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. The clause does not have an "if" in it at all.
Also, it does not appear that you understand why it is in there, in the first place. The intent is to protect individuals and their property FROM the government.
Actually the US in the early years relied on militia units for national defense. This doctrine prevailed until a series of military disasters in the War of 1812 proved the folly of relying on such militias.
I have a hard time believing that the founding fathers write the second amendment to encourage rebellion against the government. They feared mob rule. And they had no compunction about dispatching a large army to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. George Washington himself was called out of retirement for that one
Lol. A guy with a posted location of Boston where the original Tea Party happened is complaining about the bill of rights.
You need to understand that the language used...was the language used at the time. A free state encompasses everything from a country down to your postage stamp of a property. A militia was common people farmers tradesmen etc. See back then people had common sense. They didn’t need everything specifically stated down to the last minutiae.
Arms was a gun. Blunderbuss, flintlock, matchloch whatever. It was arms. Today arms are different but still arms. Ok I’m a Militia of one member. And I have my arms.
To me it means keep your hands off my guns in whatever form they take. Period.
Notice the first part says that if a militia is formed, it has to be well regulated which means it ought to be officially sanctioned by the government.
No. The clause does not have an "if" in it at all.
Also, it does not appear that you understand why it is in there, in the first place. The intent is to protect individuals and their property FROM the government.
Corrrect. The forefathers knew that we would eventually have a Tyranist govt, thus we should use these guns to stop them. Nothing to do with duck hunting,
The Constitution is written for all of us. Not just 9 people who have the privilege of passing on to the rest of us, by their "interpretations", the meanings of plain english.
In the Federalist No.28... Hamilton: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government."
In the Federalist No.29... Hamilton: "Little more can be reasonably aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped... This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
So that one might not only argue against the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution...
Connecticut constitution 1818: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State."
Rhode Island constitution 1842: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights 1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state..."
Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights 1790 and Kentucky Declaration of Rights 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
The Supreme Court notwithstanding, the language and meaning of the Second Amendment as put forth by it's authors could not be more clear and of no difficulty to comprehend.
It might be interesting to note that of the four states you cite, all have either amended the language you cite in later versions of their Constitutions or have had court decisions affirming the right of "reasonable regulation" as opposed to a conditionless right to bear arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Blevin
It is 27 simple little words. 27.
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.
Since the introductory militia clause is superfluous, it really is really 14 simple words. An entire law in 14 words.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Second Amendment is no different. Yet people seeking to weaken or negate the right of the people to keep and bear arms continually invent interpretations needed to get their way.
You may be of the opinion that there is excess, meaningless verbiage in the document but the framers of our Constitution were not generous with their words so any claim that the first part of the Second Amendment is "irrelevant" as claimed elsewhere or "superfluous" is not to be taken seriously. Certainly, though there is no attempt in the document to restrict access to firearms by either convicted felons or what were then referred to as "lunatics," there is no indication in any of their writings that those learned men who framed the document endorsed any such "right."
Last edited by kokonutty; 08-31-2020 at 11:15 PM..
A militia would be commissioned by some lawful state or local authority. Even a city precinct could form a militia in support of it’s state. I think it is important to keep in mind the constitution originally was intended as an agreement between the state’s so that constitutional questions arising from decisions and framework before the 14th amendment should be kept in context of their authors. Hence the forming of a militia no matter the level of government within a state, would be to defend that state.
Vigilantes on the other hand would see themselves as the arresting power without sanction of their elected officials or the state’s commission. Vigilantes would still be bound to uphold the law. If they followed the law they would simply make “citizen’s arrests” . Although in theory they would be upholding the law, in today’s world there are plenty enough law enforcement to handle this. That’s probably why in today’s world “vigilante” has negative connotations.
Calling any group “vigilantes” which has participated in unlawful acts against their fellows in the name of “justice” is in error. They are just a mob.
kokonutty:
I expect the four states have changed their "Bills of Rights" so to speak. I'm not arguing that. My premise is that at, and around, the time the 2nd Amendment was added to the constitution these states held these views.
Just because a state changes it's language in it's constitution or declaration of rights does not mean those rights no longer exist. One's right to defend oneself is the foundation from which other rights originate for if we don't have the right to defend ourselves individually, what right do we have to form groups and establish states to begin with. States are at their core agreements of the level of civil behavior expected of their members (citizens).
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Federalist Papers pre-date 10-USC, and of course statute does not trump the Constitution.
Trust your instincts and knowledge. The Federalist Papers do in fact pre-date 10 USC. Nothing in that post implies that statute trumps the U.S. Constitution.
The definition of the militia is provided for current context and meaning, since we are debating the 2nd Amendment as it applies today. Igor Blevin eloquently and thoroughly demonstrated the definition of the militia in the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights.
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.
