Second Amendment Rights

[Mudda]

Throw some firecrackers in the bathroom and then watch all the tough guys run for their lives.

 

[Centinel]

Nope.

So how can there be a natural right to have guns then?

Your body appears in nature, and you have a natural right to defend it.

Is that your argument? Are you serious?

The 2A isn't about self defense at all anyway.

Basically what you're saying is that a person has a right to any object that can defend themselves. Like tanks, F-15s, nukes, SAMs. But you don't have this right.

The rights in the 2A are designed to protect the militia. This does NOT mean the militia has the rights. Individuals have the rights.
They are, the right to own a weapons and the right to be in the militia.

There is a right to self defense, but it doesn't come from the 2A.

As far as the constitution goes, focusing on the 2A is misguided. Remember, when the states established their union, they delegated to it a small set of specific powers. These are listed in article I, section 8. If you look at those powers, you won't find one enabling congress to pass any sort of gun control law that would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by the people of the states.

So with or without the 2A, congress still can't enact gun control.

Answer this question then.

If there was no power to take guns away from people, why would they make a right to protect something that didn't need protecting?

The anti-federalists insisted on it. Belts and suspenders.

Actually there is something there. It's in Article 1 Section 8 which gives Congress the power to do several things.

"
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

So, imagine the situation. The US govt orders a militia to federal service. They order all men to bring their guns with them. Then they take the guns away from those men who are serving in the militia and provide them with other arms. Then take back their arms, but don't give back the arms they took from the militia men.

All of a sudden there's a gray area and the guns have gone missing. Then they send these guys back unarmed and then take over the state without much resistance.

If you can organize and arm (and also disarm) the militia, and also discipline, that's a lot of power that could easily be used wrongly.

Sure, it could be wrongly used. And congress also has no power to enact gun control legislation that applies to the people of the states at large.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

When the states established their union, their INTENT was to create a general government with a small set of enumerated powers. They listed these powers in article I, section 8. Nowhere in this section is the power to enact gun control legislation.

Do you read anything about the FAA in the enumerated powers? How about the US Air Force, or the USMC, or perhaps the plans on how to build a Federal Courthouse, a Post Office or maybe an aircraft carrier or submarine? Do you see how illogical your position is when juxtaposed to real world situations? I could go on listing shit for days or even weeks that have become law yet are both Constitutional and not within the enumeration, per se, but are both for the "...general welfare of the United States...;" (Article I, § 8, Cls 1)" and "... necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." (Article I, § 8, Cls 18).

I guess you think these two passages mean something other that what the founders intended also, eh? Why not just throw out the entire text of Article III ALONG with Article VI, Cls 2, the Supremacy Clause. That would be typical of you State's Right's folks and other "originalists" wanting to "modify" the portions of the Constitution that are not to their liking, right Brutus? Federalism is here to stay and your side lost the argument about 227 years ago. You want another Constitution, read the existing one and you and your brotherhood can go through the process.

Hey, why don't you do something surprising and RESPOND TO THE POINT MADE RATHER THAN REPEAT THE SAME DEBUNKED TRIPE THAT CONGRESS MUST HAVE EVERY SITUATION SPELLED OUT AND DETAILED IN THE ENUMERATION TO ACT UPON THE SUBJECT. ARE YOU CAPABLE OF WRITING AN ARGUMENT RATHER THAN JUST A SILLY UNFOUNDED DECLATATION?

 

[Centinel]

Do you read anything about the FAA in the enumerated powers?

Nope.

How about the US Air Force, or the USMC, or perhaps the plans on how to build a Federal Courthouse, a Post Office or maybe an aircraft carrier or submarine?

Congress has the power to establish a navy and an army.

And to establish courts.

And to establish post offices and roads.

Do you see how illogical your position is when juxtaposed to real world situations?

Not really. Congress was given power to do a limited set of things.

I could go on listing shit for days or even weeks that have become law yet are both Constitutional and not within the enumeration, per se, but are both for the "...general welfare of the United States...;" (Article I, § 8, Cls 1)" and "... necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." (Article I, § 8, Cls 18).

I guess you think these two passages mean something other that what the founders intended also, eh? Why not just throw out the entire text of Article III ALONG with Article VI, Cls 2, the Supremacy Clause. That would be typical of you State's Right's folks and other "originalists" wanting to "modify" the portions of the Constitution that are not to their liking, right Brutus? Federalism is here to stay and your side lost the argument about 227 years ago. You want another Constitution, read the existing one and you and your brotherhood can go through the process.

