2nd Amendment gives militia right to bear arms, not individuals

[JohnL2]

Holy mackerel. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.
It pains me to think that our education system is populated with people with views like this. I have wanted to challenge my teachers many times on facts when I was in college, but I just did not want to rock the boat and be labeled a troublemaker. By all means you should respect your educators, but I also believe that one should be cognizant of the possibility that you are being fed reinterpretive twaddle like this.
Are there any professors of repute out there than actually teach the Constitution in all its historical context and legal connotations without such obvious bias?
I would have greater respect for this gentleman if he just flat out admitted that he is an agenda driven educator. We have too many of those.
I would like to see educators who are conduits to the knowledge in all its breadth, scope, and totality. That would be refreshing.

 

[conw]

Come on guys...someone's ability to articulate a truthful or accurate statement about a given subject doesn't hinge solely on their credentials.

In this wonderful free country of ours, people can read books, discuss things with experts (or each other), and learn in all sorts of ways that don't boost their credentials. And they can be just as right as an expert, or even someone of elevated status.

That doesn't preclude them being wrong of course, and I take the point about the fact that what this guy's saying doesn't matter seeing as how Heller decided it for everyone; however...

Great, we have a geoscientist contrasted with comediomagicians who also don't teach law and are not lawyers.

Just because someone happens to do a magic act or study in a scientific field does not render them unable to comprehend anything but their chosen profession.

There are plenty of people who aren't lawyers or law-educated, i.e. lay-people in that sense, who are correct on the 2A where poli-sci profs, lawyers, and legal-minded politicians aren't.

If we (as citizens of the US, and as THR members and 2A supporters) allow for this "credential-based" reasoning, rather than argument-based reasoning, we are heading down a slippery slope.

 

[jcwit]

Slippery slope indeed, You go to a Med. Dr. for health care not a lawyer, no more than I would listen to a Geoscienctiest over a lawyer regarding legal issues. Especially something as controversial as 2nd ammendant rights.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

It's really the right to arm bears.


(Okay I borrowed that, but it has about as much planted in the 2nd ammendment as what the anti's believe).

 

[eventer289]

In reading the transcript of Heller vs. DC, a certain argument stood out to me. If the militia was made up of the people, then one must assume that in order to have a militia, the people must retain the right to keep and bear arms. Without the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms, it would have been impossible to organize a militia made up of the common people.

 

[moooose102]

fine, lets all join the THR Militia!

 

[Sinixstar]

I didn't bother reading all the responses - but It seems there's a very simple fatal flaw in this man's logic.

The "militia" is the collection of armed individuals in the state. As I understand it, many states even have the language on the books that defines what constitutes the state militia, and in many cases it is "able bodied men of sound mind between the ages of 18 and 64". Congratulations - depending on your state, you're all militia men, and this guy's argument is irrelevant.

 

[conw]

Slippery slope indeed, You go to a Med. Dr. for health care not a lawyer, no more than I would listen to a Geoscienctiest over a lawyer regarding legal issues. Especially something as controversial as 2nd ammendant rights.

As a matter of fact, my parents and I get our health info from somewhere other than MDs, and as a result they are in their 60s with no need to visit a doctor except for routine check-ups. It's called prevention, something that most MDs don't advocate or (judging from the fact that lots are smokers with beer bellies) often even understand.

It's one thing to consult an MD (or go to one if you have pneumonia or a broken arm, that's common sense), but they can also be wrong or not provide complete information. Ever hear of malpractice? I'm not saying their opinion carries no more weight than the average person's...just that you'd better be able to look beyond that degree and critically examine what he's saying and doing, just like you'd better do with a lawyer or any "expert's" opinion.

The fact that the geoscientist guy or whoever he is is wrong doesn't have anything to do with not having a background in law. I could go find five lawyers in five minutes who are wrong too. And the fact that Penn and Teller are magicians and kinda goofy doesn't take away from the fact that their opinion is right.

Right or wrong, correct or incorrect, has to do more with evidence, proof, and perhaps ability to articulate than it does credentials. Credentials boost your volume but you're either right or you're wrong most of the time. All the degrees and experience in the world don't make a lie true or an off-base opinion worthy.

 

[Crashola]

Ratzlaff can complain and pontificate all he wants for all I care -- that's his First Amendment right after all. The fact of the matter is that Heller is the law of the land and his teeth gnashing ain't gonna change that.

 

[cliffy]

Not unlike "Interpreting the Bible" . . .

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution means what it states, and not what some would like it to "Indict." A FREE AMERICA insists upon free people wielding weapons of deterrent regarding foreign attack. How simple: How perfect: How American in perfect thinking. cliffy

 

[SamTuckerMTNMAN]

the best

thing to do is go back and look at the fouders quotes on related topics. The VERY ESSENCE and spirit and meaning of their words is best understood, clearly, easily, by their writings, letters, essays, and so on.

How can the power to be checked and balanced regulate and infringe upon those who are the balance? (us)

There are FOUR branches of republican, constitutional government.
Executive

Judicial

Legislative

and the PEOPLE

The people have a right to keep and bear arms without infringement.

That holy gift, rare, like a precious jewel, the missing link in the ring of political power, will always be sought after and coveted by the scum whose hearts have been replaced by greed and a thirst for control.

F' em! This fight will exist as long as there are humans. Don't ever let your guard down if you cherish the rarest treasure on Earth
FREEDOM (or some close resemblance of it)

st

 

[MikePGS]

Someone sick liberal intellectuals on this man at once. The original definition of a militia, that is "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States ". As we know, originally this also was implied to mean white males, so clearly this professor of Geosciences (a discipline noted for interpreted the written word) only thinks white males should have guns, and hates women (the misogynist!) and non-white's (Racist!). One can only presume that this man knows the precise meaning of what the militia is, and isn't speaking out of his nether regions.

