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.
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.
I have found the History channel to be just as biased as all other channels.
Did they do ANYTHING from the Federalist Papers?
Did they show quotes from ANY of the founding Father's? You know, the guys who WROTE the Constitution?
""And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from
time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take
arms...the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood
of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
-- Thomas Jefferson"
"Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)"
"Patrick Henry: “The people have a right to keep and bear arms.” (Elliott, Debates at 185)
I tend to go with what the Fore Father's ACTUALLY said rather then what someone 200 + years later "thinks" they know what they meant.
You watched the History Chanel version so you might want to get a different perspective.
"Or if you would rather, take a look at the actual legal definition of the militia as set forth in the United States Code: [LEFT]Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:[/LEFT]
[LEFT]"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. [/LEFT]
[LEFT](b) The classes of the militia are — [/LEFT]
[LEFT](1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and [/LEFT]
[LEFT](2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." [/LEFT]
[LEFT]Still doubtful? Check it out for yourself at Findlaw.com"[/LEFT]
Do your OWN research and don't rely on ANY TV show.
There are no absolute rights. There is one absolute privilege by law, but not one absolute right. The right “to keep and bear arms” secured by the Second Amendment is governed by law; and under the law that right can be forfeited. A person convicted of a felony - even a non-violent offense - loses the right to purchase or possess a gun. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See article at: From Behind Bars, Randy "Duke" Cunningham Begs For The Right To Own A Gun And, under federal law, a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence forfeits the right to have a gun permanently. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9); United States v. Chovan,735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 20`3); cert. denied (Oct. 6, 2013). http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...8/11-50107.pdf
Judge Bork, a darling of the right, said it only applies to militias.
I'm a republican but I can't interpret it as applying to all people. I am in favor of gun ownership because I don't believe in big government. It's that we have too many laws and not about the amendment for me.
"I'm a republican but I can't interpret it as applying to all people" Herein is the problem.
Some want to "interpret " what the Fore Father's said rather then READ the ACTUAL words they said.
There words are VERY clear as what EXACTLY they meant.
I am amazed as to many of the "interpretations some have come up with WITHOUT doing ANY research.
There are no absolute rights. There is one absolute privilege by law, but not one absolute right. The right “to keep and bear arms” secured by the Second Amendment is governed by law; and under the law that right can be forfeited. A person convicted of a felony - even a non-violent offense - loses the right to purchase or possess a gun. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See article at: From Behind Bars, Randy "Duke" Cunningham Begs For The Right To Own A Gun And, under federal law, a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence forfeits the right to have a gun permanently. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9); United States v. Chovan,735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 20`3); cert. denied (Oct. 6, 2013). http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...8/11-50107.pdf
The Constitution are not laws against the people. They are laws We The People, told them the government, you break these laws we place upon you, We The People have be the authority we grant ourselves as flesh & blood, the ability to kill our oppressors of liberty.
Fact of what the amendment actually says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" That is a fact of what the amendment says, that you need to acknowledge before you engage in the conversation.
Of course it is the people bearing arms. What else would it be? The people of the Militia bearing arms.
That is what it says. It provides a rationale versus a contingency. It's more like saying "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" than it is to "The people in a militia have the right to keep and bear arms."
Thanks to the tireless efforts of the NRA to have the Second Amendment encompass an individual right, we now have more restrictive gun laws than ever before. Be wary of what you wish, for you may get more than what you would want.
First of all, it says "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It didn't say "the right of the militia." "The people" <> "the militia."
Secondly, this is a restriction to the government, hence "shall not be infringed." It's not a restriction to the people.
The proscription agains infringement does not preclude regulation; and American gun owners will find themselves the more "well regulated."
To regulate means to set rules. To set rules means to limit. Limiting is infringing. Personally, I don't mind some regulations, but it is in fact limiting/infringement.
""And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from
time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take
arms...the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood
of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
-- Thomas Jefferson"
"Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)"
"Patrick Henry: “The people have a right to keep and bear arms.” (Elliott, Debates at 185)
I tend to go with what the Fore Father's ACTUALLY said rather then what someone 200 + years later "thinks" they know what they meant.
You watched the History Chanel version so you might want to get a different perspective.
"Or if you would rather, take a look at the actual legal definition of the militia as set forth in the United States Code: [LEFT]Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:[/LEFT]
[LEFT]"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. [/LEFT]
[LEFT](b) The classes of the militia are — [/LEFT]
[LEFT](1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and [/LEFT]
[LEFT](2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." [/LEFT]
[LEFT]Still doubtful? Check it out for yourself at Findlaw.com"[/LEFT]
Do your OWN research and don't rely on ANY TV show.
History Channel is another liberal propaganda machine.
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.
