The Second Amendment

[Paradox.79]

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.

There is no a right to bear arms for non-military purposes. It turns out that the trick is to just ignore the first thirteen words.

And you get (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia calls the first thirteen words (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) the prefatory clause.

Prefatory, I guess that means worthless.

The right had to do with military not the individuals right to bear arms

 

[d taylor]

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.

There is no a right to bear arms for non-military purposes. It turns out that the trick is to just ignore the first thirteen words.

And you get (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia calls the first thirteen words (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) the prefatory clause.

Prefatory, I guess that means worthless.

The right had to do with military not the individuals right to bear arms

It has to do with civilian right to keep in check federal government.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

There is no a right to bear arms for non-military purposes. It turns out that the trick is to just ignore the first thirteen words.

And you get (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia calls the first thirteen words (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) the prefatory clause.

Prefatory, I guess that means worthless.

The right had to do with military not the individuals right to bear arms

Judging by the documents written elsewhere by the framers, the construction of the sentence goes something like this, "Since it is necessary to have a military, the public should also bear arms as a defense against a tyrannical government." History bears them out. Before a tyrannical government can finally take over without significant risk to themselves, they must be backed by the military, and the public be unarmed.

"An armed population will not willingly load themselves onto boxcars."

 

[HTacianas]

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.

There is no a right to bear arms for non-military purposes. It turns out that the trick is to just ignore the first thirteen words.

And you get (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia calls the first thirteen words (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) the prefatory clause.

Prefatory, I guess that means worthless.

The right had to do with military not the individuals right to bear arms

At the time of its writing a militia would assemble with its own personal firearms. So for a militia to be armed the people would have to possess firearms.

But aside from that people used firearms for other purposes and still do. Nearly every State constitution also protects the right to own a firearm, often for different reasons than related to a militia. Even if the second amendment to the US Constitution was repealed people would still have the right to own firearms.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

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.

There is no a right to bear arms for non-military purposes. It turns out that the trick is to just ignore the first thirteen words.

And you get (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia calls the first thirteen words (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) the prefatory clause.

Prefatory, I guess that means worthless.

The right had to do with military not the individuals right to bear arms

It's not just about militias. Militias were a big part of it, but since ancient times free people have had the right to defend themselves. Not only this their bearing arms was one of the things they actually gave the king rather than money, or grain and other crops. People often forget that the Democratic heritage we get from Great Britain came not just the ancient Greeks and Romans but also from the German tribes. In the Germanic tribes you had a right to speak because you were participating in the army, raiding party etc.


And the inverse is also true, when people are subjugated or enslaved their weapons are taken away. This can be seen all over history and is shown in the Bible.


1 SAMUEL 13:19
KJ21
Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel; for the Philistines said, “Lest the Hebrews make themselves swords or spears.”

....


1 SAMUEL 13:22
KJ21
So it came to pass on the day of battle that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people who were with Saul and Jonathan, but with Saul and with Jonathan his son were they found.

 

[Aldebaran]

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.

There is no a right to bear arms for non-military purposes. It turns out that the trick is to just ignore the first thirteen words.

And you get (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia calls the first thirteen words (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) the prefatory clause.

Prefatory, I guess that means worthless.

The right had to do with military not the individuals right to bear arms

You should read what else the founding fathers said on the subject:

Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers
Who knows better what the Second Amendment means than the Founding Fathers? Here are some powerful gun quotations from the Founding Fathers themselves.

"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 William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, 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...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

"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
Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers | Buckeye Firearms Association

 

[Pavel Mosko]

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

It's really silly bordering on stupid for folks to claim that the Founding Fathers purely intended for guns to be used solely for use in militias to be used against foreign invading powers like Great Britain and not for all the other needs pioneers and settlers would need them for like hunting, dealing with bears and other wild animals, bandits and other criminals, Apache war parties etc.

 

[Fantine]

From what I have observed since moving to the South, the people most likely to have guns are the least likely to understand what a tyrannical government is.

Why, on January 6, right wing extremists held an insurrection to replace a duly elected leader with a demagogue who courted the 1% and had disdain for the rest.

 

[Aldebaran]

From what I have observed since moving to the South, the people most likely to have guns are the least likely to understand what a tyrannical government is.

Why, on January 6, right wing extremists held an insurrection to replace a duly elected leader with a demagogue who courted the 1% and had disdain for the rest.

Are you referring to President Trump? Of course, he's everyone's favorite subject.
Anyway, his voting base was far more than 1%, and they are getting a much better understanding of what a tyrannical government is thanks to joe and the extremists he courts and takes orders from.

 

[Fantine]

His proposals primarily benefit the very well off. The fact that another 40% don't see him for what he is could keep me up nights if I would let it.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

From what I have observed since moving to the South, the people most likely to have guns are the least likely to understand what a tyrannical government is.

