Maybe some of us do have answers. lol Obviously you don't.
Probably the best Second Amendment argument I have ever read!
- Thread starter Poper
- Start date
- Status
“The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And they're the ones whose opinions count, not yours or mine.“
I’m always amazed at how easily some people will deify and submit to other humans, even at the cost of their own freedoms, simply because they were elected, or the word “Supreme” is in the title. It’s like they gravitate towards subservience.
I’m always amazed at how easily some people will deify and submit to other humans, even at the cost of their own freedoms, simply because they were elected, or the word “Supreme” is in the title. It’s like they gravitate towards subservience.
OP
OP
Poper
Member
Upon reading the descriptions of the forums on the home page, it appeared to be either General or Legal. I defer to the mods for appropriate placement.
General Forum is open to all general 2A topics and general firearms related topics not relegated to the specific forums, is it not? And the Legal forum is for the discussion of specific laws, court cases and decision, yes?
That's my take on the two forums. YMMV. I will defer to the mods'.
AlexanderA
Member
Here we go again with the "God-given rights." No. There are no "God-given rights." Every right that we have was wrested by our forebears from their reluctant rulers. The same rulers that claimed that their authority was "God-given."
The only "natural law" is the law of the jungle: might makes right, and the strong eat the weak. Your only defense is to be mightier than your prospective predator.
Rights can be maintained only by our human diligence. To expect God (or Nature) to do our fighting for us is the height of passivity (and folly).
(BTW, do you have a "God-given right" not to have troops quartered in your home? That's in the Bill of Rights too.)
(And further BTW -- if the right to arms is "God-given," how come the rest of the world doesn't have it? Did God play favorites with the USA?)
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
I was trained in the law. "The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is." (That could change from time to time.)
Ok I made changes is it good enough for you now??
Monac
Member
The description I read of the General Gun Discussion Forum was "Meet fellow forum members, find a common ground. Introduce new people to responsible firearm ownership. Posts must be related to firearms, not general politics." (Italics in original.) I don't see anything about Second Amendment issues there, nor about law, constitutional or otherwise. Where did you find such a reference?
On the other hand, the description of the Legal Forum seems to be an very good fit: "In the Legal Forum we try to understand what the law is (including court decisions and proposed laws), how it works, and how it applies to RKBA issues. We focus on the way things are – not the way we think they should be. However, nothing in the Legal Forum is intended to be, nor should it be considered, legal advice. (Be sure to read: THR Legal Forum Guidelines: Read Before Posting)"
But, of course, I will abide by the decision of the moderators without complaint.
OP
OP
Poper
Member
In order to be completely understood:
IMHO, I fail to see how the Second Amendment is considered "general politics", though it most definitely fits the definition of "a common ground" for forum members.
From the Legal forum guidelines:
The premise of the original post was not intended to be a legal argument but was intended to be food for thought for those that wished to engage anti-2A people in a reasoned discussion. That was the thought when I created the thread.
IMHO, I fail to see how the Second Amendment is considered "general politics", though it most definitely fits the definition of "a common ground" for forum members.
Lawyers and politicians. Claiming authority to the detriment of others since time began. Same old same old.
Just because some lawyer or politician claims something to be the way it is doesn’t make it true. No matter how much they drink their own kool aid.
Slavery was cool at one time too.
Blah. Nonsense like the 3-5’ths compromise could only be dreamed up by lawyers and politicians. Ridiculous.
1942bull
Member
Well written article with many good points. Yet I disagree with this statement. “The American people have been mistakenly led to believe that the Federal judiciary has the power to make and interpret the Constitution. The Constitution grants them no such power.”
The Constitution is the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the law. As such it overrides all legislative made laws. We all know that some laws are found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which, as the highest court, is the final arbiter of legal disputes. When the Constitution was written the Framers had deep knowledge of the English legal system and it courts on which it based its conclusions about a judicial branch. The Supreme Law of the Land needed a Supreme Court to decide disputes under the Constitution.
As in all level of the US Judiciary courts apply the law to cases. There is no law that cannot be argued, so it often must be interpreted by judgement. That’s why there are judges who by their judgements can at times create binding precedents. The Supreme Court is the final court of judgment in all things Constitutional. In exercising that power the Court can set precedents the regulate subsequent judgements. If that were not so there would be an endless trying of the similar cases over and over. That would not make sense if allowed.
Percents are not laws. They are judgements about laws and the application of laws. Supreme Court precedents can be changed, but rarely are. If the Legislative Branch does not agree with precedents it can enact laws to nullify the precedents.
