2nd Amendment's Actual Meaning?

[paperpuncher49]

Sounds to me like Obama is surfing YouTube again!

 

[JellyJar]

The most important thing to understand about the second amendment ( as well as the first eight, the bill of rights ) is that the purpose of the second amendment was not to create a right to keep and bear arms where previously no such right had existed but to create a more positive affirmation of the existence of an already existing right. That is to say that the right to keep and bear arms existed before the creation of the Constitution of the US and does not depend on the Constitution for its existence.

Look up the complete dicta of the SCOTUS case of Cruikshank et al

“The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”

For more on this reads James Madison notes on the constitutional convention. As well as John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government as well as the US Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

IMHO, the right to keep and bear arms is one of the many inherent and unalienable rights we have by dint of being human.

 

[DammitBoy]

I've been arguing with a nutbar on another forum who keeps claiming 'well-regulated' means the right to regulate the 2nd amendment belongs to the states...

 

[Art Eatman]

DammitBoy, word usage changes over time. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, "well-regulated" meant that something was operating properly. A clock that kept accurate time was "well-regulated". There was a clock company which had a wall clock that was named "Regulator". Same usage for a militia group which was orderly in marching and competent in shooting.

 

[RDak]

Have your friend read the Heller decision DammitBoy. There is a good discussion of the history of the 2nd Amendment and the meaning of the prefatory clause.

Art is correct btw IMHO.

 

[DammitBoy]

Yes, I've tried explaining the meaning of well regulated several times, to no avail.

Now these clowns want to argue that the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government and that states could dictate what ever rules they felt like applying to firearm ownership.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Now these clowns want to argue that the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government...

Well, as of this moment, the 2nd Amendment does only apply to the federal government.

In 1833 the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States (Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)). In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), the Supreme Court expressly found that neither the First Amendment right of assembly nor the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. But beginning in the latter part of the 19th Century, the Supreme Court began to apply the Bill of Rights in a piecemeal fashion to the States through the 14th Amendment under a legal doctrine known as incorporation. The Second Amendment has not yet been incorporated to apply to the States.

We hope and expect, however, the foregoing answer to change the end of this month when the Supreme Court rules on McDonald.

But note that the constitutions of many States include a RKBA clause of some sort. So your friends are still wrong about States being able to do whatever they want. Many are still constrained by their own constitutions.

 

[hugh damright]

these clowns want to argue that the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government

That much is clear. The 2nd Amendment originally applied only to the feds. That may be about to change because the SCOTUS may be about to rule that the 14th Amendment changed it so that the Second Amendment is now binding against the States.

 

[Corey]

I will take the opinion of a federal judge over some guy on youtube.

When the case (Parker vs District of Columbia) first came to me, I had been under the impression…that the Second Amendment [the right to bear arms] was a collective right. When I looked into it, I concluded to the contrary.

But the essential point is that the framers of the Constitution were skilled lawyers. The Prefatory Clause describes the Federal purpose. But the operative language, the right to keep and bear arms was perceived by the framers and the way it was drafted is clear that this is true as a preexisting right. It was not a Right granted by the Constitution, it was Right that was protected by the Constitution.

Both quotes from Judge Laurence Silberman. Full interview where these quotes come from is here:
http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/63317727.html

By way of background the Heller case was the government's attempt at the supreme court level to overturn Silberman's ruling in Parker. The name was changed from Parker to Heller in the appeal for technical reasons that are not relevant to the legal arguements of the case.

 

[hugh damright]

the supreme court has consistently held that when the constitution uses the word "people" that they mean the individual person, not a state, not a group of people, etc.

What was the case? I recall that they ruled that the term "the people" refers to citizens i.e those that make up the political body, but I don't recall them saying that it can't refer to them collectively.

PEOPLE: "A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in it's collective apolitical capacity."

If this guy's definition of "people" is accurate, then the 4th amendment gives a state the right to be secure in its persons, houses, papers, and effects, etc? I don't think so. That is not how the founders used the word "people".

