Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it didn't. The second amendment, as written and ratified, was a protection to the state, not the people. The states, and many people, feared a large standing military. So it was felt that an army of citizens, from each state, a militia, could be formed to protect the country against outside invasion.
Some people, you may or may not be some of them, are under the incorrect perception that the second amendment gives you the power to overthrow your duly elected government in Washington DC. This is not the case.
The militia acts of 1792, after the 2nd amendment was ratified, spelled this out. It gave the President, under times of war, the ability to call on states to call on their militias to form under a federal military official, and mandated that when you did so that you showed up with Musket, powder, and bullets, and exactly how much they expected you to show up with.
Also, as seen in the Whiskey rebellion, when revolutionary war vets picked up arms against a federal official who had been sent to enforce a tax, that President Washington called up 13,000 militia men from Virginia, Maryland, and other states, to quell that rebellion. It was a perfect example showing that the second amendment had absolutely nothing to do with protecting you from the government of these United States.
This has been debated ad infinitum by people smarter and more learned than either of us. The overwhelming conclusion has been that the Framers intended 2nd Amendment rights to be individual rights. The use of the word "people," which appears in several other amendments, is key.
The Second Amendment was largely ignored by legal scholars until late in the 20th century. Because of research after that, noted legal scholars like Laurence Tribe(Harvard) and Sanford Levinson (UT) changed their views. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us...anted=all&_r=0
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Times
Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.
“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”
The first two editions of Professor Tribe’s influential treatise on constitutional law, in 1978 and 1988, endorsed the collective rights view. The latest, published in 2000, sets out his current interpretation.
BTW note that this article is from 2007, 6 years ago. Some still haven't gotten the memo.
This has been debated ad infinitum by people smarter and more learned than either of us. The overwhelming conclusion has been that the Framers intended 2nd Amendment rights to be individual rights. The use of the word "people," which appears in several other amendments, is key.
The Second Amendment was largely ignored by legal scholars until late in the 20th century. Because of research after that, noted legal scholars like Laurence Tribe(Harvard) and Sanford Levinson (UT) changed their views. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us...anted=all&_r=0
BTW note that this article is from 2007, 6 years ago. Some still haven't gotten the memo.
This has been debated ad infinitum by people smarter and more learned than either of us. The overwhelming conclusion has been that the Framers intended 2nd Amendment rights to be individual rights. The use of the word "people," which appears in several other amendments, is key.
Is that what he was getting at? I would think the "WE THE PEOPLE" in huge text at the beginning of the constitution was a hint to him.
In his defense, maybe he was trying to get at this through his confusing text, the bill of rights was added to accomadate the anti-federalist faction of the constitutional congress. In other words, to focus on state's rights issues. But I think he's just confused...
This has been debated ad infinitum by people smarter and more learned than either of us. The overwhelming conclusion has been that the Framers intended 2nd Amendment rights to be individual rights. The use of the word "people," which appears in several other amendments, is key.
The Second Amendment was largely ignored by legal scholars until late in the 20th century. Because of research after that, noted legal scholars like Laurence Tribe(Harvard) and Sanford Levinson (UT) changed their views. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us...anted=all&_r=0
BTW note that this article is from 2007, 6 years ago. Some still haven't gotten the memo.
Until the 2008 Heller decision, the second amendment was seen by the courts as a collective (people of the state) right. Not an individual one. The 2008 decision was the first time that this had been tried on an individual basis, and it won, but only in federal jurisdictions. Military bases, Washington DC, tribal reservations, and federal lands.
5 to 4 decision means that could be reversed mind you, and even Scalia said at the time he wasn't sure how that ruling would apply to a state, or city, trying to enact similar laws. The Chicago ban, on handguns, was the first shot at that, and the federal courts overturned that because it effectively banned all handguns, not some, not just one type, but all handguns.
