The Right To Bear Arms

[turtledude]

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.

I am advocating for a Ninth Amendment, right to not keep and bear Arms and draft gun lovers, first.

that's idiotic R2D2. if the thought of keeping or bearing firearms causes you to void in your panties, then by all means don't own a gun.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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 havi

They wouldn't. Your entire argument is
Bear arms = military service

Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.

Well, read this again:

"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 bear arms, 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 bear arms."

Use what? Arms? Not military service, but use guns.

So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns? Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term. He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.

Bear arms means use guns.

You are right. We don't have the right to keep and carry. We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed. You pinted yourself into that corner.

No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.

Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.

Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.

In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.

However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?

The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.

"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."

Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....

Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.

You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.

If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?

bear means to carry. Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.

Yes, it does.

And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.

There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?

Give me a break, this is simple English.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No "bear" can mean carry. "bear arms" could mean carry arms. However there are times when people use phrases to mean something different to the usual meaning, and we have here a situation where the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service", and not just in this document, but elsewhere.

But before we even look back to their intent:

"We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.:" Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.,447 U.S. 102 (1980). "n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.'" 503 U.S. 249, 254.

You are trying to give the words keep and bear arms a meaning that is not ordinary or usual in that context, especially given the expression is stated as a right, not a duty. No one has ever expressed a right to be compelled into military service or a right to pay taxes. The ordinary meaning of compelling military service is a duty. Because "bear arms" could be used both ways, the language itself is clear regarding duty verses right.

I don't think we even get to a discussion about legislative intent, because there is no ambiguity, but I will go ahead and entertain your argument and assume there is an ambiguity, despite such an exercise being unnecessary under the circumstances.

Get me a source where some founder at that time expressed a legal duty as a right, and I will take a hard look.

I've given you such a source. We've been talking about it for ages.

I don't have time now, but I'll send you Washington's Peace Establishment thing later.

As for "ordinary language", come on, it was written in 1789.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why the hell would the Founding Fathers

A) protect the right of individuals to carry guns around with them in an Amendment about the Militia? What does an individual carrying guns around have to do with the militia exactly?

Because, when read as a whole, the effect is NOT to establish a militia. We end up here every fucking time. IT IS NOT ABOUT ESTABLISHING OR ARMING A MILITIA. That is already done in Art. 1, Sec. 8.

The effect of the Amendment is prohibiting the federal government from infringing on pre-existing rights. Those are the right to keep and the right to bear. It makes no difference whether those arms would be used in a militia. It is a protection of those pre-existing rights.

B) why they therefore would not protect one of the two things a militia needs in order to function when you have some of the Founding Fathers basically saying "if you put this clause into the Constitution then there's no point in having the amendment because the militia will be totally useless"

I don't follow your point.

Congress was granted the power to organize, arm, and "discipline" or train, a militia in Art.1, Sec.8. The people wouldn't need to be armed i Congress could arm them.

C) the NRA supports carry and conceal permits which would be complete UNNECESSARY if there were a right recognized to walk around with guns and

Or, the NRA is trying to restore what we should already have, by doing what it does best. Lobbying. The NRA is doing what you are doing, but in reverse Piecemeal restoration, instead of piecemeal erosion.

D) why the Supreme Court said there is no right in the Second Amendment that protects the carrying of arms.

When? I call bullshit. You can't be referring to Presser, because the Court specifically HELD that the 2nd Amendment is a prohibition against Congress, and that Illinois was under no such prohibition. If you are trying to tie Presser to the 2nd, you are mistaken.

The problem you have with your argument is that A) I haven't said it's about establishing a militia. B) article 1 section 8 is about arming the militia by THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

You're basically saying the militia doesn't need to be armed because the militia has the federal govt to arm it, but the militia is supposed to be a check and balance on the federal govt. So, what happens if the militia isn't armed by the Federal govt? Er.. there's no militia and there's no check on the Federal govt.

So what's the point of the militia then?

