Officers'Wife
Member
Because at the time of the writing of the 2nd, standing armies were considered a great danger to a free state. Ergo the militia(s) where to be the nation's first line of defense.
An individual right?
- Thread starter Owen Sparks
- Start date
- Status
Because at the time of the writing of the 2nd, standing armies were considered a great danger to a free state. Ergo the militia(s) where to be the nation's first line of defense.
So is the intent of the first 13 words to justify the rest of the amendment - "Since we don't trust standing armies, the militias are to be the nation's line of defense, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
In your opinion is the consideration that a standing army is a great danger to a free state an Anti-Federalist view that a Federal Army is a great danger of the freedom of the individual States?
Or is it more that the existence of a standing army - at the Federal or State level - is a great danger to any free state (state in this meaning an abstract political structure)?
Were there people of both opinions at the time of the ratification of the Constitution?
I hope my questions do not seem argumentative. I am really trying to understand this issue. I know mainly the NRA side - I didn't know anything about Federalist/Anti-Federalist battles over the 2nd until someone brought them up on THR a couple of months ago to explain the distorted grammar of the 2nd.
Thanks,
Mike
wolfman01
Member
The latter was said on television. I remember hearing that one personally. As to the first one, I don't know where it came from, but it's pretty much in line of her views regarding the second one.
ilcylic
Member
230RN said:
No. Being concerned about the well being of your fellow man isn't evil.
Sticking a gun in my mouth and lightening my wallet to alleviate their suffering is. And that's the difference between charity and collectivism.
RPCVYemen said:
I believe the first 13 words in the second amendment are a preambular statement of purpose, which explains why the right exist. In Eldred v. Ashcroft, authored by SCOTUS Justice Ruth Ginsberg, the court stated that (among other things) they do not agree with the idea that a statement of purpose limits a right or power as granted in the U.S. Constitution. In this particular case, they were examining the Constitution's copyright clause, but I see no reason why the same reasoning shouldn't apply to the first 13 words in the 2A.
RPCVYemen said:
In a word, yes. This debate has been with us in one form or another since probably the 15th century.
At the time that the constitution was ratified, the great concern was that the federal government would over power the various states and the people within those states (turns out to have been a valid concern). So the Bill of Rights was amended to the constitution as a way to ease people's fears as to what powers, exactly, the federal government had.
The 2A therefore actually did two things: it assured the states that the federal government could not disarm them, and it assured the people within those states that the federal government would not disarm them.
Of course, there's always been people in human civilization who hate the idea of individual empowerment, and an individual right to arms is the ultimate expression of individual empowerment. So right from day one, (actually, right from the time before the Constitution was written) there were people arguing for a collective right to arms.
This is an old, old argument, and no matter what SCOTUS says next year, it will not be settled. It will never be settled. The reason why is that the right to arms is the pivot point between those who would be individually free, and those who would force society to behave in such as way as to benefit the privileged few.
The Supreme Court may view it as they see fit, doesn't mean what they say is gospel. We all know they've been wrong before! It would be nice to see them make a correct decision on the Second Amendment in my lifetime though, and whatever they decide, it will have ramifications.
Socialism is a modern invention and so us the idea of "collectivism". It has NO Merit whatsoever with respect to the 2nd Amendment!!!! There was no "contraversy" concerning the individual RKBA with respect to the forefathers, there was a contraversy concerning the idea of a standing army and the disposition of the militia.
First point: There is no issue concerning the power of the state, i.e. the individual states, to arm their own officials, and neither is there an issue concerning the power of the federal government to arm their own officials. In Article 1, Congress has the responsibility to train and arm the Militia, when in service of the federal government. That is, when there is a national emergency or major war. This isn't a great mystery or brain surgery, it is common sense.
The militia is the entire male population, not members of a pseudo-federal army. Read Hamilton's discourse in the Federalist Papers, a milita is formidable, because it includes the entire population. The aim and goal of gun control laws has always been and always wil be to limit the number of individuals who have guns, not limit crime nor make society safer, that is just used as an excuse. When few or only a small minority can own guns, then you have no milita, you have only a governmental army or police force, with ony elitists that can own guns, exactly what Hamilton described of being the situation in Monarchial Europe at the time!
Why do politicians fear an armed public? As the founders envisioned, a government for the people; by the people; and of the people, would be voluntarily protected by the people. A government that oppresses the people , like was occuring during the Revolutionary War time period, would need a standing army to keep the government in power. Such is the current trend in the US, a push to inflict upon the entire nation a system that compromises the liberties with a "promise" of a better society. As you may have noticed, there is little left of property rights. At the promise of a common good, all governments are running rampant over individual property rights.In most large US cities, the RKBA is gone as well.
First point: There is no issue concerning the power of the state, i.e. the individual states, to arm their own officials, and neither is there an issue concerning the power of the federal government to arm their own officials. In Article 1, Congress has the responsibility to train and arm the Militia, when in service of the federal government. That is, when there is a national emergency or major war. This isn't a great mystery or brain surgery, it is common sense.
The militia is the entire male population, not members of a pseudo-federal army. Read Hamilton's discourse in the Federalist Papers, a milita is formidable, because it includes the entire population. The aim and goal of gun control laws has always been and always wil be to limit the number of individuals who have guns, not limit crime nor make society safer, that is just used as an excuse. When few or only a small minority can own guns, then you have no milita, you have only a governmental army or police force, with ony elitists that can own guns, exactly what Hamilton described of being the situation in Monarchial Europe at the time!
