The real meaning of the 2nd Amendment

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why does one need military style weapons and large mag? To kill.

So?

How does that change ANYTHING???

All federal gun laws are unconstitutional. PERIOD.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

One doesn’t – it’s a want, not a ‘need.’

Good thing it's a bill of RIGHTS, not a bill of wants or needs.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But conservatives shouldn’t contrive ridiculous lies about why they ‘need’ and AR 15; conservatives need to stop lying in a pathetic effort to ‘justify’ possessing such weapons.

And yet, we constantly get comments to justify banning certain weapons.

So you agree that the NFA and subsequent revisions, including the Hughes Amendment, should be deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

 

[miketx]

Why does one need military style weapons and large mag?

To keep the criminals you vermin let loose in check.

 

[2aguy]

Why does one need military style weapons and large mag? To kill.

1) What military style weapons?

Do you mean bolt action rifles or pump action shotguns? Bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns are actual military weapons....they are not military "style" weapons.......and the AR-15 has never been a military rifle........

2) Large mags?

What do you mean by this....15 bullets in most magazines is not large, they are the normal magazines for those pistols, and 20-30 bullets is the normal magazine size for rifles of some types.....

You should really be more lc

 

[woodwork201]

They need bodyguards because they are too cowardly to pass real gun reform to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.

Now, if we took the bodyguards away from them, imagine how fast they'd fix the problem.

Darn it, the Second Amendment really IS about militias, they'd all exclaim!

Their bodyguards don't prove that more gun control is needed, their bodyguards prove that more guns are needed. You should have a gun, and even pay others to carry guns on your behalf, if you prefer, so you can be safe while pretending that you don't like guns.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here's the problem with your very long babbling.

The original intent of the Second Amendment (and the Third Amendment) was to define and limit militias.

The original proposed text of the Second also allowed for contentious objections on religious grounds for being conscripted into a militia. This was a big deal at the time, because you had groups like the Quakers who objected to military service. It was rejected because that would limit the power of the militia. The third was meant to limit the militia... it wasn't just about putting soldiers in people's houses, it was about having a permanent militia presence in communities in peacetime.

The problem, of course, is that these original intents have been lost, because militias have been replaced by professional Armies and Police Forces, with the police become far more militarized than in the worst nightmares of the founders.

Of course, it was never about gun ownership. Gun ownership was actually relatively rare in colonial America. There wasn't even a domestic gun industry, firing mechanisms had to be imported from Europe.

The founding fathers believed in Well-Regulated Militias, and at the time, each state had reams of laws defining the militia, with everything from uniforms to what the standard weaponry should be. (Again, you can't do logistics for a militia if everyone shows up with a different caliber gun). What they didn't believe in was angry mobs with guns, which is why "popular rebellions" like Shay's Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion were put down.

English not your first language? The sentence as written IN ENGLISH gives to the people the right to own firearms. the preparatory part is simple one of what could be any number of reasons it is not limited nor restrictive on the second part.

 

[Jarlaxle]

By the way, mine was not my babbling; I quoted the Founders. My remarks on what they said were perfectly accurate and documented by their own words.

If you want to argue that the original intent of the 2nd and 3rd Amendments were what you suggest then provide any evidence from the Founders to support your argument.

Of course you cannot because I've proven absolutely what I said.

Joey does not care. Joey does not debate. He flames, trolls, lies, and filibabbles.

Please provide any contemporaneous writing that supports your argument that the third was about having militia in communities.

You can't, of course, I gave you exactly what was written by the Founders and your claim is not there.

Besides the fact that the community WAS the militia. To keep the militia out of the community would require keeping the community out of the community.

You keep claiming what you wish was so but I have proven by the Founders own words that what I said was exactly, perfectly, correct and accurate.

Joey favors The Big Lie. He will repeat it endlessly.

This is a lie.

The ‘left’ knows exactly what the Second Amendment means and supports Second Amendment jurisprudence – unlike many on the right.

What the ‘left’ is referring to is the Second Amendment prior to Heller, when for over 200 years the Amendment was interpreted as a collective – not individual – right.

Indeed, it’s conservatives who lie about the Second Amendment – their most idiotic lie is that the Amendment codifies insurrectionist dogma when in fact there’s nothing in the history, text, or caselaw of the Second Amendment that authorizes private armed citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people.

Jonesy, you're so full of shit your breath stinks.

 

[woodwork201]

This is a lie.

The ‘left’ knows exactly what the Second Amendment means and supports Second Amendment jurisprudence – unlike many on the right.

What the ‘left’ is referring to is the Second Amendment prior to Heller, when for over 200 years the Amendment was interpreted as a collective – not individual – right.

