Did the second ammendment go down in 2007? Experts needed.

Okay, this is not an area of expertise for me and I will not pretend that it is. However, with all the inevitable talk of U.S. gun control this weekend there were a few things that I started thinking about and decided to bring here for some feedback and hopefully the input of an actual expert or two.

There are two ways to read the intent of the 2nd Ammendment. Personally, despite living in an area with a strong gun culture, growing up with guns in home myself, and believing that most of us should have access to most of them, I tend to think the personal ownership of guns point of view misses the the intent of the Framers. I have always believed that they were quite simply stating that the individual states had the the right to maintain their own armed forces as protection from Federal Government Overreach. Given the circumstances of the years leading to the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it just makes sense to me. Don't start fuming yet, read on please!

I believe that the 2nd ammendment most solidly applies to the states, and then the states derive from that the right to regulate (or not) guns within their boundaries as they see fit. Their well organized militia to defend Liberty was always, imo, the National Guard under the control of the individual governors. In 2007, to better coordinate responses, that control was codified into a status where it can be usurped by the President. I did not know that until this weekend. I found it while searching, but am not really finding some other information I consider important. Now, because, as I already stated, I am not an any kind of expert in this area, I am curious...was I just under the wrong impression about the National Guard growing up? Did the Feds always have some degree of control? If not, I consider that to be a really, REALLY, big 2nd ammendment issue. If it really did change that drastically in 2007, and now really just a few years later we are looking at changes on the personal level...well, that's kind of quick for such a huge transition. One that it is probably worth noting goes across two administrations, one from each party.

So, ATS, what say you?

[color=dodgerblue]The FOUNDERS of this great country included an AMENDMENT in our Bill Of Rights that give us citizens the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. PERIOD.

For those who disagree with our FORE-FATHERS WHO FOUNDED THIS COUNTRY, GET THE HELL OUT OF THE COUNTRY OR SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT GUN CONTROL.

TWO CHOICES: SHUT UP, OR LEAVE AS YOU ARE ACTUALLY A TRAITOR ANYWAYS IF YOU IGNORE OUR BILL OF RIGHTS.

Period.

End of discussion.

Right to keep and bear arms

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.

Originally posted by oper8zhin
[color=dodgerblue]The FOUNDERS of this great country included an AMENDMENT in our Bill Of Rights that give us citizens the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. PERIOD.

For those who disagree with our FORE-FATHERS WHO FOUNDED THIS COUNTRY, GET THE HELL OUT OF THE COUNTRY OR SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT GUN CONTROL.

TWO CHOICES: SHUT UP, OR LEAVE AS YOU ARE ACTUALLY A TRAITOR ANYWAYS IF YOU IGNORE OUR BILL OF RIGHTS.

Period.

End of discussion.

Right to keep and bear arms

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.

Lord, oh, Lord you are missing the point. If what I am thinking is true then they already headed off the best arguement (liberty) against gun control because they quietly already won that battle.

If Kentucky can have a militia loyal to Kentucky that holds the Feds at bay. If the Feds have that militia then it doesn't. This isn't about me saying anyone should take your guns. This is about a possibly systematic attempt to remove the "protection of liberty" by marginalizing "gun culture" to guys with beer on a range and the idea that they are heartless if their weekend entertainment and "huntin'" matters more than the lives of children. It is the idea that personal gun ownership is about sports and hunting and entertainment. If they already took over the part of the 2nd that truly can protect liberty, then they aren't that wrong about that. So, is that a new change in 2007 or was I just misinformed growing up?

Sorry, The Bill of Rights are for individuals, not for the States.

The first part, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." qualifies
why the individuals of that free State have the right to keep and bear arms.

Originally posted by oper8zhin
[color=dodgerblue]The FOUNDERS of this great country included an AMENDMENT in our Bill Of Rights that give us citizens the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. PERIOD.

For those who disagree with our FORE-FATHERS WHO FOUNDED THIS COUNTRY, GET THE HELL OUT OF THE COUNTRY OR SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT GUN CONTROL.

TWO CHOICES: SHUT UP, OR LEAVE AS YOU ARE ACTUALLY A TRAITOR ANYWAYS IF YOU IGNORE OUR BILL OF RIGHTS.

Period.

End of discussion.

Right to keep and bear arms

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.

Your god-like fore-fathers stole the idea from England, like most things American. Stop living in the past.

And where exactly is this well regulated militia?

Listen, I know that some of you guys have strong feelings about guns. I am not trying to take them from you or support those that are. However, I am asking you to recognize that LEGALLY there are two interpretations of the 2nd. Your rights are under more fire than you know if they already dismantled one of them in 2007. And, maybe they didn't, maybe I was wrong growing up about the autonomy of the Guard. Can anyone who knows anything about this look past the knee jerk "out of my cold dead hands" to shed light on the situation with the Guard? It is actually an attempt to protect gun rights though it is quite clear to me that the first few responders do not see it that way.

reply to post by watcher3339


You need to understand what the Militia is to understand the 2nd Amendment... Here is some information for NCCM, basically every citizen of the our state is part of the Militia.

Originally posted by Shdak
reply to post by watcher3339

 

You need to understand what the Militia is to understand the 2nd Amendment... Here is some information for NCCM, basically every citizen of the our state is part of the Militia.