Mr Gerry said: "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.

In other words, if there's mal-administration from the govt, EVER, then we don't need to have such protections of rights.

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself."

Okay, the clause being that last clause that never made it into the final version. How would "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." destroy the Constitution itself exactly?

I'll leave that for you to answer.

Yes, the Amendment is there to protect pre-existing rights. What pre-existing rights does the 2A protect? The right to lick one's own ass? No, it's not in there. To carry arms around in the streets? No. It's not in there. To be in the militia? Yes.

The point you don't follow is basically what I've just said above, what Mr Gerry speaks about.

The NRA doesn't lobby to get rid of carry and conceal permits, as far as I know. They know what it means, and they make sure you people don't. They know they'd get kicked in the Supreme Court.

I know what Presser is, and I know Presser said that the 2A doesn't protect people from drilling with arms in cities and towns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No "bear" can mean carry. "bear arms" could mean carry arms. However there are times when people use phrases to mean something different to the usual meaning, and we have here a situation where the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service", and not just in this document, but elsewhere.

But before we even look back to their intent:

"We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.:" Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.,447 U.S. 102 (1980). "n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.'" 503 U.S. 249, 254.

You are trying to give the words keep and bear arms a meaning that is not ordinary or usual in that context, especially given the expression is stated as a right, not a duty. No one has ever expressed a right to be compelled into military service or a right to pay taxes. The ordinary meaning of compelling military service is a duty. Because "bear arms" could be used both ways, the language itself is clear regarding duty verses right.

I don't think we even get to a discussion about legislative intent, because there is no ambiguity, but I will go ahead and entertain your argument and assume there is an ambiguity, despite such an exercise being unnecessary under the circumstances.

Get me a source where some founder at that time expressed a legal duty as a right, and I will take a hard look.

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"



"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

Washington says that militia duty is a duty and everyone should be "borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past of "bear"

He uses a lot of the language that would become the Second Amendment. "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia" and uses "Military duties" such as Mr Gerry was speaking about.

 

[emilynghiem]

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 havi

They wouldn't. Your entire argument is
Bear arms = military service

Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.

Well, read this again:

"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 bear arms, 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 bear arms."

Use what? Arms? Not military service, but use guns.

So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns? Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term. He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.

Bear arms means use guns.

You are right. We don't have the right to keep and carry. We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed. You pinted yourself into that corner.

No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.

Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.

Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.

In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.

However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?

The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.

"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."

Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....

Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.

You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.

If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?

No. I am show how your interpritation of "bear arms" exclusively meaning military service, fails when it means "use" in that quote. Not military dudty. USE.

Your argument that bear arms means militarty duty in the 2A is discredited, not only by its use in that context as aright, not a duty, but also by the quote above, where compelling someone to bear arms, when they would rather die than use arms. It is a completely separate meaning in that quote, because he is spacifically refurring to the use of arms, not military duty.

If you cannot at least concede that the above quote weakens your militarty-duty argument, then we are done talking. You are unreasonable and have made up your mind on the topic, regardless of the evidence.

No, I don't see how it fails at all.

You can use arms, you can bear arms. When you are in the militia you are bearing arms. The "arms" part is guns, especially in relation to 1789. You can bear arms and use arms.

The "bear arms" comes from the term "carry", however "bear arms" together means "militia duty" or "render military service". Literally you're carrying arms in military service. It doesn't mean to carry arms in civilian life.

You say my argument is discredited, er.. no, it's not. You're throwing sticks and hoping one of them hits, they're not hitting. Then you're telling me they hit.

Fine, if you expect me to agree with your very loose argument, when you've been ignoring my very strong argument, and then you're going to walk away because I won't agree without your argument, then go. I don't care.

I'd have walked away from you a long time ago. But I didn't.

You don't learn by demanding people agree with you.

