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.
Show me where in the second amendment the words "individual rights" are written.
Don't start putting words where there are none, just to make your point.
What part of "the war had just ended, the militia, made up of ordinary people were now given the right to arms, and as a militia, to be regulated".
The entire citizenry did not fight, or pick up arms in the defense of the colonies, a group of men and boys did that, and they called themselves a militia.
Assuming the British invaded soon after the war,again, who do you suppose would be the ones arming themselves, and going to war once more against the British?
If you say the general public, you are wrong.
That is why the fathers addressed the amendment to the militia.
They knew they had to be protected permanently from any threat, foreign or domestic.
If you read your history, you will find that some among the colonist sided with the British, and the founding fathers wanted to insure the militia would be ready should conflict break out with in the colonies themselves,
By giving them the right to arm themselves to protect the colonies.
Again, not one word stating the general public has the right to bear arms, only a militia.
Now what part of that do you not understand?
Some here have asked, if "people" were mentioned in all other parts of the constitution, and those people were considered the general population, then how can the "people" mentioned in the second amendment be different than the general population?
That is a fair question, and deserves a fair answer.
To begin, none of us were around when the second amendment was drawn up, so we can only speculate as to what the founding fathers intended in the wording of that amendment, and the wording is the key to what I believe was intended.
Had it been written, "A strong union of the general population is necessary, therefore, the right to bear arms by all citizens, shall not be infringed".
But that is not what was written.
Only mention of "a well regulated militia, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now if that doesn't speak clearly as to what the founding fathers intended, then I don't know what does.
Still how can there be two distinct meanings of people in one document?
That is quite simple, though in the constitution no reference is given to there being two different classes of people, except in the second amendment.
Some believe the founding fathers meant a certain group of people when it referred to the second amendment, while others feel the intention of the fathers was to arm the entire population .
Let's use the time period of the revolutionary war an example.
None of us were there, so we only have history to record what happened.
Obviously the British were hell bent against the colonist ruling themselves.
King George wanted taxes collected from the colonist.
The colonist rebelled.
King George felt the time had come to send troops to the colonies to stifle any more uprising.
The colonist had had enough, and small groups of men gathered in hidden meeting places to discuss and plan how they were going to defeat the British soldiers.
These groups fanned out across Massachusetts, and the other colonies, though many lives were lost, the British were defeated.
Some of the signers of the declaration of independence had active rolls in the war.
It was these men that would soon begin working on the constitution of this country.
Fresh from the war, perhaps with the echo of canons and bullets still ringing in their ears, they sat down to discuss what would be in the constitution.
Obviously there was much concern for the patriots that had done the mobilizing of fellow farmers and businessmen to form groups to fight and defend the colonies.
These select people fresh from the conflict were at the forefront of the founding fathers thoughts.
Perhaps when the first draft of the second amendment was drawn, there was confusion as to a specific group of people, being singled out for what would later be the final draft that would be adopted.
Perhaps one member stood up and stated"the people (meaning the general public) will not settle for less than equality in this constitution".
"How do we give special protection to a select group of people, while not giving it to all"?
"These fighting men of the militia deserve special protection not afforded to the general population"
"They fought, and many gave their lives for the good of the colonies".
After much thought, it was decided the militia would indeed get special protection, above what would be afforded to the general public.
The amendment in it's final draft was written and adopted.
The word "militia"in an effort to differentiate from the general population, was incorporated into the amendment, stating it would be well regulated, and that the right of the people to bear arms would not be infringed.
The people in this instance were members of the militias.
This document in, and of itself proclaimed that the patriots who had formed these militias to ward of the British, were indeed a select group of people,beyond the general population, and forever would be known as such.
As I said, none of us were there, but for all we know, it may have been exactly as described.
Two distinct groups of people not only mentioned, but dealt with in two separate ways.
The people who made up the militia, and the general public.
