The Right of the People to Own Weapons Cant be Expunged From The Debate.

a reply to: ketsuko

well, one could say that today, that well regulated malitia happens to be the national guard.

first, knowledge of guns doesn't seem to be part of the requirement to join the national guard. I am pretty sure they have extensive training for that.
and second, I do believe that the guard has tanks, and if they want you to have the knowledge before you enter, then I guess we should be able to legally own tanks so we can learn, right???

the army and the national guard has all kinds of toys, weapons, that we aren't legally allowed to own.... because of REGULATIONS!!!

Krakatoa:

And those citizens are guaranteed to be able to personally keep and bear those firearms (i.e. own guns). Also, it clearly states this right shall not be infringed, which means not blocked or prevented.

Yep, you make some points, but...as much as it self-appoints the right to 'bear and keep arms', nowhere does it state anything about the usage of those arms, but it does imply them to be used only as a militia. Using the very same dictionary, look at the definition of 'Militia'. It doesn't state it as an 'orderly group', but as a 'standing army' (presumably) under government control.



You see, the Founding Fathers not only had to look out for 'enemies foreign', they also had to look out for ' enemies domestic', and that didn't just mean the government, it also meant people disgruntled with the government. It had to protect itself and have the consented authority to implement laws for the benefit of all the people. Which is why the draftings had to take into account all the requirements of the other states at the time.

a reply to: Phage

In 1780, most everyone was considered to be part of the militia.

The 2nd amendment stands second for a very good reason.

First amendment allows the alarm to be sounded--for whatever reason. The Second allows for the citizens to, if necessary, to do something about it. Harder than it sounds, yes, but even harder with out the means.

IMHO, and you can surely, and probably will, disagree as you choose, the 2nd Amendment stands as a guarantor for the rest of them. Without the first and second amendments, the rest are, ultimately, meaningless.

Krackatoa explained it well enough...

a reply to: seagull

In 1780, most everyone was considered to be part of the militia.

Excepting slaves, of course. How about women?

The 2nd amendment stands second for a very good reason.

So, they are in order of importance?

Without the first and second amendments, the rest are, ultimately, meaningless.

I do, indeed, disagree. But I have little problem with the 2nd. I have a problem with those who claim it means unfettered access to weapons.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

So, in closing, a "well regulated militia" means an orderly group of citizens, well trained in the handling of firearms.

What do you think about what Article I (you know, the part before the Bill of Rights) says about what the militia is? Do you think the 2nd Amendment stands alone from the rest of the Constitution?

No, it's all additive. At that time, people owned their own firearms because they needed to eat, they needed to protect themselves and families against bad people (yes, there were bad people back then too). See, in 1775, King George III sent a standing army of British regulars (there is that word again meaning well trained soldiers) to the Massachusetts Bay Colony to confiscate all the arms, powder, and cannon. We know it now as the Battles of Lexington and Concord. This is the main reason for the 2nd Amendment. It is a direct result of those actions by King George III to disarm the population in an attempt to squash a growing rebellion. The founders were well aware of that, and created the 2nd Amendment to assure that our own fledgling government would be able to be challenged if they got too "uppity" and overbearing trying to control the citizens.

They also feared a standing army too, and preferred a citizen militia. In order to do that they needed to assure they were well regulated (trained). Ever wonder why so many towns and cities in the east have "town commons" or "town greens"? The purpose was to provide a place for required monthly training and drilling of the town militia to assure they were well regulated.

Over time, we eventually did create our own standing army. Then the state National Guard. But, each of those is controlled by the government (like the British Regulars were controlled by King George III). So, it applies now more than ever, since we have American Regulars right here, everywhere, in our midst. The 2nd provides the lowly citizen the ability to keep and bear arms to effect a defense against our own "uppity government" that the founders feared.

Now, the argument about machine guns, tanks, missiles, nukes comes in.

Nukes: Well, does anyone honestly think the U.S. government would actually use a nuke on its own citizens? Hardly. Take that off the table.

Tanks & Missiles: If it ever came to that, I assure you many, a majority in fact, of the regular soldiers would refuse to fire upon American citizens in that manner. They pledged an oath to uphold the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. And many of those soldiers take that oath to heart. And for those that didn't, a guerilla warfare approach will make the fight too expensive to maintain, while the big fish countries around the world provided aid to the rebellion in order to make the USA fail (like the French did during the American revolution). Take that off the table.

