The Right To Bear Arms

[Wry Catcher]

Seems pretty clear to me.

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 bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.3

On September 4, the Senate agreed to amend Article 5 to read as follows: A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

On September 9, the Senate replaced "the best" with "necessary to the." On the same day, the Senate disagreed to a motion to insert "for the common defence" after "bear arms." This article and the following ones were then renumbered as articles 4 through 8.

All the debate was about requiring people to keep and bear arms, not the right. Thanks for proving you can't read.

I read quite well, thank you. Let's put a bit more emphasis on each phrase framed by the intent of Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 and 16.

The topic phrase in bold is this: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people (of the several states) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Reading the amendment in this manner suggests the Second was proposed because each state still held fears about a strong central government and wanted to the amendment to defend their State from the central government. Your proof ignored the debate on several levels and I suspect you skipped through the entire link until you found a phrase which supported the conclusion you had at the beginning.

There were dozens of proposals put forth on this one amendment and most dealt with the matter of standing armies vis a vis militia's and not with an individuals right to bear arms. I suspect every rural American in 1789 owned a rifle and it never occurred to the founder's that the right to bear such a gun would ever be infringed.

If we adopt your reading it clearly prohibits national level gun control. If we then read the 14th Amendment, and the debate surrounding it, we discover that the same restrictions apply to the states.

You just lost the debate.

Section 1? I see the point and understand the argument based on this phrase: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law...equal protection of the laws"

The intent of the Congress and the States in passing the 14th had nothing to do with the Second Amendment, it had to do with protecting in the Constitution the principles of the Emancipation Proclamation.

One must conclude that even the 14th would allow for depriving a citizen of the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm as long as due process of law was applied.

Here's an example of law wherein such a law is in effect, the first paragraph is the germane section.

http://theacademy.ca.gov/docs/CA Penal Code 12021.pdf

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm a gun enthusiast but the lobby's, like ALEC, have gone too far

Bull fucking shit on both what you said and your pic.

 

[Abatis]

The intent of the Congress and the States in passing the 14th had nothing to do with the Second Amendment,

Protecting the right to arms of Freedmen was of particular concern for the 39th Congress.

Interestingly, the enforcers of the Black Codes (AKA state militias) were disbanded by Congress in the endeavor to stop the enforcement abuses, nearly always predicated on entering Freedmen's homes or detaining them on the street to search for firearms.

If you really want to get to brass tacks, it seems the individual right of new Black citizens to own a firearm was of greater importance than the "right" of a state to organize and direct its militia.

Here, you like links so much . . .

 

[tjvh]

The only reason people would have for confusion with regard to the Second Amendment is if they choose to interpret it based upon ideology rather than rationality.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The intent of the Congress and the States in passing the 14th had nothing to do with the Second Amendment,

Protecting the right to arms of Freedmen was of particular concern for the 39th Congress.

Interestingly, the enforcers of the Black Codes (AKA state militias) were disbanded by Congress in the endeavor to stop the enforcement abuses, nearly always predicated on entering Freedmen's homes or detaining them on the street to search for firearms.

If you really want to get to brass tacks, it seems the individual right of new Black citizens to own a firearm was of greater importance than the "right" of a state to organize and direct its militia.

Here, you like links so much . . .

Wow. Thank you for a most informative link. I need to get going on the crown roast of Pork and my other duties but I will go over this link in detail. In a quick read I learned more about Reconstruction then in any previous course of US History.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I read quite well, thank you. Let's put a bit more emphasis on each phrase framed by the intent of Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 and 16.

The topic phrase in bold is this: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people (of the several states) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Reading the amendment in this manner suggests the Second was proposed because each state still held fears about a strong central government and wanted to the amendment to defend their State from the central government. Your proof ignored the debate on several levels and I suspect you skipped through the entire link until you found a phrase which supported the conclusion you had at the beginning.

There were dozens of proposals put forth on this one amendment and most dealt with the matter of standing armies vis a vis militia's and not with an individuals right to bear arms. I suspect every rural American in 1789 owned a rifle and it never occurred to the founder's that the right to bear such a gun would ever be infringed.

If we adopt your reading it clearly prohibits national level gun control. If we then read the 14th Amendment, and the debate surrounding it, we discover that the same restrictions apply to the states.

You just lost the debate.

Section 1? I see the point and understand the argument based on this phrase: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law...equal protection of the laws"

The intent of the Congress and the States in passing the 14th had nothing to do with the Second Amendment, it had to do with protecting in the Constitution the principles of the Emancipation Proclamation.