Dear frigidweirdo
I also got lost over "being in the militia" the "RIGHT TO BE in the militia"
is this like saying the right to choose abortion is different from the actual abortion?
I understand the difference when it comes to abortion,
because not punishing or depriving the "freedom of choice" is different from arguing over the actual abortion and consequences.

I can understand if your concern is having the FREEDOM and not being either compelled or barred.

But where we seem to disagree is whether the
"right to bear arms" WITHIN and as INTENDED specifically in the SECOND AMENDMENT
is only referring to militia, to state or govt regulated militia
and does not refer to individual use or carrying of arms.

I think this is as blurry and RELATIVE to people
as how ChrisL pointed out that ALL people are basically part of
the "militia" in POLICING govt and DEFENDING laws from infringement,
which is like saying "all people ARE the govt."

But people vary on where they SEPARATE people from govt,
and in this case, militia from people and militia from govt.
danielpalos frames militia only within federal authority and regs approved through Congress.

The difference with me is I invoke more of the conservative type approach
that natural laws and authority of govt "are derived" from the PEOPLE.
So if PEOPLE CHOOSE to follow and enforce Constitutional laws,
I still call that the PEOPLE doing it as INDIVIDUALS
but others would call it "federal govt" imposing those Constitutional regs from the top down.

So we can be talking "close enough" about the SAME THINGS:
we ALL agree we want the Constitutional laws enforced and followed
but one set of people tends to frame this in terms of PEOPLE enforcing those laws "individually"
and the other set tends to frame this in terms of GOVT laws.

Where we AGREE on the SPIRIT of the laws being respected,
does it MATTER if we put the emphasis on the PEOPLE or the GOVT.
If ideally these should agree anyway in order to enforce laws by agreement?

With you frigidweirdo, I see we agree "close enough"
that it's not as important to "haggle" over whether we are talking about
FORMAL militia, individual people, or govt. You and I pretty much agree
that people have a right of self-defense, and everything else is just
people's personal interpretation or argument "where to draw the line between people and govt."

But people like danielpalos REALLY REALLY Get in trouble
by not making a distinction between federal, state and people
where it puts WAY too much responsibility on the federal level
that this conflicts with those of us who put more of the weight on the level of people.

You and I would end up "mediating or facilitating" between people like
danielpalos who go too far with centralizing the power in the hands of federal govt
(so much that it risks abuse without check)
vs. people who go to the opposite extreme and give so much power and freedom to the people
that is also risks abuse without check.

Those people who go to opposite extremes are going to conflict with each other.

So that leaves those like you and me, and others who can "accommodate" both.
And we STILL need AGREEMENT on policy to be neutral and mutual
where BOTH of those other extremes will still see that THEIR ways are satisfied,
not excluded or imposed upon by the other bias.

I think you could work with people to reach such an agreement,
but we may have to be FLEXIBLE and not be so literal where we haggle over that
instead of agreeing on the spirit of the laws and principles. The language can
be flexed, we don't all have to agree how to word and interpret laws literally,
but just work around those differences in order to communicate with the laws
we already have, and before we attempt to write out any more laws or regulations.

We certainly need to accommodate what words or laws mean to people, especially where these differ,
or we will never be able to communicate effectively, much less write other laws or agreements together!
We NEED to know and include "where laws or words MEAN different things to different people"
which is like working with dialects of the same language, and making sure we are on the same page.

Thanks for this, I can see enough where you are coming from
to know we COULD work the rest out. Where you and others like you
draw the line between militia and people is still not perfectly clear to me,
but I already run into similar with people on both sides of the argument,
so it's just more of the same but a slightly different flavor.

When I talked with my bf brother about people being law abiding,
he demanded to know HOW is this going to be decided what is law abiding.
And I said that is up to the local people, do they want to go with their community,
their neighborhood? Their district, city or state? some people want to go all the
way to the federal level and agree what is law abiding. But clearly I believe in
people teaching and enforcing Constitutional laws and due process locally.
Everyone I have met may have a different level of where they represent authority,
and where they draw the line between people and govt, or people and militia, or militia and govt.

