The Right To Bear Arms

[emilynghiem]

I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from carrying a gun.
(this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. 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. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.

Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of carrying a gun.

Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."

Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.

Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of carrying a gun, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of carrying a gun, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.

Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of carrying a gun? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.

I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.

The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,

Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.

Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.

Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.

Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.

[20 Aug.]

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to carry a gun, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to carry a gun.

Okay

1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.

Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?

I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.

2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?

Again, any evidence for this? No.

I could go on and on.

There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.

Dear frigidweirdo

I thought the Founders were worried about giving authority to Federal govt to control the armed forces without check coming from states and people.

The British forces did practice impressment of captured American sailors and forcing them to fight for the Crown.

Given the fear of having arms confiscated by controlling govt,
that is why I tend to believe the intent of the Founders was to preserve
the right of the PEOPLE to fight against abuses especially tyrannical
abuse of govt powers to unfairly oppress individuals.

Now given your previous clarification
my understanding is you do support the right of citizens
to self defense within lawful use of arms,
so where we disagree is on the context and intent
of the Second Amendment, literally, which you do not
see or use as applying to individual rights to self defense
or engaging in law enforcement outsides the "regulated militia" context.

As long as we agree on the spirit of the laws,
If the language we use differs, I am okay adapting to
each person's way of expressing that so we can still
reach agreement on the content and principles of what is lawful.

 

[emilynghiem]

Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

the unorganized militia may be infringed.

sorry R2D2 militias don't have rights, people do. the right of individual people cannot be infringed.

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.

Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.

I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.

That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well. So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.

Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!

In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *

Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!

Yours truly,
Emily
Glad to live in Texas!

* Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt.

Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms.

You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.

I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?

The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.

The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need.

The same for militia personnel.

????
RE:
"You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member."
That's what I mean, if you are IN the militia that is what I mean by being a member.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Never in the history of the US have so many people allegedly taken so many innocent lives in one year.

The year after Trump was elected.

There's no way these goings on are not organized by people that want to do away with gun rights (2nd amendment).

Every attack is aimed squarely at the 2nd amendment. I don't need the government to keep me safe.

I can keep myself safe, thank you. Because I have guns.

When you only have seconds, the police are minutes away.

Funny how they responded to a strange knock on my door 3x faster than the Las Vegas mass shooter. ( If that even happened).


It may have, but if it did, no one man perpetrated that, their hand is overplayed there.

 

[ChrisL]

Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

the unorganized militia may be infringed.

sorry R2D2 militias don't have rights, people do. the right of individual people cannot be infringed.

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.

Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.

I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.

That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well. So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.

Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!

In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *

Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!

Yours truly,
Emily
Glad to live in Texas!

* Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt.

Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms.

You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.

I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?

The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.

The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need.

The same for militia personnel.

As the founders stated numerous times in the papers that describe the constitution, the militia is made of the PEOPLE, the entirety of the PEOPLE of the US. You are doing nothing but willfully lying to twist the 2nd amendment which is in the BILL OF RIGHTS (which means the right of the people) to mean what YOU want it to mean. Educate yourself because you are foolish and ignorant.

 

[ChrisL]

From the founding fathers themselves . . .

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

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

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"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."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

 

[emilynghiem]

No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.

The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.

So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.

I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.

So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.

This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!

Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo

Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.

I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief. I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
I would be MISERABLE AS FU.

I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.

So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.

Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.

So glad I take this approach.

Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.

It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.

So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.

He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.

You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.

The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.

I'm sorry Emily, I really don't see how you have come to the conclusion that "the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia."

I didn't say that. I'm worried that you're not understanding what I'm writing, or worried even more that you're not reading what I'm writing and just thinking you know what I'm saying.

I'll explain.

The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons. The reason why this is protected in the 2A is so that it protects the militia. The US federal govt could call people up into federal service, then take away their guns while there. The 2A prevents this.

An individual gets to keep guns when not in the militia too. The reason for the protection is the militia, but this doesn't limit ownership to militia membership in any way.

Why? Well, because this would destroy the militia. The militia needs a ready supply of arms in times of need, you take them away from individuals in times with no need, then in times of need there is no need.

The same for the right to bear arms. You have a right to be in the militia in times of quiet and in times of need. Without people being in the militia in times of quiet, then in times of need it might be impossible to get into the militia.

Hi frigidweirdo and thanks for clarifying and explaining in depth and detail
So are you saying that
individuals have the right to keep arms
but only to bear arms within a govt regulated militia?

Not really.

I'm saying individuals have a right to keep arms and individuals have a right to be in the militia.

Basically what you just said is "but only to be in the militia within a govt regulated militia", well, yes, there is only one Militia you can belong to and that's your state militia where the state appoints the officers.

The Founding Fathers didn't want to have tinpot armies appearing everywhere. That wouldn't be a good force, it would threaten the Constitution and good government and may not prevent bad government.

There is a right to self defense, and with that a right to carry guns LAWFULLY (ie, if they make a law preventing it, then you can't, so much for a right huh?) but it's just not in the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment isn't about self defense.

Had it started "self defence is an important right for individual citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear arms" then I might agree with your stance. But it doesn't.

Okay frigidweirdo so you do believe in the right of self defense of individuals to carry/bear arms lawfully but you just don't believe in citing the Second Amendment to justify that. That's fair.

I also agree that the right is limited to LAWFULLY.

So it looks like where we disagree is on how the Second Amendment is used or abused.

That's understandable also, since I also "stretch" the use of the given language in the Bill of Rights in order to EXPRESS natural laws underlying these principles.

So I also use more liberty in interpretations that go beyond history and tradition.

For example, I have used "right peaceably to assemble" more liberally to mean the right to peace in public, and not to be subjected to a breach or disruption of the people by other people's abusive, violent or threatening actions.

That's not the usual interpretation, but when dealing with natural laws, I either cite that passage or the "right to security in persons houses and effects" to mean the right of people to have security and protection from unlawful threats of violating their rights. This goes beyond just GOVT not infringing, but people respecting each other's rights and not threatening violations on each other!

I interpret "the right to petition for redress of grievances" more broadly than just govt, but among people if we are to be our own govt and resolve our own issues.

I understand that other people may not accept or follow these broader generalized interpretations, but that is the closest I can come when trying to explain the natural law principles underlying the Bill of Rights. I use free exercise of religion to mean free will and both political and religious beliefs equally, which is not established precedent either. But that to me is closer to reflecting natural laws that cover the broader scope of what people will defend of their free will, consent, beliefs etc.

As long as we agree on principles and the spirit of the laws, that is the main thing.
people will not all agree on language, so that is relative anyway.

I'm glad we agree more than disagree on the spirit of the laws.
The other differences I can deal with, as long as we get the same meaning
overall.

Thanks for explaining, and in the future, I would strongly suggest
you make it clear that you do believe in the individual rights lawfully invoked.

If you emphasize this as clearly as you did here,
then it's clear you are not threatening other people's core beliefs,
but just stating historical disagreement on WHERE the law
defines or protects this. You are not negating the principle
but just the language and law being cited.

Thank you very much and I hope you find more
success in reconciling with others by focusing on the
spirit and principles of the laws where you agree first,
before addressing the differences and disagreements.

If more people understood that you are not dismissing
the content of the principles but just the letter of the law being cited,
you should be heard and received more readily!

I agree there's a right to self defense. As for carrying guns, it's not really a right. I know this because the NRA supports carry and conceal permits. If you need a permit to carry guns, then it's not a right, but a privilege, it's allowed by law in certain circumstances.

Well, I am threatening people's core beliefs. The first belief being that they know everything and don't need to be told. There are so many people on forums like this who just "believe" and don't take any time to understand.

No, you are not like danielpalos that is completely NEGATING the core beliefs.

compared with that, you are more like disagreeing over
the "letter of the law" while maintaining the same spirit.

If people mistake you for someone arguing for what danielpalos
is saying, then yes, you would come across as negating their beliefs.

you are closer to expressing the same basic principles
but just don't agree on the laws/language used to justify or defend those points.

Thus I think you will be more successful overall frigidweirdo
it's not just a matter of people taking the time to understand
but your taking the time to explain as you spelled out with me.

That wasn't clear in your previous messages,
so I hope you START with those clarifications from now on
instead of waiting until the last 20 pages of messages
to figure out where we actually agreed and where we differed.

The points and spirit of agreement are much greater
than the differences which are resolvable in that context.

Thanks again and I hope it gets easier from here on!