The Supreme court gets the final say in what is, and isn't constitutional. But they HAVE NEVER said, that the 2nd amendment gave you the right to overthrow your government through force. That has never been any ruling by the court, in any state, anytime. Thats what people are arguing. I support the individual right to bear arms, I own guns myself. But its asinine to argue that the 2nd amendment was some tool meant to keep the federal government in check, by threat of armed revolt. It was a check on federal powers because founders didn't want a standing army, as seen in the Madison quote (who wrote the second amendment),
In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29), from Max Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. I [1] (1911), p. 465
I'm not saying you or anyone else doesn't have a right to bear arms, meaning own them. As I said, I do to, and I be damned if I let someone take that right away. It lets me hunt, and protect my family from outside threat of invasion, criminals, or someone out to do me harm. It does not give me the right to take my rifle to Washington and start shooting people, as is the suggestion in the "against tyranny" argument.
No, it didn't. The second amendment, as written and ratified, was a protection to the state, not the people. The states, and many people, feared a large standing military. So it was felt that an army of citizens, from each state, a militia, could be formed to protect the country against outside invasion.
Some people, you may or may not be some of them, are under the incorrect perception that the second amendment gives you the power to overthrow your duly elected government in Washington DC. This is not the case.
The militia acts of 1792, after the 2nd amendment was ratified, spelled this out. It gave the President, under times of war, the ability to call on states to call on their militias to form under a federal military official, and mandated that when you did so that you showed up with Musket, powder, and bullets, and exactly how much they expected you to show up with.
Also, as seen in the Whiskey rebellion, when revolutionary war vets picked up arms against a federal official who had been sent to enforce a tax, that President Washington called up 13,000 militia men from Virginia, Maryland, and other states, to quell that rebellion. It was a perfect example showing that the second amendment had absolutely nothing to do with protecting you from the government of these United States.
Total, unadulterated hogwash. The Bill of Rights and particularly the 2nd Amendment enumerate rights held by the people, as clearly stated in the amendment itself. Had the amendment been intended as a protection for the state, the language used would have been more along the lines of: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the state to form and maintain such militias shall not be prohibited" ... would have been the language used.
The fact is, the right of the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical federal government is at the heart of the 2nd Amendment, and anyone who has read the other writings, letters and memos from the framers would have no confusion about that. Furthermore, those framers penning the Constitution had just fought and won their independence from their tyrannical government of King George less than 20 years previous, and their letter to King George, called the Declaration of Independence, clearly outlines the unarguable fact that the people most certainly do have a right to "throw off" such government that doesn't serve the best interests of the people:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security".
Apparently you suffer from the same type of brainwashing and mind control to wit this thread refers, with the false programming and indoctrination camps called public schools, and the dastardly lies being presented as history to the unwitting children, per the example cited, who will then grow up and regurgitate such similar nonsense as you've posted.
Total, unadulterated hogwash. The Bill of Rights and particularly the 2nd Amendment enumerate rights held by the people, as clearly stated in the amendment itself. Had the amendment been intended as a protection for the state, the language used would have been more along the lines of: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the state to form and maintain such militias shall not be prohibited" ... would have been the language used.
The fact is, the right of the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical federal government is at the heart of the 2nd Amendment, and anyone who has read the other writings, letters and memos from the framers would have no confusion about that. Furthermore, those framers penning the Constitution had just fought and won their independence from their tyrannical government of King George less than 20 years previous, and their letter to King George, called the Declaration of Independence, clearly outlines the unarguable fact that the people most certainly do have a right to "throw off" such government that doesn't serve the best interests of the people:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security".
Apparently you suffer from the same type of brainwashing and mind control to wit this thread refers, with the false programming and indoctrination camps called public schools, and the dastardly lies being presented as history to the unwitting children, per the example cited, who will then grow up and regurgitate such similar nonsense as you've posted.
1. The declaration of independence is not an official document, has no governing power in anyway, to the constitution of these United States, or our country. It was an absolution of ties to England, an emperical power, and the founders didn't want to repeat that mistake, by creating our own empire here at home.
2. Until 1791/1792, there was no government in the world like ours. Where ordinary citizens had the right to vote, run, and be in the government. It did not exist.
3. When Jefferson spoke about "the tree of liberty...." He was speaking directly to France, a monarchy, not this government.
4. General/President Washington put down rebellions in this country where people took up arms against federal employees and people. This is in direct conflict with the idea that the constitution some how gives you the right to take your government by force.
