Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A second amendment question...

Discussion in 'Legal' started by eric_t12, Jun 9, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. eric_t12

    eric_t12 Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Messages:
    172
    Location:
    SD
    Many anti-rights (that is how i shall furthermore refer to such individuals) people claim that the second amendment was meant only for the militia, and, with the national guard OBVIOUSLY the militia:rolleyes: we don't need the right on the 'books' anymore.

    my question is this...

    if the 2nd was written only for the Militia, and has no direction towards average citizens (who are obviously NOT the unorganized militia:rolleyes:) why would they write one in the first place? would they really expect the 'militia' to be sent to battle WITHOUT weapons?

    just a quick thought i had perusing a post earlier...
     
  2. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    The logic is unworkable as it is based on a false premise.
     
  3. glockman19

    glockman19 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,699
    The bill of rights was written towards defining Individual rights. NOT the new Governments rights. Semantics. Word games. Up until the beginngin of the 20th century there were no gun laws.
     
  4. another okie

    another okie Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,850
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    The colonial militia consisted of all law-abiding adult men in most colonies, in a few it was restricted by race, and one or two colonies did not have a militia. Militia members were expected to provide their own weapons, with a few exceptions. The purpose of the second amendment was to make sure that the federal government made no attempt to disarm the people as a way of disarming the states and the militia. There was good reason to think it might happen, since the British had tried to do just that. The Bill of Rights is an effort to limit the power of the federal government, though it has been expanded by the courts and the 14th amendment (1868).

    When the national guard was formed, about a hundred years ago, the militia was split by federal law into the organized militia, which is now called the national guard, and the unorganized militia, which is men between certain ages. This is all in the federal statutes and can be found easily enough. In other words, most of us are members of the unorganized militia by federal law.

    It is not true that there were no gun control laws before 1900. Many southern states passed laws requiring blacks to have permits immediately after the war. Some Kansas towns had bans on weapons during the cattle drive days. Lawrence, Kansas, had just passed a gun control law when Quantrill raided the town. There are probably other examples from back east.
     
  5. XD Fan

    XD Fan Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,012
    Location:
    Stuck up here (rural Missouri) and got Dixie on my
    That was my thought as well.

    Okie is spot on about the unorganized militia.
     
  6. akodo

    akodo Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,778
    #1, all the other amendments found in the bill of rights are currently interpreted as involving the individual. The right to free speech isn't about state owned newspapers being able to print what they want. Why would they have 9 of 10 about the individual, and 1 of 10 about the state?

    #2, at the time of the writing, there we no 'national guard' or similar 'official state militias' so how could that be what the founders were talking about

    #3, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Clearly a population filled with people already owning arms is the fertile ground a militia shall be drawn from in time of need. Think about it this way.

    A well educated voter base, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to learn to read and own books, shall not be infringed.

    Same thing, providing the fertile soil from which an educated voter base arises. Phrased like it is, this does not limit the people to owning books on politics alone, but covers all books, even mad magazine.
     
  7. eric_t12

    eric_t12 Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Messages:
    172
    Location:
    SD
    I've actually posted this on THR and on XDTalk and i'm getting really good responses on both. Thanks for everyone's input, and the word swaps like "arms" to "books" was a plus. Thanks!
     
  8. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,267
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    the next time you run across an anti, ask him if he's ever read the Preamble to the BOR. It fully explains the purpose of having the BOR.

    Art
     
  9. 44AMP

    44AMP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    357
    Location:
    upper US
    Just a couple of points

    In the language of the Founders, "well regulated" meant having basic equipment, meaning arms, camping gear, clothing, and the knowledge of basic military drill.

    And the phrase "the people" is used in reference to the individual, not the state, or militia group. Every use of "the people" in the Bill or Rights refers to individual citizens, and is not questioned in any of the other amendments, only in the 2nd Amendment do certain people question it, and they are in error by doing so.

    And if any conversation goes in the direction that "assault weapons are not protected because the Founders could not have forseen such terrible technological advances", ask if Freedom of Speech applies only to hand operated printing presses, and not radio, TV, Movies, and the Internet, because the Founders could not have "forseen" them either. What do you think their answer on that is going to be?
     
  10. SoCalShooter

    SoCalShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,091
    Location:
    That's for me to know and not you!
    The real kicker is that the National Guard was created over 100 years after the amendment was written...now figure that one out!
     