Thank you for the link. Yes, I understand that there are militias separate from the Guard in many states. I also greatly appreciate, as reinforced by my searches this weekend, the idea that militias (be they Guard or other) by their very nature fight against tyranny. They fight defensive battles and generally are not a part of incursions into other lands. Our National Guard, under Federal control was, of course, sent to fight overseas. It leads to questions about the defense of a homeland in modern times versus falling into the pattern of an empire conquering others. I don't have those answers either.

The National Guard has been basically run by the Army for as long as I've been around. When I was in the Army 20 years ago, there were always guys from the guard in training and schools that I attended, even basic training. So I don't think 2007 was any great milestone.

Parenthetically, in 1789, "Regulated" meant prepared. In order to feed all these people, we need a well regulated caterer.

Originally posted by watcher3339

Originally posted by Shdak
reply to post by watcher3339

 

You need to understand what the Militia is to understand the 2nd Amendment... Here is some information for NCCM, basically every citizen of the our state is part of the Militia.

Thank you for the link. Yes, I understand that there are militias separate from the Guard in many states. I also greatly appreciate, as reinforced by my searches this weekend, the idea that militias (be they Guard or other) by their very nature fight against tyranny. They fight defensive battles and generally are not a part of incursions into other lands. Our National Guard, under Federal control was, of course, sent to fight overseas. It leads to questions about the defense of a homeland in modern times versus falling into the pattern of an empire conquering others. I don't have those answers either.

Not sure if I'm following you, "I have taken some pain meds, so forgive me"... any Government Controlled Military , National Guard, Army, Navy, “CIA” or other cannot be part of the militia. So if the elected officials "Governoment" felt the need to have the military in other places that would be within their rights, but as far as “homeland defense“ meaning the ground I walk on daily; that still today would be defended by the militia. I hope I got that right…

reply to post by Shdak


Yes and no. Your confusion may stem from you having a better understanding of what exactly what I am trying to determine which might make my question not make sense to you, especially if I am wrong! For those who take the meaning of the 2nd to be a force controlled by the states (as opposed to the Feds) being a right I am trying to determine what degree of real autonomy the states have historically had. For example did the Guard units only respond to state governors prior to 2007? If not, and the Feds had some measure for gaining control of those units prior to 2007, was that the case in 1800? If the Feds created that right some where along the line, when was it? My concern is that if the idea (as per the second interpretation of the second ammendment as being to look out for state sovereignty) was once strong and there was autonomy and now it isn't then that leads to the way the discussion has been framed by so many calling for gun control the past few days. To help to clarify where I am coming from there has been a lot of that discussion talking about self defense (against crime) and sport. To me, the second ammendment is much deeper and far more important than that. It is the idea that centralized power always, eventually, becomes corrupt and seeks to control more than what the Framers were comfortable allowing. It seems to me that this was a crucial part of the checks and balances when moving from a loosely aligned group of states to a centralized government that was the point of discussion for the Constitutional Convention. The second ammendment in this legal interpretation (that the miltia really refers to the states) is a crucial part of the checks and balances that make up the core of our government. I have not seen the ammendment looked at that way in the gun control talks this weekend. I have seen people in various online article comments and social media indicate that the only reasons to own guns are to hunt, to shoot for fun, to defend against muggings and the like. It seems that anyone stating that the reasons for gun ownership separate from a Federal standing army to protect liberty is taken to be a "nutter". I recognize that there is a whole additional argument to say that individual people owning guns protects liberty. I even agree with that argument but it seems to be marginalized in the debate as a fringe concept. If the guard once was soley under the control of the state governors and now is under the control of the Feds, then states protecting liberty from Federal overreach (to me a core part of the Framers' intent) has already been greatly damaged. If the states had that power and have lost it then I see a greater incursion against liberty than I had prior knowledge of and it concerns me. If it has been that recent (2007) and no looks to be quickly followed by personal limitations, well, then I begin to see indications of a real and concerted effort to undermine the core concept of protecting liberty. Does that make sense? I may not be explaining myself well either, or I could have an underlying misconception of the historic autonomy of the National Guard which makes my question confusing to those who don't.

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMike
The National Guard has been basically run by the Army for as long as I've been around. When I was in the Army 20 years ago, there were always guys from the guard in training and schools that I attended, even basic training. So I don't think 2007 was any great milestone.

Parenthetically, in 1789, "Regulated" meant prepared. In order to feed all these people, we need a well regulated caterer.

I appreciate both your insight as to "regulated "circa 1789 and your humor! Do you happen to know if it was an efficiency, resource use issue that they trained with you or if they were actually subject to control of the Feds if their governors objected?

reply to post by watcher3339


You are asking a legit question.


This is actually NOT state (10th amendment) issue . One right does not trump any other.

The Bill of Rights are Inalienable rights and not revokable privileges (short of committing a felony in the case of the 2nd).

Personally, I dont think that someone should loose their 2nd merely due to a felony unless:
1. A weapon was used in the commission of the felony.
2. It was a violent felony.
3. Someone was blatantly injured/killed due to the felony.

The Bill of Rights states the rights that are given at birth to ALL from their Maker....not dispensed like a piece of candy from the governing body. That is the true intent of the Framers. Its nothing about having a State arsenal so folks can be called up (although that is a good thing). Its not about hunting (that is a good thing as well). Its not about target shooting (that is a FANTASTICALLY FUN THING ). Its about defending your country and fellow man from aggressors. Period.

If someone has a religious issue with weapon ownership, they shouldn't be forced to have them. They also have the right NOT to accept the right in question.