The word "PEOPLE" means different things in different contexts. It seems clear to me that in some instances it refers to the people as States ... for instance, the Preamble says that the people ordained the US Constitution, yet it was ratified by the people as States i.e the US Constitution was ordained/ratified by the States. Madison said that the parties to the US Constitution were "the people, but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties". The Founders did use the term "the people" to refer to the people as States. It doesn't follow that they only used it in that manner.

the 10th makes it perfectly clear:

The powers not delegated ... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

I understand this to mean that Virginia delegated certain powers, and all other powers were reserved by Virginia, residing either in our Virginia Government if Virginians have delegated the power in question, or else residing with the people of Virginia ... it doesn't seem to bear a construction where Virginia delegated certain powers, and those which we did not delegated remain either with Virginia, or else with the citizens of the whole US. How could powers within Virginia be reserved to individuals outside of Virginia? I don't see how the term "the people" can be construed to have the same meaning in the Tenth Amendment as it does in the Fourth.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

That much is clear. The 2nd Amendment originally applied only to the feds. That may be about to change because the SCOTUS may be about to rule that the 14th Amendment changed it so that the Second Amendment is now binding against the States.

The "Bill of Rights" was enacted and the amendments to the Constitution ratified because the several states' protections of the rights of the people were inadequate in some states, wrong in some other states, and totally lacking in others. Madison said it best:

Mr. Madison from the Congressional Record of 8 June, 1789, debating the proposal of a Bill of Rights:

It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government; and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said, that in the Federal Government they 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. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation; but they are not conclusive to the extent which has been supposed. It is true, the powers of the General Government are circumscribed, they are directed to particular objects; but even if Government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the State Governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the Constitution of the United States, there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfill every purpose for which the Government was established. Now, may not laws be considered necessary and proper by Congress, for it is for them to judge of the necessity and propriety to accomplish those special purposes which they may have in contemplation, which laws in themselves are neither necessary nor proper; as well as improper laws could be enacted by the State Legislatures, for fulfilling the more extended objects of those Governments. I will state an instance, which I think in point, and proves that this might be the case. The General Government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the Legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the State Governments had in view? If there was reason for restraining the State Governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the Federal Government.

It may be said, indeed it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.

I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive. In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this Constitution. Besides, some States have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty.

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

It has been said, that it is unnecessary to load the Constitution with this provision, because it was not found effectual in the constitution of the particular States. It is true, there are a few particular States in which some of the most valuable articles have not, at one time or other, been violated; but it does not follow but they may have, to a certain degree, a salutary effect against the abuse of power. If they are incorporated into the Constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the Legislative or Executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights. Besides this security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the State Legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people's liberty. I conclude, from this view of the subject, that it will be proper in itself, and highly politic, for the tranquillity of the public mind, and the stability of the Government, that we should offer something, in the form I have proposed, to be incorporated in the system of Government, as a declaration of the rights of the people.

Here is the source on this web site.

Knowing the forgoing, it's undeniable that the Founding Fathers fully intended the "Bill of Rights" to apply to the several states as well as the feral(federal) government.

Woody

 

[gc70]

The "Bill of Rights" was enacted and the amendments to the Constitution ratified because the several states' protections of the rights of the people were inadequate in some states, wrong in some other states, and totally lacking in others. Madison said it best:

Your quote from Madison is too funny. Madison opposed the Bill of Rights and only introduced the amendments in Congress to fulfill a campaign promise. Madison was probably mortified when his 'on one hand and then on the other hand' speech was ineffective and Congress responded positively to the proposed amendments.

Of course, you know that no serious constitutional scholar believes that the Bill of Rights was originally intended to bind the states and even hack legal observers have known it to be untrue since at least 1833 (Barron v. Baltimore).

Consider only the First Amendment to see how obviously incorrect your conclusion is. Several states had government sanctioned and supported state religions when the Constitution was ratified. Can you even imagine legislators in those states saying that they could not de-establish their state religions, but demanding (demanding, I say) that the US Constitution be amended so that the federal government would prohibit religious establishment in their states.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Woody:

Madison is refuting this argument that a Bill of Rights is not necessary as a restraint on the federal government because:

the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.

In other words, the argument was that the various State Bill of Rights already contained in the state constitutions could not be repealed by the Federal Constitution so those protections are in place and can not be considered within the power of the federal govenment to over ride...

To which Madison responded that some states do not have a Bill of Rights or have an inadequate Bill of Rights, which would mean that the Feds could do what they wanted in those states.

Another argument made was that a Bill of Rights was ineffectual as was demonstrated by various violations of such rights by state goverenments.

