The 2nd Amendment

[Deathrider1579]

I hope this is the right place for this.

I wrote this for my blog and I thought you all might like it.

The Second Amendment,

It seems to me that there are some people who have a hard time with simple English (and some people who simply have trouble with English). For example when some one says “people live in the city” one generally thinks of a general group of people living in a city. Now if one says “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” and this is a statement made on the National level one would sensibly think that you are talking about all the people in the country who are citizens thereof. And we see in the court trials from a local court to SCOTUS that this is indeed the case that government officials cannot enter into a house or car or what have you to do a search without a warrant signed by a judge because of probable cause. (I would like to point out that as of yesterday those in the Peoples Republic of California no longer have a 4th amendment, but they haven’t had several of the others for several years now so no biggie for them)

So why the big deal with Amendment number two where we get these haloed words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”? Why the controversy of “is it an individual right or a states right”? I will answer, because of corruption. Not simply corruption of the government though that has a part and a large one at that in this whole problem, no the corruption of intellectual honesty and right thinking in the United States. This is an intentional attack on the minds of the people in the US, not propagated as such of course. Rather put forward as “progressive”, “politically correct” and “global thinking”. Logical thinking in a traditional sense has been eliminated almost rank and file, literary relativism (AKA deconstructionism) destroys authorial intent across the campuses of secular America and even in most so called Christian colleges. The ability to grasp what is written, those things written with true lasting meaning has been almost completely destroyed. The idea to take a written document and read it, understanding what it says in the context of itself is almost anathema in today’s America. So I am going to spell this out and use as small words as I can.

I am sure that it has been done before but I am going to prove in simple English (even though that may hinder some) that the 2nd Amendment is not a state right but rather an individual right.

Let us start back with the 1st and work our way down.

Amendment 1 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This is an individual right. To understand that only the state has the right to say what it wants and we all have very limited and regulated versions is criminally intellectually deficient.

Amendment 2, oh we’ll come back to this one!

Amendment 3 you can’t be forced to keep troops in your house. This is an individual right. Only a corpse could be mentally deficient enough to say that this is a state or collective right.


Amendment 4 This is understood to be an individual right almost across the board. To understand the 4th Amendment as simply a collective right that can be limited by the state as far as the individual is concerned is absurd! The idea that only a state government has full protection from unlawful search without a warrant would probably get you laughed out of any government building across the US (for now pay attention things are changing in this country pretty darn fast).


Amendment 5 the right well there are a lot of rights here but basically you have the right to a fair trial, without having to worry about self incrimination or another trial if found not guilty. Again if you have any mental capacity whatsoever you understand this to be a individual right. The state or “collective” doesn’t come into it whatsoever.

Amendment 6 The right to a speedy trial without cruel or unusual punishment as the consequences thereof; again it would be mentally defunct to say that this only applies to the state government.

Amendment 7 the right for a trial by jury in civil court. Individual right nothing to do with the government whatsoever except telling it what it can’t do!

Amendment 8 fair bail. Individual right, really when was the last time some one had to bail the state government out of jail?

Amendment 9 I think this is more of an FYI to the people and the government, HEY YOU HAVE RIGHTS!!! Just because there are some laid down here doesn’t mean that this is an all inclusive list. There are more out there! Again Individual rights.

Amendment 10 The only thing you have in the constitution that actually mentions a state having a right. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Probably the second most important amendment here, loose translation: “If the constitution doesn’t explicitly say the federal government has a power in some area then they don’t” Individual AND state right.

Throughout the bill of rights the word “people” refers to an individual. Not once can a person who claims any sort of wisdom or understanding could claim anything else.

There is the context of the 2nd Amendment now let us examine this troublesome sentence

“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.”

Things to notice, the word “state” is actually in the sentence, the word “right” is in the sentence, the word “people” is in the sentence, the word “militia” is in the sentence, the words “bear” and “keep” are in the sentence, and the word “infringed” is in the sentence, the word “arms” is in this sentence.

Let us examine each word and thus we will understand the meaning of the sentence.

