Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Question about the 2nd Amendment

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    I'm just curious how different people handle this issue. If you're having a discussion about the 2nd, how do you answer when the statement is made..... "The 2nd amendment only guarantees that the militia is armed, it has nothing to do with the rights of the individual".

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715

    Post imported post

    To quote George Mason: "I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people, save for a few public officials".

    Any questions??

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here and There, Washington, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    "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."

    See the word "people"? Not Militia members only, or the right of the Militia, it's the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

    Anyone who reads this in any other way is just trying to back the position they want backed. It was very clearly written and is not at all ambiguous.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here and There, Washington, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    The argument that the right to keep and bear Arms applies only to the Militia is about as sensible as saying that the right of the people to peaceably assemble (First Amendment) only applies to the religions or the press that were previously mentioned.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    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.

    Bold is the important part, and can stand apart from the rest of the statement. The first part is why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Tell them to go back to high school and re-learn how to diagram a sentence.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    At the time the Bill of Rights was written, the "militia" consisted of basically everyone capable of fighting. I forget the exact criteria, but essentially back then there was no special group run by the government that is our definition of "militia" today.

    Also, at least IMO, the militia referred to in the amendment is what was intended to keep the government in check, such as how the militias in America rebelled against the British tyranny. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the framers of the country advocated constant civil wars between the government and the people, but rather the framers valued the system of government much more than the actual people in that government. It was to prevent abuse of power by a tyrannical, corrupt government when all other options have been expended except for a response from the armed militia to put the government officials back in line with the American system of government. I hardly think that the writers of the amendment intended to have militias working as an instrument of the government, so clearly the colonial duties of the militia have fallen to individuals. Thus, the militia referred to in the 2nd amendment is the collection of freedom-loving individuals in today's America.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here and There, Washington, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 is absolutely correct that the Militia is supposed to keep the govenment in check, thats why it doesn't say Army or Military. The Militia can't be a government organization, because then it would just be part of the Military.

    I guess you can tell that this whole 2nd amendment thing gets under my collar.

    I really hope I'm not the only one!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    I don't need the 2nd Ammendment or any other words written on paper to determine what my rights are. I have inlienable rights to life and property, and by extension, the right to defend that life with the appropriate tools, so long as I do not violate others' rights.

    I like to blow an anti's mind sometimes by bypassing the Constitution altogether.

    After all, when Jefferson wrote about the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration, what "constitution" or "bill of rights" was he getting that from? They weren't even thought of yet.

    Now, for something more useful, when faced with the "militia" vs. "individual" question on the 2nd, consider this: every other time the "people" are mentioned in the BOR, it is understood that this refers to individuals, including the 10th Amm., which specifically makes a distinction between "states" and "people". Why would the 2nd Amm. be a special case?

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    Sitrep wrote:
    "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."



    Let me paraphrase:

    We need a militia to protect the state (country). Because we do NOT trust standing armies as our experience tends to show they eventually become corrupt, it is VERY IMPORTANT that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms as protection against this corruption shall not be infringed.

    In other words... we don't trust the king, president, congress.... whatever you call themand the people shall always have the right to protect themselves against tyranny.




  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    Thanks to everyone for replying so quickly. I can tell that this topic is(as it should be) very important to all of us. And as you said Sitrep, it gets under my collar too. I just can't understand how anyone can argue against any of the thoughts that each of you put forth.

    I suppose everyone has seen the Brady Lie #3 video. It would be funny if it weren't so damn frustrating to see someone do what this guy does.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=L5QvYliZC...ed&search=



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    I don't need the 2nd Ammendment or any other words written on paper to determine what my rights are. I have inlienable rights to life and property, and by extension, the right to defend that life with the appropriate tools, so long as I do not violate others' rights.

    I like to blow an anti's mind sometimes by bypassing the Constitution altogether.

    After all, when Jefferson wrote about the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration, what "constitution" or "bill of rights" was he getting that from? They weren't even thought of yet.
    There's a Ted Nugent interview where he talks about this... It's what really hit home for me about how there is a basic human right to self defense, and I don't need an amendment to tell me that.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    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.

    Bold is the important part, and can stand apart from the rest of the statement. The first part is why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Tell them to go back to high school and re-learn how to diagram a sentence.
    Do they still teach that in schools today? Half of the kids cannot even speak the language in a proficient manner.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    A good pro-gun analysis of the Constitutional law is at the attorneys handling the DC v. Heller case http://dcguncase.com/blog/faqs/ (mentioned in the DC section of OCDO).

    I am careful with whom I discuss the 2A. A question with that premise, "The 2nd amendment only guarantees that the militia is armed, it has nothing to do with the rights of the individual", suggests that someone is not ready to discuss it but to only argue base opinion. Like associating relative points of view with Einstein - not even wrong but invincibly ignorant on the subject at hand (Bloomberg? rich but ignorant).

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******



  14. #14
    Regular Member thnycav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Windsor VA, ,
    Posts
    305

    Post imported post

    Quote from Ron Paul Speech on the 2nd Amendment

    "Few people asking that question, however, know much about the banned weapons or the Second amendment itself. The law in question bans many very ordinary types of rifles and ammunition, while limiting magazine capacity for both rifles and pistols that are still legal. Many of the vilified “assault rifles” outlawed by the ban are in fact sporting rifles that are no longer available to hunters and outdoorsmen. Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer.