Hey, why don't you do something surprising and RESPOND TO THE POINT MADE RATHER THAN REPEAT THE SAME DEBUNKED TRIPE THAT CONGRESS MUST HAVE EVERY SITUATION SPELLED OUT AND DETAILED IN THE ENUMERATION TO ACT UPON THE SUBJECT. ARE YOU CAPABLE OF WRITING AN ARGUMENT RATHER THAN JUST A SILLY UNFOUNDED DECLATATION?

Your point seems to be that congress' powers entail various details. Establishing a navy entails actually building submarines. I agree with that point.

However, the point remains that none of congress' enumerated powers can in any way be regarded as giving it any authority to enact gun control legislation effecting the people of the states.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Do you read anything about the FAA in the enumerated powers?

Nope.

How about the US Air Force, or the USMC, or perhaps the plans on how to build a Federal Courthouse, a Post Office or maybe an aircraft carrier or submarine?

Congress has the power to establish a navy and an army.

And to establish courts.

And to establish post offices and roads.

Do you see how illogical your position is when juxtaposed to real world situations?

Not really. Congress was given power to do a limited set of things.

I could go on listing shit for days or even weeks that have become law yet are both Constitutional and not within the enumeration, per se, but are both for the "...general welfare of the United States...;" (Article I, § 8, Cls 1)" and "... necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." (Article I, § 8, Cls 18).

I guess you think these two passages mean something other that what the founders intended also, eh? Why not just throw out the entire text of Article III ALONG with Article VI, Cls 2, the Supremacy Clause. That would be typical of you State's Right's folks and other "originalists" wanting to "modify" the portions of the Constitution that are not to their liking, right Brutus? Federalism is here to stay and your side lost the argument about 227 years ago. You want another Constitution, read the existing one and you and your brotherhood can go through the process.

Hey, why don't you do something surprising and RESPOND TO THE POINT MADE RATHER THAN REPEAT THE SAME DEBUNKED TRIPE THAT CONGRESS MUST HAVE EVERY SITUATION SPELLED OUT AND DETAILED IN THE ENUMERATION TO ACT UPON THE SUBJECT. ARE YOU CAPABLE OF WRITING AN ARGUMENT RATHER THAN JUST A SILLY UNFOUNDED DECLATATION?

Your point seems to be that congress' powers entail various details. Establishing a navy entails actually building submarines. I agree with that point.

However, the point remains that none of congress' enumerated powers can in any way be regarded as giving it any authority to enact gun control legislation effecting the people of the states.

There 's that poor logic of yours again. All the other laws regarding those examples of the Navy, establish Courts inferior to SCOTUS, establish post offices and post roads all entail other laws for a multitude of purposes. They are all IMPLIED POWERS, and you have even IMPLIED such in your last post. Hmmmmmm!

The following is from the Wex legal dictionary at Cornell's LII on the subject of Federalism. I'll just C&P part of one paragraph then you can tell the Constitutional lawyers who wrote the piece they don't know what the Hell they're talking about, too. Pay real close attention to what EXACTLY they say about powers. I'll try and highlight those so you won't miss them:

"The Constitution grants Congress power over issues of national concern. The powers granted to the federal government include delegated powers, implied powers, or inherent powers. Delegated powers, also known as enumerated or expressed powers, are listed under Article 1 Section 8, and include the power to levy taxes, declare war, mint money, punish piracy on the high seas, and establish post offices. In all, there are 27 powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. Although implied powers are not laid out in the Constitution, they can be inferred from the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article 1 Section 8. Inherent powers are neither listed nor implied in the Constitution, but arise from the nature of the national government and include the ability to acquire territory and sovereignty."

So let us all know how wrong they got it all wrong and you anti-Federalists living in the 18th century are the only ones with the true of it, Brutus!

 

[Mad Scientist]

Not all Conservatives own guns.

The Constitution is your Open Carry permit. Concealed Carry is what requires a permit.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Each of us has a natural right to keep and bear arms. However, a property owner also has the right to place conditions on the use of his property. If a property owner says that I may not carry arms on his property, then that is his prerogative. This has nothing to do with government. It is simply the choice of private individuals or groups of private individuals.

Natural? So, guns appear in nature do they?

Nope.

So how can there be a natural right to have guns then?

Your body appears in nature, and you have a natural right to defend it.

Is that your argument? Are you serious?

The 2A isn't about self defense at all anyway.