Why do politicians fear an armed public? As the founders envisioned, a government for the people; by the people; and of the people, would be voluntarily protected by the people. A government that oppresses the people , like was occuring during the Revolutionary War time period, would need a standing army to keep the government in power. Such is the current trend in the US, a push to inflict upon the entire nation a system that compromises the liberties with a "promise" of a better society. As you may have noticed, there is little left of property rights. At the promise of a common good, all governments are running rampant over individual property rights.In most large US cities, the RKBA is gone as well.
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi RPCVY,
Quite frankly that is too broad a subject for this forum and I gave up writing thesi when I graduated. My suggestion is to read the 'Federalist Papers' and some of the relevant articles on the subject by Jay and Franklin. The titles escape me at the moment.
Selena
Quite frankly that is too broad a subject for this forum and I gave up writing thesi when I graduated. My suggestion is to read the 'Federalist Papers' and some of the relevant articles on the subject by Jay and Franklin. The titles escape me at the moment.
Selena
Triangulation and Third Way Politics
230RN writes "it struck me that once again, there is a place for the middle road."
The Clintons agree with you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(politics)
As much as this article appears to claim that triangulation doesn't work, it is a fundamental part of leftist political methodology (the Hegelian dialectic) and is also the key manipulation tactic in group meetings that have become dominant in government and business. Consensus is not consent; humans will give up their positions to maintain relationships. Consensus derives from the latin, 'with feeling'. The alternative is conscience 'with facts'.
It's always a bad idea for a conscientious person to come to consensus with people who are collectivists (putting the group above individual rights). Whenever the left wants to put together a diverse group of people (ambiguous stakeholders with little at stake) dialoguing to consensus the undercurrent is to disarm and isolate individuals with strong positions.
The logical outcome of combining truths and lies is till a lie. Putting a little poison in one's food may not be lethal, but it's hardly a good compromise particularly if the poison is cumulative. When the left says let's compromise, they really want concessions, or they know that their poison is cumulative.
The middle ground is also less defensible; once you shown you can be moved to a weaker position, the incremental attacks will continue.
230RN writes "it struck me that once again, there is a place for the middle road."
The Clintons agree with you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(politics)
As much as this article appears to claim that triangulation doesn't work, it is a fundamental part of leftist political methodology (the Hegelian dialectic) and is also the key manipulation tactic in group meetings that have become dominant in government and business. Consensus is not consent; humans will give up their positions to maintain relationships. Consensus derives from the latin, 'with feeling'. The alternative is conscience 'with facts'.
It's always a bad idea for a conscientious person to come to consensus with people who are collectivists (putting the group above individual rights). Whenever the left wants to put together a diverse group of people (ambiguous stakeholders with little at stake) dialoguing to consensus the undercurrent is to disarm and isolate individuals with strong positions.
The logical outcome of combining truths and lies is till a lie. Putting a little poison in one's food may not be lethal, but it's hardly a good compromise particularly if the poison is cumulative. When the left says let's compromise, they really want concessions, or they know that their poison is cumulative.
The middle ground is also less defensible; once you shown you can be moved to a weaker position, the incremental attacks will continue.
USSC Presser Vs St. of ILL.
I know that I am simple minded, but in Presser V State of Ill. the USSC found that the State could outlaw parades of Armed Men But, they also said the following, first below, in their decision. To me the USSC has already ruled. I have put in bold and underlined the pertainent section. I copied this from http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/PresservStIll1886.html . There is a lot of information for the uninformed or underinformed individual on that site.
"We are next to inquire whether the fifth and sixth sections of article 11 of the Military Code are in violation of the other provisions of the constitution of the United States relied on by the plaintiff in error. The first of these is the second amendment, which declares: '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.'
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [Page 116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state*. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,* leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [Page 116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.' See, also, Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. State, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cow. 819;Com. v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Ired. 250; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think [Page 116 U.S. 252, 266] it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.
George
I know that I am simple minded, but in Presser V State of Ill. the USSC found that the State could outlaw parades of Armed Men But, they also said the following, first below, in their decision. To me the USSC has already ruled. I have put in bold and underlined the pertainent section. I copied this from http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/PresservStIll1886.html . There is a lot of information for the uninformed or underinformed individual on that site.
"We are next to inquire whether the fifth and sixth sections of article 11 of the Military Code are in violation of the other provisions of the constitution of the United States relied on by the plaintiff in error. The first of these is the second amendment, which declares: '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.'
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [Page 116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state*. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,* leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [Page 116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.' See, also, Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. State, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cow. 819;Com. v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Ired. 250; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think [Page 116 U.S. 252, 266] it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.
George
Last edited:
Officers'Wife
Member
The trouble with the middle road is the middle keeps shifting. Back in the thirties the middle road was fully auto weapons. Fifty years later the middle was 'no guns for felons' and 'no guns through the mail.' In the nineties the middle became 'no guns for those with certain misdemeanors.'
The Founding Father gave us the duty to protect the hard won rights and privileges good men died to obtain. Finding the 'middle road' is not compromise, it's dereliction of duty. The lessor of two evils is still and always will be an evil in itself.
Selena
The Founding Father gave us the duty to protect the hard won rights and privileges good men died to obtain. Finding the 'middle road' is not compromise, it's dereliction of duty. The lessor of two evils is still and always will be an evil in itself.
Selena
- Status