5. In no time in Americas history, has it been legal to make war on the United States. States can not hold arms, so it was worded "people" meaning people of the state. This is seen in the various drafts of the second amendment, I have posted those before, I suggest you read them, and a history book.
6. The only time in American history when Americans took up arms against Americans, legally, was during the civil war. Notice that citizens didn't take up arms and march on Washington, states seceded from the union, as was their right by law (so said the Supreme court), and when those now sovereign and separate states felt threatened by US armament build up at Ft. Sumter, which was on South Carolina's land mind you, the state struck at the government, not the people, the state with an army of the people. Its why none of the rebel heads of state were tried for treason after the war. The Supreme court repeatedly told Lincoln that he had no right to invade the south, and that the southern states could leave the union. Until the 14th amendment passed, and that solidified federal power, and weakened states to the ineffective nothings they are today.
1. The declaration of independence is not an official document, has no governing power in anyway, to the constitution of these United States, or our country. It was an absolution of ties to England, an emperical power, and the founders didn't want to repeat that mistake, by creating our own empire here at home.
2. Until 1791/1792, there was no government in the world like ours. Where ordinary citizens had the right to vote, run, and be in the government. It did not exist.
3. When Jefferson spoke about "the tree of liberty...." He was speaking directly to France, a monarchy, not this government.
4. General/President Washington put down rebellions in this country where people took up arms against federal employees and people. This is in direct conflict with the idea that the constitution some how gives you the right to take your government by force.
5. In no time in Americas history, has it been legal to make war on the United States. States can not hold arms, so it was worded "people" meaning people of the state. This is seen in the various drafts of the second amendment, I have posted those before, I suggest you read them, and a history book.
6. The only time in American history when Americans took up arms against Americans, legally, was during the civil war. Notice that citizens didn't take up arms and march on Washington, states seceded from the union, as was their right by law (so said the Supreme court), and when those now sovereign and separate states felt threatened by US armament build up at Ft. Sumter, which was on South Carolina's land mind you, the state struck at the government, not the people, the state with an army of the people. Its why none of the rebel heads of state were tried for treason after the war. The Supreme court repeatedly told Lincoln that he had no right to invade the south, and that the southern states could leave the union. Until the 14th amendment passed, and that solidified federal power, and weakened states to the ineffective nothings they are today.
The point of the part of the Declaration of Independence we are discussing is that if the government that they were forming ever turned into the type of government they were separating themselves the people should overthrow said government and establish a new government. The whole DoI is not just about the US but the core of individual liberty that transcends all government, even the one that was just being formed.
The point of the part of the Declaration of Independence we are discussing is that if the government that they were forming ever turned into the type of government they were separating themselves the people should overthrow said government and establish a new government. The whole DoI is not just about the US but the core of individual liberty that transcends all government, even the one that was just being formed.
No, it wasn't the government they were forming. The declaration was formed in 1776. We didn't form this government until 1791. And that was after our first, weak central government had failed.
So the question was asked, how do we have a strong central government, but ensure that it doesn't invade states without the will of the people. The answer was, a civilian military. Hence, the second amendment.
Until the 2008 Heller decision, the second amendment was seen by the courts as a collective (people of the state) right. Not an individual one.
Nonsense again. The "State" is an abstract concept, and not a "person". Only persons can have rights .... and there is no such thing as a collective right that isn't first possessed by the individuals who make up such a collective. If the individual possess no rights, where then does this collection of individuals or "collective" gain it's rights if not gathered from among the individuals who make up that collective? Substitute rights for money ... if you have 100 individuals with $10 each ... the "collective" could be said to have $1,000. But if those 100 individuals are flat broke, so too is the collective .... 100 x 0 = 0
What you are spouting here is pure leftist nonsense ... this despotic nonsense being sugar coated with terms like "collective" rights" is just candy coated crap, and just a veil for statist authoritarianism.
No, it wasn't the government they were forming. The declaration was formed in 1776. We didn't form this government until 1791. And that was after our first, weak central government had failed.
So the question was asked, how do we have a strong central government, but ensure that it doesn't invade states without the will of the people. The answer was, a civilian military. Hence, the second amendment.
If that was the case then why wasn't the first draft of the 2nd amen adopted, since it better fits your interpretation of the meaning.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