Basically what you're saying is that a person has a right to any object that can defend themselves. Like tanks, F-15s, nukes, SAMs. But you don't have this right.

The rights in the 2A are designed to protect the militia. This does NOT mean the militia has the rights. Individuals have the rights.
They are, the right to own a weapons and the right to be in the militia.

There is a right to self defense, but it doesn't come from the 2A.

Liar, the 2nd is NOT a collective right of the Militia, it is a personal right of the Individual. As affirmed by the Supreme Court repeatedly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So how can there be a natural right to have guns then?

Your body appears in nature, and you have a natural right to defend it.

Is that your argument? Are you serious?

The 2A isn't about self defense at all anyway.

Basically what you're saying is that a person has a right to any object that can defend themselves. Like tanks, F-15s, nukes, SAMs. But you don't have this right.

The rights in the 2A are designed to protect the militia. This does NOT mean the militia has the rights. Individuals have the rights.
They are, the right to own a weapons and the right to be in the militia.

There is a right to self defense, but it doesn't come from the 2A.

As far as the constitution goes, focusing on the 2A is misguided. Remember, when the states established their union, they delegated to it a small set of specific powers. These are listed in article I, section 8. If you look at those powers, you won't find one enabling congress to pass any sort of gun control law that would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by the people of the states.

So with or without the 2A, congress still can't enact gun control.

Answer this question then.

If there was no power to take guns away from people, why would they make a right to protect something that didn't need protecting?

The anti-federalists insisted on it. Belts and suspenders.

Actually there is something there. It's in Article 1 Section 8 which gives Congress the power to do several things.

"
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

So, imagine the situation. The US govt orders a militia to federal service. They order all men to bring their guns with them. Then they take the guns away from those men who are serving in the militia and provide them with other arms. Then take back their arms, but don't give back the arms they took from the militia men.

All of a sudden there's a gray area and the guns have gone missing. Then they send these guys back unarmed and then take over the state without much resistance.

If you can organize and arm (and also disarm) the militia, and also discipline, that's a lot of power that could easily be used wrongly.

Sure, it could be wrongly used. And congress also has no power to enact gun control legislation that applies to the people of the states at large.

Well the constitution was written as it was. The debates in the House show that the founding fathers were worried that rights would be taken away, this is why they removed a clause that said people who had religious scruples should not be compelled to "bear arms" (as in, be in the militia)

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

 

[frigidweirdo]

Natural? So, guns appear in nature do they?

Nope.

So how can there be a natural right to have guns then?

Your body appears in nature, and you have a natural right to defend it.

Is that your argument? Are you serious?

The 2A isn't about self defense at all anyway.

Basically what you're saying is that a person has a right to any object that can defend themselves. Like tanks, F-15s, nukes, SAMs. But you don't have this right.

The rights in the 2A are designed to protect the militia. This does NOT mean the militia has the rights. Individuals have the rights.
They are, the right to own a weapons and the right to be in the militia.

There is a right to self defense, but it doesn't come from the 2A.

Liar, the 2nd is NOT a collective right of the Militia, it is a personal right of the Individual. As affirmed by the Supreme Court repeatedly.

I didn't say it was a collective right of the militia. So......

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not all Conservatives own guns.

The Constitution is your Open Carry permit. Concealed Carry is what requires a permit.

No, this is wrong. Open carry is just allowed. Carry and conceal is allowed by some.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not all Conservatives own guns.

The Constitution is your Open Carry permit. Concealed Carry is what requires a permit.

No, this is wrong. Open carry is just allowed. Carry and conceal is allowed by some.

Actually open carry is NOT universally allowed and as to Washington State the law allows the COPS to determine if when you open carry you are doing for intimidation and then they can arrest and charge you. I am originally from Washington State.

 

[bripat9643]

Given the adamant support for open carry by the 'Conservatives', I really believe that at the GOP Convention, all there should be packing. Make the Convention even more fun to watch.

Carry arms, whether openly or carry and conceal are NOT protected by the 2A at all.

Wrong. What part of "bear arms" don't you understand?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not all Conservatives own guns.

The Constitution is your Open Carry permit. Concealed Carry is what requires a permit.

No, this is wrong. Open carry is just allowed. Carry and conceal is allowed by some.

Actually open carry is NOT universally allowed and as to Washington State the law allows the COPS to determine if when you open carry you are doing for intimidation and then they can arrest and charge you. I am originally from Washington State.

Sure, but I was merely differentiating between open carry, which is often allowed, and carry and conceal which is often allowed with a permit.

 

[hazlnut]

Given the adamant support for open carry by the 'Conservatives', I really believe that at the GOP Convention, all there should be packing. Make the Convention even more fun to watch.

If their are metal detectors at the event, that means they are hypocrites, right?

They far-righties don't believe in Gun free zones.

 

[Centinel]

Do you read anything about the FAA in the enumerated powers?

Nope.

How about the US Air Force, or the USMC, or perhaps the plans on how to build a Federal Courthouse, a Post Office or maybe an aircraft carrier or submarine?

Congress has the power to establish a navy and an army.

And to establish courts.

And to establish post offices and roads.

Do you see how illogical your position is when juxtaposed to real world situations?

Not really. Congress was given power to do a limited set of things.

I could go on listing shit for days or even weeks that have become law yet are both Constitutional and not within the enumeration, per se, but are both for the "...general welfare of the United States...;" (Article I, § 8, Cls 1)" and "... necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." (Article I, § 8, Cls 18).

I guess you think these two passages mean something other that what the founders intended also, eh? Why not just throw out the entire text of Article III ALONG with Article VI, Cls 2, the Supremacy Clause. That would be typical of you State's Right's folks and other "originalists" wanting to "modify" the portions of the Constitution that are not to their liking, right Brutus? Federalism is here to stay and your side lost the argument about 227 years ago. You want another Constitution, read the existing one and you and your brotherhood can go through the process.

Hey, why don't you do something surprising and RESPOND TO THE POINT MADE RATHER THAN REPEAT THE SAME DEBUNKED TRIPE THAT CONGRESS MUST HAVE EVERY SITUATION SPELLED OUT AND DETAILED IN THE ENUMERATION TO ACT UPON THE SUBJECT. ARE YOU CAPABLE OF WRITING AN ARGUMENT RATHER THAN JUST A SILLY UNFOUNDED DECLATATION?

Your point seems to be that congress' powers entail various details. Establishing a navy entails actually building submarines. I agree with that point.

However, the point remains that none of congress' enumerated powers can in any way be regarded as giving it any authority to enact gun control legislation effecting the people of the states.

There 's that poor logic of yours again. All the other laws regarding those examples of the Navy, establish Courts inferior to SCOTUS, establish post offices and post roads all entail other laws for a multitude of purposes. They are all IMPLIED POWERS, and you have even IMPLIED such in your last post. Hmmmmmm!

The following is from the Wex legal dictionary at Cornell's LII on the subject of Federalism. I'll just C&P part of one paragraph then you can tell the Constitutional lawyers who wrote the piece they don't know what the Hell they're talking about, too. Pay real close attention to what EXACTLY they say about powers. I'll try and highlight those so you won't miss them:

"The Constitution grants Congress power over issues of national concern. The powers granted to the federal government include delegated powers, implied powers, or inherent powers. Delegated powers, also known as enumerated or expressed powers, are listed under Article 1 Section 8, and include the power to levy taxes, declare war, mint money, punish piracy on the high seas, and establish post offices. In all, there are 27 powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. Although implied powers are not laid out in the Constitution, they can be inferred from the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article 1 Section 8. Inherent powers are neither listed nor implied in the Constitution, but arise from the nature of the national government and include the ability to acquire territory and sovereignty."

So let us all know how wrong they got it all wrong and you anti-Federalists living in the 18th century are the only ones with the true of it, Brutus!

When the states created their union, they delegated to it small set of powers. I agree that each of these powers implies a vast set of implied powers. For example, the power to establish a navy implies that congress has the power to purchase a ship or build a dockyard. The implied powers flow from the specific enumerated powers.

So which specific enumerated power would result in the implied power to restrict the acquisition and possession of firearms by the people of the states?

 

[Centinel]

Your body appears in nature, and you have a natural right to defend it.

Is that your argument? Are you serious?

The 2A isn't about self defense at all anyway.

Basically what you're saying is that a person has a right to any object that can defend themselves. Like tanks, F-15s, nukes, SAMs. But you don't have this right.

The rights in the 2A are designed to protect the militia. This does NOT mean the militia has the rights. Individuals have the rights.
They are, the right to own a weapons and the right to be in the militia.

There is a right to self defense, but it doesn't come from the 2A.

As far as the constitution goes, focusing on the 2A is misguided. Remember, when the states established their union, they delegated to it a small set of specific powers. These are listed in article I, section 8. If you look at those powers, you won't find one enabling congress to pass any sort of gun control law that would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by the people of the states.

