OMDP said:
Yes, they restrict, this does not mean that because the 4A says houses that all houses are in some way protected from everything, there is context and the 2A also has its context.
Boy, oh, boy, this is out there in left field! The Fourth doesn't protect houses, it protects the right of the people to be secure in their houses. The Second prohibits government to infringe upon a right of the people as well. There is no protection in the Fourth for people to keep houses. There is protection in the Second for people to keep guns. That's context for ya!
OMDP said:
If there is no power to take away arms in the constitution, then the 2A would be unnecessary. Do you think the founding fathers were idiots for putting something in that is simply a waste of time?
Hey, it's a guarantee the several states wanted and it was put in the Constitution. There were indeed arguments that such an amendment wasn't necessary, but Madison, in his infinite wisdom, having looked at the protections of rights in the several state's constitutions said ... well, read it for yourself:
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.
As i have said before, it is not the grammar that is the problem here, it is the context. People assume that bear means to carry, when clearly it does not. It means to serve as a soldier.
This proves that what gc70 has said, that this is just a variation of the sophisticated collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, is right on target. It also follows what you have written here:
No, the 2A protects individuals to keep arms regardless of whether the militia exists, BUT they have arms in case the militia needs them.
Bearing arms is slightly different, it has to bearing arms within the militia, as bearing arms outside of the militia is not protected. This is because the militia needs arms and personnel.
You have undeniably said that bearing arms outside the militia is not protected. Bullocks! It's "
the right to keep and bear arms", not
"the right to keep arms and the right on occasion of militia service to bear arms". This latter context does not exist in the Second Amendment. The right is not parsed into two separate rights in the Amendment. It's one right with two aspects. Both aspects of the right of the people are equally exempted from infringement by government.
OMDP said:
I have shown that the founders saw bearing arms and serving in the militia as synonyms.
Poppycock. Robbers and murders are not serving in any militia while bearing arms in the commission of their crimes! Bearing arms is just that! Bearing them! You can certainly bear arms in the militia - and in the regular armed services as well. I can bear my arms to the gun range, too. The word "bear" means essentially the same thing today as it did then. In order for "bear arms" to mean anything other than to carry arms, or produce or bring forth arms, it would have to be the name of something, a noun naming militia service, the act of serving in the militia. That is service. One would bear arms(verb) in the service(noun) of their country.
OMDP said:
You ignore that. What is you fear or goal? I think i know the answer to that, but just because you fear a govt taking your arms away, does not mean you should create a 2A that does not exist, this will lead to people calling for the destruction of the 2A.
I don't fear government taking my arms away.
Government should fear taking
my arms away, for it would be those in government who are in violation of the Second Amendment. You yourself admit that we the people have the right to at least keep arms free from government infringement. That part of the Second Amendment exists in your mind, doesn't it? Keep is benign and innocuous. Well, so is bear.
OMDP said:
The extremism from both right and left on this issue is scary, if they could both realise what the real problems were, education, opportunities and things like this, then they would not need to be so extreme.
What, pray tell, is extreme about exercising a right and expecting no interference from government, especially since government is prohibited to interfere with said right? Is it extreme for me to exercise my freedom of speech and not expect or suffer abridgment from government? Is it extreme for me to refuse law enforcement personnel, lacking a warrant, entry into my home?
The snipit from
Presser you quoted does not deal with the individual right of a person to keep and bear arms. Rather, it deals with an organization acting outside the civil authority. Had this group obtained permission from the civil authority, or had no law prohibiting such military organizations been on the books, nothing would ever have come of the parading and drilling by these men.
The best part of
Presser is the following:
"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."
This says the states may not prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms even without the Second Amendment.
It appears you have adopted the Wikiepedia version of
Presser which I quote as follows:
"However, the high court stated that there is a limit upon state restriction of firearms ownership, in that they may not disarm the people to such an extent that there is no remaining armed militia force for the general government to call upon:"
This "rendition" or "interpretation" of
Presser is a malapropism using the phrase "to such an extent" which does not appear in
Presser.
Presser says, "so as to deprive". "(T)o such an extent" is only a definition of the word "so". If you wish to replace all the words being replaced in the Wickiepedia rendition, you have, "
to such an extent in the same way that is in comparison with to prevent from using". The two phrases are not synonymous. In context, "so as to deprive" in
Presser means "because it would prevent" the United States from having this rightful resource.
The snipit from
Robertson v Baldwin is so blatantly contradictory that it makes me laugh! It's like saying my right to eat is not infringed by laws that forbid chewing food with my mouth open - especially when there is a provision in the Constitution that says my right to eat shall not be infringed.
Woody
I see it clearly as fact. Words mean things. Just as numbers have value, you can add, subtract, multiply and divide them. I just do the math. B.E. Wood