    More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is America”- but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now.

    Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals. Georgetown University professor Robert Levy recently offered this simple explanation:

    “Suppose the Second amendment said ‘A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.’ Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?” "

  15. #15
    Regular Member thnycav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Windsor VA, ,
    Posts
    305

    Post imported post

    Anouther Quote




    HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    January 9, 2003




    Mr. Speaker, I rise to restore the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right by introducing the Second Amendment Protection Act. This legislation reverses the steady erosion of the right to keep and bear arms by repealing unconstitutional laws that allow power-hungry federal bureaucrats to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

    Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the "instant" background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America. My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on "semi-automatic" weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime. Finally, my bill amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deleting the "sporting purposes" test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a "destructive device" simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be "non-sporting."

    Thomas Jefferson said "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans form exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders' vision for a free society by cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act.

  16. #16
    Regular Member thnycav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Windsor VA, ,
    Posts
    305

    Post imported post

    One more



    5. What is the militia?

    The "militia" was provided for in Section 10 of the United States Code (often abbreviated USC). The Code is the list of all the laws that are written by the federal government. Section 10 USC 311 reads:
    "All able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…and under 45 years of age who are or have made a declaration to become a citizen of the United States." Additionally, another provision allows for a "reserve militia" (as opposed to the "ready militia" described above), that includes women, children and the elderly.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    If you’re feeling a little intellectual, here’s some reading on the subject.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Oley, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    Sitrep wrote:
    "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."

    See the word "people"? Not Militia members only, or the right of the Militia, it's the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

    Anyone who reads this in any other way is just trying to back the position they want backed. It was very clearly written and is not at all ambiguous.
    "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."


    I read it as2 parts of the sentence myself

    the 1st part

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"...

    ("A well regulated Militia" = Natonal Guard, for expample)

    the 2nd part,

    ..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    ("the people" = Civilians)

    This way it makes it very easy too understand.



    Just my 2


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Oh Ron Paul, why must you mix up the terms "assault weapons" and "assault rifles"? At least you know the difference, though...

  21. #21
    Regular Member thnycav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Windsor VA, ,
    Posts
    305

    Post imported post

    He happens to be on our side he does not want to ban them. So why be so picky with rifle and weapon.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    thnycav wrote:
    He happens to be on our side he does not want to ban them. So why be so picky with rifle and weapon.
    Because it perpetuates the myth that an "assault weapons ban" is banning assault rifles, which are automatic, short-barreled rifles. It's part of the campaign of disinformation used by the anti's and the media to portray an "assault weapons ban" as designed to prevent people from pulling a trigger and spraying crowds of people will bullets, when that simply is not true.

    At the worst, it's confusing to people who have a marginal knowledge of guns, and at best, it's offensive. To me, hearing someone use "assault rifle" to refer to semi-auto weapons banned solely on the basis of looking scary is like people using "******" to refer to black people. Both refer to historical uses of language to oppress large groups of people.

    But, from what Ron Paul says, it seems like he definately knows the difference between "assault weapons" and assault rifles. It's just a shame that he has trouble properly differentiating them to the uninformed public. Don't get wrong, though, I think he's still far more correct in his views on gun control and the second amendment than any other politician of which I know.

  23. #23
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Actually, at the time of writing, well-regulated didn't mean 'controlled by rules or regulations' it simply meant 'well-trained'. For me I read this as a singlestatement: the people ARE the militia and our right to bear arms shall not be infringed.



    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    I read it as2 parts of the sentence myself

    the 1st part

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"...

    ("A well regulated Militia" = Natonal Guard, for expample)

    the 2nd part,

    ..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    ("the people" = Civilians)

    This way it makes it very easy too understand.



    Just my 2

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    Wynder wrote:
    Actually, at the time of writing, well-regulated didn't mean 'controlled by rules or regulations' it simply meant 'well-trained'. For me I read this as a singlestatement: the people ARE the militia and our right to bear arms shall not be infringed.



    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    I read it as2 parts of the sentence myself

    the 1st part

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"...

    ("A well regulated Militia" = Natonal Guard, for expample)

    the 2nd part,

    ..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    ("the people" = Civilians)

    This way it makes it very easy too understand.



    Just my 2
    I can accept that angle of interpertation too

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    The Ron Paul quotes are VERY good. I hope he's our president for at least eight years.

    While I don't fully agree with the way they covered it, I think Penn & Teller's ********!'s addressing of this provides an interesting insight:

    "Read the words: 'A well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state...' Sure, we need an organized military force to defend your country. But, '...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.' This is the PEOPLE in contrast with the militia. It doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; It says the right of the people.

    Now, why the word 'people?' Because the PEOPLE who wrote this had just fought a war for TWO YEARS against a tyrannical state MILITIA. They knew the time might come when they'd have to do that again. So they made the possession of weapons a right that THE MILITIA could never take away.

    Now, gun control advocates say the phrasing is clumsy. And the comma separating the state from the people is just a *inhales and exhales* pause to get your breath. Hah! Strange, they can't seem to point out any other places where those 'hack framers' ****** UP the wording." - Penn & Teller

    I disagree with them in that the reference to a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state simply means that we need to be armed if we are to maintain this as a free state (opposite of police state).

    The other way I disagree is that our forefathers did not GIVE us the right. They enumerated the inherent rights of the free.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •