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.
Much smarter people than you have interpreted it correctly. Your argument argued in the Supreme Court was found to be wrong.
Initially, it was not.
Quote:
"For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon." So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? - The New Yorker
and
Quote:
Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”
But the N.R.A. kept pushing—and there’s a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article) So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? - The New Yorker
Oh the argument again that militia in the amendment means a group of people not a individual and since we have national guard " state militia" now nobody needs to own a AR-15 individually.
The national guard is government, since when has the bill in rights been put in place to protect government rights?, no just like the other amendments it is a individual right not a collective right.
And must we once again show some of the clueless how a civilian AR-15 functions the same as a semi=auto hunting rifle not considered a "assault rifle" for those that say no one needs a AR-15?
I went back too the federalist papers, and specifically went to Madison's statement, and 46 in particular, and found nothing concerning ordinary citizens, but rather the militia.
Ordinary citizens belonging to a militia is what is being addressed, and the point being made, is congress is the governing force on the militia, except training the militia would be up to the states.
Again, no mention of John Q. public, just the militia.
When "people" are mentioned, it is in the context of the militia, not the general public.
I truly believe the word "people" is the entire problem with the 2nd amendment.
It is open to interpretation, and some believe it is the general public, and some (as I),believe it is the people of the militia that is guaranteed the right to bear arms .
The issue has been decided by the scotus, but even that decision is open too interpretation.
I contend (and always will,) the amendment was directed at the militia only, and if it were meant to include people outside of the militia, it would have been stated in the amendment.
It is the word "people" that is the basis for different interpretations.
I honestly feel that the amendment needs to be re-written so there is no doubt as to it's meaning.
As it is presently, it is not clear on just what "people" the amendment addresses.
It states "militia", then "people", so what are we to take from that?
Are we to assume all people, all militia, or both?
I will stick with what I believe, and that is people who made up a militia.
I went back too the federalist papers, and specifically went to Madison's statement, and 46 in particular, and found nothing concerning ordinary citizens, but rather the militia.
Ordinary citizens belonging to a militia is what is being addressed, and the point being made, is congress is the governing force on the militia, except training the militia would be up to the states.
Again, no mention of John Q. public, just the militia.
When "people" are mentioned, it is in the context of the militia, not the general public.
I truly believe the word "people" is the entire problem with the 2nd amendment.
It is open to interpretation, and some believe it is the general public, and some (as I),believe it is the people of the militia that is guaranteed the right to bear arms .
The issue has been decided by the scotus, but even that decision is open too interpretation.
I contend (and always will,) the amendment was directed at the militia only, and if it were meant to include people outside of the militia, it would have been stated in the amendment.
It is the word "people" that is the basis for different interpretations.
I honestly feel that the amendment needs to be re-written so there is no doubt as to it's meaning.
As it is presently, it is not clear on just what "people" the amendment addresses.
It states "militia", then "people", so what are we to take from that?
Are we to assume all people, all militia, or both?
I will stick with what I believe, and that is people who made up a militia.
Bob.
One more time, and maybe you'll answer: If the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to ban the ownership of firearms by average citizens, why didn't they confiscate firearms from the average citizen as soon as the Constitution was ratified?
I went back too the federalist papers, and specifically went to Madison's statement, and 46 in particular, and found nothing concerning ordinary citizens, but rather the militia.
Ordinary citizens belonging to a militia is what is being addressed, and the point being made, is congress is the governing force on the militia, except training the militia would be up to the states.
Again, no mention of John Q. public, just the militia.
When "people" are mentioned, it is in the context of the militia, not the general public.
I truly believe the word "people" is the entire problem with the 2nd amendment.
It is open to interpretation, and some believe it is the general public, and some (as I),believe it is the people of the militia that is guaranteed the right to bear arms .
The issue has been decided by the scotus, but even that decision is open too interpretation.
I contend (and always will,) the amendment was directed at the militia only, and if it were meant to include people outside of the militia, it would have been stated in the amendment.
It is the word "people" that is the basis for different interpretations.
I honestly feel that the amendment needs to be re-written so there is no doubt as to it's meaning.