One must conclude that even the 14th would allow for depriving a citizen of the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm as long as due process of law was applied.

Here's an example of law wherein such a law is in effect, the first paragraph is the germane section.

http://theacademy.ca.gov/docs/CA Penal Code 12021.pdf

That explains the Freedman's Bureau Act of 1866 which specifically spelled out the right of an individual black to the constitutional right to bear arms. It was even debated in the Senate when the 14th was being voted on, it seems that some Senators were concerned that Southern states might reinstate the pre Civil War ban on guns in the hands of blacks.

In fact, it was the racists that specifically argued in court that the Bill of Rights shouldn't be incorporated against the states, and that the states would best be able to protect individual liberties and civil rights. This resulted in the infamous Cruikshank decision that said the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, The racist really enjoyed that, and enacted all those Jim Crow laws people were so proud of, the same ones you pretend to hate.

The only people that I know that have a problem with the simple historical record are the racist hacks like William Joyce.

Are you a racist hack? If you are, there is no sense in me continuing to treat you like a human being.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Gun Rights and Reconstruction:

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The intent of the Congress and the States in passing the 14th had nothing to do with the Second Amendment,

Protecting the right to arms of Freedmen was of particular concern for the 39th Congress.

Interestingly, the enforcers of the Black Codes (AKA state militias) were disbanded by Congress in the endeavor to stop the enforcement abuses, nearly always predicated on entering Freedmen's homes or detaining them on the street to search for firearms.

If you really want to get to brass tacks, it seems the individual right of new Black citizens to own a firearm was of greater importance than the "right" of a state to organize and direct its militia.

Here, you like links so much . . .

Facts do not matter to racists.

Wow. Thank you for a most informative link. I need to get going on the crown roast of Pork and my other duties but I will go over this link in detail. In a quick read I learned more about Reconstruction then in any previous course of US History.

 

[Rinata]

We know that they considered the right to arms to be among "the great residuum" retained by the people after we granted the limited powers to government. We know they believed the right was not created, granted or given by the Amendment thus the words of the Amendment can't be "interpreted" to modify, condition, qualify or restrain the right.

Madison said:

"[Bills of Rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government."​

We the People don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there( we would possess it without any Constitutional recognition); we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

All the Bill of Rights does is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers never granted to it. Your militia based "interpretation" is the product of profound ignorance. You are arguing an absurdity completely divorced from the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

What a bunch of crap. You are the one that is profoundly ignorant. You'll say anything to convince people that you should own as many guns as you want to protect yourself and loved ones.

I know I'm going to regret this but why is that a bunch of crap?
I mean really, are you aware of the Federalist's opposition to adding a bill of rights to the Constitution and what their arguments were?

Madison was once a vocal opponent but his opinion changed and he became the editor of the state proposals and the speech I linked to and quoted from was; James Madison Addresses the House of Representatives, 8 June 1789, on the Necessity of Amendments to the Constitution

You might want to read that before you call me ignorant.

Conferred powers and retained rights . . . those are the most fundamental principles of the Constitution and establishes the maxim, ALL NOT CONFERRED IS RETAINED which of course is the basis of the 9th and 10th Amendments which stand as testaments to the Federalist's arguments (even though they "lost" the debate over adding a bill of rights).

If you want to play a sleuth find Madison's formal introduction of the proposed amendments to Congress. He wanted to insert the amendments in the BODY of the Constitution, within the particular Articles and Sections that they were modifying / effecting. Madison did not propose [what would become] the 2nd Amendment being inserted in Article I, § 8, the powers of Congress (and the militia clauses).

Go be a good citizen and come back and tell us where Madison wanted to insert the right to arms amendment.

Because I don't believe it's the truth. I don't understand this neurotic need that some people have to own a firearm. That's what it seems to be to me. Just a neurotic need.

 

[AmericanFirst]

What a bunch of crap. You are the one that is profoundly ignorant. You'll say anything to convince people that you should own as many guns as you want to protect yourself and loved ones.

I know I'm going to regret this but why is that a bunch of crap?
I mean really, are you aware of the Federalist's opposition to adding a bill of rights to the Constitution and what their arguments were?

Madison was once a vocal opponent but his opinion changed and he became the editor of the state proposals and the speech I linked to and quoted from was; James Madison Addresses the House of Representatives, 8 June 1789, on the Necessity of Amendments to the Constitution

You might want to read that before you call me ignorant.

