Second Amendment

[Washington]

That clause isn't meant to be a qualifier for owning guns, it's meant to explain why the right for people to own weapons is a conerstone of our society and why it should never be deprived.

The amendment says what it says, and nothing less or nothing more. The qualifying clauses of an Amendments are not there to explain the rational of an Amendment but rather the conditions under which the Amendment is enforceable. And the condition under which the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is enforceable is when the formation of a "well regulated Militia . . . is necessary to the security of a free State." And THAT"S it!

There are no "requirements" for the 2nd Amendment, just as there aren't any for the 1st, or any of the others. You're sick if you think the founders didn't intend for self defence to be an natural right.

Don't really care what you think of me. The fact remains that the qualification that "regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" defines under what condition "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" DOES amount to a requirement. It is required that in order for the guarantee of the Amendment to have any force, there must be a "well regulated militia," necessary to the security of a free state." The Amendment is a simple English construction for crying out loud! Not Chaucer.

Explaination, not qualification.

Obviously English isn't your first language. So be it.

 

[Foolish_Fool]

They only had cannons. And they called them cannons. "Arms" in the 2nd Amendment is talking of guns capable of being carried by a person.

A modern militia would need more than muskets. Are we only allowed to protect our country with 18th century technology? If a people's militia is necessary for the freedom of our country then we need to be equipped with the proper weaponry.

 

[HollandScotts]

The amendment says what it says, and nothing less or nothing more. The qualifying clauses of an Amendments are not there to explain the rational of an Amendment but rather the conditions under which the Amendment is enforceable. And the condition under which the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is enforceable is when the formation of a "well regulated Militia . . . is necessary to the security of a free State." And THAT"S it!

Don't really care what you think of me. The fact remains that the qualification that "regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" defines under what condition "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" DOES amount to a requirement. It is required that in order for the guarantee of the Amendment to have any force, there must be a "well regulated militia," necessary to the security of a free state." The Amendment is a simple English construction for crying out loud! Not Chaucer.

Except your entire arguement breaks down when you realize that back then, the militia were everyday citizens with guns. Billy Bob and Tom with their muskets was your "well regulated militia".

And you've said that you wouldn't mind seeing the 2nd Amendment repealed. I'ld trust a compass that pointed west before I'ld trust your interpretation of the Constitution, or even the english language for that matter, much less what you believe the original intent of the founders to be. I can't imagine a more anti-American and anti-liberty ploy than banning the legal ownership of guns.

A modern militia would need more than muskets. Are we only allowed to protect our country with 18th century technology? If a people's militia is necessary for the freedom of our country then we need to be equipped with the proper weaponry.

Yes, and? I agree. Is that it?

 

[Washington]

Except your entire arguement breaks down when you realize that back then, the militia were everyday citizens with guns. Billy Bob and Tom with their muskets was your "well regulated militia".

Know what? I do realize that "back then, the militia were everyday citizens with guns. " Know something else? My entire argument doesn't break down. If you actually care what I think, you might want to try making an argument rather than relying on a conclusion to do your work for you. Believe it or not, I don't buy what people conclude simply because it happens to be their conclusion.

And you've said that you wouldn't mind seeing the 2nd Amendment repealed.

Well, that's one of the few things you've gotten right in our brief discussion.

ld trust a compass that pointed west before I'ld trust your interpretation of the Constitution, or even the english language for that matter, much less what you believe the original intent of the founders to be.

To each his own.

I can't imagine a more anti-American and anti-liberty ploy than banning the legal ownership of guns.

Gee, I can. How about perverting one of the Constitution's Amendments so to insure one's machismo is not put in jeopardy. Now, to me, THAT'S anti-American.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Deleted double post.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Interesting subject. Valuable in identifying those who hate freedom and wish us to become complete slaves to the rich and powerful. People who have no understanding of the freedom this country stands for and would toss it away like so much garbage.

Just a note: Washington D.C. is not a state. If a SC decision rendered concerning DC opposes the 2nd Amendment rights, and is then used as a pretext to infringe on States rights it will be the biggest act of tyranny in American history and will cause a revolt that will shake this nation to its foundation.