To which Madison responded that while this was true, putting them in the federal constitution would still be a good idea because it would have a salutory effect against the abuse of power and that the judicial branch would be the guardian as against usurptions by the the legislative or executive branch... of the federal government.

Nothing that you have posted indicates that Madison intended the Bill of Rights to be applied against the states. However Madison did include a seperate provision of his draft of the Bill of Rights, which stated:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.

This provision was rejected by the 1st Congress, but it leads one to question why Madison would include such a provision specifically applicable to the states and which preserved freedom of press and trial by jury in criminal cases... such protection would be duplicative if the other portions of the Bill of Rights were intended to be effective as against the states.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Consider only the First Amendment to see how obviously incorrect your conclusion is. Several states had government sanctioned and supported state religions when the Constitution was ratified. Can you even imagine legislators in those states saying that they could not de-establish their state religions, but demanding (demanding, I say) that the US Constitution be amended so that the federal government would prohibit religious establishment in their states.

You've presented a fallacious argument. The First Amendment singled out Congress. Later on, the Fourteenth Amendment made the First applicable to state legislatures. Those states with state sponsored religions simply would not have ratified the First Amendment if it applied to them. Apparently by the time the Fourteenth rolled around, it didn't much matter to enough of the states. Anyway, none of the other applicable Amendments in the "Bill of Rights" specified themselves as being applicable to Congress exclusively as did the First.

In other words, the argument was that the various State Bill of Rights already contained in the state constitutions could not be repealed by the Federal Constitution so those protections are in place and can not be considered within the power of the federal govenment to over ride...

Then explain this from Madison:

Besides, some States have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty.

Woody

 

[legaleagle_45]

Woody, you asked :

Then explain this from Madison:

I already did Woody. That was Madisons rebuttal to the assertion that the provisions of the various bill of rights in the state constitution could not be trumped by any assertion of power under the federal government. The argument was that the people did not have the power to strip themselves of the rights which had protected in their state constitutions. Read this explanation again:

In other words, the argument was that the various State Bill of Rights already contained in the state constitutions could not be repealed by the Federal Constitution so those protections are in place and can not be considered within the power of the federal govenment to over ride...

To which Madison responded that some states do not have a Bill of Rights or have an inadequate Bill of Rights, which would mean that the Feds could do what they wanted in those states.

Now if Madison intended the entire Bill of Rights to apply to the states, can you explain why Madison included this clause: "No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." Your argument above about "congress shall make no law" is adequate to explain freedom of press, but it does not explain the right to a jury trial in criminal cases.

 

[Alchymist]

While I am nowhere near as eloquent as many here, I did dedicate a whole chapter in the book "Resurrection of America" to the second amendment. Anyone here wanting to read it just drop me an email at resurrection.america "at" gmail.com., and put "Chapter 8" in the subject line. (It's in Word format, and too long to post.

 

[Manco]

The most important thing to understand about the second amendment ( as well as the first eight, the bill of rights ) is that the purpose of the second amendment was not to create a right to keep and bear arms where previously no such right had existed but to create a more positive affirmation of the existence of an already existing right. That is to say that the right to keep and bear arms existed before the creation of the Constitution of the US and does not depend on the Constitution for its existence.

Moreover, the purpose of the first eight amendments was expressly to prevent the government from taking away certain individual rights that we all have from birth. These rights exist independently of their enumeration in the Bill of Rights, as you say, but the reason these were chosen is that they were considered the rights that a government would be most keen to take away on some contrived pretense (exactly what most gun control laws try to do) in order to enable the abuse of power. We have other rights that may be just as important overall, as the Ninth Amendment says, but the specific ones mentioned in the first eight amendments are there to limit government power, which in turn helps protect all of our other inherent, natural (some would say "God-given" which does not have to be taken literally) rights. Because liberty is ultimately paid for in blood, and whoever has the guns has the real power, the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment of course, is necessarily one of the specific rights that help protect all of the others (and is perhaps the most crucial for us to defend, despite being a last resort due to its potentially high cost to life).