 

[ChrisL]

The "militia" IS the people, the citizens of the United States. This is stated MANY times in the discussion of the 2nd amendment by the founding fathers. There. K? End of discussion on THAT matter.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The "militia" IS the people, the citizens of the United States. This is stated MANY times in the discussion of the 2nd amendment by the founding fathers. There. K? End of discussion on THAT matter.

Until the next 3 walls of meaningless text, you mean. Brace yourself.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from carrying a gun.
(this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. 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. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.

Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of carrying a gun.

Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."

Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.

Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of carrying a gun, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of carrying a gun, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.

Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of carrying a gun? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.

I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.

The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,

Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.

Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.

Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.

Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.

[20 Aug.]

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to carry a gun, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to carry a gun.

Okay

1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.

Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?

I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.

2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?

Again, any evidence for this? No.

I could go on and on.

There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.

Dear frigidweirdo

I thought the Founders were worried about giving authority to Federal govt to control the armed forces without check coming from states and people.

The British forces did practice impressment of captured American sailors and forcing them to fight for the Crown.

Given the fear of having arms confiscated by controlling govt,
that is why I tend to believe the intent of the Founders was to preserve
the right of the PEOPLE to fight against abuses especially tyrannical
abuse of govt powers to unfairly oppress individuals.

Now given your previous clarification
my understanding is you do support the right of citizens
to self defense within lawful use of arms,
so where we disagree is on the context and intent
of the Second Amendment, literally, which you do not
see or use as applying to individual rights to self defense
or engaging in law enforcement outsides the "regulated militia" context.

As long as we agree on the spirit of the laws,
If the language we use differs, I am okay adapting to
each person's way of expressing that so we can still
reach agreement on the content and principles of what is lawful.

Yes, they were. And to have a check and balance against the Federal Armed forces, you have the militia.

But THE militia, not militias, not a bunch of criminals posing as militias. They set out the militia and how it would function in Article 1 Section 8.

I'm not sure where you think the language differs.

There's clearly a BIG difference between protecting the right of individuals to be in the militia and protecting the right to carry guns around.

With the latter you DON'T protect the right of individuals to be in the militia, therefore the militia is an ineffective tool against govt mal-administration, and in the words of Mr Gerry 'What's the point?' (well not his words, but more or least meant this.)

 

[Marion Morrison]

I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from carrying a gun.
(this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. 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. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.

Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of carrying a gun.

Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."

Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.

Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of carrying a gun, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of carrying a gun, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.

Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of carrying a gun? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.

I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.

The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,

Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.

Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.

Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.

Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.

[20 Aug.]

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to carry a gun, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to carry a gun.

Okay

1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.

Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?

I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.

2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?

Again, any evidence for this? No.

I could go on and on.

There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.

Dear frigidweirdo

I thought the Founders were worried about giving authority to Federal govt to control the armed forces without check coming from states and people.

The British forces did practice impressment of captured American sailors and forcing them to fight for the Crown.

Given the fear of having arms confiscated by controlling govt,
that is why I tend to believe the intent of the Founders was to preserve
the right of the PEOPLE to fight against abuses especially tyrannical
abuse of govt powers to unfairly oppress individuals.

Now given your previous clarification
my understanding is you do support the right of citizens
to self defense within lawful use of arms,
so where we disagree is on the context and intent
of the Second Amendment, literally, which you do not
see or use as applying to individual rights to self defense
or engaging in law enforcement outsides the "regulated militia" context.

As long as we agree on the spirit of the laws,
If the language we use differs, I am okay adapting to
each person's way of expressing that so we can still
reach agreement on the content and principles of what is lawful.

Yes, they were. And to have a check and balance against the Federal Armed forces, you have the militia.

But THE militia, not militias, not a bunch of criminals posing as militias. They set out the militia and how it would function in Article 1 Section 8.

I'm not sure where you think the language differs.

There's clearly a BIG difference between protecting the right of individuals to be in the militia and protecting the right to carry guns around.

With the latter you DON'T protect the right of individuals to be in the militia, therefore the militia is an ineffective tool against govt mal-administration, and in the words of Mr Gerry 'What's the point?' (well not his words, but more or least meant this.)

My, what a wobbly spin.

You're an idiot.

The militia is every capable citizen, jackass.