Anti sentiments expressed here are no different than what I've heard for years from serious anti-gun groups (that I have fought for years).

You people have no idea what or who you are provoking. You may want to actually educate yourselves about this. I suggest you first spend a day this fall at a deer registration station. Try and get a sense of what hunting means to your fellow citizens.

That's right; you are attacking the American hunting heritage by opposing the Second Amendment. You are dupes, willful or unwitting, of those who want to competely disarm, and then destroy this country.

owg

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The amendment says what it says, and nothing less or nothing more. The qualifying clauses of an Amendments are not there to explain the rational of an Amendment but rather the conditions under which the Amendment is enforceable. And the condition under which the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is enforceable is when the formation of a "well regulated Militia . . . is necessary to the security of a free State." And THAT"S it!

You really should think about what the amendment means, not just what it says literally. Here's what it means:

"The citizenry at large must have the individual right to ownership and possession of weaponry so that if and when needed they can be assembled as the general militia and formed, or regulated, into an effective defense force."

Pertinant facts:

The free State is always under threat of tyranny, even today. Those who say it isn't live in a world of delusion.

Therefore the citizen militia is always necessary.

The keeping and bearing of weapons freely in their possession is therefore always necessary. No personally held weapons: no militia.

The founding fathers knew that there was the possibility of armed insurrection within the States themselves. They trusted that most would defend their freedoms against such an insurrection. With everyone armed the majority would certainly prevail, and freedom would be preserved. This is reason enough for the amendment. Remember it doesn't specify who or where the threat to freedom would come from. All the other amendments deal with tyranny from within. Therefore the second amendment should be viewed primarily the same.

That you and others oppose this right reveals that the threat of tyranny from within still exists, and must be defended against. At this time we are fighting this battle in the courts, legislatures, and with our votes. I believe freedom, and good sense, will prevail.

owg-Freedom lovin' gun-toter.

 

[gengwall]

It appears Phred has left the building, so in his stead allow me to retort (love that Samuel S. Jackson phrase).

Of course there were other purposes for firearms at the time, hunting and protection from possibly hostile Indians to name two. But while these purposes were well grounded there existed a universal need that exceeded that of mere individual concerns: the very survival of the state and Nation itself. And it was to meet such an objective that the 2nd Amendment was drafted. And for no other reason. And we know it was for no other reason because once reason(s) are enumerated they define the scope of their subject---particularly where laws are concerned. If three reasons are given then those and only those reasons validate the subject. Same with a single reason. The scope of the right to bear arms is limited to single reason: to form a "regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."

This does not answer the second part of my question. You acknowledge the personal purposes existed (and I would argue still very much exist today), but you don't comment on whether or not the founders believed those purposes supported a right to the arms through which those purposes would be accomplished. Do you believe the founders considered it a RIGHT own arms for personal purposes?

 

[Washington]

You really should think about what the amendment means, not just what it says literally. Here's what it means:

"The citizenry at large must have the individual right to ownership and possession of weaponry so that if and when needed they can be assembled as the general militia and formed, or regulated, into an effective defense force."

I'm sorry, but the phrasing of the 2nd does not suggest "can be" but rather a "now be." The militia spoken of is not some future organization cobbled together when the need arises, but an organization that exists now.

The free State is always under threat of tyranny, even today. Those who say it isn't live in a world of delusion.

Really! Care to identify that threat? I've seen nothing on the news that says the state of the nation is under threat of tyranny.

Therefore the citizen militia is always necessary.

So, as a Freedom lovin' gun-toter, what "well regulated militia" do you belong to?

And, as with any good militia, weapons such as hand guns or shot guns would not be considered as qualifying arms---the Army doesn't issue shotguns and hand guns as as ground combat weapons. So the "arms" would be pretty much limited to rifles, and only one such rifle at that. After all, as we all know very few armed service personnel carry more than one weapon. So, even if one did belong to a well regulated militia, anything more than one gun, most likely a rifle, would not be protected by the Amendment.

