• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Right To Bear Arms...

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Keep in mind folks that all too often, contemporary thinking gets caught up in ideas and concepts that while in today's climate are sensitive and visceral in nature, were nothing of the sort in the late 1700's when our Bill of Rights was created as a formal document and part of the founding of the nation.

For example, the issues of hunting and self defense as they relate to the Second Amendment. It seems when the need for and reason of the Second Amendment is debated, the arguments of hunting rights and those of self defense most always are raised. But at the time of the founding of the nation, no one in their right mind would have questioned the need for an Article to appear in the Bill of Rights to guarantee these freedoms. Hunting to feed yourself and your family and using your arms to defend both as well was unquestionable and as natural as breathing. Which means that there were other reasons for the inclusion of the Second Amendment. And there were.

The Founders addressed those reasons in their writings on a number of occasions so it is very easy to see what they were thinking with the Second Amendment. And it wasn't hunting or self defense they were concerned about. It was the security of the nation (Note: the word "State" is capitalized) and its several states, AND as a guard against a government gone evil because there is another little-known fact that the Founders gave their American posterity.

We are the only nation in the history of the world that at its founding, a most fundamental right was cast in writing in our founding document that is absolutely imperative for the continuation of a free people. We have the right, the Duty, to alter or abolish our government* through any means when it becomes destructive of our "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". In all of history, this is the core of what makes America so unique.

* (Ref: the Declaration of Independence)
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
There's nothing odd about it. It simply says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and the state, but they don't have the right to organize private militias. Basically, the state may regulate the legality of militias and organized armed bodies.

No you are wrong. It says:

"SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

not authorizing is not the same as prohibiting. Authorizing is for things that need permission. Rights do not need permission. The right in question is freedom of association and assembly which is protected by Washington constitution

"SECTION 4 RIGHT OF PETITION AND ASSEMBLAGE. The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged."

In simple form:

Individuals have the right to bear arms
Individuals have the right to associate
therefore individuals have the right to assemble in groups bearing arms
groups of citizens bearing arms can be called militia
therefore citizens have the right to form militias.

Authorization is not needed.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
No you are wrong. It says:

"SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

not authorizing is not the same as prohibiting. Authorizing is for things that need permission. Rights do not need permission. The right in question is freedom of association and assembly which is protected by Washington constitution

"SECTION 4 RIGHT OF PETITION AND ASSEMBLAGE. The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged."

In simple form:

Individuals have the right to bear arms
Individuals have the right to associate
therefore individuals have the right to assemble in groups bearing arms
groups of citizens bearing arms can be called militia
therefore citizens have the right to form militias.

Authorization is not needed.

As long as no one actually calls it a "MILITIA"!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
...In simple form:

Individuals have the right to bear arms
Individuals have the right to associate
therefore individuals have the right to assemble in groups bearing arms
...

Not faulting your conclusions, just demonstrating where your logic might be faulty:

Adults may lawfully drink.
Adults may lawfully drive.
Therefore individuals may lawfully drink and drive.

This is not a perfect analogy, but it is not meant to be. It is just illustrating that two statements true in isolation are not necessarily true in combination.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Not faulting your conclusions, just demonstrating where your logic might be faulty:

Adults may lawfully drink.
Adults may lawfully drive.
Therefore individuals may lawfully drink and drive.

This is not a perfect analogy, but it is not meant to be. It is just illustrating that two statements true in isolation are not necessarily true in combination.

Individuals do have a right to assemble in groups while bearing arms, if they choose. Individuals do have the right to drink and drive...just don't blow over a .08.

Both examples are true in isolation and combination.

They made reference to assembling, but gave no reason why the group would be assembling.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Not faulting your conclusions, just demonstrating where your logic might be faulty:

Adults may lawfully drink.
Adults may lawfully drive.
Therefore individuals may lawfully drink and drive.

This is not a perfect analogy, but it is not meant to be. It is just illustrating that two statements true in isolation are not necessarily true in combination.

1. the laws you are referencing pertain to at least one privilege. (or if one follows another thread claiming driving is a right then those laws are illegal)

2. really? are you going to argue that forming a militia is NOT a right fundamental to a free society?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
1. the laws you are referencing pertain to at least one privilege. (or if one follows another thread claiming driving is a right then those laws are illegal)

2. really? are you going to argue that forming a militia is NOT a right fundamental to a free society?

Once again, I was not disputing your conclusion. I tried, unsuccessfully, to defuse the expected this-is-a-right-that-is-a-privilege argument. Let me repeat:

"This is not a perfect analogy, but it is not meant to be. It is just illustrating that two statements true in isolation are not necessarily true in combination."

Anyway, I have stated the point. Your choice where to go with it.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Once again, I was not disputing your conclusion. I tried, unsuccessfully, to defuse the expected this-is-a-right-that-is-a-privilege argument. Let me repeat:

"This is not a perfect analogy, but it is not meant to be. It is just illustrating that two statements true in isolation are not necessarily true in combination."

Anyway, I have stated the point. Your choice where to go with it.

I'm saying exclusive OR is not valid with rights.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
No you are wrong. It says:

"SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

not authorizing is not the same as prohibiting. Authorizing is for things that need permission. Rights do not need permission. The right in question is freedom of association and assembly which is protected by Washington constitution

"SECTION 4 RIGHT OF PETITION AND ASSEMBLAGE. The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged."

In simple form:

Individuals have the right to bear arms
Individuals have the right to associate
therefore individuals have the right to assemble in groups bearing arms
groups of citizens bearing arms can be called militia
therefore citizens have the right to form militias.

Authorization is not needed.

I never said it was prohibited, just that it's not exclusively a right, and thus the legislature may enact laws controlling the formation of militias, armed gangs, and other forms of non-peaceable private assemblies of armed men. It is important to note that individuals have the right to *peaceably* assemble for the common good, which does not automatically grant the prima facie right to form militias...er, "armed bodies of men".

The reason I say it's not that weird to have the wording be like that is that it clearly is meant to address the formation of anti-society actors coordinating in a non-peaceable way, e.g. gangs and extremist militias of an anti-government bent. Do you really think the constitution means squat if it ever truly became a matter of the state vs the people? Why shouldn't the constitution prevent those who would assemble with intent to cause harm or disruption from wrapping themselves in its words?
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Not faulting your conclusions, just demonstrating where your logic might be faulty:

Adults may lawfully drink.
Adults may lawfully drive.
Therefore individuals may lawfully drink and drive.

This is not a perfect analogy, but it is not meant to be. It is just illustrating that two statements true in isolation are not necessarily true in combination.

The law makes drinking and driving mutually exclusive. Rights are set out in the highest law in the land. No law can be in a superior position to the rights identified in the constitution, and as someone on this thread stated " the constitution is not a Chineese menu". Therefore no third law can make bearing arms and assembling mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
Carried about the person; what ever Arm is able to be carried would fall under "Arms?"

"Well regulated militia." "Well"..."Regulated"..."Militia." What was the reasoning behind these three words? At the time what was the context in which the term "well," "regulated," "militia" used? If each word had an intent, what did those three words, individual and collectively intent to mean?

At the time of the writing of the constitution, the word "regulated" had a slightly different meaning in this context. It meant well armed, and well maintained/trained. And each militia voted on their officers and had appointed NCO's. They met and did drill, as often as the officers deemed necessary. The volunteers were not as disciplined as the "Regulars" as it were, and during the Revolution the British often took advantage of this.
 
Top