“State” to be understood as the individual governments of the states that comprise the United States

“Right” to be understood as a absolute God given freedom

“People” to be understood as all the individuals who are in the United States

“Militia” this one is the trickiest to understand in the direct context of the constitution, but we do have it in the 5th amendment so we can examine it there. The word is used to separate one armed group from another like so “in the land or naval forces, or in the militia” ergo it is not the same as the army. We can gain that from the immediate context but for a true definition of what the thought behind the word was we have to reference the Federalist Papers two of the authors of which were signatories to the US Constitution, one of whom was James Madison who just happens to have been president when the Bill of Rights was Amended to the Constitution

Here are two quotes that bear reading on the subject of the word Militia and arms in general:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…

James Madison Federalist paper no. 46

And again only this time Alexander Hamilton

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper no. 29

By reading this we can understand that the Militia was to be and organized and operated by the local government, a military organization separate from the federal government. To which most every able bodied man was expected to be a member of.

“Bear” to be understood as to carry or transport with the intention of use

“Keep” to be understood as to own and maintain

“Infringed” to be understood as encroached upon, reduced or diminished

“Arms” to be understood as military grade weapons

Now that we know what the words mean let’s read the 2nd Amendment again with the implicit contextual articles included:

A well regulated a military organization separate from the federal government. To which most every able bodied man was expected to be a member of, being necessary to the security of the free individual governments that comprise the United States, the absolute God given freedom of all the individuals who are in the United States to own and maintain and to carry or transport with the intention of use military grade weapons, shall not be encroached upon, reduced or diminished.
And there you go, a easy to understand in modern language and in its correct context the Second Amendment.

I think we would have some rather angry founding fathers if they knew what was going on today.

Please be nice in any degradations etc. thanks!

 

[ChestyP]

Good job, DR.

The only problem I see is when you try and use it convince an anti. Closed minds don't accept logic, or historical fact.

But it's good to keep on hand when you're dealing with the 30-40% in the middle.

 

[hugh damright]

“State” to be understood as the state of the United States of America in this context

I'm curious if you have a name for this "context" which you refer to? I do not believe that it is a context of limited federal government. Because in the context of limited federal government, the word "State" means "State" as in "Virginia".

I do not believe that the Framers would have referred to the US as a "free State". A free State and a limited federal government are so very different in nature.

A free State is empowered by the people as one collective whereas the US is empowered by the people as fifty collectives i.e. by the States - in other words, a State Constitution is a compact between people, and a federal constitution is a compact between States (not between State Governments but between the people of Virginia, New York, etc.).

Further, a free State has broad and general powers, whereas the US is limited to enumerated powers.

I've seen this view expressed before, but what I never can seem to understand is ... how do you figure that the word "People" has the same meaning everywhere, but then turn around and say that the word "State" has some special meaning in the Second Amendment? The way I understand the sentiment of your post, someone who would do that has a hard time with simple english, is a liar, a fool, corrupt, deficient, absurd, and has no mental capacity whatsover. These are the words you used to describe someone who thinks that the word "people" may mean "State" in a federal context, then you turn right around and say that the word "State" means the US.

 

[Deathrider1579]

hugh damright,
You make a good point and I had not looked at it from that point of view.

I agree with you it makes sense as being a state level issue, we do have a free collective of collectives but its the freedom of each individual collective and the individuals with each collective that is what the founders sought to preserve. It makes better sense in the immediate context of the Bill of rights where throughout state means state not United States.
However, I will say this whichever way you read that word it does not change the meaning of the rest of the sentence the militia is a non-associated military organization until a time of war, even then it is not deployed outside the continental USA, and the people still mean individuals not the greater collective.

I didn't think that first definition through all the way; sorry I went to a secular University
Oh well the sign of an intelligent man is willing ness to accept correction.
I think I will be editing my original essay.

-DR

 

[RealGun]

I couldn't give a <Art-edit> about the Second Amendment.

Militias are still legal because of it. Feds only go so far because of it. It was the basis of recent bills passed re prevention of gun confiscation in disaster areas. I think I'll vote to keep it around.

 

[Molon Labe]

Militias are still legal because of it.

Militias were commonplace & legal before it was ever ratified.

Feds only go so far because of it. It was the basis of recent bills passed re prevention of gun confiscation in disaster areas. I think I'll vote to keep it around.

I think the Second Amendment has been pretty much useless, to be honest; we have 20,000 gun control laws despite it.

 

[RioShooter]

I couldn't give a <Art-edit> about the Second Amendment.

Why not?

 

[Beachmaster]

I try to explain the 2nd Amendment to people like this:

First, I explain that its NUMBER 2 on the list, even ahead of things like unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to a speedy trial. While I suspect that the Founding fathers held all the rights and amendments as equal, they did list this one second, and not as an afterthought.

Next I explain that our Ancestors spoke a more formal type of English than we do today. If a modern person could go back in time, they would have a hard time communicating to a person in the mid to late 1700 because we speak a different language today. Just look at how our grandparents spoke, and the slang that they used, and one can see how a language evolves over time. Because of these differences, its hard for a modern person to understand the true meaning of our Founders unless they actually study their times and papers.

"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."


There are 2 parts to the above, the Justification clause which basically explains why the Founding fathers feel the need to put in the action part, and the Action clause, which is the law part.

The first part is the Justificatioon clause: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

Lets look at this sentance backwards.

First they say STATE. This does not mean a single State like Maryland, or Delaware, but the country (like the State of Israel) It could also mean a state of being, but certainly was not intended to mean a single state like Maryland.

Second, Notice the use of SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, not "the defense of a free state", or "in times of war" or other sayings, but the SECURITY. Security means protecting a state from enemies both Foreign and Domestic. Our founding fathers understood that security of the state was only possible if the citizens could keep a goverment in check. If a goverment is the only one who has arms, then they can (and history has shown us that they will) end up controlling a people, and imposing their will upon a populace.

Our Founders understood that only three things keep a goverment in check, elections where the goverment officials can be replaced, the threat of violence against the goverment (if those officials refuse to step down) and actual violence against the gov)

Also, note that a Free State cannot possibly mean a seperate state like Maryland, but a Free state of being.

Last, look at the Well Regulated Militia part. While many people mistakenly think this refers to a State Guard, or State Militia, it does not.

In their own words, here is what our founder say


"I ask you sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-George Mason

"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."
-Richard Henry Lee

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny, or private self-defense."
-John Adams

Now lets look at the Action part of the amendment. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This is the LAW part. One could simply throw away the justification part and read this.

Again lets start from the back first.

INFRINGED means that this right is ALREADY IN PLACE. The second amendment does not GRANT US A RIGHT, it recognizes that this right is inplace and SHAL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Second look at "KEEP AND BEAR ARMS". If you are a part of the National Guard or Military, you do not KEEP your arms, or BEAR them anytime you want. When I served in both the Military and Reserves, the US Goverment owned my weapons and I was issued them. Thats not Keeping or Bearing by any stretch of the imagination. Keeping means you have possesion of an item, not it was issued for a limited time.

Last, look at "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE". Simply looking at other amendments will show that the phrase PEOPLE means an individual right. (A look at the 4th amendment will show the wording "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," etc. We understand this mean a single person. So does the second amendment.

Here are some more of what our Founding father say about guns:

"The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson

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

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that's good ... "
-George Washington

In Modern English the Second Amendment would look like:

Because arms in the hands of honest citizens are necessary for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny, or private self-defense, the right of all honest competent citizens to own, transport, carry and use firearms for other than criminal means is never to be restricted or infringed upon.

 

[RealGun]

First, I explain that its NUMBER 2 on the list, even ahead of things like unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to a speedy trial. While I suspect that the Founding fathers held all the rights and amendments as equal, they did list this one second, and not as an afterthought.

It is a common fallacy to attribute to much meaning to the order in which amendments are listed. Some of the original amendments earlier in the order were dropped during debate and ratification, so the 1st amendment was not always "First". Furthermore those amendments dropped were not as significant as a true priority order would suggest.

 

[RealGun]

Militias are still legal because of it.

Militias were commonplace & legal before it was ever ratified.

Do you really think that is a sufficient rebuttal?

Feds only go so far because of it. It was the basis of recent bills passed re prevention of gun confiscation in disaster areas. I think I'll vote to keep it around.

I think the Second Amendment has been pretty much useless, to be honest; we have 20,000 gun control laws despite it.

The laws at the State and local level are largely due to the 14th Amendment being useless. The Feds don't even attempt the same kinds of restrictions, knowing they are unconstitutional. The Feds had to use a lame interstate commerce strategy to deal with machine guns and sawed off shotguns. Actually a judge allowed it and should have been disbarred, but there was a bias for a desired outcome.

Much of the rest of it is simply not allowed to be challenged, cases not getting far on appeal. If there ever was a conspiracy, it is gun control.

 

[hugh damright]

hugh damright, You make a good point and I had not looked at it from that point of view ... I think I will be editing my original essay.

How 'bout that? I came back to see how everyone was using my name in vain, and instead my post was taken as being constructive! If I may, I'd like to also address the idea that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve rights to individuals and not to States.

I understand the Tenth Amendment to declare this principle of limited federal government or States' rights: that Virginians are a sovereign political body, and that we delegated great general and broad powers to our Virginia State Government, and we delegated certain enumerated powers to a central government, but powers which we did not delegate to the US were retained to our Virginia State Government, or to us. In my view of the Tenth, the word "people" means "State" - not the State Government, but the political body, the people, that are Virginia. In this view, undelegated powers within Virginia are reserved to Virginians.

But in this other view, if I understand it correctly, the Tenth Amendment is seen as declaring that powers not delegated to the US are reserved to each State government or else to each person in the whole US. In this view, the powers which Virginians did not delegate to our governments are not reserved to Virginians but rather are reserved to the people of the whole US. I understand this view, wherein undelegated powers within Virginia are reserved to the US, to be the very view that the Tenth Amendment was intended to stop.

Also, I believe that the Ninth Amendment may be seen in a federal perspective where "people" means "State". Otherwise, if the word "people" is construed to only mean "persons", and it is concluded that the rights retained by the people are only individual rights ... It's as if the amendment is construed to read that "the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage individual rights, but should be used to deny or disparage the States' rights at every opportunity".

It is a common fallacy to attribute to much meaning to the order in which amendments are listed.

I believe that the Tenth was the most requested and most vital amendment, so if we are to assume that the original amendments are in order based on their importance, it seems like it must be a reverse order, where the First is the least important and the Tenth the most.

Seriously, though, I think there may be some meaning to the order of the amendments ... not in the order of the importance of civil rights, but rather an order where the US Constitution delegates federal powers and the USBOR limits those powers. I have heard the idea that the original amendments are ordered to match the order in the Constitution of the powers they address. There were twelve original amendments proposed to the States for ratification, and the first (which failed) regarded representation i.e. Article One:Section Two. And the second (which failed) regarded compensation i.e. Article One:Section Six. And the next four, which passed and became our First-Fourth Amendments, fit in with the restraints on Congress found in Article One:Section Nine.

 

[hugh damright]

The laws at the State and local level are largely due to the 14th Amendment being useless. The Feds don't even attempt the same kinds of restrictions, knowing they are unconstitutional.

I used to believe that the 14th "Amendment" meant that the States were limited in the same way that the US is limited. For instance, I believed that it would be unconstitutional for the US to pass legislation over CCW, and that the 14th meant that it would also be unconstitutional for any State to pass legislation over CCW.

But lately I believe this view of the 14th "Amendment" is false and is the source of many of our societal problems. The goverment of a free State must have broad and general powers, and if it is limited to enumerated powers, it cannot maintain a society and culture ... I think that is what is happening.

It seems to me that Virginia has a right to pass gun laws that apply in Virginia, but that the US has no such jurisdiction. For example, if Virginia passes a law regarding CCW in Virginia, then that is one thing ... but suppose that New York passed a law which defined CCW in Virginia, or California passed a law which defined CCW in Virginia ... to me, that would be unconstitutional even if we had no written constitutions because if CA or NY pass laws that bind VA then Virginians have legislation without their consent and that is not free government. And if CA and NY and all the other States got together and passed a law which defined CCW in VA, that would still seem unconstitutional because Virginians never delegated them any such power ... the way I understand it, it would be constitutional for Virginia to ban CCW, and unconstitutional for the US to require CCW.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

I don't know who you're trying to reach with your blog, but when you start out in the first paragraph with "Peoples Republic of California", a lot of folks are going to say to themselves, "Oh, another right-wing whacko, who cares what they think?"

 

[RealGun]

It seems to me that Virginia has a right to pass gun laws that apply in Virginia,

Would you say NY for example (no State RKBA) can legally restrict freedom of speech? If not, why not?

VA has the RKBA in their Constitution, so would you say VA restricting CCW is infringing upon the RKBA?

Who has jurisdiction when a State Supreme Court violates its own Constitution or there is a question about that? What is the ultimate authority regarding rights?

 

[Deathrider1579]

I understand the Tenth Amendment to declare this principle of limited federal government or States' rights: that Virginians are a sovereign political body, and that we delegated great general and broad powers to our Virginia State Government, and we delegated certain enumerated powers to a central government, but powers which we did not delegate to the US were retained to our Virginia State Government, or to us. In my view of the Tenth, the word "people" means "State" - not the State Government, but the political body, the people, that are Virginia. In this view, undelegated powers within Virginia are reserved to Virginians.

But in this other view, if I understand it correctly, the Tenth Amendment is seen as declaring that powers not delegated to the US are reserved to each State government or else to each person in the whole US. In this view, the powers which Virginians did not delegate to our governments are not reserved to Virginians but rather are reserved to the people of the whole US. I understand this view, wherein undelegated powers within Virginia are reserved to the US, to be the very view that the Tenth Amendment was intended to stop.

Also, I believe that the Ninth Amendment may be seen in a federal perspective where "people" means "State". Otherwise, if the word "people" is construed to only mean "persons", and it is concluded that the rights retained by the people are only individual rights ... It's as if the amendment is construed to read that "the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage individual rights, but should be used to deny or disparage the States' rights at every opportunity".

On this one I am inclined to disagree with you.

I don't see any government have real "rights" more of boundaries. It seems to me that the individual is what matters here, though you may be justified to see the state government and the local governments as an extension of the individual but not a replacement of it.

In other words, I see no problem in the state having a state run militia as an extension and protection of the individuals in say Texas.
And in this context the states probably have more latitude in what laws they make than the federal government. However those laws are still subject to the Constitution, ergo if Virginia wanted to pass ANY weapons laws that regulate the possession or carrying of a weapon (any weapon) that would be unconstitutional ergo not an allowable law.


-DR

 

[hugh damright]

Would you say NY for example (no State RKBA) can legally restrict freedom of speech? If not, why not?

It depends on what you mean by "freedom of speech". If you are talking about a civil right, like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater or something, then I think it is an intrastate affair and NY has a right to restrict such a thing. But if you are talking about a political right, if you are talking about the NY Legislature restricting political free speech in an attempt to stifle the public and rule over them, then I believe that would be an attack on the republican form of government which the US Constitution guarantees to each State.

In his draft of the Kentucky Resoutions, Thomas Jefferson explained it this way:

"That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;" and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed."

VA has the RKBA in their Constitution, so would you say VA restricting CCW is infringing upon the RKBA?

No. At least a dozen State Constitutions declare that the people have a RKBA and then specify that CCW is another matter. I believe that Virginians also see it this way. I do not believe that we intended our amendment to prevent us from passing CCW laws.

Who has jurisdiction when a State Supreme Court violates its own Constitution or there is a question about that? What is the ultimate authority regarding rights?

The ultimate authority in Virginia is, by right, Virginians. I think Jefferson had a comment on this as well ...

"The States in North America which confederated to establish their independence of the government of Great Britain, of which Virginia was one, became on that acquisition, free and independent States, and as such, authorized to constitute governments, each for itself, in such form as it thought best. They entered into a compact (which is called the Constitution of the United States of America), by which they agreed to unite in a single government as to their relations with each other and with foreign nations, and as to certain other articles particularly specified. They retained at the same time each to itself, the other rights of independent government, comprehending mainly their domestic interests." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825.

"The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the function he is competent to. Let the National Government be entrusted with the defence of the nation and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1816. ME 14:421

 

[RealGun]

then I believe that would be an attack on the republican form of government which the US Constitution guarantees to each State.

Guarantees" by what mechanism?

Furthermore, doesn't framing arguments in a Founding Father context deny the outcome of the Civil War and the existence and clear but denied intent of the 14th Amendment?

 

[hugh damright]

I don't see any government have real "rights" more of boundaries. It seems to me that the individual is what matters here, though you may be justified to see the state government and the local governments as an extension of the individual but not a replacement of it.

Virginia had a right to boundaries as a British Colony under King George. A free State has more rights than just a right to boundaries. First and foremost, a free State has a right to free government, to self-government, to a republican form of government, as guaranteed by the US Constitution.

I do not see government as an extension of any individual, I see popular/free/self/republican government as representative of the will of the collective i.e. the body politic i.e. the State.

In other words, I see no problem in the state having a state run militia as an extension and protection of the individuals in say Texas. And in this context the states probably have more latitude in what laws they make than the federal government. However those laws are still subject to the Constitution, ergo if Virginia wanted to pass ANY weapons laws that regulate the possession or carrying of a weapon (any weapon) that would be unconstitutional ergo not an allowable law.