Indeed, it’s conservatives who lie about the Second Amendment – their most idiotic lie is that the Amendment codifies insurrectionist dogma when in fact there’s nothing in the history, text, or caselaw of the Second Amendment that authorizes private armed citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people.

Who suggested that the 2nd Amendment says it's legal to take up arms against the government? I must have missed that post.

But I did quote the absolute proof that the intent was an individual right of the people. In the original submitted text, the amendment said the people have the right to keep and bear arms - and that was the first of multiple independent clauses. That in merging all the different proposals and expectations into a single, more succinct, amendment, the order of the two clauses were reversed, even changing the relationship into prefatory and operative clauses, the intent and meaning did not change and was not intended to change.

Had the intent and meaning changed then those states which had demanded that the right of the people to keep and bear arms would not have voted for the 4th proposed (which became the 2nd ratified) amendment.

The States did not vote for the Bill of Rights; they ratified 10 out of 12 proposed Amendments sent to them by the Congress. In their ratifications they were explicit about which they approved. Five States insisted in their ratifying documents of the Constitution that the people's right to keep and bear arms must be included in the upcoming bill of rights. Not a single one of those five voted against the passing of the 4th amendment in the list, which came to be the 2nd amendment passed:

New Hampshire

In the House of Representatives, Jan. 25, 1790.​

Upon reading and maturely considering the proposed amendments to the federal constitution, Voted, To accept the whole of said amendments except the second article, which was rejected.​

Virginia

Resolved, That the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth articles of the amendments proposed by Congress to the constitution of the United States, be ratified by this commonwealth.​

New York

And whereas the legislature of this state have considered the said articles, and do agree to the same, except the second article.​

North Carolina

Be it therefore enacted by the general assembly of the state of North Carolina, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That the said amendments agreeable to the fifth article of the original constitution, be held and ratified on the part of this state, as articles in addition to, and amendment of the constitution of the United States of America.​

Rhode Island

Be it enacted by the general assembly, and by the authority thereof it is hereby enacted, That the following articles, proposed by the Congress of the United States of America, at their session in March, A. D. 1789, to the legislatures of the several states for ratification, as amendments to the constitution of the United States, pursuant to the fifth article of the said constitution, be, and the same are hereby fully assented to, and ratified on the part of this state​

​

Had any of those five states, all of which were explicit in their insistence the people's right to keep and bear arms, believed that the amendment had been changed to explicitly strip from the people the protection of the right to keep and bear arms, they would have voted against the 4th, which became the 2nd, amendment.

None of the five voted against the 4th, which became the 2nd, amendment which is absolute proof that they all understood that the right to keep and bear arms as proposed by the States to the Congress and the right to keep and bear arms as proposed by the Congress for ratification had the same meaning.

At no other place in the Constitution do you or the left attempt to claim that "people" is the collective.

In the preamble, does "We the people" refer to the States?

In Article 1, Section 2, does it say that the States will elect the members of the House of Representatives?

In the 1st Amendment, does it give the States the right to assemble to and petition the goverment or is assembling to petition the government an individual right?

In the 4th Amendment, does it secure the right of the States to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure or is it an individual right to be secure from search and seizure?

In the 9th Amendment, you know - the one you like to claim secures the right to abortion, does it secure unenumerated rights to the State or to the individual? Did it secure the right of the State to abort babies or did it secure the right of birthing people to become aborting people?

In the 10th Amendment, were the powers not delegated to the United States reserved to the States and to the States? Or were they reserved to the States and to the People?

Did the 17th Amendment require that the State elect its senators? How does the State do that? Or did it require that the People, each with their individual vote, elect the senators?

Why, in every other case where the word People is used in the Constitution, as amended, the word refers to the individuals but in this one case, you pretend it referred to the collective?

 

[woodwork201]

That's the lie. The genesis of the "collective right" in the federal system occurred in the LOWER federal courts in 1942 with the specific purpose of dismissing and ignoring the Supreme Court's individual right holdings, especially in US v Miller.

You are the liar.

Which 1942 cases are you referring to?

Generally, it is assumed that the collective right theory comes from Miller due to the relationship that the Court found in Miller to arming the militia. It was actually raised in Cruikshank and Presser as well. Where it mostcertainly did not come from was the Founders and writers of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[woodwork201]

So?

How does that change ANYTHING???

All federal gun laws are unconstitutional. PERIOD.

So are all the state ones.

 

[woodwork201]

English not your first language? The sentence as written IN ENGLISH gives to the people the right to own firearms. the preparatory part is simple one of what could be any number of reasons it is not limited nor restrictive on the second part.