One major issue is that not everybody sees things this way, regarding the intent behind the Bill of Rights. Not only do they fail to realize what I just said, they think that the government or the Constitution is what creates and gives us our rights. We may know better, but where is the intent of the Framers stated in the Bill of Rights itself? Well, it's implied in the Ninth Amendment, which says that we have other equally important rights that are not listed, meaning that they exist independently of the Constitution, and if the government creates a law, then it had better protect our rights more than it takes them away in order to pass Constitutional muster. On that note, some would argue that protecting our right to life is sufficient justification for compromising or taking away our RKBA, but this unfairly dismisses our right to self-defense (protecting our right to life) as well as the practical purpose of the first eight amendments as I described above in protecting all of our rights from the government.

Another major issue is incorporation, which is notable in this discussion because it would actually go against the original intent of the Bill of Rights, which places limits on the power of the federal government but generally not those of the states (unless explicitly stated). Like it or not, the Constitution is a living document that is not only subject to interpretation but also being amended, of course. While this limits the strength of any arguments we base on original intent, it also opens the door for the Fourteenth Amendment to ensure that the natural rights of all Americans will not be infringed. This major paradigm shift came about because it was, like the liberty we've enjoyed through the creation of this country, paid for in blood (during the Civil War). Because the Second Amendment has now been correctly ruled an individual right by SCOTUS (in the Heller case), and the Ninth Amendment indicates that this right exists independently of federal or state law (supported by intent, which still applies unless explicitly overridden by another amendment), it is proper and natural for our RKBA to be incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment (via the pending McDonald case), and hopefully SCOTUS will do right by the Constitution once more as they did with the Heller case.

IMHO, the right to keep and bear arms is one of the many inherent and unalienable rights we have by dint of being human.

Correct, and as Charlton Heston basically said in a speech he delivered on behalf of the NRA, to think otherwise would be to think that a birth certificate proves that you're alive (obviously your existence is self-evident in the fact that you're standing here, as opposed to being created by a piece of paper).

 

[gc70]

ConstitutionCowboy, a few points to ponder:

Why would the Anti-Federalists, who opposed a strong central government, insist on a Bill of Rights that would give the central government sole control over the most precious of personal liberties?

If the Bill of Rights was originally intended to apply to the states, why did Madison's proposal contain amendments to be inserted in Article 1, Section 9 dealing with limits on federal powers, and a separate amendment duplicating only the prior amendments' prohibitions dealing with freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and jury trials to be inserted in Article 1, Section 10 dealing with limits on state powers?

Finally, Woody, the Constitution was ratified in 1788 and the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.

IF the Bill of Rights was intended to apply to both the national government and the states, why did everyone (the people, legislators, and judges) immediately forget that fact? From its ratification, the courts consistently treated the Bill of Rights as only applicable to the national government. It was not until parts of the Bill of Rights were 'incorporated' through the 14th Amendment that those rights were enforced against the states. Don't you think someone might have noticed that little difference and complained?

IF the Bill of Rights was intended to apply to both the national government and the states, why was the 14th Amendment adopted? Would it not have been much easier for Congress to simply pass legislation to enforce the (under your view Constitutional) rights of former slaves? So why go to the trouble of adopting a new Constitutional Amendment if those rights were already protected under the Bill of Rights?

 

[hugh damright]

where is the intent of the Framers stated in the Bill of Rights itself? Well, it's implied in the Ninth Amendment, which says that we have other equally important rights that are not listed

I think the Preamble to the USBOR, by definition, states the intent, which is to prevent misconstruction/abuse of federal powers.

And I think that the Ninth Amendment regards rights against the federal government i.e. it regards federal powers ... such that the Ninth's "rights retained by the people" are not only natural rights, they also include political rights, collective/states' rights, etc ... I read it to say that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed so as to increase federal powers i.e so as to decrease any of our rights against the federal government.

It seems to me that both the Second and the Ninth Amendments bear a federal construction such that they can be read to regard the rights of the people both as individuals and as States. What is wrong with construing the Second Amendment to say that the right of the people of Virginia to keep and bear arms, whether as individuals or collectively, shall not be infringed by the US?

 

[Xelera]

First post here, btw... Nice forum ya got going on here!

Those additional rights granted by the 9th and 10th Amendments include some things like "the right to travel". It was included in the Articles of Confederation drafted by the Continental Congresses, but left out, most likely, because they felt it was so obvious and un-assailable, that the catch-all Amendments in the Bill of Rights was good enough.