Constitutional Rights have always been regulated. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote, but most of us are eligible to vote provided we are not prohibited by age or other legal rubric. The right to vote flows from the Constitution’s establishment of Elections. The deduction is, if there are Elections, there must be voters. But the right to vote has been regulated (mostly by states) for over two centuries. There were and still are laws that prevent some people from voting. If you regulate who can vote, you directly regulate the right to vote. The regulation of so-called Constitutional Rights is not uncommon.
First Amendment right to Freedom of speech, of the press, and of the right of the people peaceably to assemble has been regulated. Fourth Amendment Rights to be free in one’s person, house, papers has been regulated. The Second Amendment has been regulated at times since the Civil War.
The regulation of Rights flows from legislative power. The Congress can and has enacted regulations —the 1990 assault rifle ban, various firearms acts over the years. It was not the Supreme Court who regulated firearms. It has set precedents about the Second Amendment but those can be overturned but the Congress. That is why the Legislature is the subject of the Constitution. It has the ultimate power under the Constitution and the Supreme Court is subject to that power.
The Constitution is the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the law. As such it overrides all legislative made laws. We all know that some laws are found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which, as the highest court, is the final arbiter of legal disputes. When the Constitution was written the Framers had deep knowledge of the English legal system and it courts on which it based its conclusions about a judicial branch. The Supreme Law of the Land needed a Supreme Court to decide disputes under the Constitution.
As in all level of the US Judiciary courts apply the law to cases. There is no law that cannot be argued, so it often must be interpreted by judgement. That’s why there are judges who by their judgements can at times create binding precedents. The Supreme Court is the final court of judgment in all things Constitutional. In exercising that power the Court can set precedents the regulate subsequent judgements. If that were not so there would be an endless trying of the similar cases over and over. That would not make sense if allowed.
Percents are not laws. They are judgements about laws and the application of laws. Supreme Court precedents can be changed, but rarely are. If the Legislative Branch does not agree with precedents it can enact laws to nullify the precedents.
Constitutional Rights have always been regulated. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote, but most of us are eligible to vote provided we are not prohibited by age or other legal rubric. The right to vote flows from the Constitution’s establishment of Elections. The deduction is, if there are Elections, there must be voters. But the right to vote has been regulated (mostly by states) for over two centuries. There were and still are laws that prevent some people from voting. If you regulate who can vote, you directly regulate the right to vote. The regulation of so-called Constitutional Rights is not uncommon.
First Amendment right to Freedom of speech, of the press, and of the right of the people peaceably to assemble has been regulated. Fourth Amendment Rights to be free in one’s person, house, papers has been regulated. The Second Amendment has been regulated at times since the Civil War.
The regulation of Rights flows from legislative power. The Congress can and has enacted regulations —the 1990 assault rifle ban, various firearms acts over the years. It was not the Supreme Court who regulated firearms. It has set precedents about the Second Amendment but those can be overturned but the Congress. That is why the Legislature is the subject of the Constitution. It has the ultimate power under the Constitution and the Supreme Court is subject to that power.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,078
I have asked this same thing many times here....only to hear nuttin' but crickets chirping. Folks are quick to criticize others, but yet, have no ideas or thoughts that make more sense, other than the same old 2A rhetoric. Don't get me wrong, I am a staunch 2A supporter, but those 27 words are not the ultimate answer for everyone. Every piece of gun legislation instituted since, is clear evidence. Standing on a soapbox reciting those 27 words does not keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals. Anyone remember the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968? Struggling to keep firearms in the hands of responsible and law abiding citizens is not new.
^^^ I agree. I have often wondered if those "God-Given" rights only applied to Christians and if it applied only to those that went to church on a regular basis and are free from sin? Things that make one go "hmmmmm".
I believe “God Given Rights” is simply a paraphrase for “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, which are further codified in the Bill of Rights and Constitution. Arms (to include firearms), can be integral to the pursuit of all three of those.
it doesn’t really specify any particular religion or faith.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, which are further codified in the Bill of Rights and Constitution. Arms (to include firearms), can be integral to the pursuit of all three of those.
it doesn’t really specify any particular religion or faith.
Last edited:
wiscoaster
Member
Bookmarking the OP....
RetiredUSNChief
Member
As well written as this is, there is still more.
The politics behind the Bill of Rights itself is pretty interesting. And the end result we know of today as the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) does not encapsulate everything put forth and some of which was consolidated from more than one down to a single amendment (the First Amendment, for example, consolidated a handful).