 

[conw]

Final check against tyranny, as a concept pertaining to 2A, seems quite distinct from the system of checks and balances present in a representative government...I'm not so sure I can really agree with a literal interpretation that "the people" are the "fourth branch of government."

 

[paperpuncher49]

The wording of the "second" part of the second amendment is also relevant in any discussion of the amendment's intent. It does not state "the people shall have a right to keep and bear arms." It states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This wording strongly implies that keeping and bearing arms was not granted by the constitution, rather, it was an assumed right of the people that existed prior to (predated) the writing of the constitution and the framers intention was to clearly state that no law shall be passed which would infringe that right. Also, the word "free" is often overlooked by those who would trample the second amendment. The framers did not state that a militia being necessary to the security of "the state," they specifically stated "a free state." Surely, there are implications there they conveniently overlook, as the common thread linking the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the American Revolution itself is FREEDOM.

 

[MIL-DOT]

(quote) " The main point of RKBA is to provide a final check against tyrannical government. It makes no sense for the very entity being kept in check to be regulating the means to do so."

Well said, K3 !! That's sig-line material, that is !!! I don't think anyone could summarize the entire debate any more accurately or concisely that that.

 

[jcwit]

Bottom line is I go to Lawyers for legal advice who are trainedin the law and law advice not some one with a degree in another field. And don't give me the speach about preventive medicine as I do not smoke nor drink or do drugs and am a 7 yr. cancer survivor, and no I did not go to Mexico for alternative medicine. I trusted MY LIFE with medical Drs. and frankly they did a pretty dam good job. Thank You
65 year old Leukemia survivor

 

[SamTuckerMTNMAN]

meaning;
we are the ultimate check and balance, more important as a unit, the very foundation of the rest, than the other three "branches"

If we were not a balancing force for political power then what is the point of a 2nd amendment or an intellect of critical thinking, questioning authority.

They would do as they wish without our opinion...

OOPS!

my bad, too late.:banghead:

st

 

[cornman]

Amendment gives militia right to bear arms is correct. We were never intended to have a standing military. The public was the militia. This is not the case now. So, this is where the debate needs to be.

 

[Ringtail]

This 2A thread is much more encouraging that the other one. Thank you.

 

[conw]

Bottom line is I go to Lawyers for legal advice who are trainedin the law and law advice not some one with a degree in another field. And don't give me the speach about preventive medicine as I do not smoke nor drink or do drugs and am a 7 yr. cancer survivor, and no I did not go to Mexico for alternative medicine. I trusted MY LIFE with medical Drs. and frankly they did a pretty dam good job. Thank You
65 year old Leukemia survivor

Frankly you're taking my point and applying it indiscriminately and to an absurd extent. All logical points have a logical end. I wasn't making a generalization about EVERYTHING or saying that academies, specialties, and degrees have no purpose. This seems to happen so frequently online.

Person A (me) makes a valid point in response to a not-so-valid implied statement (here, that one must have credentials to be correct or to correct someone about something), person B responds that there is, in fact, an exception, and off we go...

I see the health issue is a sensitive one for you, so I should say I didn't intend to say "My parents are so much better than anyone who ever got sick." I'm thankful that they are in good health, and realize that while they can take credit, other people who try just as hard are not lucky. However, my point holds true that you do not go to one source for ANY type of information, credentialed or not.

And that alternative sources can, sometimes, be quite helpful or even better than a credentialed source. As an example that relates to your situation, there are non-FDA-approved drugs that doctors CANNOT prescribe or recommend that have recently been found helpful in treating cancer. Because these drugs are already used for other purposes (industrial), they are cheap to buy in bulk and it is unlikely that any drug company, under current policies and laws, will find a profit incentive to push them through the expensive FDA approval process.

I'm out. Maybe some people like to defer to authority.

 

[Logan5]

Well, if you want the Supreme Court to hear what you have to say about anything, the first thing you have to do is get admitted to the Supreme Court Bar...
Otherwise, standing outside wearing a sandwich board with your opinion on it is about the same as writing an op-ed for your paper, or hiring a skywriter, i.e. completely irrelevant.

 

[crazy-mp]

Every citizen is entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrong they may be.

When the teacher asked what amendment is the most important little Tommy said "The second, it makes all the others possible." Dad shed a silent tear

I guess all those first American citizens that would grab their rifles at any time day or night for their countries defense were really just our gun nut forefathers...

If elected President I will offer free one way airline tickets to various destinations around the world so you can take up residence in that perfect country because apparently you don’t care to much for this one.

 

[swwyo]

The Constitution is a lot like the Bible. A lot of people try to interpret it to fit there own little cause, although you soon find out just like the Bible most of the people really never read it. To me the 2nd Amendment is probably one of the most straight forward rights we have. I have just one question for the Liberal Dumb A** that wrote the article, if the 2nd Amendment is a right for a state to maintain a standing army, then why is Article 4 (or one of the articles, it's been a a while since I read it) of the US Constitution prohibit states from having army's without permission of Congress? Once again if you actually read the 4 corners of the document you find the obvious and realize how stupid liberals are.

 

[swwyo]

I'm sorry, I was wrong it was not article 4, it is found in article 1, section 10 and reads as follows

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

To me if the second amendment was to grant a state to keep a militia then how can they keep troops?

 

[mnrivrat]

As I See It: 2nd Amendment gives militia right to bear arms, not individuals

Simple - this person is blind . Probably hearing impaired as well .

All evidence points to an individual right, so perhaps other handicaps plague this person as well.