Our founding fathers did NOT have semi automatics.....

boyscout399 · Dec 30, 2012

The forefathers never envisioned internet or television or radio. Does that mean that Freedom of speech and of the press do not apply to those mediums. The forefathers never envisioned Scientology or Mormonism. Does that mean that freedom of religion does not apply to those religions?

eye95 · Dec 30, 2012

That they were owned does not mean that they were intended to be protected by the 2A. That is a logical leap.

Read the history of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It goes back a lot farther than the Revolutionary War, back hundreds of years in English Common Law. The weapons that have historically been allowed (sometimes required) to be carried were personal arms, at first, bows and arrows and swords. The Right evolved with weapons and eventually included firearms. But the arms were always personal arms that had civilian use, yet could be used, in a pinch, as a personal military weapon. Today's analogs would be rifles, shotguns, pistols, revolvers, knives, and the like--all weapons that can be kept and borne. Try to bear a cannon or some other crew-served weapon.

Another thing the history of the Right clearly demonstrates is that the exact nature of the weapons evolves with technology. The purposes upon which the definition is based remain static, but the weapons change. So the historical argument is useful in dispelling the myth that the 2A is talking about muskets.

Mas49.56 · Dec 30, 2012

boyscout399 said:
The forefathers never envisioned internet or television or radio. Does that mean that Freedom of speech and of the press do not apply to those mediums. The forefathers never envisioned Scientology or Mormonism. Does that mean that freedom of religion does not apply to those religions?

This

eye95 · Dec 30, 2012

Be careful with that logic. The forefathers did not have trucks with loudspeakers mounted on them. Try to drive around with that exercising your free speech and see what happens.

The logic simply tells us that, with advances in technology, new analogs to the devices that the Framers intended to protect will be developed and should naturally be protected. Other devices will be developed that are analogs to that which they did not intend to protect or that have no historic analog. Those should not necessarily be protected.

The latter should include vehicle-mounted loud speakers and vehicle-mounted artillery, among other things.

georg jetson · Dec 30, 2012

eye95 said:
SNIP

The logic simply tells us that, with advances in technology, new analogs to the devices that the Framers intended to protect will be developed and should naturally be protected. Other devices will be developed that are analogs to that which they did not intend to protect or that have no historic analog. Those should not necessarily be protected.

The latter should include vehicle-mounted loud speakers and vehicle-mounted artillery, among other things.

Why not? Again you show that you still don't understand the basics of liberty. The US Constitution does not give the authority to the fed government to regulate either of these two things as it relates to private ownership.

The anti's are making the technological argument. It's a poor argument and many here have posted the obvious rebuttals. Stating that "Other devices will be developed that are analogs to that which they did not intend to protect or that have no historic analog." is irrelevant. There are MANY rights not specifically protected. However, they are still retained by the people regardless of the "intention" of the Framers.

LkWd_Don · Dec 30, 2012

eye95 said:
The Right evolved with weapons and eventually included firearms. But the arms were always personal arms that had civilian use, yet could be used, in a pinch, as a personal military weapon. Today's analogs would be rifles, shotguns, pistols, revolvers, knives, and the like--all weapons that can be kept and borne. Try to bear a cannon or some other crew-served weapon.

Another thing the history of the Right clearly demonstrates is that the exact nature of the weapons evolves with technology. The purposes upon which the definition is based remain static, but the weapons change. So the historical argument is useful in dispelling the myth that the 2A is talking about muskets.

I would present that when the SCOTUS ruled pertaining to the 2A protected status of a sawn off shotgun in United States v. Miller - 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

It was the finding of the Court, because they were not presented with facts about the Armed Forces use of such weaponry even during WWI, that:

2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

And

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

Emphasis added to reflect that individual type weaponry ordinarily used by the Military should be protected under the 2A.

Part of the history that they considered in coming to their decision, was how as early as 1632 in Massachusetts, all adult male inhabitants (citizens) were required to be armed. In 1649 is was specified that they be armed with “a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a 'good fixed musket,' not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers."
I have found nothing in the history they considered giving reference to individuals either being permitted or restricted from possessing heavy weapons or artillery. When you study their statement, that weapons providing a reasonable relation to the preservation to efficiency of a well regulated militia, are protected by the 2A for private citizen ownership.

Now, knowing that with technological advances, the common weapons of the militia has changed, to provide for a reasonable relation to the preservation to the efficiency of the militia, those weapons are also protected for private citizen ownership by the 2A.