So they itemized the first 8 Amendments, because those were the rights that were critical to a free society, and that had been abused by the governing powers in Europe and other historical governments.

Thomas Jefferson said "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed".

Soooo, what was the spirit manifested in the debates and the probable meaning?

**************

Thomas Jefferson:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist, in 1764. That was 230 years ago.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles .The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.

George Washington:

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

When firearms go, all goes - we need them every hour.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.

If we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.

To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined.

Alexander Hamilton:

The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.

…or it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of ensuring their rights are in the possession of those whom they entertain the least suspicion.

James Madison:

An armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics -- that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe...

The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Benjamin Franklin:

Those who would give up essential liberties, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!

Patrick Henry:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress? Of what service would militia be to you when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not provide them.

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.

Samuel Adams:

That the said Constitution shall never be 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...

Richard Henry Lee:

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms.

To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.

**************

Not alot of ambiguity there...

 

[RDak]

DammitBoy stated: "Yes, I've tried explaining the meaning of well regulated several times, to no avail.

Now these clowns want to argue that the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government and that states could dictate what ever rules they felt like applying to firearm ownership."

As stated by other members, your friends are correct on this one. (That's exactly what is at issue, in the main, in the McDonald case.)

This will probably change dramatically when the McDonald decision comes out in a couple of weeks IMHO.

But time will tell.

ETA: However, I should add that most States have constitutions upholding the individual right to own firearms. I think it is around 40 States. And that would make me think that, originally, the 2nd Amendment applied to the Federal government.

 

[ArcyTheFurryArcanine]

Ive been debating this freakdork for months. He always dodges my questions and tries to make things up and distorts things to make it into his own context. The People as you said is clearly the people of the US, or persons. How could it be a collective right if the framers were individualists? How could ''bear arms'' mean render military service if it would say ''keep and render military service''; where would ''keep'' fit in? Plus I noticed he made up that definition also. The only definitions I could find would argue as follows: ''A well functioning disciplined group of individuals being necessary to the protection of the state from crime, tyranny, and invasion; the right of the persons of the US to own, possess, and carry firearms shall not be infringed ''. You can debate him if you want; but just watch out for his dirty trickery like straw man, deleting comments, running away, side stepping, poisoning the well, and personal attacks.

 

[ConservativeMetalhead]

Ive been debating this freakdork for months. He always dodges my questions and tries to make things up and distorts things to make it into his own context. The People as you said is clearly the people of the US, or persons. How could it be a collective right if the framers were individualists? How could ''bear arms'' mean render military service if it would say ''keep and render military service''; where would ''keep'' fit in? Plus I noticed he made up that definition also. The only definitions I could find would argue as follows: ''A well functioning disciplined group of individuals being necessary to the protection of the state from crime, tyranny, and invasion; the right of the persons of the US to own, possess, and carry firearms shall not be infringed ''. You can debate him if you want; but just watch out for his dirty trickery like straw man, deleting comments, running away, side stepping, poisoning the well, and personal attacks.

Hi Arcy! Nice to see you have come over. I hope our 'YouTube Supergenius' sees this forum.

 

[Gouranga]

Absolutely awesome content guys!! Can't believe the amount of info on this thread.

One side note on this:

I generally share rondog's reaction and for very valid reasons. Most of the political commentary on YouTube is shallow in the extreme. I gave up listening to most of the uninformed rantings on YouTube when I realized that YouTube was probably preferred over a print medium because the majority of the speakers were incapable of cogent written expression. Nearly all of the balance of the political commentary on YouTube is simply slick propaganda. In the case of TheYoungTurks, they are quite capable of reading and understanding the Heller decision, but continue to put out blatantly inaccurate and misleading trash. Thus, I don't waste my time listening to the uninformed or to propagandists.

Keep in mind the mainstream media largely has denied the Pro 2a folks the screen time as the anti's. Sites like THR, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc all provide us the larger audience to hear the truth. The catch is, and i think it is a good thing, we have to be critical of the source. We used to trust NBC, CBS, ABC, etc as trustworthy and took their info as it was fed to us as the truth (us being general society). These sites force more critical thought (hopefully), provide a wider range of opinions, and facts. In short, they are a great thing for the cause.

 

[Art Eatman]

Urriquez-Verdugo v. US, 1992 or 1993, spoke extensively about "the people" as individuals.