Now go read some more about "Endowed by their Creator" and give us your warped interpretation of that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm sorry Emily, I really don't see how you have come to the conclusion that "the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia."

I didn't say that. I'm worried that you're not understanding what I'm writing, or worried even more that you're not reading what I'm writing and just thinking you know what I'm saying.

I'll explain.

The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons. The reason why this is protected in the 2A is so that it protects the militia. The US federal govt could call people up into federal service, then take away their guns while there. The 2A prevents this.

An individual gets to keep guns when not in the militia too. The reason for the protection is the militia, but this doesn't limit ownership to militia membership in any way.

Why? Well, because this would destroy the militia. The militia needs a ready supply of arms in times of need, you take them away from individuals in times with no need, then in times of need there is no need.

The same for the right to bear arms. You have a right to be in the militia in times of quiet and in times of need. Without people being in the militia in times of quiet, then in times of need it might be impossible to get into the militia.

Hi frigidweirdo and thanks for clarifying and explaining in depth and detail
So are you saying that
individuals have the right to keep arms
but only to bear arms within a govt regulated militia?

Not really.

I'm saying individuals have a right to keep arms and individuals have a right to be in the militia.

Basically what you just said is "but only to be in the militia within a govt regulated militia", well, yes, there is only one Militia you can belong to and that's your state militia where the state appoints the officers.

The Founding Fathers didn't want to have tinpot armies appearing everywhere. That wouldn't be a good force, it would threaten the Constitution and good government and may not prevent bad government.

There is a right to self defense, and with that a right to carry guns LAWFULLY (ie, if they make a law preventing it, then you can't, so much for a right huh?) but it's just not in the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment isn't about self defense.

Had it started "self defence is an important right for individual citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear arms" then I might agree with your stance. But it doesn't.

Okay frigidweirdo so you do believe in the right of self defense of individuals to carry/bear arms lawfully but you just don't believe in citing the Second Amendment to justify that. That's fair.

I also agree that the right is limited to LAWFULLY.

So it looks like where we disagree is on how the Second Amendment is used or abused.

That's understandable also, since I also "stretch" the use of the given language in the Bill of Rights in order to EXPRESS natural laws underlying these principles.

So I also use more liberty in interpretations that go beyond history and tradition.

For example, I have used "right peaceably to assemble" more liberally to mean the right to peace in public, and not to be subjected to a breach or disruption of the people by other people's abusive, violent or threatening actions.

That's not the usual interpretation, but when dealing with natural laws, I either cite that passage or the "right to security in persons houses and effects" to mean the right of people to have security and protection from unlawful threats of violating their rights. This goes beyond just GOVT not infringing, but people respecting each other's rights and not threatening violations on each other!

I interpret "the right to petition for redress of grievances" more broadly than just govt, but among people if we are to be our own govt and resolve our own issues.

I understand that other people may not accept or follow these broader generalized interpretations, but that is the closest I can come when trying to explain the natural law principles underlying the Bill of Rights. I use free exercise of religion to mean free will and both political and religious beliefs equally, which is not established precedent either. But that to me is closer to reflecting natural laws that cover the broader scope of what people will defend of their free will, consent, beliefs etc.

As long as we agree on principles and the spirit of the laws, that is the main thing.
people will not all agree on language, so that is relative anyway.

I'm glad we agree more than disagree on the spirit of the laws.
The other differences I can deal with, as long as we get the same meaning
overall.

Thanks for explaining, and in the future, I would strongly suggest
you make it clear that you do believe in the individual rights lawfully invoked.

If you emphasize this as clearly as you did here,
then it's clear you are not threatening other people's core beliefs,
but just stating historical disagreement on WHERE the law
defines or protects this. You are not negating the principle
but just the language and law being cited.

Thank you very much and I hope you find more
success in reconciling with others by focusing on the
spirit and principles of the laws where you agree first,
before addressing the differences and disagreements.

If more people understood that you are not dismissing
the content of the principles but just the letter of the law being cited,
you should be heard and received more readily!

I agree there's a right to self defense. As for carrying guns, it's not really a right. I know this because the NRA supports carry and conceal permits. If you need a permit to carry guns, then it's not a right, but a privilege, it's allowed by law in certain circumstances.

