HBK
member
What are some arguments that i can use that stipulate that the 2nd ammendment refers to individual rights rather than militia?
2nd ammendment help
- Thread starter HBK
- Start date
- Status
El Tejon
Member
I divide them into four categories: History, Structure, Text, and Doctrine. Let me know if you elaboration.
HBK
member
A colleague wants to argue that the 2nd ammendment is meant not for individuals, but for militia. I couldn't talk today, but I want to be prepared tomorrow. He is as liberal as they come too.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
The simplest, most persuasive argument I've heard to date is this: everywhere else in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the term "the people" refers to individuals, not government, not the militia, not mysterious collective entities.
The leftist extremist "collective right" so-called "interpretation" of the Second Amendment is a daring, but intellectually ludicrous to eviscerate the right to keep and bear arms.
The leftist extremist "collective right" so-called "interpretation" of the Second Amendment is a daring, but intellectually ludicrous to eviscerate the right to keep and bear arms.
Jim March
Member
This is my best work on the subject:
http://www.americanminutemen.org/reinhardt.htm
Print it out and hand it to him
.
http://www.americanminutemen.org/reinhardt.htm
Print it out and hand it to him
.HBK
member
He was saying that the "people" refered to the previous part of the sentence talking about a well regulated militia. He wouldn't listen to reason and I had no time to go into a debate. Thanks, Jim.
El Tejon
Member
"'The people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares tht the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the People of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people."
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990).
In the Constitution states are not the same as people. Madison originally wished to place the RKBA in Article I, § 9 which protects individuals (ex post facto and bills of attainder).
"Collective right" has always been a self-defeating argument. It is contradictory in the extreme to say that because the right was guaranteed to everyone than no single person may assert it and to describe something that guarantees nothing to any specific person or entity as a "right."
The structure of the Second Amendment makes it clear. The well-trained (regulated means trained) militia clause is dependent upon the people bearing arms. Statement of purpose, such as a well-trained militia, does not define a right. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (if not petition for redress of grievances, still protected by First Amendment).
The "militia" is the people. "[T]he whole people, old and young, men, women, and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846). Federal law describes the militia as all males 17 to 45. States define the militia as all persons over 17. "A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen . . . ." IND. CONST. art. 12, § 1.
The National Guard (which they always raise) is not the militia, but part of the federal army. Peprich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) (Second Amendment not even mentioned in decision!).
Even if the Second Amendment does refer to a collective militia, an individual may still invoke its protections. The right of association of the First Amendment is collective, but it is construed as an individual right. Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 (1966).
HTH, let us know if you need any questions answered.
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990).
In the Constitution states are not the same as people. Madison originally wished to place the RKBA in Article I, § 9 which protects individuals (ex post facto and bills of attainder).
"Collective right" has always been a self-defeating argument. It is contradictory in the extreme to say that because the right was guaranteed to everyone than no single person may assert it and to describe something that guarantees nothing to any specific person or entity as a "right."
The structure of the Second Amendment makes it clear. The well-trained (regulated means trained) militia clause is dependent upon the people bearing arms. Statement of purpose, such as a well-trained militia, does not define a right. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (if not petition for redress of grievances, still protected by First Amendment).
The "militia" is the people. "[T]he whole people, old and young, men, women, and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846). Federal law describes the militia as all males 17 to 45. States define the militia as all persons over 17. "A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen . . . ." IND. CONST. art. 12, § 1.
The National Guard (which they always raise) is not the militia, but part of the federal army. Peprich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) (Second Amendment not even mentioned in decision!).
Even if the Second Amendment does refer to a collective militia, an individual may still invoke its protections. The right of association of the First Amendment is collective, but it is construed as an individual right. Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 (1966).
HTH, let us know if you need any questions answered.
Go to the following link – that is the Federal Law that defines the “Militia of the United States.†You may notice that the Militia is made up of male citizens – or those that have declared an intention to become citizens – between the ages of 17 to 44. There are some exceptions, but not many. The founding fathers had lived under occupation of a foreign army (the British) and feared large standing armies. In they’re place they substituted a “people’s militia†which for all practical purposes included everyone except kids and the old folks – in other words, “the people†as the whole, not just some future National Guard. Members of the Militia were required to provide their own arms and ammunition – thus their right to do so was not to be infringed, especially when it came to military small arms of the day. Your friend may be shocked to find that under the present law he is a militiaman.