As it is presently, it is not clear on just what "people" the amendment addresses.
It states "militia", then "people", so what are we to take from that?
Are we to assume all people, all militia, or both?
I will stick with what I believe, and that is people who made up a militia.
Bob.
You ignored Madison's original amendment.
You ignored that Fed 46 states clearly Americans have the right to bear arms
Quote:
the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation
And you ignored that the militia comprises of everyone, not just Madison said this, George Mason (the father of the Bill of Rights) said this too. There is no differentiation between the people and militia, it's an artificial construct.
Quote:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
So even if the militia is indeed the sole beneficiary of the right to keep and bear arms, as all the people are the militia they also benefit from the right to keep and bear arms.
How can congress be the governing force when Fed 46 discusses a US standing army opposed by half a million militia? Why would congress set it's standing army against it's militia? It makes nonsense of the statement
Quote:
This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands
Here's the thing, confirmation bias being what it is I don't think if we stood up Madison, Mason, Jefferson Washington, Franklin and asked their opinions you would actually accept what they said unless it agreed with your preconceptions.
Hitler was able to get people to want to follow his ideas through an extensive propaganda campaign, mostly posters. This propaganda was nothing more than non-factual misinformation intended to mislead and persuade the people. Today, this same method is propagated through memes (such as what you posted) and bumper stickers.
Let us look at facts when we formulate opinions. Otherwise, we reduce ourselves to brainwashed victims of propaganda.
Very true, Hitler was building a German war machine and wanted Germans armed and ready.... Though this fascist regime did register and disarm all Jews in Germany right?
Very simple, they have no place in society, except in the hands of the military.
Most would be calling me an ultra liberal for my stand on this issue, but I am just the opposite.
I am a conservative republican.
Perhaps we need to understand the word "conservative" as it applies to some, but not all republicans.
Conservative people tend to want to preserve.
To conserve is to preserve something .
As a staunch defender of disarming the public, I am in fact in favor of preserving human life everywhere.
One way to preserve that life is to rid the country of all guns.
I believe they are nothing but killing machines.
There are many ways to eradicate a human life besides guns, but guns seem to be the predominant weapon of choice, so they must be dealt with first.
As a conservative, I see a problem with society, and it's use of deadly gunfire, and my gut feeling is to lash out at the source.
Look at the problem for what it is, and find the best solution to fix it.
With a tough issue like gun control, one can't please everyone.
Some will have to sacrifice long held beliefs, for the good of all.
As a conservative, do I think the 2nd amendment should be preserved ?
To answer that, it would take the best scholars in the world to interpret just what the founding fathers meant in their ambiguous wording of the amendment.
As it is written, I would re-write it to reflect the world we live in today.
'A well regulated militia, the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
It is as if two different subjects were being discussed at the same time, and both made it into the second amendment, even tho they are completely unrelated, unless of course they looked on a militia as being ordinary citizens who voluntarily took up arms in the time of war.
I feel this is the thinking behind the 2nd amendment.
Taking it at that value, the amendment would only allow for citizens to bare arms in time of war, and that right will not be infringed.
I would preserve that meaning of the amendment, and not let it be clouded by the unfounded desire of the public at large to be armed and protected under the amendment.
As a conservative, I feel it necessary to preserve the rule of law written into the constitution, but only if those laws are clear, and unabated, which obviously the 2ndamendment is not.
Bob.
"Cal guy"?
So you are some psuedo "conservative" urbanite from California?
Where we live (midwest), EVERYONE has guns. Deer and turkey hunting are very popular among the population. Those that do not hunt often own weapons, as they target shoot.
No man (at least for the time being in the US) has the right to restrict or dicatate the rights of another man.
My ancestors, who recognized this as true, fought for the Union in the Civil War as a part of Sherman/Grant's army of the Tennessee.
Tyrants seek to tell others how to live. Often these tyrants are liberals, who presume to "know" what is acceptable for other people and seek to limit the rights of individual self determination. It is no wonder that liberals are akin to fascists.