Conferred powers and retained rights . . . those are the most fundamental principles of the Constitution and establishes the maxim, ALL NOT CONFERRED IS RETAINED which of course is the basis of the 9th and 10th Amendments which stand as testaments to the Federalist's arguments (even though they "lost" the debate over adding a bill of rights).

If you want to play a sleuth find Madison's formal introduction of the proposed amendments to Congress. He wanted to insert the amendments in the BODY of the Constitution, within the particular Articles and Sections that they were modifying / effecting. Madison did not propose [what would become] the 2nd Amendment being inserted in Article I, § 8, the powers of Congress (and the militia clauses).

Go be a good citizen and come back and tell us where Madison wanted to insert the right to arms amendment.

Because I don't believe it's the truth. I don't understand this neurotic need that some people have to own a firearm. That's what it seems to be to me. Just a neurotic need.

A TRUE American would understand. Socialist only understand that have to care for everyone. Idiots.

 

[HUGGY]

Is the Second Amendment obsolete?

If you don't have a nuclear bomb in your garage and a Harrier Jet in your back yard to deliver it ..it is..

 

[LibertyLemming]

Don't tell the Afghans or the Vietnamese that beating a better trained, better armed, superior force isnt possible.

 

[Rinata]

I know I'm going to regret this but why is that a bunch of crap?
I mean really, are you aware of the Federalist's opposition to adding a bill of rights to the Constitution and what their arguments were?

Madison was once a vocal opponent but his opinion changed and he became the editor of the state proposals and the speech I linked to and quoted from was; James Madison Addresses the House of Representatives, 8 June 1789, on the Necessity of Amendments to the Constitution

You might want to read that before you call me ignorant.

Conferred powers and retained rights . . . those are the most fundamental principles of the Constitution and establishes the maxim, ALL NOT CONFERRED IS RETAINED which of course is the basis of the 9th and 10th Amendments which stand as testaments to the Federalist's arguments (even though they "lost" the debate over adding a bill of rights).

If you want to play a sleuth find Madison's formal introduction of the proposed amendments to Congress. He wanted to insert the amendments in the BODY of the Constitution, within the particular Articles and Sections that they were modifying / effecting. Madison did not propose [what would become] the 2nd Amendment being inserted in Article I, § 8, the powers of Congress (and the militia clauses).

Go be a good citizen and come back and tell us where Madison wanted to insert the right to arms amendment.

Because I don't believe it's the truth. I don't understand this neurotic need that some people have to own a firearm. That's what it seems to be to me. Just a neurotic need.

A TRUE American would understand. Socialist only understand that have to care for everyone. Idiots.

So you are the last word when it comes to true Americans and being a socialist?? Oh, and identifying idiots?? I don't think so. You don't even realize that YOU are the idiot. Happy New Year!!

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.

DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet

The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma. and there is a record for why they fought for and put in the comma and capitalization? what they meant to clarify?

think about what you are attempting to say

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Who belongs to a militia?

The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means.

Since the word "militia" is no longer applicable in the 2nd Amendment, there is no right to keep and bear arms.

Is the right to keep and bear arms more important than an actual militia?

The Militia and the Constitution = an interesting primer on what constituted a militia when the words were written and the history of what constitutes a militia during the history that framed the framers thinking

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I agree about modifying the 2nd, it should say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

[Contumacious]

Because I don't believe it's the truth. I don't understand this neurotic need that some people have to own a firearm. That's what it seems to be to me. Just a neurotic need.

Neither do I.

The 2A was intended for free people.

We are now a parasitic enslaved populace. We don't need it.

People should spend their money learning such techniques as bending over and kissing their ass good bye.

yep That's the ticket.

.

 

[PaulS1950]

This is how I would write it today...
"Immutable Rights, owned by Citizens, unchanging and unrestricted by any vote or power:

The right of all Citizens to keep and bear arms, including those arms of the current issued military infantry, shall not be recorded, taxed or limited in any way.

Ammunition, components and accessories for any arms shall not be taxed or limited in any way.

Arms include but are not limited to: bladed weapons, firearms, bows and arrows, and any other weapon of offense or defense ever or currently in either military infantry or civilian use."

 

[JimH52]

Do you honestly think the writers of the Second Amendment envisioned assault rifles with 100 shot magazines? They would be shocked at the debate from the NRA and others.