As long as each locale forms a consensus on law enforcement among the people
there affected by policy, there should be localized security.
The same solutions may not work for each district, depending on their populations.

If you want to see consensus across the board, nationally, it would have to be broad
enough to include BOTH extremes of viewpoints/arguments, and allow equally for
those who believe in top down govt regulations/enforcement, and grassroots up people first.

So as long as we all agree on the principles and spirit of law enforcement,
and are equally opposed to "abuse of power" whether by govt or people (or militia),
then we should be able to organize in groups to form agreements throughout each district or state
on how to set up policing of bearing arms for "self defense", defending laws, etc. so these are not abused.

 

[emilynghiem]

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 havi

They wouldn't. Your entire argument is
Bear arms = military service

Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.

Well, read this again:

"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 bear arms, 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 bear arms."

Use what? Arms? Not military service, but use guns.

So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns? Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term. He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.

Bear arms means use guns.

You are right. We don't have the right to keep and carry. We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed. You pinted yourself into that corner.

No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.

Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.

Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.

In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.

However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?

The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.

"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."

Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....

Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.

You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.

If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?

bear means to carry. Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.

Yes, it does.

And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.

There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?

Give me a break, this is simple English.

Can we agree frigidweirdo the purpose of the Second Amendment
is the federal govt will not totally deprive people of the right to bear arms.

And where people disagree is to what extent either
a. the rules of the militia apply to the people
or
b. the federal govt still regulates either the militia or the people
(but just can't deprive this right completely)

Is that assessment close enough? To where people generally agree
and where the conflicts lie.

If so, this sounds similar to the free exercise clause and the THREE issues there
1. not ESTABLISHING it by govt (and certainly NOT COMPELLING it as you and others discuss here)
2. not PROHIBITING totally
3. but to what degree can govt enforce "conditions" or "regulations"
Example: a religion that has people killing or harming others to "exorcise them from demons"
or depriving medical care to save the life of a child under the age of legal consent
(or in the case of ACA penalizing people for not complying with mandates that violate
their Constitutional beliefs but exempting "only certain religious members" from taxes while fining others)
(also this business of barring Christian exercise or expression in relation to public property, policy or institutions
but ENDORSING LGBT beliefs, expressions and exercise to the point of PENALIZING others with conflicting beliefs)

If we can at least agree the govt should neither prohibit nor compel,
then we can focus on where the majority of arguments lie
is on what level and to what extent can the actual "exercise" of bearing arms
be "regulated" for the purpose of preventing ABUSE that would violate law.

The tricky part here, if we don't agree on the meaning of federal/Constitutional law,
then both sides can go in circles arguing "not to violate that" where they don't even agree in the first place.

What I suggest here, is to let each person have their OWN layout of where they draw the lines
between federal, militia, and people, and stick within their OWN paradigm or framework.

These do NOT have to agree COMPLETELY with the next person.
Or you'll waste all day arguing what shade of grey is closer to black than white.
We'd have to pick apart each person's system by the PIXELS and use their OWN system for THEM to follow.
And group people by pixelation so at least those folks can communicate and agree with each other
what are violations or what is proper regulations UNDER THEIR WAY of delineating federal/militia/people.

Then mediate between the subgroups and try to manage a consensus that
accommodates all these ways, so everyone can access representation by their system or the closest to it.

It doesn't have to be perfectly 100% as long as people AGREE it's close enough for them to feel secure and included.

Thanks frigidweirdo I think someone like you could help orchestrate
such groups and help communicate between them. You may specialize
in this particular area more than I do. I'm more into explaining how to
separate the religious and political beliefs in general, but don't go into
as much historical detail as you and others here are able to discuss in depth.

The fact you have differences is actually good, that defines and maps out the
logistics of what we are facing. Most people can't get past the skin and you
are getting into the meat of the matter. So this is excellent, and I welcome
all the contributions especially where these disagree. We need to know what
we are dealing with beneath the surface if we are going to do "reconstructive"
surgery and align arteries with arteries and veins with veins so the system works
even with different functions of the arteries and veins going in opposite directions.