If I am going to be responsible for defending myself, my family and possibly complete strangers from an assault by a crazy killer I definitely want to be properly armed. Until it can guarantee I will not be attacked by one of these crazies the society has not right to prevent me from carrying a gun anywhere I have a right to be or may be attacked. I want to be able to at least shoot back.
Be alert, be aware and be armed and you just may have a better chance of survival than some one trusting to some insane gun free zone.
well said
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY
If one is to interpret the 2nd as many gun owners do, the entire population of this country is allowed to own a gun.
Once again, I find the true meaning of the 2nd was to allow citizens who in the future could, or would form a militia in the defense of a state, or the country, to be the true meaning that was adopted.
Now assuming that was the intent, ALL citizens of this country "should" be armed to ward of an invasion by forces destined to overtake the population.
Now, how many of the population owning guns today, would join a "militia" to defend a state, or this country, against invasion?
I venture to say absolutely none.
Arming the population at the time the 2nd was written and adopted, was for the purpose of citizens forming a militia in defense of a state, or this nation.
That being said, where in the 2nd does it state that the entire population in general have the right to bear arms?
What about the people who would never join a militia?
What about old people who would not be physically able to join, or fight in a militia?
What about women who are not trained to fight in a militia?
What about those people in professional careers like doctors, attorneys, teachers, who could not take time away from their careers to join a militia?
Are all these "people" afforded the right granted under the 2nd?
If the intent was to arm citizens who could join a militia, (which I believe it was), if it were meant for the general population, then what about these people I mentioned in the previous paragraph?
They couldn't join a militia.
These are but a few of the population who, for one reason or another, could never join a militia in defense of a state, or the nation, yet allowed to own a gun?
Once again, the true intent was to give the right to bear arms to the people who would be part of a militia, not the general public, unless ALL of the population were to join a militia.
The words, "the people" should be understood to mean a select group of individuals willing to join a militia.
You will notice in the 2nd, nowhere does it state "ALL PEOPLE".
What it does state is, "a well regulated militia, the people".
I take that to mean people of a militia.
Bob.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY
Just because the court came to a different conclusion than I, does in no way construed them as being right on this issue.
Bob.
bob, you are completely WRONG on the second amendment, and why it was worded the way it was. so once again i will post this;
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
please read the bolded part. you are not a constitutional scholar, these people are, and so is the scotus. since that is the case, i take their word over yours any day of the week.
I'm not sure whether my 10 handguns and 4 long guns have a place in society, but they certainly have a lovely place inside my gun safe. I keep it locked at all times since we all know from media reports that they will sneak out at the first opportunity and randomly kill people all on their own.
Look, I am as sympathetic as anyone else to the issue of random gun violence, but the very thought of rounding up all 300 million guns in the US is as laughable as it is dangerous. This will NEVER happen. Not "it will be hard to do", it will NEVER happen.
I am completely in favor of rigorous background checks prior to purchasing a gun, not that they would have stopped a SINGLE shooting incident. However, if you really want to save lives and not just push an agenda, you would be better off railing against ALL cell phone use in automobiles. Distracted driving kills over a thousand people a year and injures many more. I would be in favor of mandatory cell phone jammers which activate only when the car is moving (to allow for emergency calls). Unfortunately, that idea has no chance of going anywhere either.
A simple statement in answer to all the post on page #15.
The word "people" is at the crux of the intended meaning of the second amendment.
As "Americans" were mentioned in the federalist papers when discussing the amendment, those Americans were still the militia.
The militia was made up of Americans.
I see nothing here in this thread, or in any research I have done online that remotely states the intention of the ff in the adoption of the second amendment, had anything to do with granting the general public the right to bear arms, but I see much that relates to my contention that the people of the militia were the intended recipient of that amendment.
Where the militia, and people are mentioned in the 2nd, how can any one be sure just who were these people?
I can only surmise, because the militia was mentioned in the same clause, the militia must be the people referred too.
As far as I am concerned, unless someone can show me where in the 2nd amendment it states that the general public, not the militia, is the intended recipient of the amendment, case closed.
Bob.
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.
