A second amendment question...


PDA






eric_t12
June 9, 2007, 12:52 PM
Many anti-rights (that is how i shall furthermore refer to such individuals) people claim that the second amendment was meant only for the militia, and, with the national guard OBVIOUSLY the militia:rolleyes: we don't need the right on the 'books' anymore.

my question is this...

if the 2nd was written only for the Militia, and has no direction towards average citizens (who are obviously NOT the unorganized militia:rolleyes:) why would they write one in the first place? would they really expect the 'militia' to be sent to battle WITHOUT weapons?

just a quick thought i had perusing a post earlier...

If you enjoyed reading about "A second amendment question..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Titan6
June 9, 2007, 01:01 PM
The logic is unworkable as it is based on a false premise.

glockman19
June 9, 2007, 01:40 PM
The bill of rights was written towards defining Individual rights. NOT the new Governments rights. Semantics. Word games. Up until the beginngin of the 20th century there were no gun laws.

another okie
June 9, 2007, 05:07 PM
The colonial militia consisted of all law-abiding adult men in most colonies, in a few it was restricted by race, and one or two colonies did not have a militia. Militia members were expected to provide their own weapons, with a few exceptions. The purpose of the second amendment was to make sure that the federal government made no attempt to disarm the people as a way of disarming the states and the militia. There was good reason to think it might happen, since the British had tried to do just that. The Bill of Rights is an effort to limit the power of the federal government, though it has been expanded by the courts and the 14th amendment (1868).

When the national guard was formed, about a hundred years ago, the militia was split by federal law into the organized militia, which is now called the national guard, and the unorganized militia, which is men between certain ages. This is all in the federal statutes and can be found easily enough. In other words, most of us are members of the unorganized militia by federal law.

It is not true that there were no gun control laws before 1900. Many southern states passed laws requiring blacks to have permits immediately after the war. Some Kansas towns had bans on weapons during the cattle drive days. Lawrence, Kansas, had just passed a gun control law when Quantrill raided the town. There are probably other examples from back east.

XD Fan
June 9, 2007, 05:10 PM
It is not true that there were no gun control laws before 1900. Many southern states passed laws requiring blacks to have permits immediately after the war. Some Kansas towns had bans on weapons during the cattle drive days. Lawrence, Kansas, had just passed a gun control law when Quantrill raided the town. There are probably other examples from back east.

That was my thought as well.

Okie is spot on about the unorganized militia.

akodo
June 9, 2007, 05:39 PM
#1, all the other amendments found in the bill of rights are currently interpreted as involving the individual. The right to free speech isn't about state owned newspapers being able to print what they want. Why would they have 9 of 10 about the individual, and 1 of 10 about the state?

#2, at the time of the writing, there we no 'national guard' or similar 'official state militias' so how could that be what the founders were talking about

#3, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Clearly a population filled with people already owning arms is the fertile ground a militia shall be drawn from in time of need. Think about it this way.

A well educated voter base, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to learn to read and own books, shall not be infringed.

Same thing, providing the fertile soil from which an educated voter base arises. Phrased like it is, this does not limit the people to owning books on politics alone, but covers all books, even mad magazine.

eric_t12
June 9, 2007, 05:50 PM
I've actually posted this on THR and on XDTalk and i'm getting really good responses on both. Thanks for everyone's input, and the word swaps like "arms" to "books" was a plus. Thanks!

Art Eatman
June 9, 2007, 06:01 PM
the next time you run across an anti, ask him if he's ever read the Preamble to the BOR. It fully explains the purpose of having the BOR.

Art

44AMP
June 9, 2007, 06:20 PM
In the language of the Founders, "well regulated" meant having basic equipment, meaning arms, camping gear, clothing, and the knowledge of basic military drill.

And the phrase "the people" is used in reference to the individual, not the state, or militia group. Every use of "the people" in the Bill or Rights refers to individual citizens, and is not questioned in any of the other amendments, only in the 2nd Amendment do certain people question it, and they are in error by doing so.

And if any conversation goes in the direction that "assault weapons are not protected because the Founders could not have forseen such terrible technological advances", ask if Freedom of Speech applies only to hand operated printing presses, and not radio, TV, Movies, and the Internet, because the Founders could not have "forseen" them either. What do you think their answer on that is going to be?

SoCalShooter
June 9, 2007, 06:56 PM
The real kicker is that the National Guard was created over 100 years after the amendment was written...now figure that one out!

jselvy
June 9, 2007, 07:47 PM
If the National Guard is paid, equipped and trained by the federal army, how can it be in any sense a state militia?
A basic rule in this country is he who pays for it owns it.