No mention of separation ever mentioned in the words, but it is overwhelmingly clear that the founding fathers, by adding the word militia to the second amendment, did indeed do that to show that these fighting men would forever be protected by the constitution.
Show me where in the second amendment the words "individual rights" are written.
Don't start putting words where there are none, just to make your point.
What part of "the war had just ended, the militia, made up of ordinary people were now given the right to arms, and as a militia, to be regulated".
The entire citizenry did not fight, or pick up arms in the defense of the colonies, a group of men and boys did that, and they called themselves a militia.
Assuming the British invaded soon after the war,again, who do you suppose would be the ones arming themselves, and going to war once more against the British?
If you say the general public, you are wrong.
That is why the fathers addressed the amendment to the militia.
They knew they had to be protected permanently from any threat, foreign or domestic.
If you read your history, you will find that some among the colonist sided with the British, and the founding fathers wanted to insure the militia would be ready should conflict break out with in the colonies themselves,
By giving them the right to arm themselves to protect the colonies.
Again, not one word stating the general public has the right to bear arms, only a militia. Now what part of that do you not understand?
Some here have asked, if "people" were mentioned in all other parts of the constitution, and those people were considered the general population, then how can the "people" mentioned in the second amendment be different than the general population?
That is a fair question, and deserves a fair answer.
To begin, none of us were around when the second amendment was drawn up, so we can only speculate as to what the founding fathers intended in the wording of that amendment, and the wording is the key to what I believe was intended.
Had it been written, "A strong union of the general population is necessary, therefore, the right to bear arms by all citizens, shall not be infringed".
But that is not what was written.
Only mention of "a well regulated militia, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now if that doesn't speak clearly as to what the founding fathers intended, then I don't know what does.
Still how can there be two distinct meanings of people in one document?
That is quite simple, though in the constitution no reference is given to there being two different classes of people, except in the second amendment.
Some believe the founding fathers meant a certain group of people when it referred to the second amendment, while others feel the intention of the fathers was to arm the entire population .
Let's use the time period of the revolutionary war an example.
None of us were there, so we only have history to record what happened.
Obviously the British were hell bent against the colonist ruling themselves.
King George wanted taxes collected from the colonist.
The colonist rebelled.
King George felt the time had come to send troops to the colonies to stifle any more uprising.
The colonist had had enough, and small groups of men gathered in hidden meeting places to discuss and plan how they were going to defeat the British soldiers.
These groups fanned out across Massachusetts, and the other colonies, though many lives were lost, the British were defeated.
Some of the signers of the declaration of independence had active rolls in the war.
It was these men that would soon begin working on the constitution of this country.
Fresh from the war, perhaps with the echo of canons and bullets still ringing in their ears, they sat down to discuss what would be in the constitution.
Obviously there was much concern for the patriots that had done the mobilizing of fellow farmers and businessmen to form groups to fight and defend the colonies.
These select people fresh from the conflict were at the forefront of the founding fathers thoughts.
Perhaps when the first draft of the second amendment was drawn, there was confusion as to a specific group of people, being singled out for what would later be the final draft that would be adopted.
Perhaps one member stood up and stated"the people (meaning the general public) will not settle for less than equality in this constitution".
"How do we give special protection to a select group of people, while not giving it to all"?
"These fighting men of the militia deserve special protection not afforded to the general population"
"They fought, and many gave their lives for the good of the colonies".
After much thought, it was decided the militia would indeed get special protection, above what would be afforded to the general public.
The amendment in it's final draft was written and adopted.
The word "militia"in an effort to differentiate from the general population, was incorporated into the amendment, stating it would be well regulated, and that the right of the people to bear arms would not be infringed.
The people in this instance were members of the militias.
This document in, and of itself proclaimed that the patriots who had formed these militias to ward of the British, were indeed a select group of people,beyond the general population, and forever would be known as such.
As I said, none of us were there, but for all we know, it may have been exactly as described.
Two distinct groups of people not only mentioned, but dealt with in two separate ways.
The people who made up the militia, and the general public.