The keeping and bearing of weapons freely in their possession is therefore always necessary. No personally held weapons: no militia.

No personally held "weapon" (singular).

That you and others oppose this right reveals that the threat of tyranny from within still exists, and must be defended against.

You do realize this is circular reasoning, don't you? "We must own guns to guard against those who would deny our right to own guns."

At this time we are fighting this battle in the courts, legislatures, and with our votes. I believe freedom, and good sense, will prevail.

Well, I can't identify with your fear of tyrannical boogie-men so I'm unable to buy your argument.

 

[Washington]

This does not answer the second part of my question. You acknowledge the personal purposes existed (and I would argue still very much exist today), but you don't comment on whether or not the founders believed those purposes supported a right to the arms through which those purposes would be accomplished.

Not a Constitutionally protected right. If the qualifying clause, "A regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," was not in the Amendment then there would be a protected right to own a gun for any purpose. And if this is what the writers of the Amendment wanted they would have left the clause out and simply said, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But they didn't. They went to the trouble to single out a specific reason under which one has a right to own a gun. When people compose laws they don't insert superfluous qualifications or circumstances. Qualifications are intended to limit the scope of their subject. If no limitation was intended then the qualification would have been left out.

Do you believe the founders considered it a RIGHT own arms for personal purposes?

Not a Constitutionally protected right, which is the only thing the Amendment addresses.

 

[gengwall]

So, then your response to Justice Kennedy's questions about the family in the wilderness would be that "no, they have no constitutionally protected right to personally keep and bear arms to protect themselves against attacks by animals or other humans, or to put food on their table". In essence, the state could constitutionally confiscate their weapons leaving them defenseless and starving. In particular, so you can't resort to the militia defense, let's say we are talking about a family that had no militia eligible members (males age 18-45). The single wilderness woman with children or the elderly wilderness couple - does the government have a constitutional right to confiscate their guns?

 

[Washington]

So, then your response to Justice Kennedy's questions about the family in the wilderness would be that "no, they have no constitutionally protected right to personally keep and bear arms to protect themselves against attacks by animals or other humans, or to put food on their table". In essence, the state could constitutionally confiscate their weapons leaving them defenseless and starving.

I'm not familiar with Kennedy's question. Sorry. However, as you state the case, baring other possible laws, which I'm unaware of, the state may have some justification to take their guns. I simply don't know. But in any case, the family couldn't claim Constitutional protection.

 

[Washington]

So, then your response to Justice Kennedy's questions about the family in the wilderness would be that "no, they have no constitutionally protected right to personally keep and bear arms to protect themselves against attacks by animals or other humans, or to put food on their table". In essence, the state could constitutionally confiscate their weapons leaving them defenseless and starving.

I'm not familiar with Kennedy's question. Sorry. However, as you state the case, baring other possible laws, which I'm unaware of, the state may have some justification to take their guns. I simply don't know. But in any case, the family couldn't claim Constitutional protection.

In particular, so you can't resort to the militia defense, let's say we are talking about a family that had no militia eligible members (males age 18-45). The single wilderness woman with children or the elderly wilderness couple - does the government have a constitutional right to confiscate their guns?

I see nothing in the Constitution that gives the government the right to confiscate guns. Just as there's nothing in the Constitution that gives a government the right to prohibit left hand turns at Elm and Broadway. Yet such such laws are enacted every day by governments without expressed Constitutional sanction. The Constitution only says that under a specific circumstance gun ownership may NOT be infringed.

 

[gengwall]

I'm not familiar with Kennedy's question. Sorry. However, as you state the case, baring other possible laws, which I'm unaware of, the state may have some justification to take their guns. I simply don't know. But in any case, the family couldn't claim Constitutional protection.

So, just to make sure I understand what you are saying, the state may be perfectly in line with the constitution in leaving them defenseless and hungry?

 

[Washington]

So, just to make sure I understand what you are saying, the state may be perfectly in line with the constitution in leaving them defenseless and hungry?