Well, I am threatening people's core beliefs. The first belief being that they know everything and don't need to be told. There are so many people on forums like this who just "believe" and don't take any time to understand.

No, you are not like danielpalos that is completely NEGATING the core beliefs.

compared with that, you are more like disagreeing over
the "letter of the law" while maintaining the same spirit.

If people mistake you for someone arguing for what danielpalos
is saying, then yes, you would come across as negating their beliefs.

you are closer to expressing the same basic principles
but just don't agree on the laws/language used to justify or defend those points.

Thus I think you will be more successful overall frigidweirdo
it's not just a matter of people taking the time to understand
but your taking the time to explain as you spelled out with me.

That wasn't clear in your previous messages,
so I hope you START with those clarifications from now on
instead of waiting until the last 20 pages of messages
to figure out where we actually agreed and where we differed.

The points and spirit of agreement are much greater
than the differences which are resolvable in that context.

Thanks again and I hope it gets easier from here on!

Well yes, I'm like that. The problem is most people AREN'T like that.

People come on here and say how much the Bill of Rights and human rights and all of that means to them, so they can keep their guns. Talk about gay marriage and other such freedoms and they'll be totally opposed. Rights are meaningless, who cares? It's basically them wanting what they can get and they'll use any argument to get it.

This is why they don't like what I'm saying about "bear arms" and will ignore all the evidence. Because A) they don't understand and B) they don't care to understand.

 

[frigidweirdo]

sorry R2D2 militias don't have rights, people do. the right of individual people cannot be infringed.

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.

Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.

I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.

That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well. So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.

Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!

In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *

Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!

Yours truly,
Emily
Glad to live in Texas!

* Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt.

Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms.

You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.

I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?

The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.

The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need.

The same for militia personnel.

????
RE:
"You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member."
That's what I mean, if you are IN the militia that is what I mean by being a member.

Yes, so you have a right to be in the militia whether you're in the militia or not in the militia. That's why it's a right. You can't have rights for some people and not others, they're not rights, they're privileges.

 

[emilynghiem]

I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from carrying a gun.
(this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. 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. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.

Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of carrying a gun.

Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."

Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.

Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of carrying a gun, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of carrying a gun, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.

Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of carrying a gun? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.

I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.

The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,

Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.

Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.

Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.

Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.

[20 Aug.]

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to carry a gun, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to carry a gun.

Okay

1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.

Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?

I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.

2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?

Again, any evidence for this? No.

I could go on and on.

There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.

Dear frigidweirdo

I thought the Founders were worried about giving authority to Federal govt to control the armed forces without check coming from states and people.

The British forces did practice impressment of captured American sailors and forcing them to fight for the Crown.

Given the fear of having arms confiscated by controlling govt,
that is why I tend to believe the intent of the Founders was to preserve
the right of the PEOPLE to fight against abuses especially tyrannical
abuse of govt powers to unfairly oppress individuals.

Now given your previous clarification
my understanding is you do support the right of citizens
to self defense within lawful use of arms,
so where we disagree is on the context and intent
of the Second Amendment, literally, which you do not
see or use as applying to individual rights to self defense
or engaging in law enforcement outsides the "regulated militia" context.

As long as we agree on the spirit of the laws,
If the language we use differs, I am okay adapting to
each person's way of expressing that so we can still
reach agreement on the content and principles of what is lawful.

Yes, they were. And to have a check and balance against the Federal Armed forces, you have the militia.

But THE militia, not militias, not a bunch of criminals posing as militias. They set out the militia and how it would function in Article 1 Section 8.

I'm not sure where you think the language differs.

There's clearly a BIG difference between protecting the right of individuals to be in the militia and protecting the right to carry guns around.

With the latter you DON'T protect the right of individuals to be in the militia, therefore the militia is an ineffective tool against govt mal-administration, and in the words of Mr Gerry 'What's the point?' (well not his words, but more or least meant this.)

Well frigidweirdo if you take what you are saying and what ChrisL posted, the culture I am used to in Texas is more like all citizens having the right to "be in the militia without being a formal member"

It IS like people acting as "militia" and not as criminal or lawless individuals.

So the common factor we might agree on is whether people are defending law instead of violating it. And where we still seem to disagree is how literal we are with the term "militia." If it is the equivalent of people then there is no reason to haggle. As long as we agree the people should be law abiding and not abuse arms for lawlessness.