Not one single member of the founding fathers has left any written record opposing the right of the “people†to possess arms, but they had plenty to say in support of the concept. You will also find “right to bear arms†amendments in the state constitutions of the original 13 states.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
Not one single member of the founding fathers has left any written record opposing the right of the “people†to possess arms, but they had plenty to say in support of the concept. You will also find “right to bear arms†amendments in the state constitutions of the original 13 states.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
Fortyfied
Member
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Emerson descision includes an excellent statement in support of the individual right interpretation: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm
After reading this any rational and impartial observer would agree the Second Amendment asserts an individual right to keep and bear arms.
After reading this any rational and impartial observer would agree the Second Amendment asserts an individual right to keep and bear arms.
WonderNine
member
The misinformed old arguement that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee a persons basic human right to self defense with a gun, it simply talks about the people as a whole being able to form a popular militia to oppose enemies of the free state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I'm reading this correctly, I disagree.
1st Amendment: "...the right of the people..."
2nd Amendment: "...the right of the people..."
4th Amendment: "...the right of the people..."
9th Amendment: "...retained by the people..."
10th Amendment: "...reserved...to the people..."
Notice the similarity and yet ONLY in the 2nd Amendment do some people claim that "the people" means a group and yet in all other uses of the term, it is undeniably an individual right. The Founders knew that words meant something and were VERY careful in the use and consistency in meaning of those words. The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right just as the right to speak freely is an individual right or an individual's right against illegal search and seizure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I'm reading this correctly, I disagree.
1st Amendment: "...the right of the people..."
2nd Amendment: "...the right of the people..."
4th Amendment: "...the right of the people..."
9th Amendment: "...retained by the people..."
10th Amendment: "...reserved...to the people..."
Notice the similarity and yet ONLY in the 2nd Amendment do some people claim that "the people" means a group and yet in all other uses of the term, it is undeniably an individual right. The Founders knew that words meant something and were VERY careful in the use and consistency in meaning of those words. The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right just as the right to speak freely is an individual right or an individual's right against illegal search and seizure.
CGofMP
Member
Well Regulated
What does "Well Regulated" mean in the second?
Remember words DO change significantly over time. When we hear of regulation now we tend to think of controlled or controlled by LAW.
Such was not always the case.
Well Regulated could ALSO be interpreted as WLL OUTFITTED or WELL EQUIPPED.
Check these out:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <[email protected]>
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Tremoglie/a_well-regulated_militia.htm
Well-Regulated Militia
By
Michael P. Tremoglie
In his final statement to Pennsylvania's ratifying convention James Wilson said:
" It is said that Congress should not have the power of calling out the militia to execute the laws of the union... nor should the president have command of them....I believe a gentleman who possesses military experience will inform you that men without an uniformity of arms, accoutrements, and discipline are no more than a mob....By means of this system a uniformity of arms and discipline will prevail throughout United States... militia formed under this system will be..a bulwark. In every point of view this regulation is calculated to produce the best effects. "
Wilson was no ordinary delegate. According to liberal historian Garry Wills:" Wilson was one of the principal drafters of the Constitution and the principal ratifier of it." When Wilson spoke, he was speaking conceptually about the Constitution. It is with that statement, made in December 1787, that the meaning of the phrase " well regulated militia," may be found.
Well regulated according to Princeton's Wordnet means: "orderly adj, 4: marked by or adhering to method or system, a well regulated life."
Is it possible that well regulated does not mean, "governing," as the liberals have been claiming all along. Has the liberal intelligentsia distorted the meaning? If so, it would not be unusual.
Consider Rutgers Associate Law Professor Steven Gifis, who wrote in his Law Dictionary that the Second Amendment does not apply to private conduct. Gifis cites Laurence Tribe. It just so happens that Professor Tribe, who has unimpeachable liberal credentials, has opined that the right to bear arms is an important political right that should not be dismissed as "wholly irrelevant." Tribe thinks the Second Amendment stipulates, "the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification."
So, it is quite possible that the Second Amendment only refers to the uniformity of the militia not the control.
Please go to each of the above links to make sure I have quoted in context then...
Go get em!
Charles
What does "Well Regulated" mean in the second?
Remember words DO change significantly over time. When we hear of regulation now we tend to think of controlled or controlled by LAW.
Such was not always the case.
Well Regulated could ALSO be interpreted as WLL OUTFITTED or WELL EQUIPPED.