Machine-guns: Here, we have a valid debate. So, the citizens of the 18th Century were allowed to keep and use firearms that were equally deadly as the British army, which included cannons. Today, we do NOT have that same equality since the 1930's. Yet, we continue to give small allowances over time. Slowly eating away at that amendment.
Slowly stripping the lawful citizens from their right, without due process.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: seagull

Is that really that hard to understand?

Is Article I so hard to understand when it defines the role and organization of the militia?

Do you think the 2nd Amendment stands separate from the rest of the Constitution?

As you quote: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The second comma in the second provides the distinction between the militia and the people. Should have been a semi-colon? Maybe?

"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."

In context, looking at Article 1 and the second amendment, it seems evident (to me at least), the people have the right and necessity to own firearms.
This was all when we did not have a standing army.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Over time, we eventually did create our own standing army. Then the state National Guard. But, each of those is controlled by the government (like the British Regulars were controlled by King George III). So, it applies now more than ever, since we have American Regulars right here, everywhere, in our midst. The 2nd provide the lowly citizen the ability to keep and bear arms to effect a defense against our own "uppity government" that the founders feared.

That is not what the Constitution says is the role of the militia.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

This was all when we did not have a standing army.

Tell me, do the states appoint officers of that standing army? Do they train that standing army?

originally posted by: elysiumfire
Krakatoa:

And those citizens are guaranteed to be able to personally keep and bear those firearms (i.e. own guns). Also, it clearly states this right shall not be infringed, which means not blocked or prevented.

Yep, you make some points, but...as much as it self-appoints the right to 'bear and keep arms', nowhere does it state anything about the usage of those arms, but it does imply them to be used only as a militia. Using the very same dictionary, look at the definition of 'Militia'. It doesn't state it as an 'orderly group', but as a 'standing army' (presumably) under government control.

You see, the Founding Fathers not only had to look out for 'enemies foreign', they also had to look out for ' enemies domestic', and that didn't just mean the government, it also meant people disgruntled with the government. It had to protect itself and have the consented authority to implement laws for the benefit of all the people. Which is why the draftings had to take into account all the requirements of the other states at the time.

Your presumption is incorrect. It was managed by the towns (which were much more independent and self sufficient at that time), but controlled by the local commanders who were local citizens. They were elected to those positions by each town...as each town had their own militia.

Today's National Guard does not qualify as it is controlled by the federal government. It is merely a "reserve army" from each state. Even though for the past 30 years they have been deployed as regular army since the evisceration of the military over time.

a reply to: Phage

it means unfettered access to weapons

People already have unfettered access to weapons anyway. The latest vehicular homicide was by a white supremacist so let's restrict vehicles. Don't let people have "unfettered access" to vehicles.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

This was all when we did not have a standing army.

Tell me, do the states appoint officers of that standing army? Do they train that standing army?

The current one? No they do not.
Thank you for supporting why the view I take on the second amendment, is the correct one.

I'll just leave this here:

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

I hope your kids and loved ones never have to suffer like the people in Vegas - even if thats what you need to happen to open your god damn eyes!

My goddam eyes are open to the fact that this is not about guns. This is about the rights and freedoms guaranteed to the people of the United States by the Constitution. I would not want my death or the deaths of any of my loved ones to result in the loss of rights or freedoms for any American. Throughout the history of this nation many brave men and women have fought and sacrificed their lives for those rights. If the rights of future generations are not worth dying for, then we just as well dismantle our armed forces and law enforcement.

Any member of the US armed forces is prepared to sacrifice their lives to insure the rights of future generations. So would I, and so should anyone who calls themselves an American citizen. This isn't about patriotism. Humans die, all the time for different reasons. People don't last. But every right we give up for the sake of security is lost forever. We never get it back, and we never get the security we are promised. Would you think the people that died on 9-11 would have wanted the Patriot Act passed because they were killed? A lot of those people would be dead now anyway, but we still have that damned Patriot Act.

Sometimes people do illegal things, but that's no reason to take rights away from law abiding citizens. No matter how many times it happens, libel and slander are no reason to scrap the 1st Amendment. The fact that people hide illegal things is no reason to scrap the 4th Amendment. If 100,000 guilty people go unpunished every year, that's no excuse to deny someone a fair trial. Et cetera.

I surmise you are from one of those countries where you don't have real rights, only the privileges that your government allows you to have out of the love in their hearts that it has for you. Here in the US, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the government. That's the way it's supposed to work anyway. I confess, there are some things in this country that happen that I would prefer didn't. Sometimes I think it would be nice if you could arrest gang members on sight. Sometimes it would be nice to skip a trial for someone who is obviously guilty. But I support each and every right granted to the American people by the Constitution. To do otherwise would allow a possibly corrupt government to determine those rights, and it seems to me that corruption in government is inevitable.

I'm glad you feel safe walking down your streets. I keep my pets safe. They are well fed, see the vet regularly, and are not exposed to the dangers of the outside world. Of course, not everyone is as loving to their pets as I am. A lot of people abuse animals, and I'll bet those animals would rather not be a pets at all.

If your government keeps you safe and happy, I hope that never changes. But even in the best circumstances, there are some birds that don't like to live in cages. They would rather face the inherent dangers of freedom over the safety of a cage and a master.

When that characteristic is exhibited in the American people, if you want to call us "sick in the head", "selfish", and "immoral", okay fine. A true American would support your right to say anything you believe is true. We have a concept called "inalienable rights." It means rights now bestowed by government, and the government can't take them away. Like it or not. We just have to find a way to deal with that freedom, and serfdom is not the answer.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

This was all when we did not have a standing army.

Tell me, do the states appoint officers of that standing army? Do they train that standing army?

The militia of the day? No. See my other post that answers this question.
The Army and Guard of today? Yes. They are the equivalent of the British Regulars of the day.

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.

Here's my understanding of this clause in the 2nd amendment. State government (not federal) obtains a militia from members of its own state as a its standing army, and that to insure that its militia had arms to fight with, it enabled each member of the militia to have the right to own and keep a gun.

This was to insure against the federal government from implementing laws and rules and regulations against any member state of the United States, so that if the federal government as an 'enemy domestic' attacked any member state, the other militias of the other states could come to that states aid, and already have arms to bear to do so.

When an 'enemy foreign' attacked the United States, the federal government could draw on members of the militias from all thirteen states to help defend the nation. So, the 2nd amendment applies to two layers of defence, one at state level against a potential rogue federal government, and at national level controlled by the federal government against a foreign enemy.

None of which applies to the thinking of modern day gun owners. The 2nd amendment does not allow for personal self-defence against another person, unless and only if, that other person is acting on behalf of a rogue federal government or foreign enemy. For this issue on personal self-defence, you have to look towards other laws. The 2nd amendment only allows to keep and bear arms as part of a state militia.

a reply to: elysiumfire

And that is why you are wrong.

To start with, you say: ". . .it enabled each member of the militia to have the right to own and keep a gun."

The amendment says: ". . .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. . ."
Arms are plural, "a gun" is singular.
To bear arms, is not just to show them but to use them. Very important with the wildlife around us even today.

I could go on, but I will let you take a moment to collect your thoughts, just off of this one major misunderstanding.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

This was all when we did not have a standing army.

Tell me, do the states appoint officers of that standing army? Do they train that standing army?

The militia of the day? No. See my other post that answers this question.
The Army and Guard of today? Yes. They are the equivalent of the British Regulars of the day.

So the militia which are defined in Article 1 and specified in the 2nd Amendment are now obsolete?

Officers of the British army were appointed by the states of Britain?

Krakatoa:

Your presumption is incorrect. It was managed by the towns (which were much more independent and self sufficient at that time), but controlled by the local commanders who were local citizens. They were elected to those positions by each town...as each town had their own militia.

My presumption is not incorrect at all. Even the towns deferred to the states' legislature. The local commanders would have been subservient to a higher officer stationed at the state's capital. A town would not have been able to do as it pleases against the state it was in. If that town went rogue through a rogue commander, the other towns of the state, and the other commanders, under the behest of the state legislature and command of the higher officer, would have dealt with it.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
I'll just leave this here:

The short and simple response to those that claim the 2nd Amendment was for muskets only, is to ask these simple questions.

Q: What type of weapons did the British Regulars have in the 18th Century?

A: Single shot flintlock muskets and rifles (yes, they had rifles in that war too). They were the "assault weapons" of their time. leading edge military grade weapons complete with bayonet lugs. Hand thrown grenades. Swords. Cannons with a various amount of massively deadly projectile options including exploding shells.

Q: What type of weapons did the American militia have in the 18th Century?

A: Single shot flintlock muskets and rifles (yes, they had rifles in that war too). They were the "assault weapons" of their time. leading edge military grade weapons complete with bayonet lugs. Hand thrown grenades. Swords & Tomahawks. Cannons with a various amount of massively deadly projectile options including exploding shells.

Looking at the list, it is pretty evenly matched. Why? We needed an army that had at their disposal equivalent arms to fight this professional standing army.


Now, what about the comparison between the standing army and the citizens? How does that compare?

Q: What type of weapons does the U.S. Army have today?
(We will limit it to firearms and hand weapons only for simplicity, no planes, tanks, nukes, etc...)

A: Select-fire (single-fire semi-auto, burst-fire semi-auto, full-auto) high powered rifles in varying calibers and power, semi-automatic pistols in varying caliber, hand thrown grenades, and all-purpose hunting/killing knives.

Q: What type of weapons does the U.S. citizens have today?
(We will limit it to firearms and hand weapons only for simplicity, no planes, tanks, nukes, etc...)

A: Semi-auto high powered rifles in varying calibers and power, semi-automatic pistols in varying caliber, and all-purpose hunting/killing knives.

Hmm...we cannot have full-auto rifles or grenades legally. Ask yourself, who wants that balance uneven? Who wants the government to be able to wield complete power over the citizens, with them not having the ability to effectively fight back? And, why would they want that?

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

So, in closing, a "well regulated militia" means an orderly group of citizens, well trained in the handling of firearms.

What do you think about what Article I (you know, the part before the Bill of Rights) says about what the militia is? Do you think the 2nd Amendment stands alone from the rest of the Constitution?

No, it's all additive. At that time, people owned their own firearms because they needed to eat, they needed to protect themselves and families against bad people (yes, there were bad people back then too). See, in 1775, King George III sent a standing army of British regulars (there is that word again meaning well trained soldiers) to the Massachusetts Bay Colony to confiscate all the arms, powder, and cannon. We know it now as the Battles of Lexington and Concord. This is the main reason for the 2nd Amendment. It is a direct result of those actions by King George III to disarm the population in an attempt to squash a growing rebellion. The founders were well aware of that, and created the 2nd Amendment to assure that our own fledgling government would be able to be challenged if they got too "uppity" and overbearing trying to control the citizens.

They also feared a standing army too, and preferred a citizen militia. In order to do that they needed to assure they were well regulated (trained). Ever wonder why so many towns and cities in the east have "town commons" or "town greens"? The purpose was to provide a place for required monthly training and drilling of the town militia to assure they were well regulated.

Over time, we eventually did create our own standing army. Then the state National Guard. But, each of those is controlled by the government (like the British Regulars were controlled by King George III). So, it applies now more than ever, since we have American Regulars right here, everywhere, in our midst. The 2nd provides the lowly citizen the ability to keep and bear arms to effect a defense against our own "uppity government" that the founders feared.

Now, the argument about machine guns, tanks, missiles, nukes comes in.

Nukes: Well, does anyone honestly think the U.S. government would actually use a nuke on its own citizens? Hardly. Take that off the table.

Tanks & Missiles: If it ever came to that, I assure you many, a majority in fact, of the regular soldiers would refuse to fire upon American citizens in that manner. They pledged an oath to uphold the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. And many of those soldiers take that oath to heart. And for those that didn't, a guerilla warfare approach will make the fight too expensive to maintain, while the big fish countries around the world provided aid to the rebellion in order to make the USA fail (like the French did during the American revolution). Take that off the table.

Machine-guns: Here, we have a valid debate. So, the citizens of the 18th Century were allowed to keep and use firearms that were equally deadly as the British army, which included cannons. Today, we do NOT have that same equality since the 1930's. Yet, we continue to give small allowances over time. Slowly eating away at that amendment.
Slowly stripping the lawful citizens from their right, without due process.

A lot of the reasons and arguments for the 2nd, which you set out above, are no longer valid today IMO.

Armed citizens aren't going to fight the British.

Police have no problem killing citizens. You say the army would not fire on civilians but police forces do often.

Any armed uprising against the government would be crushed by police forces. Seriously no one is going to stand up to government tyranny today with their guns, they would be crushed in 2 seconds.

The only valid reasons for guns today would be self defense, hunting, sports. It is not the 1700s anymore.