Well, you may see no problem in a state run militia to protect individuals, but that sounds like the State Police to me .... in my view of militia, the question is ... do you have a problem with Virginians rising up as one and bearing arms to take back Virginia?

Virginia laws are not subject to YOUR VIEW of the US Constitution. Virginia delegated certain powers, and reserved the rest. We did not request the Second Amendment with the intent of binding ourselves from passing ANY gun laws that regulate possesion/carrying, we requested it to bind the US. The SCOTUS has maintained for a couple centuries now that the Second Amendment does not limit Virginia but only limits the US. I believe that what you think of as "the Second Amendment" is, at least to me, an extremist view of the 14th "Amendment", a view where an amendment which never passed means what it has never meant.

 

[RealGun]

The SCOTUS has maintained for a couple centuries now that the Second Amendment does not limit Virginia but only limits the US. I believe that what you think of as "the Second Amendment" is, at least to me, an extremist view of the 14th "Amendment", a view where an amendment which never passed means what it has never meant.

I read that as a serious piece of denial. Denial, however, does allow your other logic to function.

 

[Deathrider1579]

I do not see government as an extension of any individual, I see popular/free/self/republican government as representative of the will of the collective i.e. the body politic i.e. the State.

Then you believe that the government has a right to control your life.
I do not, that is the whole essence of being free.

Well, you may see no problem in a state run militia to protect individuals, but that sounds like the State Police to me.... in my view of militia, the question is ... do you have a problem with Virginians rising up as one and bearing arms to take back Virginia?

The state militia is more to protect from outside threats, such as if Mexico decided to invade Texas again, the state militia should deal with the problem.
Not sure what your talking about rising up to take back Virginia, but if the people fell that their freedoms are being taken away I think they have constitutional grounds to remove tyranny by any means necessary. Do I think an armed uprising is NEEDED? No. Do I think if one was it would work? No. I think a lot of patriots would die and the government would crack down even harder on everyone left.

Virginia laws are not subject to YOUR VIEW of the US Constitution. Virginia delegated certain powers, and reserved the rest. We did not request the Second Amendment with the intent of binding ourselves from passing ANY gun laws that regulate possession/carrying, we requested it to bind the US. The SCOTUS has maintained for a couple centuries now that the Second Amendment does not limit Virginia but only limits the US. I believe that what you think of as "the Second Amendment" is, at least to me, an extremist view of the 14th "Amendment", a view where an amendment which never passed means what it has never meant.

Friend, "Shall not be infringed" is a fairly straight forward statement. The Constitution binds all forms of government within the USA from infringing on these rights. Ergo if Virginia, Texas or any other state wanted to pass a law infringing on our rights to own or walk around with weapons then that would be unconstitutional.

Extreme it may be, but it’s the fact of the founding father's intent was that we all have unlimited access to any weapons we could afford. That is truth, when we decry truth as extreme then America is screwed (*Note that sound you have heard for the past 70 odd years is America getting screwed over)

*Edit to point out that up until oh 1936ish SCOTUS had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, Up until then you could order a Thompson .45 Sub MachineGun over the phone or through the mail and it would be shipped to your door no checks no registration nothin from the factory to you. God that would have been a great time to be alive! (Granted hard, but we were still free)


-DR

 

[hugh damright]

"Guarantees" by what mechanism?

It doesn't specify, but the US Constitution, the compact which the States ratified, guarantees them each a republican form of government. That was the deal.

Of course, these fundamental principles of constitutionalism, federalism, and free government were attacked in the 1860's. In the Reconstruction era, the Congressional Record shows the Southern States, such as my State of Virginia, asking when we might get BACK our Republican form of government which is guaranteed by the US Constitution. I take a look and I notice in the Congressional Globe that on Dec 21 1866, the Senate referred bill S. No 7. "to enforce the guarantee of a republican form of government in certain States whose governments have been usurped or overthrown", to the reconstruction committee. But of course, in the end, the US does not guarantee free government, it takes free government away.

Furthermore, doesn't framing arguments in a Founding Father context deny the outcome of the Civil War and the existence and clear but denied intent of the 14th Amendment?

Yes, the Civil War and the 14th "Amendment" were an attack on the original intent of the US Constitution and our form of government. I still believe in the original intent of constitutionalism, federalism, and free government.

The clear intent of the 14th "Amendment" was that it not pass. It failed the House, it failed the Senate, it failed the States ... it failed every single step of the amendment process and was forced upon us at gunpoint. And I cannot sink so low that I can pretend to respect such a thing. I will not take the rape of the 14th "Amendment" and pretend that it is romance. It was not consentual.

Doesn't framing aruments in a FF context deny the Civil War and the 14th? Yes. Now my question back to you is, doesn't refusing to frame arguments in a FF context deny the US Constitution and the form of government which it frames?

 

[RealGun]

Doesn't framing aruments in a FF context deny the Civil War and the 14th? Yes. Now my question back to you is, doesn't refusing to frame arguments in a FF context deny the US Constitution and the form of government which it frames?

I am not a Don Quixote tilting with windmills. The scenario you propose is not real and never will be.

It failed the House, it failed the Senate, it failed the States ... it failed every single step of the amendment process and was forced upon us at gunpoint.

Care to be honest about what you really mean by "failed"? Obviously, Confederate State votes needed to be excluded. Every school child knows that the Confederates were brought into line by force. We would probably not be here if they hadn't been.

 

[hugh damright]

I read that as a serious piece of denial. Denial, however, does allow your other logic to function.

Excuse me? What am I denying? It seems to me that you deny that the 14th failed and claim there to be some profound original intent as if the thing passed ... that seems like denial to me. And you also seem to deny that we have an incorporation doctrine and that the Second Amendment has never been incorporated. If someone here is in denial, I believe it is you.

Then you believe that the government has a right to control your life. I do not, that is the whole essence of being free.

Excuse me? Did I say that I believe that any government has a right to control my life? You are confused. I am saying that Virginians have a right to control Virginia. That is the whole essence of free government.

Friend, "Shall not be infringed" is a fairly straight forward statement. The Constitution binds all forms of government within the USA from infringing on these rights. Ergo if Virginia, Texas or any other state wanted to pass a law infringing on our rights to own or walk around with weapons then that would be unconstitutional.

You are mistaken.The USBOR was originally intended to limit the US, not the States.

Extreme it may be, but it’s the fact of the founding father's intent was that we all have unlimited access to any weapons we could afford.

The fact is that the Founding Fathers felt that a standing army, in times of peace, was a danger to liberty, and that the proper defense of a free State is the people trained to arms and organized into well regulated militia.

It seems simple enough, at least in the days of muskets ... if only a minority is armed, then they might take over, so if the general population is armed then only the general population can take over, which is what we want. I see no way to take this principle and conclude that every individual has a right to any weapon he can afford.

The way some of you libertarians think, I suppose if we let Charlie Manson out of prison, that he should have a right to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons ... and somehow that would be necessary to the security of a free State! It's madness. Y'all don't believe in free States, you believe in libertarianism. It's not the same thing.

 

[RealGun]

Virginia is part of a collective and will abide by the rules of the collective, or else. Get used to it.

 

[hugh damright]

Care to be honest about what you really mean by "failed"? Obviously, Confederate State votes needed to be excluded. Every school child knows that the Confederates were brought into line by force. We would probably not be here if they hadn't been.

Excuse me? Why would Confederate votes need to be excluded? The War was over and the States were all back in the Union. The Confederate States got to vote on the 14th, but they voted against it, so THEN they were kicked out of the US Congress and another vote was taken. How damn despotic does a government have to be before someone will question it??? They set it up so you could vote as long as you voted a certain way. Is that a principle y'all want to go through life defending?

Anyway, after they kicked the South out of Congress, and took another vote, the 14th still failed! So they had to deny another State their right to representation, and they picked New Jersey. And there was some rule invented where if a State said "no" to the 14th they could change their vote to "yes" ... but if a State voted "yes" they could not change their vote to "no".

Then I believe the Southern States refused to ratify the amendment, and so they were kicked out of the Union, put under military rule, and were let back in when they voted the "right way". I am familiar with a quote from the era from a Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin:

"The people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment, therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of a bayonet."

I don't know why you'd ask me if I'd care to be honest, as if I was being otherwise. The 14th failed.

(edit) Oh ... and that part about the Confederates being "brought into line", what kind of line are you talking about? The Confederates had to secede in order to cling to the Constitution which the yankees were turning against. When you say "brought into line", are you talking like Senator Doolittle, saying that if the States don't ratify an amendment, then it must be forced upon them at the point of a bayonet??