Why, on January 6, right wing extremists held an insurrection to replace a duly elected leader with a demagogue who courted the 1% and had disdain for the rest.

Uh that not true. The lockdowns imposed last year by many state governors put many businessmen out of business.

The kinds of censorship imposed by You-tube, Facebook, Twitter likewise have impacted people as far as their livelihoods, besides violating free speech based on arbitrary standards.


It's really funny when you compare this stuff to what you guys complain of like "voter suppression" which in most cases is just wanting people to show an official ID when they vote, much like they often do in other situations of life.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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.

There is no a right to bear arms for non-military purposes. It turns out that the trick is to just ignore the first thirteen words.

And you get (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia calls the first thirteen words (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) the prefatory clause.

Prefatory, I guess that means worthless.

The right had to do with military not the individuals right to bear arms

" the right of the people" is the key here.

When it was written, the states militias were made up of civilians, farmers, shop keepers etc, who owned firearms. When they did sign up to serve in militias, they took their firearms with them when they were called to service. Eventually, they were given firearms by the state which they could take home with them. The free firearm was part of the incentive to get civilians to serve.

Heck, my grandfather fought in WWI. When he was discharged from the Army, he
came home with his rifle, bayonet, gas mask, helmet and combat fatigues,
He got to keep his rifle. So, the government understood as recently as 1918, they giving
a firearm for the soldier to take home was a benefit.

 

[Always in His Presence]

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.

There is no a right to bear arms for non-military purposes. It turns out that the trick is to just ignore the first thirteen words.

And you get (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia calls the first thirteen words (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) the prefatory clause.

Prefatory, I guess that means worthless.

The right had to do with military not the individuals right to bear arms

The Supreme Courts numerous rulings belie that opinion. IOW - they do not agree.

This is a good read if you are interested:

Second Amendment: Doctrine and Practice | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

 

[Fantine]

The Supreme Courts numerous rulings belie that opinion. IOW - they do not agree.

All those rulings are circa 1980 and later. That was when the NRA changed from being a sensible organization of hunters and sportsmen to a radical organization encouraging their members to establish home arsenals "in case the government oversteps its bounds."
They funded chairs in law schools to train radical lawyers who could be appointed as extremist judges--many of whom were appointed to the courts during the McConnell judge hijacking of 2016-2020,
Do you know that they put in ad in my local newspaper years ago calling the Humane Society "domestic terrorists" because they opposed hunting?
Duh! I thought terrorists carried weapons. The Humane Society promoted non-violence.
Many of our current judges should wear their NRA sponsorship on their robes.

 

[Aldebaran]

All those rulings are circa 1980 and later. That was when the NRA changed from being a sensible organization of hunters and sportsmen to a radical organization encouraging their members to establish home arsenals "in case the government oversteps its bounds."

That's because it wasn't until about then that government started becoming more intrusive. The crime bill of 1994 was quite the wake-up call that government would actually ban entire classes of firearms based on what they look like if they had the chance. The current regime has shown us that it is willing shut down society when they have the chance. People are waking up and seeing their firearms as more than sporting equipment when criminals are let out on the streets and excuses are made for their behavior.

 

[Paradox.79]

It's really silly bordering on stupid for folks to claim that the Founding Fathers purely intended for guns to be used solely for use in militias to be used against foreign invading powers like Great Britain and not for all the other needs pioneers and settlers would need them for like hunting, dealing with bears and other wild animals, bandits and other criminals, Apache war parties etc.

There is a difference in the world 200 years ago and today. You do not need a gun for everyday survival. But the problem is not the guns its mentally unstable people getting there hand on it. I would rather a criminal have a gun than schizophrenic. A criminal as a rules does not do mass shootings. The other problem is people buy guns and use them without proper training. Average armed citizen interferes in robbery and kills the wrong person by accident, there have been situations like that and the Average armed citizen killed a bystander by accident CAUSE HE OR SHE DID NOT HAVE PROPER TRAINING!!!! As for being armed to protect yourself from the government. Well lets see the government has helicopters that shoot exploding round and missiles, tanks, atomic bombs, fighter jets. Trained military personal. I hate to break it to you...but average armed citizen is not gonna win that fight sorry. Also most of us do not have a problem with mentally sound people, with know violent criminal record and properly trained having a gun. I have two...I was trained by my grandfather on gun safety and operation's. The below meme sums up the problem.

 

[Paradox.79]

" the right of the people" is the key here.

When it was written, the states militias were made up of civilians, farmers, shop keepers etc, who owned firearms. When they did sign up to serve in militias, they took their firearms with them when they were called to service. Eventually, they were given firearms by the state which they could take home with them. The free firearm was part of the incentive to get civilians to serve.

Heck, my grandfather fought in WWI. When he was discharged from the Army, he
came home with his rifle, bayonet, gas mask, helmet and combat fatigues,
He got to keep his rifle. So, the government understood as recently as 1918, they giving
a firearm for the soldier to take home was a benefit.

You want the truth? Know one cares if a mentally sound person with know violent criminal convictions and has proper training owns a guns. The problem is not criminals. The government if they wanted to take all the guns and make you slaves they have the armaments to do it. The problem is the mentally unsound people who have know problem getting a gun. We can keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. Other countries allow gun ownership and they keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. And if you are oblivious to the mental problem of your child and they kill 20 or 30 people at school, the parent needs to go to jail. As a parent it is your job to know what your child's mental and physical health is at. My mom new everything I did. She caught on to a very dark point in my teenage years and got me the help I needed. If she had missed it something very bad would have probably happened. The below meme is the explanation of what the problem is.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You want the truth? Know one cares if a mentally sound person with know violent criminal convictions and has proper training owns a guns. The problem is not criminals. The government if they wanted to take all the guns and make you slaves they have the armaments to do it. The problem is the mentally unsound people who have know problem getting a gun. We can keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. Other countries allow gun ownership and they keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. And if you are oblivious to the mental problem of your child and they kill 20 or 30 people at school, the parent needs to go to jail. As a parent it is your job to know what your child's mental and physical health is at. My mom new everything I did. She caught on to a very dark point in my teenage years and got me the help I needed. If she had missed it something very bad would have probably happened. The below meme is the explanation of what the problem is.

View attachment 305326

But then you're talking about "rational gun control," which I agree with and so does the SCOTUS.

Citizens have a right to own guns, but states have the obligation to regulate ownership so
mentally ill people don't get their hands on them.

However, the majority of gun crimes taking place in the US, has nothing to do with the
mentally insane, but gang violence related to drug running.

Can the government control that without infringing on the rights of citizens to own and
bear firearms ? I think they can, but it'd be politically incorrect in today's political environment.

 

[Paradox.79]

But then you're talking about "rational gun control," which I agree with and so does the SCOTUS.

Citizens have a right to own guns, but states have the obligation to regulate ownership so
mentally ill people don't get their hands on them.

However, the majority of gun crimes taking place in the US, has nothing to do with the
mentally insane, but gang violence related to drug running.

Can the government control that without infringing on the rights of citizens to own and
bear firearms ? I think they can, but it'd be politically incorrect in today's political environment.

You make a law saying you study how to use a gun, use proper gun safety and operations you get licensed. You pass a criminal and metal background check. You are responsible for your gun. Your kid kills someone you go jail. And only licensed sellers sale guns. But they would have enforce it, and the punishment for breaking that law has to be harsh. 10 years know parole. But your right the PC police would have a problem with that lol

 

[Pavel Mosko]

There is a difference in the world 200 years ago and today.
View attachment 305325

Yeah I know that old argument. I also know we did not need any gun control laws whatsoever until government began interfering in the lives of people, aka Prohibition. It was all completely legal to own machine gun etc. back then hardly nobody did it except for the wealthy tycoons who had their own private little armies / security forces.

The problem is the mentally unsound people who have know problem getting a gun. We can keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. Other countries allow gun ownership and they keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. And if you are oblivious to the mental problem of your child and they kill 20 or 30 people at school, the parent needs to go to jail. As a parent it is your job to know what your child's mental and physical health is at. My mom new everything I did. She caught on to a very dark point in my teenage years and got me the help I needed. If she had missed it something very bad would have probably happened. The below meme is the explanation of what the problem is.

Oh that has always been a problem. We make a big deal out of mass shootings today, when overall shootings are in decline. In the past, we actually had much bigger mass homicides caused by explosives like dynamite, black powder etc.

I'm not really convinced regulating things will make that big a difference, other than restricting the rights of the law abiding. Vehicles make great weapons of terror for instance...


But as I said before, I do not trust the government to make these kinds of decisions.

1) People in government often are driven more by sensationalism and opportunism than the facts. Gun control is usually all about optics and symbolic gestures than in actually doing something good or useful.


2) So many of our law makers have such poor understanding of firearms and the current laws on the books that is pitiful.

3) Our Governments has given weapons to criminals and terrorists like the "Fast and Furious" gun scandal of the Obama years and our recent arming the Taliban with our latest military grade weapons. I believe that your average second Amendment supporting conservative is much more trustworthy than the Taliban, therefore we should reclaim our rights to have at least the typical weapons of a contemporary light infantry unit uses today especially if we are going to have militias according to the Constitution.