  11. jselvy

    jselvy member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    518
    If the National Guard is paid, equipped and trained by the federal army, how can it be in any sense a state militia?
    A basic rule in this country is he who pays for it owns it.

    Jefferson
     
  12. hugh damright

    hugh damright Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    825
    I think it would still make sense ... I tend to see a BOR as declaring principles of, or limits upon, government ...there was a time when the King had British Troops here to dominate us, and we declared that a standing army in times of peace is a danger to liberty, and that the proper defense of a free State is a well regulated militia ... I don't think the point was to declare that the miltia had a right to arms, but rather to declare that the gov has no right to threaten people with military rule.
     
  13. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    If you read Amendment X you'll see that there is a clear distinction between "the States" and "the people" or they would have had no need to list them both separately.


    In this context I've successfully used akodo's argument #1 to shut down these "2A = collective right" people.

    The 1st Amendment isn't about NPR, therefore the 2nd Amendment is not about the National Guard.
     
  14. yhtomit

    yhtomit Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,670
    Location:
    E. Tennessee
    Zundfolge: Thanks for that gambit; I've occasionally just lapsed into slackjawed disbelief when people don't grasp the difference immediately, but that gives me a more productive place to point, so they don't notice my sputtering and gesticulating quite so much ;)

    Casually suggesting certain analogies ("printing presses are OK ... so long as they're registered, and can only print a certain number of pages per turn of the crank") is sometimes dangerous, because the control freaks are often quite happy (or at least will consider with a straight face) the examples that are meant to be absurd. After all, that's how many people all over the political spectrum seem to think about content on the airwaves.

    timothy
     
  15. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    True. Many leftists would love to twist the 1A into a "Collective Rights" mold so they could shut down FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh.
     
  16. hugh damright

    hugh damright Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    825
    I thought the question was asking, if the Second Amendment regarded only an organized/select militia, then why would they have written an amendment in the first place. But if they had felt that an organized/select militia was the proper defense of a free State, then why would they not have declared it in a BOR? I think the question may have assumed that a BOR must be about individual rights, but I believe that a BOR typically regards principles of, or limits upon, government. Is there some reason that a BOR could not say something like "An organized/select/well-regulated militia is the proper defense of a free State"?
     
  17. DKSuddeth

    DKSuddeth Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    777
    Location:
    Bedford, TX
    the anti's, or collectivists, advocate using legislation to change the constitution, like the dick act replacing the militia, because they know otherwise they wouldn't be able to implement their socialist agenda.
     
  18. Molon Labe

    Molon Labe Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,700
    Location:
    SW Ohio
    Also keep in mind that your right to keep and bear arms does not depend on the existence of the Second Amendment.
     
  19. mike101

    mike101 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,443
    Location:
    SOUTH Jersey
    The whole idea of a militia, organized or un, was for the states to have an armed force that was not under federal control. For about a year now, in the name of the War On Terror, the National guard is TOTALLY under federal control.

    Previously, a state's National Guard could only be called out by the Governor of that state. Now, the Prez. can call them out, without even consulting the governor.

    So, we (unorganized militia) are the only real militia left.
     
  20. eric_t12

    eric_t12 Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Messages:
    172
    Location:
    SD
    +1
    I was JUST reading a supreme court case (i think it was regarding the IV amendment... maybe) on how the bill of rights does nothing to empower people or the government, nor detract from either, because the rights therein are inherent. everyone has always HAD those rights, regardless of how they've been blasphemed over the years...
     
  21. Aguila Blanca

    Aguila Blanca Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,693
  22. otcconan

    otcconan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    183
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    Bill of Rights refer to individuals. It is not "The National Guard's Bill of Rights."

    It refers to everyone. That's why that recent ruling in D.C. is spot-on, and caused conniptions in everyone in the left.
     
  23. otcconan

    otcconan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    183
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    Profound. Truly. None of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights is granted by the Constitution OR the Government. These are unalienable rights that are granted by the Creator.
     
  24. unspellable

    unspellable Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,744
    Location:
    Iowa
    The 1A

    1A prohibits "congress" from enacting nay law respecting an "establishment" of religion or the free excercise therof.

    "establishment" means a state church, not simply a Christmas display on a couthouse lawn.

    "Congress" meant "congress". Today, the courts enact laws prohibiting the free excercise of religion at the local level. It was the framers intent that the constituion should have nothing to say about religion at the local level.

    Thus we are in the curious position of reading "people" to mean "states" and "congress" to mean all levels of government down to the school board.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page