Unfortunately, I'm not all that familiar with what the obligations of the state are as defined in the Constitution. However, I seriously doubt the Constitution says the state must accommodate each and every bad choice its constituents make. If the state has good reason to take away the means of subsistence of any of its constituents---which could only happen if they violated some law---then an individual's choice to remain in a circumstance that could only be sustained by breaking that law is not the responsibility of the state to maintain.

If I can only get by by robbing grocery stores, and the state interferes with my ability to do so, I have no right to blame the state for making it difficult for me to get by.

 

[gengwall]

Unfortunately, I'm not all that familiar with what the obligations of the state are as defined in the Constitution. However, I seriously doubt the Constitution says the state must accommodate each and every bad choice its constituents make. If the state has good reason to take away the means of subsistence of any of its constituents---which could only happen if they violated some law---then an individual's choice to remain in a circumstance that could only be sustained by breaking that law is not the responsibility of the state to maintain.

If I can only get by by robbing grocery stores, and the state interferes with my ability to do so, I have not right to blame the state for making it difficult for me to get by.

But now you are saying that a person does have a right to personal arms for protection and subsistence as long as they are law abiding. So I will make the question even more precise and make it multiple choice:

Do law abiding citizens have a constitutional right to arms for protection and subsistence? or, conversely
Can the state can constitutionally confiscate the weapons of law abiding citizens leaving them defenseless and hungry?

I would welcome some other possibility if you can come up with it but see these as the only two alternatives.

 

[gengwall]

Unfortunately, I'm not all that familiar with what the obligations of the state are as defined in the Constitution. However, I seriously doubt the Constitution says the state must accommodate each and every bad choice its constituents make. If the state has good reason to take away the means of subsistence of any of its constituents---which could only happen if they violated some law---then an individual's choice to remain in a circumstance that could only be sustained by breaking that law is not the responsibility of the state to maintain.

If I can only get by by robbing grocery stores, and the state interferes with my ability to do so, I have no right to blame the state for making it difficult for me to get by.

But now you are saying that a person does have a right to personal arms for protection and subsistence as long as they are law abiding. So I will make the question even more precise and make it multiple choice:

Do law abiding citizens have a constitutional right to arms for protection and subsistence? or, conversely
Can the state constitutionally confiscate the weapons of law abiding citizens leaving them defenseless and hungry?

I would welcome some other possibility if you can come up with it but see these as the only two alternatives.

 

[Washington]

But now you are saying that a person does have a right to personal arms for protection and subsistence as long as they are law abiding. So I will make the question even more precise and make it multiple choice:

Do law abiding citizens have a constitutional right to arms for protection and subsistence?

Obviously you're determine to keep beating a dead horse, and I'm growing a bit weary of it. So, for the last time: No.

or, conversely
Can the state can constitutionally confiscate the weapons of law abiding citizens leaving them defenseless and hungry?

I would welcome some other possibility if you can come up with it but see these as the only two alternatives.

Other possibility to what? As I just pointed out:

If I can only get by by robbing grocery stores, and the state interferes with my ability to do so, I have no right to blame the state for making it difficult for me to get by.

You're beginning to repeat yourself, which indicates you've pretty much exhausted your line of questioning. So, unless you come up with something different, I'll consider this issue closed.

 

[Washington]

But now you are saying that a person does have a right to personal arms for protection and subsistence as long as they are law abiding. So I will make the question even more precise and make it multiple choice:

Do law abiding citizens have a constitutional right to arms for protection and subsistence?

Your starting to beat a dead horse here and I'm getting a bit weary of it. The answer is, No.

or, conversely
Can the state can constitutionally confiscate the weapons of law abiding citizens leaving them defenseless and hungry?

Hardly a converse question, is it.

I would welcome some other possibility if you can come up with it but see these as the only two alternatives.

Other possibilities/alternatives to what?

 

[gengwall]

It is impossible for me at this stage to be beating a dead horse because the horse is actually not dead but alive and continually moving.

If I don't have a consitutional right to possess a gun for protection and subsistence, then according to you the state can create an arbitrary law to take a gun I may possess away from me, thereby leaving me defenseless and hungry. You are saying I have no constitutional remedy for this confiscation. Is that not what you are saying?