We just need to organize people of like beliefs, and we can deal with both schools of thoughts,
and all variations thereof.

Thanks you frigidweirdo and please do consider seriously
my proposal to form a task force on mediating these differences
instead of people bullying back and forth and attacking each other's party members and leaders over this.
We need equal inclusion, not dominating one belief system over another.
And we can work out all other differences and conflicts from there!

Thanks for spelling out how you see it, which helps TREMENDOUSLY!!!
I don't even get or follow it all, but see as long as you get it you can explain to others.

 

[emilynghiem]

My right to shoot my motherfucking guns shall not be infringed. I will shoot them any fucking time, any fucking place I want!!!

It was used that way in the debates. Therefore, bear arms means use guns. Use means shoot. I can shoot my guns anytime, anywhere, goddammit.


Wanna re-think your argument?

Yes Bootney Lee Farnsworth
but you as a respecter of Constitutional law
would not abuse such use of guns to commit crimes and violate laws.
You would still do so within the bounds of respecting the same Constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others.

So that's the difference. now how do we define that difference?
I see you already make that distinction between defending laws and violalting them
because YOU as a CITIZEN BELIEVE in respecting those same standards.

People like danielpalos do NOT call this or trust this as individual choice,
but depend on "federal govt regulations" to ensure against abuses and violations.

How would YOU describe your individual discretion in not abusing guns to break laws?
It doesn't REALLY require "top down policing from federal regulations" does it?
Aren't people as individuals fully capable of AGREEING to follow the same
Constitutional laws in the Bill of Rights, and not VIOLATE due process or equal protections/security
of others by abusing guns "Unlawfully"

I am arguing that people are able to enforce such agreements among ourselves
and don't require the "federal govt" to regulate us, we can do so locally.

I call it agreeing that the right of the people to bear arms
inherently involves the context of
being "law abiding" and defending Constitutional laws and protections
ie not abusing arms to violate these.

If we all agreed NOT to violate rights and laws, would it really matter
if we are saying this is coming from the PEOPLE
or if it is enforcing "Constitutional laws on the federal level."

Aren't we enforcing the same principles of law, and both arguing not to abuse arms to violate laws?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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 havi

They wouldn't. Your entire argument is
Bear arms = military service

Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.

Well, read this again:

"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 bear arms, 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 bear arms."

Use what? Arms? Not military service, but use guns.

So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns? Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term. He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.

Bear arms means use guns.

You are right. We don't have the right to keep and carry. We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed. You pinted yourself into that corner.

No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.

Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.

Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.

In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.

However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?

The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.

"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."

Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....

Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.

You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.

If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?

No. I am show how your interpritation of "bear arms" exclusively meaning military service, fails when it means "use" in that quote. Not military dudty. USE.

Your argument that bear arms means militarty duty in the 2A is discredited, not only by its use in that context as aright, not a duty, but also by the quote above, where compelling someone to bear arms, when they would rather die than use arms. It is a completely separate meaning in that quote, because he is spacifically refurring to the use of arms, not military duty.

If you cannot at least concede that the above quote weakens your militarty-duty argument, then we are done talking. You are unreasonable and have made up your mind on the topic, regardless of the evidence.

No, I don't see how it fails at all.

You can use arms, you can bear arms. When you are in the militia you are bearing arms. The "arms" part is guns, especially in relation to 1789. You can bear arms and use arms.

The "bear arms" comes from the term "carry", however "bear arms" together means "militia duty" or "render military service". Literally you're carrying arms in military service. It doesn't mean to carry arms in civilian life.

You say my argument is discredited, er.. no, it's not. You're throwing sticks and hoping one of them hits, they're not hitting. Then you're telling me they hit.