No mention of separation ever mentioned in the words, but it is overwhelmingly clear that the founding fathers, by adding the word militia to the second amendment, did indeed do that to show that these fighting men would forever be protected by the constitution.
Bob.
Bob, this is obviously regurgitated to an extent, but there is no mention of a militia bearing arms in the second amendment. The mention is of the people bearing arms (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). If you can't start with the foundation based on the facts of what the amendment actually says, then there really is no reason to engage in a conversation with you. You don't get to start with an interpretation and then twist the language. The language existed first and drives the discussion in an honest conversation, which is what you said you wanted in the OP.
The Amendments protect the rights held by individuals from infringement, originally by only the federal government, but now by all levels of government because of the doctrine of incorporation.
My interpretation is that it doesn't mean that you have to allow even convicted serial killers to just waltz into a store and buy a 357 because the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed"
God only knows how many people are dead because of those four words, or more precisely the cons infatuation with them and their insistence that they're written in stone
Suppose there was a 1.a amendment that read, "A well-educated intelligentsia being necessary for the informedness of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Would any sane person interpret that to mean that only college professors would get to have books? This is really pretty simple English. Only a liberal could get it wrong.
Suppose there was a 1.a amendment that read, "A well-educated intelligentsia being necessary for the informedness of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Would any sane person interpret that to mean that only college professors would get to have books? This is really pretty simple English. Only a liberal could get it wrong.
When was the last time a group of school children were murdered by books?
And if that was the wording of the first amendment would the conservatives than demand that 5 year olds be able to buy porn or that terrorists be allowed to publish how to books?
I just finished watching , for a second time, "The History of Us", which was on the history channel last year.
Not only is it interesting, but a tremendous learning experience.
After watching it, I decided to look at the amendments to the constitution, and stopped at the second, to ponder the true intention of that amendment.
This subject has been posted so many times, it almost feels like beating a dead horse, but my own personal belief of what the founding fathers had in mind was, not the general population being armed, but those "people" who would make up a state's militia.
Remember,the population in the state of Massachusetts where the revolutionary war had it beginning, was made up of farmers, business men, young men, who would one day, form a militia to take on, and defend against the the British.
These were ordinary people who volunteered themselves to fight the British.
Most importantly, these were(I believe) the people that the founding fathers had in mind when they adopted this amendment stating "the right of the" people" to bear arms.
Understand, these men and boys were the "people" that fought for independence.
You will also notice in that amendment that it states, "a well regulated militia".
The founding fathers knew what a militia was.
It was a group of citizens that formed, and armed themselves against the British, and the founding fathers by adopting the second amendment assured future people who formed a militia to defend against any and all invasions, would have the right to bear arms.
No where does it state that the general population has any right to bear arms.
It all comes down to what the founding father's definition of "people" was when that amendment was adopted.
The people had just conducted a bloody war against the British, and the founding fathers felt, and wrote, that their (the people who were then a militia) right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
I absolutely do not believer the intention was ever to arm the general population.
Through the years this has been debated, and somehow it usually winds up that many believe the amendment was directed at the general public.
I disagree with that finding.
After watching America, the story of us, one can't help but know the intent of the second amendment was aimed at a militia, made up of ordinary people, not people who comprise the general population.
Bob.
Oh wow. What an interesting and original take on the 2nd Amendment.....
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #29
"""Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense...""" John Adams.
"""No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."""
Thomas Jefferson.
"""Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."""
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
Who better would know the intentions of the Founding Fathers than the Founding Fathers themselves? Read their words and learn. Note that this is only a sampling of the myriad of quotes I could have posted. There are many more.
This issue has been debated to death, as you rightly stated, and no matter how hard you try twist the facts, no matter how much you want it to be so, your position is never going to be any more accurate. The debate is over. The is settled law, has been for 7 years, and should have been long before that.
Game over, you lose.
( and I haven't even eaten my Wheaties yet )
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 05-13-2015 at 06:13 AM..
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.