Nor do we see much, if anything, about what came out of the House and what came out of the Senate on their way to final ratification.
First of all, the fact that there was no bill of rights written into the Constitution from the beginning was a sticking point. The battle was fought over that, and in the end the Constitution was written without it. In fact, there was an attempt at convening a second constitutional convention just for this purpose. But that failed, too.
When the Constitution was sent out for ratification, the fact that there was no bill of rights written into it was a HUGE deal. So much so that one or two states, as I recall, made their ratification, and subsequent continued membership in the Union, conditional on amending the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights by the end of the first congressional session. I believe that was New York and North Carolina. (I may be wrong on the details...I can't find my book on this, which I bought at the gift shop at Mount Vernon a few years ago.)
The Federalists had no interest in a Bill of Rights. Remember...the Federalists were those who wanted a strong central government, supreme over the States. The Anti-federalists wanted a bill of rights. These were people who feared giving the federal government too much power. But interestingly, the Federalists saw political advantage in finally pushing for a bill of rights themselves in an effort to hamstring the Anti-federalists over the issue. Politics...hasn't changed, in case anybody wondered.
From the original 13 states came literally hundreds of proposed amendments. Obviously, many were either duplicates or very near duplicates. Out of all those, 12 were written up and sent to the states for ratification. Out of those 12, 10 were ratified, and then only by 3/4 of the states. Of those 12 proposed amendments, it was amendments 3 through 12 which went on to become Amendments 1 through 10 we know today as the Bill of Rights.
What were those original first two amendments?
Article the First: After the first enumeration, required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred; to which number Representative shall be added for every subsequent increase of forty thousand, until the Representatives shall amount to two hundred, to which number one Representative shall be added for every subsequent increase of sixty thousand persons.
Article the Second: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Interestingly, "Article the Second" later became the 27th Amendment. Article the First was later resolved under The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, with a history behind it.
SO, HOW WAS THE SECOND AMENDMENT "ORIGINALLY" WORDED?
A good question, and one that's not so simply answered. Why? Well, remember that the thirteen original states submitted HUNDREDS of amendments in total, and many had to do with the very subject of what we know of as the Second Amendment. Not to mention the various notable people of the day. And is is from these roots that the real meaning behind the Second Amendment may be divined, no necessarily what we see in the text today. Many of these proposed amendments were included in their respective state amendments.
Not to mention the fact that the amendments went through the SAME process that amendments and laws of today go through...meaning they start out in one form and are argued over and reworded endlessly until, finally, something comes out at the end and is voted on.
From Thomas Jefferson, with respect to the context of the Virginia Constitution Drafts, said:
Draft 1: No Freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Draft 2: No Freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms [in his own lands or tenements].
Draft 3: No Freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms [in his own lands or tenements].
The Virginia Constitution of June 12,m 1776 says in their declaration of rights: That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Pennsylvania's constitution of September 1776 says "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
North Carolina's constitution of December 18, 1776 says "That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
FROM THESE ROOTS we can see the real concern behind the RKBA is most definitely NOT what liberals of today would wish us to believe. It was most certainly centered around a personal right, as well as the defense OF the nation and FROM the government.
It is good to remember that the States themselves were, briefly, nations in their own right and that they had a very healthy fear of a powerful government overlord trampling on them and their citizens.
February 6, 1788, the following was reported in a publication on the Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts convention on ratification of the U.S. Constitution proposed the following be added to Article I:
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." - Unknown
What was first brought to the floor of the first session of congress in the House of Representatives:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
A reworded version of the Second Amendment by the select committee on the Bill of Rights on July 28, 1789:
"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 person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
The draft version sent by the House to the Senate on August 24, 1789 was:
"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."
The revision voted on by the Senate, September 4, 1789:
"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"
The final version passed by the Senate:
"A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The politics behind the Bill of Rights itself is pretty interesting. And the end result we know of today as the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) does not encapsulate everything put forth and some of which was consolidated from more than one down to a single amendment (the First Amendment, for example, consolidated a handful).
Nor do we see much, if anything, about what came out of the House and what came out of the Senate on their way to final ratification.
First of all, the fact that there was no bill of rights written into the Constitution from the beginning was a sticking point. The battle was fought over that, and in the end the Constitution was written without it. In fact, there was an attempt at convening a second constitutional convention just for this purpose. But that failed, too.
When the Constitution was sent out for ratification, the fact that there was no bill of rights written into it was a HUGE deal. So much so that one or two states, as I recall, made their ratification, and subsequent continued membership in the Union, conditional on amending the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights by the end of the first congressional session. I believe that was New York and North Carolina. (I may be wrong on the details...I can't find my book on this, which I bought at the gift shop at Mount Vernon a few years ago.)