I know of many Liberals and a few Republicans who would disagree with me on this.

This however is, how many who have studied our Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers have come to understand the Provisions of the 2A.

eye95 · Dec 30, 2012

Don,

Those rulings stem from the now overturned idea that the militia was the entity that had the right, therefore any weapon it wouldn't routinely use would not be protected. Now, the SCOTUS is saying that the right belongs to a little entity know as the Individual. As a sawed-off shotgun can be thought of as a personal arm with a legitimate civilian purpose (self-defense) that can also be used (in a pinch) as a personal military weapon, I'd say that it is precisely what the Framers intended to protect.

I hope that the Court revisits the issue, looking at it through the prism of the Individual Right, but let's not hold our breaths.

Oh, and others keep confusing enumerated rights with God-given (or natural, if one prefers) rights. The God-given right is to defend oneself. The RKBA is an enumerated right, the basis of which stems from law and not from nature. It is a logical way to implement the right of self-defense, but should not be confused with that right. The two rights, while seemingly inseparable, are distinct in origin and in scope.

rodbender · Dec 30, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
The reason for the 2nd has been widely discussed here on this and other forums, but there are many out in the US cyber-world who have no idea, because a lot of Education curriculum no longer cover it. That is also evident in your thinking that there was a reason that the 2nd is the 2nd. It might have actually been the 3rd or 4th when originally proposed, as there were 12 Amendments proposed with the Bill of Rights. 10 or those 12 were initially adopted (read that as ratified) and became the Bill of Rights. There are now 11 of those first 12 that have been ratified, as our 27th amendment was one of the first 12. It was first proposed on September 25, 1789 and was finally ratified on May 7, 1992.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am27.html

So to say that there is any specific correlation to importance or reasoning behind the position or numbering of the amendments, would be mistaken unless you can show proof to support that contention.

The second is the second because it was the second one in the list when they were sent to the States for ratification. Importance had nothing to do with it unless they numered them originally in the order of importance, but I have seen no indication of this either.

LkWd_Don · Dec 30, 2012

rodbender said:
The second is the second because it was the second one in the list when they were sent to the States for ratification. Importance had nothing to do with it unless they numered them originally in the order of importance, but I have seen no indication of this either.

There is something that you may not be aware of that could quickly put that statement/argument down the crapper.
So, how about presenting definitive proof of what you are saying.

Take a look at our 27th Amendment! When was it proposed? When did it get ratified?

Can you prove that it was not originally the 1st, which would possibly make the 1st the 2nd, and the 2nd the 3rd?
Or that the 27th was not originally the 2nd?
There were originally 12 Amendments proposed on September 25, 1789 and only 10 of those first 12 were ratified on December 15, 1791, yet an 11th of the first 12 was finally ratified on May 7, 1992 and became our 27th. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am27.html

LkWd_Don · Dec 30, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
Can you prove that it was not originally the 1st, which would possibly make the 1st the 2nd, and the 2nd the 3rd?
Or that the 27th was not originally the 2nd?

There were originally 12 Amendments proposed on September 25, 1789 and only 10 of those first 12 were ratified on December 15, 1791, yet an 11th of the first 12 was finally ratified on May 7, 1992 and became our 27th. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am27.html

Rather than edit my prior post, I am adding to it by posting this here.

From http://www.usconstitution.net/first12.html you will find as I have emphasised, that our present 2nd Amendment was initially proposed as our Fouth Amendment.

Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first ... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second ... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the third ... 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.

Article the fourth ... 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.

Article the fifth ... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth ... 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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh ... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth ... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth ... In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth ... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh ... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth ... 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.

Citizen · Dec 30, 2012

rodbender said:
The second is the second because it was the second one in the list when they were sent to the States for ratification. Importance had nothing to do with it unless they numered them originally in the order of importance, but I have seen no indication of this either.

It was fourth on the list. The first two had to do with the number of constituents per congressman and congressional pay raises.

http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_cong.htm

LkWd_Don · Dec 30, 2012

Citizen said:
It was fourth on the list. The first two had to do with the number of constituents per congressman and congressional pay raises.

http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_cong.htm

Thank you, additional proof is always a good thing.

It is a crying shame that so many of todays Adults were educated in the Liberal Education System that FAILS to provide a solid understanding of the events that led up to our Declaration of Independence and our Founding as the Constitutional Republic that we are, as it negates their propaganda of our being a Democracy!