Jefferson

hugh damright
June 9, 2007, 10:46 PM
if the 2nd was written only for the Militia, and has no direction towards average citizens (who are obviously NOT the unorganized militia) why would they write one in the first place? would they really expect the 'militia' to be sent to battle WITHOUT weapons?

I think it would still make sense ... I tend to see a BOR as declaring principles of, or limits upon, government ...there was a time when the King had British Troops here to dominate us, and we declared that a standing army in times of peace is a danger to liberty, and that the proper defense of a free State is a well regulated militia ... I don't think the point was to declare that the miltia had a right to arms, but rather to declare that the gov has no right to threaten people with military rule.

Zundfolge
June 9, 2007, 10:56 PM
If you read Amendment X you'll see that there is a clear distinction between "the States" and "the people" or they would have had no need to list them both separately.



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


In this context I've successfully used akodo's argument #1 to shut down these "2A = collective right" people.

The 1st Amendment isn't about NPR, therefore the 2nd Amendment is not about the National Guard.

yhtomit
June 9, 2007, 11:17 PM
Zundfolge: Thanks for that gambit; I've occasionally just lapsed into slackjawed disbelief when people don't grasp the difference immediately, but that gives me a more productive place to point, so they don't notice my sputtering and gesticulating quite so much ;)

Casually suggesting certain analogies ("printing presses are OK ... so long as they're registered, and can only print a certain number of pages per turn of the crank") is sometimes dangerous, because the control freaks are often quite happy (or at least will consider with a straight face) the examples that are meant to be absurd. After all, that's how many people all over the political spectrum seem to think about content on the airwaves.

timothy

Zundfolge
June 10, 2007, 12:03 AM
True. Many leftists would love to twist the 1A into a "Collective Rights" mold so they could shut down FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh.

hugh damright
June 10, 2007, 03:39 AM
I thought the question was asking, if the Second Amendment regarded only an organized/select militia, then why would they have written an amendment in the first place. But if they had felt that an organized/select militia was the proper defense of a free State, then why would they not have declared it in a BOR? I think the question may have assumed that a BOR must be about individual rights, but I believe that a BOR typically regards principles of, or limits upon, government. Is there some reason that a BOR could not say something like "An organized/select/well-regulated militia is the proper defense of a free State"?

DKSuddeth
June 10, 2007, 04:23 AM
the anti's, or collectivists, advocate using legislation to change the constitution, like the dick act replacing the militia, because they know otherwise they wouldn't be able to implement their socialist agenda.

Molon Labe
June 10, 2007, 10:19 AM
Also keep in mind that your right to keep and bear arms does not depend on the existence of the Second Amendment.

mike101
June 10, 2007, 12:09 PM
The whole idea of a militia, organized or un, was for the states to have an armed force that was not under federal control. For about a year now, in the name of the War On Terror, the National guard is TOTALLY under federal control.

Previously, a state's National Guard could only be called out by the Governor of that state. Now, the Prez. can call them out, without even consulting the governor.

So, we (unorganized militia) are the only real militia left.

eric_t12
June 10, 2007, 02:01 PM
Also keep in mind that your right to keep and bear arms does not depend on the existence of the Second Amendment

+1
I was JUST reading a supreme court case (i think it was regarding the IV amendment... maybe) on how the bill of rights does nothing to empower people or the government, nor detract from either, because the rights therein are inherent. everyone has always HAD those rights, regardless of how they've been blasphemed over the years...

Aguila Blanca
June 10, 2007, 04:40 PM
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

In the context of the question engendering this thread, read especially numbers I through IV

otcconan
June 10, 2007, 04:55 PM
Bill of Rights refer to individuals. It is not "The National Guard's Bill of Rights."

It refers to everyone. That's why that recent ruling in D.C. is spot-on, and caused conniptions in everyone in the left.

otcconan
June 10, 2007, 04:58 PM
Also keep in mind that your right to keep and bear arms does not depend on the existence of the Second Amendment.

Profound. Truly. None of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights is granted by the Constitution OR the Government. These are unalienable rights that are granted by the Creator.

unspellable
June 11, 2007, 03:05 PM
1A prohibits "congress" from enacting nay law respecting an "establishment" of religion or the free excercise therof.

"establishment" means a state church, not simply a Christmas display on a couthouse lawn.

"Congress" meant "congress". Today, the courts enact laws prohibiting the free excercise of religion at the local level. It was the framers intent that the constituion should have nothing to say about religion at the local level.

Thus we are in the curious position of reading "people" to mean "states" and "congress" to mean all levels of government down to the school board.

If you enjoyed reading about "A second amendment question..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!