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.
Now, refer me to the US Constitution on the subject.
The Federalist Papers are the reference to the Constitution. Their purpose was to explain the Constitution to the citizens of the several states that they might ratify said Constitution.
Active militia didn't need second amendment protection. In fact, Congress was to...
- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia
During the revolutionary war, those were left to the States. That is why each regiment was referred to by the State from which they came, for over a century.
The Virgina 22nd The New York 56th The Maryland 2nd.
It never says that anywhere in the Constitution. You're pulling that out of thin air.
I should also argue that if you're going to debate the meaning of "regulated", I could also debate the meaning of "arms" to be more extension than simply "guns". Surely non-lethal weapons are still armaments?
Article 1, section 8 the powers of Congress:
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
I hate to tell you this, but your wrong. You are making the mistake of reading your own interpretation into it with no effort to discover what the intent is by further reading.
"General welfare" does not mean what you think it means. It is talking about the welfare of the Republic. In those days, they did not believe in "welfare" as we are familiar with that term today. That was the realm of the private sector, and specifically the churches.
As far as the Second Amendment goes, it was to establish and confirm the right to self defense in law. The right to self defense is an unalienable right, and therefore, just like our other rights, they sought to give it Constitutional protection. The founders did not trust government.
I think you need a little more study. You also need the Federalist Papers. And, you cannot apply modern definitions of words to (i.e. "welfare") to their use in the Founders writings. They don't mean the same thing. For example, "the People" was used to mean "citizens." The right of "the People to bear arms" applied only to citizens. Slaves could not keep arms, as they were not originally "citizens." That did change, however, when we abolished slavery.
The Aricles of Confederation are non operative, now that we have the Constitution.
You should also read The Northwest Ordinance, which is another important document to understanding the thinking of the Founders.
But nice try.
I just want to also add, be careful in regards to the federalist papers. While they are very important for understanding the constitution, they are somewhat vague in many accounts, and don't always address some of the particular questions. If you really want to understand the constitution, you might also want to read the constitutional debates that happened after the convention, while they were trying to convince the states to ratify the constitution. The debates in Virginia are also very interesting.
And also, instead of reading the news articles from the more federalist newspapers, you can read the news articles from the anti-federalist newspapers.
I always find it funny, that the biggest advocate for the new constitution during the debates for its ratification, was James Madison(rightly known as the father of the constitution). But he, along with Jefferson, were the first ones to undermine its validity in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. In a sense, Madison tried so hard to unite the nation under his constitution, and then he nearly destroyed the nation by creating a precedent which led to the nullification crisis, and ultimately secession and the Civil War.
I have a difficult time with anyone's interpretation of the constitution, if it is contrary to the views of the man who basically created it. And I find it funny that, the man who created the constitution, attacked the interpretations of his own creation, nearly immediately after its creation. Thus, Madison would have necessarily agreed that his constitution was overwhelmingly flawed from its inception. And I would assume, he would have become an advocate for major amendments to limit the power of the federal government, or possibly even the drafting of an entirely new constitution.
I'm personally an advocate for the creation of a new constitution, and I would advise all who are concerned about the overreaching nature of the federal government, to call for or support a convention held by the states on the prospect of drafting a new constitution. I find it to be the only practical solution to the fundamental divide in this country.
*The Constitution supports socialism. Quote: "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to Posterity..."
I find it funny that we spend so much time worried about what the founding fathers meant be the wording of the Constitution when it starts out with such an impossible statement: "A more perfect Union"
During the revolutionary war, those were left to the States. That is why each regiment was referred to by the State from which they came, for over a century.
The Virgina 22nd The New York 56th The Maryland 2nd.
Did you know the clause is verbatim from the US Constitution?
The Federalist Papers are the reference to the Constitution. Their purpose was to explain the Constitution to the citizens of the several states that they might ratify said Constitution.
Then you must have a reference to the US Constitution. Where is it? (Hint: Federalist Papers played a role in devising the US Constitution but cannot substitute it).
Obviously you don't know that the second amendment was to allow the well trained people (the ex-militia) to be able to own guns, for occasions the country might need their services again. It wasn't to appease the masters running the show via NRA or for the drama queens, hence the wordings of the second amendment.
No, I'm afraid the person who "obviously" doesn't know what the amendment was for is you. This is what the man who wrote the amendment said:
Federalist 46:
Quote:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
So you are exactly wrong in stating the amendment was for occasions the country might need the services of ex-militia again. It is precisely the opposite. The people are to have their own arms so they can defend themselves against the country. It says the people have the advantage of being armed, and that they have local governments which can resist the national government.
I can now count myself among the 18-33% of Americans who have actually read the entire document.
Some interesting observations:
*The Constitution supports gun control. Amendment II is not about protecting hobbyists. Nor is it even about allowing people to fortify their castle and protect their family, at least not primarily so.
The exact wording of the amendment is "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."
This isn't saying there should be a firearms free for all and that a citizen should be able to own any type of weapon they want no matter what. What it's saying is that the state shouldn't have a monopoly on fire power because there needs to be a check against tyranny.
*The Constitution supports socialism. Quote: "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to Posterity..."
This is specifically stating that the government of this country has some duty to create a safety net for the less fortunate. The framers would be found the idea of a socially Darwinian laissez-faire economy to be disagreeable if not downright deplorable.
*In order for a state to secede, according to the Articles of Confederation, not only would its exit have to be approved by Congress, it would have to be approved by every single other state. Personally I disagree with this because in my opinion it makes the idea that a state is a sovereign entity void and meaningless, but this is what the Articles of Confederation say. It would take an alteration of the document or a nationwide loss of faith in the Union for secession of a state to be a realistic possibility.
Aside from your complete distortion of the term "well regulated" the Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled on the Individual Right issue, and needless to say, it disagrees with you. So, whats your point?
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.
