Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[Quantum Windbag]

Nice try, but that is not what I am saying.

You claim that the only correct way to interpret the 2nd amendment is that it applies to militias, and not to individuals. I counter with the fact that the SCOTUS disagrees with you, and that actually settles the argument. If you want to argue that SCOTUS is wrong then you need to change your argument from "The second means this" to "SCOTUS was wrong because..." As long as you insist on making the argument about what the amendment means, I can appeal to SCOTUS as an authority that you are incorrect.

Ever since Marbury v. Madison anyway. Speaking of writs of Mandamus why don't the attorneys general in the states file a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce the border?

Ooops, sorry got carried away....nobody answer that.

Why don't you just say:

"Help me wave my pom poms please?"

Help me wave my pom poms please.

Now where's your legal argument? Still waiting.

The first mistake is arguing for the right to own a gun under the 2nd because COTUS was never intended to tell us what we could and could not own. There's nothing in COTUS saying we have the right to own televisions, stoves, dental floss etc. This has opened the door for the government to restrict our liberties not based on individual freedom and social contract but rather the exploitation of government intrusion on an arbitrary basis. The new proposals for government control of the internet is a current example.

The text of the 2nd states:

“ 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. ”


What is the purpose? Security of the State. How is it accomplished? Well regulated militia. Who would be the militia? The people. Therefore, the focus is not on individuals to have weapons but for Militias to exist and the only way they could exist is if the members of the Militia had weapons. The "State" referred to the Country and not a single State. Considering that whole Revolutionary War thingy......I'm sure there were very real fears that Britain would try to control the New World again and if the new colonies did not have weapons and Militias......well.....I'm sure the picture is clear.

It does not matter how semantics are applied because you cannot escape the Militia. You cannot ignore the clear fact the focus is on security of the State through the Militia and not simply because a bunch of individuals have guns.

My biggest beef with the ruling is it has opened the door to re-write even the clearest texts. It took 220 years to successfully win in Court the re-writing of the 2nd so we have only tethered COTUS and put it in the hands of the most persistent. Not the most honest. Nobody should have ever tried to argue we have the right to own guns under the 2nd because we should have never given the government enough power to arbitrarily decided what we could and could not own.

I do not agree with everything you said, but I like the reasoning behind al of it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . and daveman demonstrates his dramedy.

daveman, when you make an honest argument with evidence (that excludes your opinion), then we can go from there. Oh, by the way, don't use the wacko libertarian sites and think tanks. Try using some objective unbiased material, then use your ability to discuss. No more talking points, please.

You're a funny little person. You think you can order me around.

But you know, I've got a GREAT source: The Supreme Court of the United States.

Now, remind us all again of your qualifications?

. . . good advise is "order me around". Hmmm . . . that sounds disturbing. I agree about SCOTUS. And SCOTUS has not, and will not, rule against HC reform.

So you have no point.

 

[CurveLight]

Curve, you are wrong.

Get over it, get on with your life.

Whatever you say dave......

I've said you're wrong. I never said get on with your life.


I believe you were saying something about honesty...?

It was a joke. I was calling Jake "Dave" because he criticizes you then does the exact same things......

 

[CurveLight]

Ever since Marbury v. Madison anyway. Speaking of writs of Mandamus why don't the attorneys general in the states file a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce the border?

Ooops, sorry got carried away....nobody answer that.

Help me wave my pom poms please.

Now where's your legal argument? Still waiting.

The first mistake is arguing for the right to own a gun under the 2nd because COTUS was never intended to tell us what we could and could not own. There's nothing in COTUS saying we have the right to own televisions, stoves, dental floss etc. This has opened the door for the government to restrict our liberties not based on individual freedom and social contract but rather the exploitation of government intrusion on an arbitrary basis. The new proposals for government control of the internet is a current example.

The text of the 2nd states:

“ 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. ”


What is the purpose? Security of the State. How is it accomplished? Well regulated militia. Who would be the militia? The people. Therefore, the focus is not on individuals to have weapons but for Militias to exist and the only way they could exist is if the members of the Militia had weapons. The "State" referred to the Country and not a single State. Considering that whole Revolutionary War thingy......I'm sure there were very real fears that Britain would try to control the New World again and if the new colonies did not have weapons and Militias......well.....I'm sure the picture is clear.

It does not matter how semantics are applied because you cannot escape the Militia. You cannot ignore the clear fact the focus is on security of the State through the Militia and not simply because a bunch of individuals have guns.

My biggest beef with the ruling is it has opened the door to re-write even the clearest texts. It took 220 years to successfully win in Court the re-writing of the 2nd so we have only tethered COTUS and put it in the hands of the most persistent. Not the most honest. Nobody should have ever tried to argue we have the right to own guns under the 2nd because we should have never given the government enough power to arbitrarily decided what we could and could not own.

The Second Amendment was NOT re-written. The SCOTUS merely affirmed the meaning, and bolstered it to it's origionalist intent.

NICE TRY.

Okay.....where is the "Well regulated Militia..." SCOTUS affirmed?

(You can't say NG or Reserves or Active Duty because.....well....that is painfully obvious...y

 

[CurveLight]

Ever since Marbury v. Madison anyway. Speaking of writs of Mandamus why don't the attorneys general in the states file a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce the border?

Ooops, sorry got carried away....nobody answer that.

Help me wave my pom poms please.

Now where's your legal argument? Still waiting.

The first mistake is arguing for the right to own a gun under the 2nd because COTUS was never intended to tell us what we could and could not own. There's nothing in COTUS saying we have the right to own televisions, stoves, dental floss etc. This has opened the door for the government to restrict our liberties not based on individual freedom and social contract but rather the exploitation of government intrusion on an arbitrary basis. The new proposals for government control of the internet is a current example.

The text of the 2nd states:

“ 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. ”


What is the purpose? Security of the State. How is it accomplished? Well regulated militia. Who would be the militia? The people. Therefore, the focus is not on individuals to have weapons but for Militias to exist and the only way they could exist is if the members of the Militia had weapons. The "State" referred to the Country and not a single State. Considering that whole Revolutionary War thingy......I'm sure there were very real fears that Britain would try to control the New World again and if the new colonies did not have weapons and Militias......well.....I'm sure the picture is clear.

It does not matter how semantics are applied because you cannot escape the Militia. You cannot ignore the clear fact the focus is on security of the State through the Militia and not simply because a bunch of individuals have guns.

My biggest beef with the ruling is it has opened the door to re-write even the clearest texts. It took 220 years to successfully win in Court the re-writing of the 2nd so we have only tethered COTUS and put it in the hands of the most persistent. Not the most honest. Nobody should have ever tried to argue we have the right to own guns under the 2nd because we should have never given the government enough power to arbitrarily decided what we could and could not own.

I do not agree with everything you said, but I like the reasoning behind al of it.

Wow! Thank you QW. So my question is what do you disagree with and why?

 

[CurveLight]

RGS, I agree with you, son. The far left and the far right are the ones screaming here. One group thinks it can have any type of weapon it wants (fools), and the other group is in la la land about guns and about human nature.

And, yeah, daveman thinks he understands the constitution. Not.

What makes you a Constitutional expert? Just because you say so?

It's pretty fucking stoopid, hypocritical and un-American to claim only CE can comment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Curve, the point is not only CEs can comment. The point is that one's comments on the Constitution, including mine, are merely opinions and not to be taken as any worthy evidence at all. Some folks here believe what they think is evidence. How ludicrous.

 

[CurveLight]

Curve, the point is not only CEs can comment. The point is that one's comments on the Constitution, including mine, are merely opinions and not to be taken as any worthy evidence at all. Some folks here believe what they think is evidence. How ludicrous.

Ummmm....yeah. That's why I said it's stoopid to claim only CE should be able to comment. I've haven't seen them say their thoughts are evidence. (Probably because they cannot find their own). What they have been saying is the SCOTUS ruling is evidence that it is now law. They are correct on that point.

 

[The T]

The first mistake is arguing for the right to own a gun under the 2nd because COTUS was never intended to tell us what we could and could not own. There's nothing in COTUS saying we have the right to own televisions, stoves, dental floss etc. This has opened the door for the government to restrict our liberties not based on individual freedom and social contract but rather the exploitation of government intrusion on an arbitrary basis. The new proposals for government control of the internet is a current example.

The text of the 2nd states:

“ 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. ”


What is the purpose? Security of the State. How is it accomplished? Well regulated militia. Who would be the militia? The people. Therefore, the focus is not on individuals to have weapons but for Militias to exist and the only way they could exist is if the members of the Militia had weapons. The "State" referred to the Country and not a single State. Considering that whole Revolutionary War thingy......I'm sure there were very real fears that Britain would try to control the New World again and if the new colonies did not have weapons and Militias......well.....I'm sure the picture is clear.

It does not matter how semantics are applied because you cannot escape the Militia. You cannot ignore the clear fact the focus is on security of the State through the Militia and not simply because a bunch of individuals have guns.

My biggest beef with the ruling is it has opened the door to re-write even the clearest texts. It took 220 years to successfully win in Court the re-writing of the 2nd so we have only tethered COTUS and put it in the hands of the most persistent. Not the most honest. Nobody should have ever tried to argue we have the right to own guns under the 2nd because we should have never given the government enough power to arbitrarily decided what we could and could not own.

The Second Amendment was NOT re-written. The SCOTUS merely affirmed the meaning, and bolstered it to it's origionalist intent.

NICE TRY.

Okay.....where is the "Well regulated Militia..." SCOTUS affirmed?

(You can't say NG or Reserves or Active Duty because.....well....that is painfully obvious...y

It goes beyond 'Well Regulated Militia'...or did you MISS the History lesson contained IN the Decision?

It's a matter of LIBERTY and the right of the individiual Citizen to defend it?

From Page 28 Of the Ruling:

"In debating the Fourteenth Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection. Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three 'indispensable' 'safeguards of liberty under our form of Government.' One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms: 'Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead," meaning house. "If the cabin door," the front door, "of the newly freed slave is broken open," somebody storms in, "and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery," as in a lynching, "then should a well-loaded musket," meaning a fully loaded shotgun "be in the hand of the [freed slave] to send the polluted wretch--" i.e., the intruder "--to another world," -- i.e., hell "--where his wretchedness will forever remain complete."

Page 29: "Evidence from the period immediately following the Amendment’s ratification confirms that that right was considered fundamental. In an 1868 speech addressing the disarmament of freedmen..." newly freed slaves. Freedmen, by the way, one word, it's an actual term used back then "... Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right: 'Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty.' 'The fourteenth amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question.” And in debating the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Congress routinely referred to the right to keep and bear arms and decried the continued disarmament of blacks in the South."

________________________

If you had BOTHERED to read the decision? It was very well thought out...cogent, and to the point of why the Second Amendment was crafted by our Forefathers to begin with. Liberty of the Individual was first and foremost in their minds.

There are many quoes btht pre and post ratification by the signers that brings their intent to bear. The Militia arguement goes back to the argument that stems from having a Standing ARMY that was in dispute.

ONE thing is clear as it relates to a Militia...*WE* all have a standing duty to defend our freedoms, our Liberties from foreign invaders, and even that of Domestic types, Even if it includes our own Government and practices that infringes on the freedoms they whittle away daily against our will.

Taka a gander at the Decision and HEED it well...[pdf Format]

LINK

I dare say that you refuse to shed your blinders as YOU seem to appluaud your own Liberty being removed piecemeal. That makes you dangerous to the rest of us that relish our own Liberty.

The Second amendment is a Front line, and even LAST RESORT to the preservation of Liberty against tyrants...even when the tyranny eminates within our own ranks.

~T

 

[The T]

And as i said from the outset of this thread? The Decision should have been 9-0.

Sadly...and dangerously? It wasn't.

 

[daveman]

Whatever you say dave......

I've said you're wrong. I never said get on with your life.


I believe you were saying something about honesty...?

It was a joke. I was calling Jake "Dave" because he criticizes you then does the exact same things......

Poor widdle baby.

 

[daveman]

RGS, I agree with you, son. The far left and the far right are the ones screaming here. One group thinks it can have any type of weapon it wants (fools), and the other group is in la la land about guns and about human nature.

And, yeah, daveman thinks he understands the constitution. Not.

What makes you a Constitutional expert? Just because you say so?

It's pretty fucking stoopid, hypocritical and un-American to claim only CE can comment.

I agree. That's why I'm not saying it.

Jake, however, is.

 

[Dr Grump]

Must have guns!

 

[daveman]

Curve, the point is not only CEs can comment. The point is that one's comments on the Constitution, including mine, are merely opinions and not to be taken as any worthy evidence at all. Some folks here believe what they think is evidence. How ludicrous.

Then perhaps you'd better stop doing it.

 

[daveman]

And as i said from the outset of this thread? The Decision should have been 9-0.

Sadly...and dangerously? It wasn't.

Very dangerously.

 

[Kat]

I've said you're wrong. I never said get on with your life.


I believe you were saying something about honesty...?

It was a joke. I was calling Jake "Dave" because he criticizes you then does the exact same things......

Poor widdle baby.

 

[ConHog]

The Second Amendment was NOT re-written. The SCOTUS merely affirmed the meaning, and bolstered it to it's origionalist intent.

NICE TRY.

Okay.....where is the "Well regulated Militia..." SCOTUS affirmed?

(You can't say NG or Reserves or Active Duty because.....well....that is painfully obvious...y

It goes beyond 'Well Regulated Militia'...or did you MISS the History lesson contained IN the Decision?

It's a matter of LIBERTY and the right of the individiual Citizen to defend it?

From Page 28 Of the Ruling:

"In debating the Fourteenth Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection. Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three 'indispensable' 'safeguards of liberty under our form of Government.' One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms: 'Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead," meaning house. "If the cabin door," the front door, "of the newly freed slave is broken open," somebody storms in, "and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery," as in a lynching, "then should a well-loaded musket," meaning a fully loaded shotgun "be in the hand of the [freed slave] to send the polluted wretch--" i.e., the intruder "--to another world," -- i.e., hell "--where his wretchedness will forever remain complete."

Page 29: "Evidence from the period immediately following the Amendment’s ratification confirms that that right was considered fundamental. In an 1868 speech addressing the disarmament of freedmen..." newly freed slaves. Freedmen, by the way, one word, it's an actual term used back then "... Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right: 'Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty.' 'The fourteenth amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question.” And in debating the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Congress routinely referred to the right to keep and bear arms and decried the continued disarmament of blacks in the South."

________________________

If you had BOTHERED to read the decision? It was very well thought out...cogent, and to the point of why the Second Amendment was crafted by our Forefathers to begin with. Liberty of the Individual was first and foremost in their minds.

There are many quoes btht pre and post ratification by the signers that brings their intent to bear. The Militia arguement goes back to the argument that stems from having a Standing ARMY that was in dispute.

ONE thing is clear as it relates to a Militia...*WE* all have a standing duty to defend our freedoms, our Liberties from foreign invaders, and even that of Domestic types, Even if it includes our own Government and practices that infringes on the freedoms they whittle away daily against our will.

Taka a gander at the Decision and HEED it well...[pdf Format]

LINK

I dare say that you refuse to shed your blinders as YOU seem to appluaud your own Liberty being removed piecemeal. That makes you dangerous to the rest of us that relish our own Liberty.

The Second amendment is a Front line, and even LAST RESORT to the preservation of Liberty against tyrants...even when the tyranny eminates within our own ranks.

~T

If you want to put this debate to bed, look at what the fathers themselves said.

Tenche Coxe: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. 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." – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Tench Coxe: "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he 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.", Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Tench Coxe: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "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." (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

Alexander Hamilton: "Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)

Alexander Hamilton: "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped" – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Patrick Henry: "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

Patrick Henry: "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.", letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.

Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “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.”

Thomas Jefferson: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., 1967).

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.", Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

President James Madison: "...to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;... to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics – that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;..." – President James Madison, First Inaugural address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.

James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.

James Madison: "As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia." (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Thomas Paine: "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)

William Rawle: "In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulation as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest." – William Rawle, "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829)

Joseph Story: "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people." – Joseph Story. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.

Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice): “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic...”

Sir George Tucker: "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."


It is CLEAR that in their opinions , the PEOPLE made up the militia, and the militia was not some official outfit that one had to belong to to own a weapon.

 

[daveman]

Pffft. What do THEY know?


Did I get that right, CurveLight?

 

[ConHog]

Pffft. What do THEY know?


Did I get that right, CurveLight?

From "A Journal of the Times," calling the citizens of Boston to arm themselves in response to British abuses of power, 1769:

"Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature and have been carried to so great lengths as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the [English] Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense, and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

eorge Mason's Fairfax County Militia Plan, 1775:

"And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage to keep a good firelock in proper order, & to furnish ourselves as soon as possible with, & always keep by us, one pound of gunpowder, four pounds of lead, one dozen gunflints, & a pair of bullet moulds, with a cartouch box, or powder horn, and bag for balls."

Patrick Henry, 1775:

"They tell us that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us."


Thomas Paine, writing to religious pacifists in 1775:

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong."

Samuel Adams:

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."


I LOVE this quote


John Adams:

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."

Thomas Jefferson:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."

Patrick Henry:

"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 may have a gun."

Thomas Jefferson's advice to his 15-year-old nephew:

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

Noah Webster, 1787:

"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 of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

James Madison, "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared," 46 Federalist New York Packet, January 29, 1788:

"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. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, that could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

Alexander Hamilton, "Concerning the Militia," 29 Federalist Daily Advertiser, January 10, 1788:

"There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery. Where, in the name of common sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular states are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of the officers? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the states ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating infiuence over the militia."

Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer, 1788:

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Tench Coxe, writing as "the Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 1788:

"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has 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."

George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."

 

[R.C. Christian]

Obviously this was a victory, but realistcally nothing will stop Obama and his henchmen or others that follow from regulating your right to have a hand gun essentially away. I'm sorry, but it's true. You'd think the SCOTUS would rule less ambiguously if they really believed what they're saying.