So with or without the 2A, congress still can't enact gun control.

Answer this question then.

If there was no power to take guns away from people, why would they make a right to protect something that didn't need protecting?

The anti-federalists insisted on it. Belts and suspenders.

Actually there is something there. It's in Article 1 Section 8 which gives Congress the power to do several things.

"
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

So, imagine the situation. The US govt orders a militia to federal service. They order all men to bring their guns with them. Then they take the guns away from those men who are serving in the militia and provide them with other arms. Then take back their arms, but don't give back the arms they took from the militia men.

All of a sudden there's a gray area and the guns have gone missing. Then they send these guys back unarmed and then take over the state without much resistance.

If you can organize and arm (and also disarm) the militia, and also discipline, that's a lot of power that could easily be used wrongly.

Sure, it could be wrongly used. And congress also has no power to enact gun control legislation that applies to the people of the states at large.

Well the constitution was written as it was. The debates in the House show that the founding fathers were worried that rights would be taken away, this is why they removed a clause that said people who had religious scruples should not be compelled to "bear arms" (as in, be in the militia)

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

I agree that the constitution was written as it was. And, as written, it contains no language that would allow congress to enact legislation restricting the acquisition or possession of firearms by the people of the states.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is that your argument? Are you serious?

The 2A isn't about self defense at all anyway.

Basically what you're saying is that a person has a right to any object that can defend themselves. Like tanks, F-15s, nukes, SAMs. But you don't have this right.

The rights in the 2A are designed to protect the militia. This does NOT mean the militia has the rights. Individuals have the rights.
They are, the right to own a weapons and the right to be in the militia.

There is a right to self defense, but it doesn't come from the 2A.

As far as the constitution goes, focusing on the 2A is misguided. Remember, when the states established their union, they delegated to it a small set of specific powers. These are listed in article I, section 8. If you look at those powers, you won't find one enabling congress to pass any sort of gun control law that would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by the people of the states.

So with or without the 2A, congress still can't enact gun control.

Answer this question then.

If there was no power to take guns away from people, why would they make a right to protect something that didn't need protecting?

The anti-federalists insisted on it. Belts and suspenders.

Actually there is something there. It's in Article 1 Section 8 which gives Congress the power to do several things.

"
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

So, imagine the situation. The US govt orders a militia to federal service. They order all men to bring their guns with them. Then they take the guns away from those men who are serving in the militia and provide them with other arms. Then take back their arms, but don't give back the arms they took from the militia men.

All of a sudden there's a gray area and the guns have gone missing. Then they send these guys back unarmed and then take over the state without much resistance.

If you can organize and arm (and also disarm) the militia, and also discipline, that's a lot of power that could easily be used wrongly.

Sure, it could be wrongly used. And congress also has no power to enact gun control legislation that applies to the people of the states at large.

Well the constitution was written as it was. The debates in the House show that the founding fathers were worried that rights would be taken away, this is why they removed a clause that said people who had religious scruples should not be compelled to "bear arms" (as in, be in the militia)

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

I agree that the constitution was written as it was. And, as written, it contains no language that would allow congress to enact legislation restricting the acquisition or possession of firearms by the people of the states.

Still doesn't explain why they decided to then protect something that didn't need protecting.

What you have to remember are the fears the Founding Fathers had of power.

Mr Gerry said " Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. "

He understood that if you give power to people, they can often gain power, which the US govt has done.

You also have to remember there is an amendment process which the govt could give itself more powers, which is has also done.

The whole argument in this document was one of whether those with religious scruples should be given constitutional protection from "bearing arms", ie, militia duty. They decided that by giving such a protection, the govt could declare those who were religiously scrupulous and prevent them from being in the militia.

So, arming the militia could give power to disarm the militia, and other such things.

 

[Centinel]

As far as the constitution goes, focusing on the 2A is misguided. Remember, when the states established their union, they delegated to it a small set of specific powers. These are listed in article I, section 8. If you look at those powers, you won't find one enabling congress to pass any sort of gun control law that would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by the people of the states.

So with or without the 2A, congress still can't enact gun control.

Answer this question then.

If there was no power to take guns away from people, why would they make a right to protect something that didn't need protecting?

The anti-federalists insisted on it. Belts and suspenders.

Actually there is something there. It's in Article 1 Section 8 which gives Congress the power to do several things.

"
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

So, imagine the situation. The US govt orders a militia to federal service. They order all men to bring their guns with them. Then they take the guns away from those men who are serving in the militia and provide them with other arms. Then take back their arms, but don't give back the arms they took from the militia men.