 

[Marion Morrison]

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.

Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.

I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.

That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well. So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.

Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!

In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *

Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!

Yours truly,
Emily
Glad to live in Texas!

* Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt.

Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms.

You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.

I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?

The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.

The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need.

The same for militia personnel.

????
RE:
"You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member."
That's what I mean, if you are IN the militia that is what I mean by being a member.

Yes, so you have a right to be in the militia whether you're in the militia or not in the militia. That's why it's a right. You can't have rights for some people and not others, they're not rights, they're privileges.

Inalienable rights are not privileges.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from carrying a gun.
(this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. 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. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.

Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of carrying a gun.

Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."

Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.

Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of carrying a gun, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of carrying a gun, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.

Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of carrying a gun? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.

I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.

The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,

Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.

Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.

Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.

Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.

[20 Aug.]

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to carry a gun, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to carry a gun.

Okay

1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.

Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?

I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.

2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?

Again, any evidence for this? No.

I could go on and on.

There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.

Dear frigidweirdo

I thought the Founders were worried about giving authority to Federal govt to control the armed forces without check coming from states and people.

The British forces did practice impressment of captured American sailors and forcing them to fight for the Crown.

Given the fear of having arms confiscated by controlling govt,
that is why I tend to believe the intent of the Founders was to preserve
the right of the PEOPLE to fight against abuses especially tyrannical
abuse of govt powers to unfairly oppress individuals.

Now given your previous clarification
my understanding is you do support the right of citizens
to self defense within lawful use of arms,
so where we disagree is on the context and intent
of the Second Amendment, literally, which you do not
see or use as applying to individual rights to self defense
or engaging in law enforcement outsides the "regulated militia" context.

As long as we agree on the spirit of the laws,
If the language we use differs, I am okay adapting to
each person's way of expressing that so we can still
reach agreement on the content and principles of what is lawful.

Yes, they were. And to have a check and balance against the Federal Armed forces, you have the militia.

But THE militia, not militias, not a bunch of criminals posing as militias. They set out the militia and how it would function in Article 1 Section 8.

I'm not sure where you think the language differs.

There's clearly a BIG difference between protecting the right of individuals to be in the militia and protecting the right to carry guns around.

With the latter you DON'T protect the right of individuals to be in the militia, therefore the militia is an ineffective tool against govt mal-administration, and in the words of Mr Gerry 'What's the point?' (well not his words, but more or least meant this.)

Well frigidweirdo if you take what you are saying and what ChrisL posted, the culture I am used to in Texas is more like all citizens having the right to "be in the militia without being a formal member"

It IS like people acting as "militia" and not as criminal or lawless individuals.

So the common factor we might agree on is whether people are defending law instead of violating it. And where we still seem to disagree is how literal we are with the term "militia." If it is the equivalent of people then there is no reason to haggle. As long as we agree the people should be law abiding and not abuse arms for lawlessness.

The militia is explained in Article 1 Section 8. If what you have isn't like that, then it's not the militia, and there's no protection to be in such an organization.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.

Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.

I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.

That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well. So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.

Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!

In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *

Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!

Yours truly,
Emily
Glad to live in Texas!

* Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt.

Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms.

You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.

I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?

The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.

The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need.

The same for militia personnel.

????
RE:
"You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member."
That's what I mean, if you are IN the militia that is what I mean by being a member.

Yes, so you have a right to be in the militia whether you're in the militia or not in the militia. That's why it's a right. You can't have rights for some people and not others, they're not rights, they're privileges.

Inalienable rights are not privileges.

Dear Marion Morrison
i would say "right to defense" is inalienable and naturally occuring; but right to bear arms involves man made weapons that require lawful agreements. Similar to why "right to life" is naturally occurring but "right to health care" involves man made resources that require consent of other people affected.

 

[turtledude]

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.

Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.

I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.

That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well. So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.

Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!

In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *

Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!

Yours truly,
Emily
Glad to live in Texas!

* Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt.

Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms.

You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.

I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?

The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.

The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need.

The same for militia personnel.

????
RE:
"You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member."
That's what I mean, if you are IN the militia that is what I mean by being a member.

Yes, so you have a right to be in the militia whether you're in the militia or not in the militia. That's why it's a right. You can't have rights for some people and not others, they're not rights, they're privileges.

where does any part of the bill of rights say you have to be in the militia? women don't, men over a certain age don't

 

[ChrisL]

Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.