Fine, if you expect me to agree with your very loose argument, when you've been ignoring my very strong argument, and then you're going to walk away because I won't agree without your argument, then go. I don't care.

I'd have walked away from you a long time ago. But I didn't.

You don't learn by demanding people agree with you.

Dear frigidweirdo
I also got lost over "being in the militia" the "RIGHT TO BE in the militia"
is this like saying the right to choose abortion is different from the actual abortion?
I understand the difference when it comes to abortion,
because not punishing or depriving the "freedom of choice" is different from arguing over the actual abortion and consequences.

I can understand if your concern is having the FREEDOM and not being either compelled or barred.

But where we seem to disagree is whether the
"right to bear arms" WITHIN and as INTENDED specifically in the SECOND AMENDMENT
is only referring to militia, to state or govt regulated militia
and does not refer to individual use or carrying of arms.

I think this is as blurry and RELATIVE to people
as how ChrisL pointed out that ALL people are basically part of
the "militia" in POLICING govt and DEFENDING laws from infringement,
which is like saying "all people ARE the govt."

But people vary on where they SEPARATE people from govt,
and in this case, militia from people and militia from govt.
danielpalos frames militia only within federal authority and regs approved through Congress.

The difference with me is I invoke more of the conservative type approach
that natural laws and authority of govt "are derived" from the PEOPLE.
So if PEOPLE CHOOSE to follow and enforce Constitutional laws,
I still call that the PEOPLE doing it as INDIVIDUALS
but others would call it "federal govt" imposing those Constitutional regs from the top down.

So we can be talking "close enough" about the SAME THINGS:
we ALL agree we want the Constitutional laws enforced and followed
but one set of people tends to frame this in terms of PEOPLE enforcing those laws "individually"
and the other set tends to frame this in terms of GOVT laws.

Where we AGREE on the SPIRIT of the laws being respected,
does it MATTER if we put the emphasis on the PEOPLE or the GOVT.
If ideally these should agree anyway in order to enforce laws by agreement?

With you frigidweirdo, I see we agree "close enough"
that it's not as important to "haggle" over whether we are talking about
FORMAL militia, individual people, or govt. You and I pretty much agree
that people have a right of self-defense, and everything else is just
people's personal interpretation or argument "where to draw the line between people and govt."

But people like danielpalos REALLY REALLY Get in trouble
by not making a distinction between federal, state and people
where it puts WAY too much responsibility on the federal level
that this conflicts with those of us who put more of the weight on the level of people.

You and I would end up "mediating or facilitating" between people like
danielpalos who go too far with centralizing the power in the hands of federal govt
(so much that it risks abuse without check)
vs. people who go to the opposite extreme and give so much power and freedom to the people
that is also risks abuse without check.

Those people who go to opposite extremes are going to conflict with each other.

So that leaves those like you and me, and others who can "accommodate" both.
And we STILL need AGREEMENT on policy to be neutral and mutual
where BOTH of those other extremes will still see that THEIR ways are satisfied,
not excluded or imposed upon by the other bias.

I think you could work with people to reach such an agreement,
but we may have to be FLEXIBLE and not be so literal where we haggle over that
instead of agreeing on the spirit of the laws and principles. The language can
be flexed, we don't all have to agree how to word and interpret laws literally,
but just work around those differences in order to communicate with the laws
we already have, and before we attempt to write out any more laws or regulations.

We certainly need to accommodate what words or laws mean to people, especially where these differ,
or we will never be able to communicate effectively, much less write other laws or agreements together!
We NEED to know and include "where laws or words MEAN different things to different people"
which is like working with dialects of the same language, and making sure we are on the same page.

Thanks for this, I can see enough where you are coming from
to know we COULD work the rest out. Where you and others like you
draw the line between militia and people is still not perfectly clear to me,
but I already run into similar with people on both sides of the argument,
so it's just more of the same but a slightly different flavor.