KYGlockster · Dec 30, 2012

rodbender said:
The second is the second because it was the second one in the list when they were sent to the States for ratification. Importance had nothing to do with it unless they numered them originally in the order of importance, but I have seen no indication of this either.

The Second Amendment was actually the Fourth Amendment.

There were ORIGINALLY two other articles before today's First and Second amendments that related to Congressional pay.

The first two articles of the original 12 were not ratified by the states, and therefore they did NOT become a part of the Bill of Rights.

One of the two articles that was not ratified with the original Bill of Rights became an amendment to the Constitution in 1992 as the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.

So, the First Amendment was actually the third and the Second Amendment was actually the fourth. The first two were not ratified so the third and fourth became the First and Second.

georg jetson · Dec 30, 2012

eye95 said:
SNIP

Oh, and others keep confusing enumerated rights with God-given (or natural, if one prefers) rights. The God-given right is to defend oneself. The RKBA is an enumerated right, the basis of which stems from law and not from nature. It is a logical way to implement the right of self-defense, but should not be confused with that right. The two rights, while seemingly inseparable, are distinct in origin and in scope.

Others? [rolleyes/]

The RKBA is an enumerated right, the basis of which stems from law and not from nature? No. The basis of the enumerated right is natural law. The enumeration is the law.

LkWd_Don · Dec 30, 2012

georg jetson said:
Others? [rolleyes/]

The RKBA is an enumerated right, the basis of which stems from law and not from nature? No. The basis of the enumerated right is natural law. The enumeration is the law.

You must not have understood what he was saying. Lets look at it again.

eye95 said:
Oh, and others keep confusing enumerated rights with God-given (or natural, if one prefers) rights. The God-given right is to defend oneself.

The RKBA is an enumerated right, the basis of which stems from law and not from nature.

It is a logical way to implement the right of self-defense, but should not be confused with that right.

The two rights, while seemingly inseparable, are distinct in origin and in scope.

Emphasis added by highlight and seperation.

Please explain where he was saying that an enumerated right was a natural or god given one?

I agree with his statement 100% If I could agree more, I would.

sudden valley gunner · Dec 31, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
You must not have understood what he was saying. Lets look at it again.

Emphasis added by highlight and seperation.

Please explain where he was saying that an enumerated right was a natural or god given one?

I agree with his statement 100% If I could agree more, I would.

You agree that it isn't based on natural law?

I also disagree that it was to do with a broad definition of self defense, this was already understood by common law at the time. Of course it's become frowned upon to talk about the real reasons of the 2A.

Citizen · Dec 31, 2012

The problem is that Eye got it half right. Some do confuse enumerated rights with natural rights. For example, the rights to due process and confront witnesses are not natural rights.

But, then he messed himself up by saying the 2A does not stem from a natural right. It does. As do freedom of speech, religion, peaceable assembly, and not being compelled to be a witness against yourself.

eye95 · Dec 31, 2012

Read the history of the 2A. It stems from LAW, not from any notion that man has a natural RKBA. That is just plain historical fact.

Had the 2A said that "the right to defend oneself shall not be infringed," that would be a direct statement of the natural right. As it is written, it is a protection of a right that first shows up in law as a duty for able-bodied men to arm themselves and later evolves into a right to do so. It is good that it is now thought of as a right, as it is the most reasonable implementation of the right to self-defense, but that is not its origin.

protias · Dec 31, 2012

“The Second Amendment to the Constitution Deals with Muskets Not Machine Guns” our opponents say. ”The Founders could never have foreseen such weapons being made in the future” is another unreasonable and shallow argument we hear a lot.

http://tacstrikeblog.com/our-shallow-thinking-founders/

sudden valley gunner · Dec 31, 2012

eye95 said:
Read the history of the 2A. It stems from LAW, not from any notion that man has a natural RKBA. That is just plain historical fact.

Had the 2A said that "the right to defend oneself shall not be infringed," that would be a direct statement of the natural right. As it is written, it is a protection of a right that first shows up in law as a duty for able-bodied men to arm themselves and later evolves into a right to do so. It is good that it is now thought of as a right, as it is the most reasonable implementation of the right to self-defense, but that is not its origin.

Again disagree, from what I read it stems from their belief of the natural right of resistance.

Without the anti Federalist we wouldn't even have it enumerated in the constitution.

I think the argument that it shows up as a a duty in law doesn't mean it wasn't already a natural right.

Our founding fathers did NOT have semi automatics.....

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member