I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.

That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well. So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.

Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!

In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *

Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!

Yours truly,
Emily
Glad to live in Texas!

* Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt.

Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms.

You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.

I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?

The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.

The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need.

The same for militia personnel.

????
RE:
"You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member."
That's what I mean, if you are IN the militia that is what I mean by being a member.

Yes, so you have a right to be in the militia whether you're in the militia or not in the militia. That's why it's a right. You can't have rights for some people and not others, they're not rights, they're privileges.

Inalienable rights are not privileges.

Dear Marion Morrison
i would say "right to defense" is inalienable and naturally occuring; but right to bear arms involves man made weapons that require lawful agreements. Similar to why "right to life" is naturally occurring but "right to health care" involves man made resources that require consent of other people affected.

There is NO question if you've read the accompanying paperwork to the Constitution. The founders are clear that their intent is that every able bodied American citizen was to bear arms. In fact, they were EXPECTED to.

 

[Markle]

I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from carrying a gun.
(this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. 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. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.

Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of carrying a gun.

Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."

Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.

Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of carrying a gun, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of carrying a gun, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.

Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of carrying a gun? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.

I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.

The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,

Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.

Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.

Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.

Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.

[20 Aug.]

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to carry a gun, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to carry a gun.

Okay

1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.

Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?

I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.

2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?

Again, any evidence for this? No.

I could go on and on.

There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.

Dear frigidweirdo

I thought the Founders were worried about giving authority to Federal govt to control the armed forces without check coming from states and people.

The British forces did practice impressment of captured American sailors and forcing them to fight for the Crown.

Given the fear of having arms confiscated by controlling govt,
that is why I tend to believe the intent of the Founders was to preserve
the right of the PEOPLE to fight against abuses especially tyrannical
abuse of govt powers to unfairly oppress individuals.

Now given your previous clarification
my understanding is you do support the right of citizens
to self defense within lawful use of arms,
so where we disagree is on the context and intent
of the Second Amendment, literally, which you do not
see or use as applying to individual rights to self defense
or engaging in law enforcement outsides the "regulated militia" context.

As long as we agree on the spirit of the laws,
If the language we use differs, I am okay adapting to
each person's way of expressing that so we can still
reach agreement on the content and principles of what is lawful.

Yes, they were. And to have a check and balance against the Federal Armed forces, you have the militia.

But THE militia, not militias, not a bunch of criminals posing as militias. They set out the militia and how it would function in Article 1 Section 8.

I'm not sure where you think the language differs.

There's clearly a BIG difference between protecting the right of individuals to be in the militia and protecting the right to carry guns around.

With the latter you DON'T protect the right of individuals to be in the militia, therefore the militia is an ineffective tool against govt mal-administration, and in the words of Mr Gerry 'What's the point?' (well not his words, but more or least meant this.)

Well frigidweirdo if you take what you are saying and what ChrisL posted, the culture I am used to in Texas is more like all citizens having the right to "be in the militia without being a formal member"

It IS like people acting as "militia" and not as criminal or lawless individuals.

So the common factor we might agree on is whether people are defending law instead of violating it. And where we still seem to disagree is how literal we are with the term "militia." If it is the equivalent of people then there is no reason to haggle. As long as we agree the people should be law abiding and not abuse arms for lawlessness.

The militia is explained in Article 1 Section 8. If what you have isn't like that, then it's not the militia, and there's no protection to be in such an organization.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.

Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.

I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.

That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well. So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.

Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!

In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *

Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!

Yours truly,
Emily
Glad to live in Texas!

* Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt.

Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms.

You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.

I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?

The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.

The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need.

The same for militia personnel.

????
RE:
"You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member."
That's what I mean, if you are IN the militia that is what I mean by being a member.

Yes, so you have a right to be in the militia whether you're in the militia or not in the militia. That's why it's a right. You can't have rights for some people and not others, they're not rights, they're privileges.

where does any part of the bill of rights say you have to be in the militia? women don't, men over a certain age don't

I would call his argument "desperate measures" on his part because he has failed so miserably to make any kind of valid argument whatsoever, going from the definition of "keep" to the definition of "militia," he has been shot down in every way (pun intended )