Check these out:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <[email protected]>
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Tremoglie/a_well-regulated_militia.htm
Well-Regulated Militia
By
Michael P. Tremoglie
In his final statement to Pennsylvania's ratifying convention James Wilson said:
" It is said that Congress should not have the power of calling out the militia to execute the laws of the union... nor should the president have command of them....I believe a gentleman who possesses military experience will inform you that men without an uniformity of arms, accoutrements, and discipline are no more than a mob....By means of this system a uniformity of arms and discipline will prevail throughout United States... militia formed under this system will be..a bulwark. In every point of view this regulation is calculated to produce the best effects. "
Wilson was no ordinary delegate. According to liberal historian Garry Wills:" Wilson was one of the principal drafters of the Constitution and the principal ratifier of it." When Wilson spoke, he was speaking conceptually about the Constitution. It is with that statement, made in December 1787, that the meaning of the phrase " well regulated militia," may be found.
Well regulated according to Princeton's Wordnet means: "orderly adj, 4: marked by or adhering to method or system, a well regulated life."
Is it possible that well regulated does not mean, "governing," as the liberals have been claiming all along. Has the liberal intelligentsia distorted the meaning? If so, it would not be unusual.
Consider Rutgers Associate Law Professor Steven Gifis, who wrote in his Law Dictionary that the Second Amendment does not apply to private conduct. Gifis cites Laurence Tribe. It just so happens that Professor Tribe, who has unimpeachable liberal credentials, has opined that the right to bear arms is an important political right that should not be dismissed as "wholly irrelevant." Tribe thinks the Second Amendment stipulates, "the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification."
So, it is quite possible that the Second Amendment only refers to the uniformity of the militia not the control.
Please go to each of the above links to make sure I have quoted in context then...
Go get em!
Charles
WonderNine
member
Such as regulating a timepiece.
"Well regulated" ...not two weeks ago, I read an excellent piece on the 'net talking about what that term meant. Now, for the life of me, I cannot recall where. (Should have bookmarked it...).
The gist of the article, rather, the part dealing with the concept of
"a well regulated Militia", explained that in the times during which the Constitution was written, each settlement, village, or town was to have a person, usually a military officer, who's duty was to regularly check with and inspect each household to insure that the man of the house did in fact have a rifle in good working order, as well as a prescribed amount of gunpowder, correct lead balls or lead for the casting thereof, as well as flints for the gun.
This was part of the 'regulation' of the Militia.
Just imagine, having an official of the government coming by once a month to insure your M-16 was in top shape and you had the requisite number of loaded mags available... hey, I can dream, can't I?
The gist of the article, rather, the part dealing with the concept of
"a well regulated Militia", explained that in the times during which the Constitution was written, each settlement, village, or town was to have a person, usually a military officer, who's duty was to regularly check with and inspect each household to insure that the man of the house did in fact have a rifle in good working order, as well as a prescribed amount of gunpowder, correct lead balls or lead for the casting thereof, as well as flints for the gun.
This was part of the 'regulation' of the Militia.
Just imagine, having an official of the government coming by once a month to insure your M-16 was in top shape and you had the requisite number of loaded mags available... hey, I can dream, can't I?
Fortyfied
Member
I think that kind of involvement would require a return to a system of government that emphsized local control rather than the central (federal) emphasis we have now.
I believe that in the late 18th century, "well regulated" meant well trained.
The reason is that Washington's army had a terrible time because so many recruits had never been familiarized with guns.
The founders wanted to make sure that, in a national emergency, men could come right off the street knowing how to shoot. That way, an effective army could be prepared much faster.
The bill of rights is clearly all about individual rights.
The reason is that Washington's army had a terrible time because so many recruits had never been familiarized with guns.
The founders wanted to make sure that, in a national emergency, men could come right off the street knowing how to shoot. That way, an effective army could be prepared much faster.
The bill of rights is clearly all about individual rights.
Elmer Snerd
Member
I especially like these quotes from Michael Z. Williamson's "It's amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control":
"That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1916."
"That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency."
"That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1916."
"That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency."
Combat-wombat
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,683
Does the 1st Amendment only cover state-approved news agencies? The Bill of Rights is for THE PEOPLE, DAMMIT, THE PEOPLE!!! All the other amendments cover the PEOPLES' rights, but Sarah Brady's trying to tell me that out of the whole Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment is just an exception that applies to the government, not the people. THE ****ING NATIONAL GUARD WAS CREATED ALMOST 150 YEARS AFTER THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!! WHAT THE HELL IS UP WITH THAT? WHY ARE THE PEOPLE SO DAMN STUPID THAT THEY CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT???
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
I get so worked up about that, and I have a right to.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: I get so worked up about that, and I have a right to.
Last edited:
- Status