All of a sudden there's a gray area and the guns have gone missing. Then they send these guys back unarmed and then take over the state without much resistance.

If you can organize and arm (and also disarm) the militia, and also discipline, that's a lot of power that could easily be used wrongly.

Sure, it could be wrongly used. And congress also has no power to enact gun control legislation that applies to the people of the states at large.

Well the constitution was written as it was. The debates in the House show that the founding fathers were worried that rights would be taken away, this is why they removed a clause that said people who had religious scruples should not be compelled to "bear arms" (as in, be in the militia)

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

I agree that the constitution was written as it was. And, as written, it contains no language that would allow congress to enact legislation restricting the acquisition or possession of firearms by the people of the states.

Still doesn't explain why they decided to then protect something that didn't need protecting.

The fact that you fail to understand why the anti-federalists insisted on a bill of rights doesn't change the fact that none of the powers delegated to the union would permit it to enact legislation that would restrict the ability of the people of the states to keep and bear arms. Take another look at Art I, section 8 and look for any power that would allow such legislation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Answer this question then.

If there was no power to take guns away from people, why would they make a right to protect something that didn't need protecting?

The anti-federalists insisted on it. Belts and suspenders.

Actually there is something there. It's in Article 1 Section 8 which gives Congress the power to do several things.

"
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

So, imagine the situation. The US govt orders a militia to federal service. They order all men to bring their guns with them. Then they take the guns away from those men who are serving in the militia and provide them with other arms. Then take back their arms, but don't give back the arms they took from the militia men.

All of a sudden there's a gray area and the guns have gone missing. Then they send these guys back unarmed and then take over the state without much resistance.

If you can organize and arm (and also disarm) the militia, and also discipline, that's a lot of power that could easily be used wrongly.

Sure, it could be wrongly used. And congress also has no power to enact gun control legislation that applies to the people of the states at large.

Well the constitution was written as it was. The debates in the House show that the founding fathers were worried that rights would be taken away, this is why they removed a clause that said people who had religious scruples should not be compelled to "bear arms" (as in, be in the militia)

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

I agree that the constitution was written as it was. And, as written, it contains no language that would allow congress to enact legislation restricting the acquisition or possession of firearms by the people of the states.

Still doesn't explain why they decided to then protect something that didn't need protecting.

The fact that you fail to understand why the anti-federalists insisted on a bill of rights doesn't change the fact that none of the powers delegated to the union would permit it to enact legislation that would restrict the ability of the people of the states to keep and bear arms. Take another look at Art I, section 8 and look for any power that would allow such legislation.

I don't "fail to understand", you're just making stuff up.

As I've said, a clause that says people who are religious scrupulous could be excused militia duty was seen BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS as a way in which the US govt could have taken away the right from all people.

I know what things say, I also know what other people say. You can bang on about it, but the Founding Fathers didn't live in a world where everything was fair and power was dealt with sensibly, and neither do we.

 

[Centinel]

The anti-federalists insisted on it. Belts and suspenders.

Sure, it could be wrongly used. And congress also has no power to enact gun control legislation that applies to the people of the states at large.

Well the constitution was written as it was. The debates in the House show that the founding fathers were worried that rights would be taken away, this is why they removed a clause that said people who had religious scruples should not be compelled to "bear arms" (as in, be in the militia)

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

I agree that the constitution was written as it was. And, as written, it contains no language that would allow congress to enact legislation restricting the acquisition or possession of firearms by the people of the states.

Still doesn't explain why they decided to then protect something that didn't need protecting.

The fact that you fail to understand why the anti-federalists insisted on a bill of rights doesn't change the fact that none of the powers delegated to the union would permit it to enact legislation that would restrict the ability of the people of the states to keep and bear arms. Take another look at Art I, section 8 and look for any power that would allow such legislation.

I don't "fail to understand", you're just making stuff up.

As I've said, a clause that says people who are religious scrupulous could be excused militia duty was seen BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS as a way in which the US govt could have taken away the right from all people.

I know what things say, I also know what other people say. You can bang on about it, but the Founding Fathers didn't live in a world where everything was fair and power was dealt with sensibly, and neither do we.

I'm making stuff up? Not really. The US government is one of limited, specifically enumerated powers. The states never gave their union the power to enact legislation that would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by the people of the states.

If you contend otherwise, you simply need to provide the clause in Art I, section 8 enumerating such a power.