Actually, the Founders were explicit in their intent to have the militia as a constitutionally required part of our national defense system. The prefatory clause is as much a requirement on the government as is the individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

[JoeB131]

Their bodyguards don't prove that more gun control is needed, their bodyguards prove that more guns are needed. You should have a gun, and even pay others to carry guns on your behalf, if you prefer, so you can be safe while pretending that you don't like guns.

Except we are the only country in the world where this happens on a regular basis. The reason why the Japanese are in shock is because this sort of thing never happens in their country.

In America, we call it "Tuesday".

English not your first language? The sentence as written IN ENGLISH gives to the people the right to own firearms. the preparatory part is simple one of what could be any number of reasons it is not limited nor restrictive on the second part.

Well, it's pretty clearly written to me... that it's about well-regulated militias, not gun ownership. The Founders didn't like angry mobs with guns, and frequently put them down with- wait for it - well-regulated militias.

 

[miketx]

that it's about well-regulated militias, not gun ownership.

How many times you gonna tell that lie this week, traitor?

 

[miketx]

Except we are the only country in the world where this happens on a regular basis.

Lol, this liar always ignores the fact that his kind regularly release violent criminals back into society. This traitor can't stop lying or deflecting.

 

[Abatis]

Which 1942 cases are you referring to?

Generally, it is assumed that the collective right theory comes from Miller due to the relationship that the Court found in Miller to arming the militia. It was actually raised in Cruikshank and Presser as well. Where it mostcertainly did not come from was the Founders and writers of the 2nd Amendment.

The "collective right" interpretations of the 2ndA were inserted in the federal courts in 1942 in two lower federal court decisions, Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) for the "militia right" and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942) for the "state's right".

Miller speaks of the collective object of the 2nd Amendment, to perpetuate the general militia principle but that does not speak to the nature of the pre-existing, fully retained right to arms, only recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment.

Cruikshank says nothing about militia, that case centered on the actions of militant Whites disarming, kidnapping and lynching two former slaves, then citizens in 1873 Louisiana, a state that had no militia, it being disbanded by the governor on orders from Congress.

Presser focused on the actions of a group of individuals who marched as a private paramilitary organization and drilled armed, in the city of Chicago, without any allowance in state or federal law.

Presser held the 2nd Amendment does not secure any right for private citizens to form themselves as a paramilitary organization (militia) and the state law forbidding that action, did not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, as recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment and thus was constitutional.

Heller reaffirmed the Presser holding:

"Justice Stevens’ statement that Presser “suggested that… nothing in the Constitution protected the use of arms outside the context of a militia,” post, at 40, is simply wrong. Presser said nothing about the Second Amendment’s meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations."​

 

[2aguy]

Except we are the only country in the world where this happens on a regular basis. The reason why the Japanese are in shock is because this sort of thing never happens in their country.

In America, we call it "Tuesday".



Well, it's pretty clearly written to me... that it's about well-regulated militias, not gun ownership. The Founders didn't like angry mobs with guns, and frequently put them down with- wait for it - well-regulated militias.

When was the last political assassination in this country? So no, it doesn’t happen every day here even with our guns and you left wing, violent fascists.

 

[beautress]

They need bodyguards because they are too cowardly to pass real gun reform to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.

Now, if we took the bodyguards away from them, imagine how fast they'd fix the problem.

Darn it, the Second Amendment really IS about militias, they'd all exclaim!

We already have laws to keep guns out of the hands of crazies. Those who sell guns to a nutcase should be nailed for selling them a gun, but they want the money more than they care about what happens sequentially, so it will take some doing to learn who sold the gun to such persons as a Salvador Ramos seeking to kill more schoolchildren than such laconic places as Uvalde, Texas. Somebody profited off the murders of the 19 children and teachers with newly-purchased firearms. Had the law been observed by the profit maker of the AR-15, ammunition, and another gun, Mr. Ramos might have raided someone's home while the inhabitants were on vacation. Mentally sick people can be very surreptitious about the perdition they intentionally incur.

 

[beautress]

Oh yes, I forgot to mention the law, so I looked it up:

• Federal Law Under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
• Link: Possession of Firearms by People With Mental Illness

Not only must one refrain from selling the mentally sick person a gun, one must not give him the gun nor give access to a gun to the mentally ill person, either.

Additionally the link above has a list of state laws against selling guns to those with psychiatric disorders, etc.

Exempla gratia:

Texas

Gov't Code § 411.172 A person is eligible for a license to carry a handgun if the person: Is not a chemically dependent person; and Is not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun. A person is incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person: Has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or intellectual ability; Suffers from a psychiatric disorder or condition that: Is in remission but is reasonably likely to redevelop at a future time; or Requires continuous medical treatment to avoid redevelopment. Has been diagnosed by a licensed physician, determined by a review board or similar authority, or declared by a court to be incompetent to manage the person’s own affairs; or Has entered in a criminal proceeding a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

 

[MikeK]

The left often argues that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says; mostly lying, sometimes just ignorantly, they claim that the first half of the sentence sets a reason or requirement for the second half.

As Ratified:
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.

As voted out of Congress:
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.

The Courts continue to try to parse the extra comma as though it changes the meaning. If they were right, if it did change the meaning, then the 2nd Amendment would not be valid at all. It is not possible for the States to ratify something other than what Congress proposed. No provision of Article V permits the Constitution to be amended that way.

So, comma or no comma, the meaning is exactly the same. And this is a very important point. Different writers and transcribers may have different styles (and the Internet Grammar Police didn't yet exist to tell them if their style wasn't perfect). Comma or no comma, the Amendment ratified has the exact same meaning and interpretation as the Amendment from Congress. Were it not so, the issue of the comma would have been raised in 1791.

So, now we accept that writers and transcribers might write something differently but it is accepted by the Founders to be exactly the same and requiring not even a discussion of the difference.

So let's look at what is referred to as the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. The left claims that it sets up a prerequisite that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the State and only necessary for those who serve in the militia. But consider what was originally written and proposed for the right to keep and bear arms.

It will be interesting to discuss first, though, that many claim that James Madison is the author of the Bill of Rights. This could not be further from the truth. James Madison was the editor of the Bill of Rights but variations on each and every theme were discussed and written multiple times by multiple people in multiple ways. Even then, many of the concepts were taken directly from the Magna Carte.

The document, Journal, Acts and Proceedings, The Convention Assembled at Philadelphia, Monday, May 14, and Dissolved Monday, September 17, 1787, which Formed the Constitution of the United States, includes the exact writings of the various State conventions upon ratifying the Constitution. In several of those ratifying document, the States included the very amendments they insisted should be passed immediately. After ratification, other states and scholars proposed additional sets of amendments.

No, Madison did not author the Bill of Rights; he simply compiled it.

In the ratifying documents to the Constitution, as I said, several States included what they wanted in the first amendments to the Constitution - phrased and paraphrased as a bill of rights but not yet titled the Bill of Rights. In red below is the first page mentioning ratify for those States and then which page to find that State's demand for the right to keep and bear arms.

New Hampshire 412 - see 415 for RKBA: XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

Virginia 417 - see bottom of 420 to 421 for RKBA: XVII. That the people have aright to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

New York 431 - see page 427 for New Yorks RKBA clause: That the people have a right to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

North Carolina 452 - see 443 for RKBA: XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the cir- cumstances and protection of the community will admit ; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.

Rhode Island 452 (same page as NC) see 456 for RKBA: xvii. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection; that standing armies in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrate in such manner as the law directs.


In each of these, other than New Hampshire - which is really the best, there are multiple concepts combined into what we'd call a long-running sentence today. Things like a standing army, housing soldiers, the militia and martial law, and military subordination to civil power are only connected in the loosest of ways and yet were all in the same sentence. Just because multiple ideas are in the same sentence, in the style of the day, does not mean that one idea is dependent on the other ideas.

Considering the multiple ideas, note that in each case where the militia is mentioned in the same sentence as the right to keep and bear arms, the right to keep and bear arms came first. Quoting Rhode Island as example: That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ;

There's no confusion about how that is written. The same sentences explicitly recognizes that the people have an individual right to keep and bear arms and the, separately, states that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bear arms, JUST AS I HAVE BEEN POSTING in many threads, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state. Two different ideas in the same sentence.

So how did it get reversed? Notice that in the Rhode Island version, there is the right to keep and bear arms, quartering soldiers, standing army, and the militia as the proper defense of the nation. Others were similar but not exactly the same. This is where James Madison comes in as editor. From all of the input that came from all of the States and others, he had to standardize the specific protections to send to the Congress for approval to send to the States. That meant clarifying, simplifying, separating, ordering, and even choosing some ideas over others. Even then, he didn't do that in a vacuum sitting alone in his house; it was a collaboration.

So, in that clean up of the diverse writing styles of the various States, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ; became, 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.

That this change was not hotly debated and was broadly accepted, is proof that, to the Founders, to the Congress, to the Legislatures of the period, the two versions had EXACTLY the same meaning, just as did two commas versus three commas. They all, to the people of the time, meant EXACTLY the same thing.

This completely destroys the militia argument against the individual right to keep and bear arms and proves, absolutely and without doubt, that what I have been saying, that what is called the prefatory phrase, is simply a requirement that the militia, consisting of all those who can bear arms, be the first line of defense against invasion and insurrection.

I have proven beyond question that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not connected to militia service.

Brilliant and skillful interpretation. Thank you.