When I talked with my bf brother about people being law abiding,
he demanded to know HOW is this going to be decided what is law abiding.
And I said that is up to the local people, do they want to go with their community,
their neighborhood? Their district, city or state? some people want to go all the
way to the federal level and agree what is law abiding. But clearly I believe in
people teaching and enforcing Constitutional laws and due process locally.
Everyone I have met may have a different level of where they represent authority,
and where they draw the line between people and govt, or people and militia, or militia and govt.

As long as each locale forms a consensus on law enforcement among the people
there affected by policy, there should be localized security.
The same solutions may not work for each district, depending on their populations.

If you want to see consensus across the board, nationally, it would have to be broad
enough to include BOTH extremes of viewpoints/arguments, and allow equally for
those who believe in top down govt regulations/enforcement, and grassroots up people first.

So as long as we all agree on the principles and spirit of law enforcement,
and are equally opposed to "abuse of power" whether by govt or people (or militia),
then we should be able to organize in groups to form agreements throughout each district or state
on how to set up policing of bearing arms for "self defense", defending laws, etc. so these are not abused.

I'm not really sure why you're making a distinction between being in the militia and the right to be in the militia.

A right is a human construction to demand power from those who have power. It started in England when the right didn't want the king to have so much power over them, so they literally took power from king when they had the chance.

All a right says is "I have this power, you don't"

If I have the right to be in the militia, it means the govt doesn't have the power to stop me being in the militia.

Are all people the militia? More or less. It was accepted at the time that males aged 17-45 would be the militia, hence why the Dick Act made the "unorganized militia" and put all those in this age group and gender into this militia.

The reason they made the National Guard was because the militia wasn't good at waring. So the National Guard is more professional and more disciplined and better at waring.

The US used to be a country of defense, now it's a country of attack.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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 havi

They wouldn't. Your entire argument is
Bear arms = military service

Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.

Well, read this again:

"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 bear arms, 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 bear arms."

Use what? Arms? Not military service, but use guns.

So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns? Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term. He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.

Bear arms means use guns.

You are right. We don't have the right to keep and carry. We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed. You pinted yourself into that corner.

No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.

Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.

Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.

In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.

However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?

The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.

"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."

Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....

Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.

You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.

If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?

bear means to carry. Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.

Yes, it does.

And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.

There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?

Give me a break, this is simple English.

Can we agree frigidweirdo the purpose of the Second Amendment
is the federal govt will not totally deprive people of the right to bear arms.

And where people disagree is to what extent either
a. the rules of the militia apply to the people
or
b. the federal govt still regulates either the militia or the people
(but just can't deprive this right completely)

Is that assessment close enough? To where people generally agree
and where the conflicts lie.

If so, this sounds similar to the free exercise clause and the THREE issues there
1. not ESTABLISHING it by govt (and certainly NOT COMPELLING it as you and others discuss here)
2. not PROHIBITING totally
3. but to what degree can govt enforce "conditions" or "regulations"
Example: a religion that has people killing or harming others to "exorcise them from demons"
or depriving medical care to save the life of a child under the age of legal consent
(or in the case of ACA penalizing people for not complying with mandates that violate
their Constitutional beliefs but exempting "only certain religious members" from taxes while fining others)
(also this business of barring Christian exercise or expression in relation to public property, policy or institutions
but ENDORSING LGBT beliefs, expressions and exercise to the point of PENALIZING others with conflicting beliefs)

If we can at least agree the govt should neither prohibit nor compel,
then we can focus on where the majority of arguments lie
is on what level and to what extent can the actual "exercise" of bearing arms
be "regulated" for the purpose of preventing ABUSE that would violate law.

The tricky part here, if we don't agree on the meaning of federal/Constitutional law,
then both sides can go in circles arguing "not to violate that" where they don't even agree in the first place.

What I suggest here, is to let each person have their OWN layout of where they draw the lines
between federal, militia, and people, and stick within their OWN paradigm or framework.

