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.
Has anybody noticed that the 2nd amendment's ban on govt regulation has nothing to do with whether a person is in a militia, whether it's "well regulated", or even what a militia is?
"Since militias are necessary, the govt can't regulate or ban guns etc."
Even if someone waved a magic wand and suddenly militias were no longer necessary, the 2nd amendment would still be a flat ban on govt regulation or bans on the people's right to keep and bear arms.
Paranoid leftists often try to use "militias" as a strawman argument to try to duck the 2nd's real meaning.
Why was the militia even mentioned in the amendment? The "people" mentioned in the amendment are assumed to be people who make up a militia, not the general population.
Do you even know what a militia is?
The framers of the constitution were protecting the newly formed nation against tyranny from the British, and wanted a"well regulated" militia armed, just in case we were once again invaded.
It is entirely possible, just as today, there were people who did not want to go to war to protect the country, and the founders knew an armed militia was the only way to protect the country.
They gave the people who would join a militia, the right to keep and bear arms , and further, that right would not be infringed , by government, or anyone else.
That would mean, that as long as they were part of a militia,(protecting the country) they would be allowed their arms, without infringement.
The problem with most people's interpretation of the amendment is, the word "people".
Many believe it was the general population, when in fact it was the "people" who comprise a militia.
Again, if that wasn't the intentions of the framers, then the words ,"A well regulated militia" would never have been included in the amendment.
If the intention was to arm the entire population, the amendment would have stated,"the country's populace shall have the right to keep, and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed."
But that is not what the amendment states.
You have to look at "the People" in the context of the document, and the grammar. In the instance of the Constitution "the People" (note its capitalized, not 'p'eople) meaning its stating a specific class that the document refers to. It's also consistently applied, the people can petition government and peacefully assemble, the people have a right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure, the people have unenumerated rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, and the people have powers not delegated to the Federal Government nor States. "the people" in the Bill of Rights wasn't used by accident, the purpose of the BoR was to placate anti-Federalists who were concerned that the Constitution over balanced power to a Federal Government, thus by using the phrase " the People" it was clear in its meaning at that time and in that document.
So who are the People? Naively everyone subject to the jurisdiction of Federal Law. This held for around 200 years of jurisprudence in 1990 US v. Verdugo-Urquidez determined
"The phrase “the people” “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community"
(Quoted section taken from Harvard Law Review from the SCOTUS decision)
That's narrower than everyone subject to the jurisdiction of Federal Law, it removes tourists, new arrivals who have not yet resided long enough to be considered part of the community, illegal immigrants, foreign nationals extradited to the US for crimes they may be accused of committing in the US (Verdugo-Urquidez for example).
Heller further narrowed this in relation to the 2nd Amendment since presumptively longstanding prohibitions are constitutional, then the people refers to law abiding responsible citizens, which might make everyone pause, if this is applied en bloc to all constitutional rights, given the 5th Circuits finding that neither the 2nd nor 4th amendments apply to undocumented immigrants in United States v. Portillo-Munoz, thus by extension nor do the 1st, 9th or 10th.
All that said, at no time, in intent nor precedent has "the People" been construed as meaning the militia. Had that even been the intent it would have been far simpler to say
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This implies the right is connected to service in a Militia, far more than the wording of the 2nd Amendment. However that is not the wording and the right is explicitly noted as the right of the people.
There are many posters here on POC who believe 2A is to be taken literally, word for word, and when you read it that way, there is no "....except for felons, insane people or terrorists" in 2A. So tell me how you reconcile a strict verbatim interpretation of 2A yet believe it does not allow insane people to have guns?
You cannot have it both ways. If it is permissible to restrict who gets to enjoy 2A rights, it must be permissible to put other restrictions in place.
"There are many posters here on POC who believe 2A is to be taken literally"
Andi it should NOT be? It is written in plain English. We have teh Founding Father's quotes on the issue.
I take what THEY SAY said over someone toady trying to INTERPRET what they said and meant.
It is people like you who do NOT want to apply the 2nd as they it was written and WHY it says what it says
It is TRUE that when it was written private citizens OWNED cannons and warships. The semi-automatic was already in existence. Jefferson even gave 2 to Lewis & Clark. a little later here were rifles that held 26 bullets.
Why DIDN'T the Founding Father's do ANYTHING about those "arms" to restrict them from the "people"?
Like I have said, if you DON'T like it, work to change it and good luck with THAT!
"So tell me how you reconcile a strict verbatim interpretation of 2A yet believe it does not allow insane people to have guns?"
Easy, it is COMMON knowledge when you commit crimes or are insane, you GIVE UP certain RIGHTS.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 03-09-2020 at 05:42 AM..
The 2nd amendment is a statement of the Framers' opinion that the country is better off with government having NO say in which people can own and carry guns, than the country would be if government has ANY say in the question. Felons and crazy people existed in George Washington's time and were just as prominent as they are today. The Framers believed that even if a few nutcases got guns and killed some innocents, that harm was less than if government had the power to choose who could or couldn't own and carry.
They also left the decision of last resort, to juries who could decide on a case by case basis ONLY whether the 2nd amendment should be applied to a certain person under the certain circumstances of the crime under consideration. Juries, though convened by government, are not government themselves. They are you and me, with complete power to interpret (and even reject) a law solely by their own judgment. And their verdict is final.
It was the best the Framers could do. And though not perfect, it is better than anything anybody else has been able to come up with since.
And it's because they were right. The country IS better off with government having no say in who can own and carry a gun, that it would be if government COULD make such decisions. Even in the case of the occasional murderous nutcase.
And so the 2nd amendment was written with no exceptions. Secure in the knowledge that someone (even a govt agent like a cop) who took a gun away from someone else, would be judged by a sensible jury who had the power to let him walk if they felt that outcome was justified for the particular case. And would throw in jail everybody else who took a gun away from someone.
And if you don't trust juries to make that decision, after YOU approved the selection of those jurors, then you are living in the wrong country.
"And it's because they were right. The country IS better off with government having no say in who can own and carry a gun,"
Which is why the Court ruled confiscation of peoples shotguns was ILLEGAL after the city police in New Orleans after Katrina and were to be returned.
I have to disagree with your interpretation.
The amendment states the word "militia",not a"capable populace".
The founding fathers were only concerned with a well regulated militia being armed, not the populace.
"The amendment states the word "militia",not a"capable populace".
"The founding fathers were only concerned with a well regulated militia being armed, not the populace."
For the MILLIONTH. And WE are called the UN-educated! time!
""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 free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"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
"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."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789"
But YOU know more of how they thought then THEY did!
LOL. Antis always think that "well regulated" means overseen by the government. With all those other amendments DENYING the government oversight of the outlined right they would grant to government power over the 2A?
With just the 2A they would do that aye? "Well reg" very simply means properly armed, equipped and ready. End of line. I really wish that antis would just stop it with this government oversight nonsense.
They simply don't understand our government - its purpose, how it functions, why it was designed in the way that it was.
For most people these days, government is a parent. They wait for and dutifully follow whatever instructions they're given, occasionally breaking the speed limit or j-walking so they can feel like they're not being controlled quite as much as they are.
The idea of independence - true independence - is dead in this country.
Cliven, Ryan and Amond are all very rich people today after suing the crap out of the federal government and they own their property outright and have incorporated it into a sovereign, with no contract with the State.
The Bundy's are Free people after fighting tyranny and winning in the end. Lavoy Fincum, sacrificed everything for the Liberty of others.
You didn't answer my question, who decides there is tyranny is there a chain of command or do you just call up your buddies and say lets go. Who decides to attack a wildlife sanctuary or protect tax frauds. Do you have any recent examples of this militia and these patriots using all this fire power.
If the founders were looking to arm the populace, why was "a well regulated militia" even mentioned in the 2nd?
They were guaranteeing people who joined a militia the right to bear arms, not the general population.
So let us now hear your answers to this question.
Who said "the founders were looking to arm the populace"?
Note I haven't read all zillion pages in this thread, but I seriously doubt anyone actually wrote that.
Every character and punctuation mark in the 2nd has been debated to death. The reason for its existence is clear, to anyone who can read and also be honest with themselves. Not everyone who can do the former is able to do the latter.
Try some empathy. Put yourself in the minds of the founders. They'd just - successfully - fought off the most powerful military in the world at the time. They wanted to be free from the shackles placed on them by a faraway government. They wanted representation. They wanted self-governance. And they also wanted gun control? LOL
Like I said, not everyone is able to be honest about this issue, even with themselves. It's just too uncomfortable for them to think about, for whatever reason.
Since no one bothered to answer this question, I will try one more time.
If the founders were looking to arm the populace, why was "a well regulated militia" even mentioned in the 2nd?
They were guaranteeing people who joined a militia the right to bear arms, not the general population.
So let us now hear your answers to this question.
Good grief!! That has been answered many times. And studiously ignored by you just as many. So why answer again? So you can ignore it again and reiterate the same question?
You have also ignored the question posed to you about how you arrive at the conclusion that the 2A does NOT apply to the general population but every other amendment does.
Also how it is you conclude personal and community defense against criminal attack does not apply. Only national defense in cadre to the Army.
Quit deflecting. Its become nonsensical and tiresome. Your conclusions are wrong. Blatantly wrong. And your question posed above has been answered many times. Ignoring those answers does not change that fact.
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.
