goes totally against the philosophy at the time, which was a government in control of force is dangerous and short sighted. Sure its not the fed government, but that still gives states to power to not only ignore protest of their constituents, since "i control the militia, what are you going to do about it," but to also swoop in on selective counties and use those counties militias against them. NO, a well armed PEOPLE makes a respectable government. Giving governors total control over militias, also gave them standing armies, which the founders were deathly afraid of, and why they banned standing armies in times of peace, even though standing armies were much more effective at common defense. Do you really believe the founders were ok changing one standing army with another standing arm? NO, just a ridiculous notion.

 

[BS Filter]

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

 

[danielpalos]

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

You are either, well regulated or you are not.

Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.

Incorrect. The intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is expressed in the main, independent, and operative clause; which is obvious to anyone who understands the English language.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The dependent clause in the second only serves to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people, as the possession of such arms are prerequisite for a well-regulated militia--the precise militia, BTW, which the federal government is constitutionally empowered to draw upon to assure the security of a free state.

Any interpretation of, or assignment of priority to, the dependent clause of the 2nd Amendment which renders it (or the entire sentence)repugnant to itself is inherently (and obviously) invalid.

No, it is not.

 

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms. The people.

The People are the militia. Only the right wing never gets it.

Okay, then the militia are also the people. I'm a people.

Are you well regulated?

 

[BS Filter]

I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms. The people.

The People are the militia. Only the right wing never gets it.

Okay, then the militia are also the people. I'm a people.

Are you well regulated?

Yeah, and so was George Mason. Ever hear of him?

 

[danielpalos]

The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms. The people.

The People are the militia. Only the right wing never gets it.

Okay, then the militia are also the people. I'm a people.

Are you well regulated?

Yeah, and so was George Mason. Ever hear of him?

Mustered lately?

 

[BS Filter]

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

 

[BS Filter]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms. The people.

The People are the militia. Only the right wing never gets it.

Okay, then the militia are also the people. I'm a people.

Are you well regulated?

Yeah, and so was George Mason. Ever hear of him?

Mustered lately?

Yep, and ketchuped,.

 

[BS Filter]

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

 

[danielpalos]

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.

 

[BS Filter]

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

 

[BS Filter]

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

 

[danielpalos]

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.

 

[BS Filter]

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.

So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?

 

[BS Filter]

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.

So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?

What's funny about their words?