These do NOT have to agree COMPLETELY with the next person.
Or you'll waste all day arguing what shade of grey is closer to black than white.
We'd have to pick apart each person's system by the PIXELS and use their OWN system for THEM to follow.
And group people by pixelation so at least those folks can communicate and agree with each other
what are violations or what is proper regulations UNDER THEIR WAY of delineating federal/militia/people.

Then mediate between the subgroups and try to manage a consensus that
accommodates all these ways, so everyone can access representation by their system or the closest to it.

It doesn't have to be perfectly 100% as long as people AGREE it's close enough for them to feel secure and included.

Thanks frigidweirdo I think someone like you could help orchestrate
such groups and help communicate between them. You may specialize
in this particular area more than I do. I'm more into explaining how to
separate the religious and political beliefs in general, but don't go into
as much historical detail as you and others here are able to discuss in depth.

The fact you have differences is actually good, that defines and maps out the
logistics of what we are facing. Most people can't get past the skin and you
are getting into the meat of the matter. So this is excellent, and I welcome
all the contributions especially where these disagree. We need to know what
we are dealing with beneath the surface if we are going to do "reconstructive"
surgery and align arteries with arteries and veins with veins so the system works
even with different functions of the arteries and veins going in opposite directions.

We just need to organize people of like beliefs, and we can deal with both schools of thoughts,
and all variations thereof.

Thanks you frigidweirdo and please do consider seriously
my proposal to form a task force on mediating these differences
instead of people bullying back and forth and attacking each other's party members and leaders over this.
We need equal inclusion, not dominating one belief system over another.
And we can work out all other differences and conflicts from there!

Thanks for spelling out how you see it, which helps TREMENDOUSLY!!!
I don't even get or follow it all, but see as long as you get it you can explain to others.

The issue here is the meaning of the term "bear arms".

On the one hand you have people with an agenda twisting history to meet their agenda, ignoring almost all of the facts, pretending the English language is rigid and doing whatever the hell they want.

On the other hand you have facts, logic and an argument.

You want a task force to mediate on this?

What?

 

[danielpalos]

Indeed. And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". What part of that sentence do you not understand?

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.

It does. Well regulated militia are necessary. The unorganized militia is not declared necessary. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller said so.

 

[there4eyeM]

Are sales taxes on firearms and ammunition against the Second Amendment?

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

I am advocating for a Ninth Amendment, right to not keep and bear Arms and draft gun lovers, first.

We already have the right not to keep and bear arms. Your second part is a violation on due process and is unconstitutional. You are just a dumb bot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[turtledude]

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.

It does. Well regulated militia are necessary. The unorganized militia is not declared necessary. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller said so.

wrong R2D2/

 

[turtledude]

Are sales taxes on firearms and ammunition against the Second Amendment?

No, as long as the taxes are no different than those levied on other goods

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I am advocating for a Ninth Amendment, right to not keep and bear Arms and draft gun lovers, first.

We already have the right not to keep and bear arms. Your second part is a violation on due process and is unconstitutional. You are just a dumb bot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well regulated gun lovers may be necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It does. Well regulated militia are necessary. The unorganized militia is not declared necessary. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller said so.

wrong R2D2/

Are you claiming paragraph (2) is not relevant?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

danielpalos - ignored member:

You are ignoring content by this member. Show Ignored Content.

Lemme guess:

"The clueless and causeless wellness of regulation of the peoplitia's right to preform a collective military duty of dying for the United States shall not be infringed except when unorganized."

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

I am advocating for a Ninth Amendment, right to not keep and bear Arms and draft gun lovers, first.

We already have the right not to keep and bear arms. Your second part is a violation on due process and is unconstitutional. You are just a dumb bot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well regulated gun lovers may be necessary to the security of a free State.

Not sure what you are trying to say, sorry.

 

[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.

It does. Well regulated militia are necessary. The unorganized militia is not declared necessary. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller said so.

wrong R2D2/

Are you claiming paragraph (2) is not relevant?

you're not relevant R2D2