The Federalists had no interest in a Bill of Rights. Remember...the Federalists were those who wanted a strong central government, supreme over the States. The Anti-federalists wanted a bill of rights. These were people who feared giving the federal government too much power. But interestingly, the Federalists saw political advantage in finally pushing for a bill of rights themselves in an effort to hamstring the Anti-federalists over the issue. Politics...hasn't changed, in case anybody wondered.
From the original 13 states came literally hundreds of proposed amendments. Obviously, many were either duplicates or very near duplicates. Out of all those, 12 were written up and sent to the states for ratification. Out of those 12, 10 were ratified, and then only by 3/4 of the states. Of those 12 proposed amendments, it was amendments 3 through 12 which went on to become Amendments 1 through 10 we know today as the Bill of Rights.
What were those original first two amendments?
Article the First: After the first enumeration, required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred; to which number Representative shall be added for every subsequent increase of forty thousand, until the Representatives shall amount to two hundred, to which number one Representative shall be added for every subsequent increase of sixty thousand persons.
Article the Second: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Interestingly, "Article the Second" later became the 27th Amendment. Article the First was later resolved under The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, with a history behind it.
SO, HOW WAS THE SECOND AMENDMENT "ORIGINALLY" WORDED?
A good question, and one that's not so simply answered. Why? Well, remember that the thirteen original states submitted HUNDREDS of amendments in total, and many had to do with the very subject of what we know of as the Second Amendment. Not to mention the various notable people of the day. And is is from these roots that the real meaning behind the Second Amendment may be divined, no necessarily what we see in the text today. Many of these proposed amendments were included in their respective state amendments.
Not to mention the fact that the amendments went through the SAME process that amendments and laws of today go through...meaning they start out in one form and are argued over and reworded endlessly until, finally, something comes out at the end and is voted on.
From Thomas Jefferson, with respect to the context of the Virginia Constitution Drafts, said:
Draft 1: No Freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Draft 2: No Freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms [in his own lands or tenements].
Draft 3: No Freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms [in his own lands or tenements].
The Virginia Constitution of June 12,m 1776 says in their declaration of rights: That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Pennsylvania's constitution of September 1776 says "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
North Carolina's constitution of December 18, 1776 says "That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
FROM THESE ROOTS we can see the real concern behind the RKBA is most definitely NOT what liberals of today would wish us to believe. It was most certainly centered around a personal right, as well as the defense OF the nation and FROM the government.
It is good to remember that the States themselves were, briefly, nations in their own right and that they had a very healthy fear of a powerful government overlord trampling on them and their citizens.
February 6, 1788, the following was reported in a publication on the Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts convention on ratification of the U.S. Constitution proposed the following be added to Article I:
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." - Unknown
What was first brought to the floor of the first session of congress in the House of Representatives:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
A reworded version of the Second Amendment by the select committee on the Bill of Rights on July 28, 1789:
"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 person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
The draft version sent by the House to the Senate on August 24, 1789 was:
"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."
The revision voted on by the Senate, September 4, 1789:
"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"
The final version passed by the Senate:
"A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The Last Outlaw
Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2020
- Messages
- 220
Man, what a great post! Perfectly said.
Monac
Member
And you intended to do that by presenting a legal interpretation of the Second Amendment.
If you fail to see how the status of the Second Amendment is our society is a political issue, or how the Constitution is a legal document, it is because you willfully refuse to do so.
wiscoaster
Member
Another bookmark .... 
daniel craig
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,815
Thanks for pointing that out. Proof that none of us is infallible.Did your point have anything to do with kettles and pots?
danez71
Member
So, so, sooo true.
Fwiw, you weren't without a point.
Personally, I think there would be less laws if they weren't 'needed'. Society as a whole could do better. And we are part of society. But that's off topic; at least for this thread.
Take care.
I will state again and subject myself (again) to the criticism of the forum lawyers and legal intellectuals - “…..the right of {THE PEOPLE} to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Again, this reads very clear and simple and literal (to me); it is not subject to an intellectual flogging to really mean something different. Also, it is language that is worth fighting for. The Constitution is nothing more than parchment with written words - in and of itself, it is meaningless. That parchment only takes form if a believer with the will to pay the price and a rifle in hand stands behind it. Without that individual will, the government will always develop unto itself at the cost of the governed - history tells us this, it is always the same story when the governed are rendered helpless.
- Status
