Skip to comments.Still the BEST EVER explanation of the 2nd Amendment
Posted on 12/21/2012 9:32:50 AM PST by Doctor 2Brains
We now come back to those words so loved by the gun grabbers, well regulated militia. Knocking down this silly little argument is vitally important because the gun grabbers notion that says the Second Amendment reads, in essence, militias are acceptable is simply and undeniably the only arrow in their quiver. Take that from them, and they are finished. Liberals do not maintain that the Second Amendment says We can take your guns. They believe (or pretend to believe) that the Second Amendment reads, Militias are acceptable. Being wholly ignorant of the doctrine of enumerated powers, liberals think this is enough to deny us our gun rights; for if the federal government, unrestrained by an enumeration, was empowered to legislate on all matters not put off limits by the Bill of Rights, and if the Second Amendment actually did read militias are acceptable, then the federal government would indeed have the authority to regulate our ownership of firearms. "...But readers of this magazine know better. A constitutional amendment that reads militias are acceptable, no more gives the federal government the authority to legislate against guns than it does the authority to tell me what color I may dye my hair, or what size carburetor I may put under my hood. If I had a right to buy guns before the militias are acceptable amendment was enacted, then I have a right to buy guns afterward."
IMO, the “Well-regulated militia” argument by gun grabbers trying to take the INDIVIDUAL’s right to arm himself is just a diversion tactic.
To me the “well-regulated militia” statement merely says that “yes, we need militias” “AND, militias are made up of free individuals who MUST have an unfettered right to arms.”
For this to be true, before a militia can be stood up, free individuals have to have free rights to guns, uninfringed by government.
To me the well-regulated militia statement merely says that yes, we need militias AND, militias are made up of free individuals who MUST have an unfettered right to arms.
Until the Civil War every militia member was expected to supply his own weapons, uniform and food. So, what the amendment says is; Civilians are expected to supply their own gun so they can be a member of a militia.
Setup a militia in the United States with a chapter in every State consisting of registered gun owners.
I agree. Besides you’ll never persuade the gun-grabbers and their useful-idiot abettors anyway!
My state does not register gun owners. Why should they?
The whole basic premise of the militia is simply that the government recognizes (and encourages) citizenry to be able to when necessary, arm itself and defend itself. From anything, foreign or domestic.
The individual right to self-defense was never surrendered just because government was given certain powers (from the people) in terms of keeping the peace or being able to declare war.
We know this for certain because courts have ruled government is not liable for anyone’s injury or death when their police officers and other leos and army folks don’t stop criminals from injuring or murdering citizens.
Gun owners don’t want to be targeted by being ‘registered’.
That didn’t work out too well for those required to ‘be registered’ in ‘30’s Germany.
I agree. My point was that the militia argument they use is BS.
Step 2: Require everyone to register and join the "militia."
Step 3: Ban guns.
Step 4: We know who you are and where you are. We're coming to get them now.
Change the name of the National Rifle Association to the National Rifle Militia and we might actually have it.
The authors fall into a common trap. “Well regulated” does not have anything to do with “regulating” a militia. The militia is the people. Well-regulated means that the people are well-trained and well-equipped period. The people keep their arms at home and bear them when needed.
It's already set up. The militia is the people. Read the amendment.
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.Taken together, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments simply codify the objections of the Federalists to the Antifederalist demand for a bill of rights - that any such bill would inevitably fail to articulate all of the rights which, not being restricted by the Constitution, were intended to be retained by the people. Which means that the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights are intended as a floor under, rather than a ceiling above, the rights of the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Two other constitutional citations are IMHO germane to this topic:
Article 1 Section 8.and
The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
Article V - AmendmentArticle 1 Section 8 codifies the belief in, and expectation of, progress. Progress, one of
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
"the Blessings of Liberty [expected to be secured by the Constitution] to ourselves and our Posterity
is the default assumption of the Constitution. So in principle, if not in detail, the repeating rifle and the machine gun were anticipated by the framers of the constitution - and, if experience revealed the necessity, the framers provided for adjustments to be made to adapt to the ramifications of freedom and progress.
The Swiss model: Every able-bodied male citizen from late adolescence to the age of retirement is by law a member of the Swiss army, and MUST keep a firearm in working order and ample ammunition in the home.
A similar statute exists in Israel, a country that has been besieged since its founding, where the citizenry is essentially the militia, and every citizen receives training in the care and feeding of firearms. Again, possession of firearms in the home is strongly encouraged, with the police and members on active duty with the IDF authorized to carry at all times.
(The age 45 limit is obviously outdated, as life expectancy is much higher now.)
This is what made a noble different from a commoner ~ a nobleman had a "right to keep and bear arms". A town, in fact, might be granted part of the right ~ so many swords, so many cannon, warhorses, etc.
This right also carries with it the news that someone so honored can go to the public courts and bring suit against someone else and ask that the armed might of the government be brought into a dispute!
This was a real problem for commoners and Jews throughout Europe for centuries ~ unless they could settle a dispute privately, they had no access to the courts.
On the other hand, the courts had access to them!
I think one of the Justices limited his construction of the 'bear arms' part of the expression to just carrying around a weapon. Actually, he really missed the boat on that one ~ and with him a judge, and before that a lawyer, it tells me of the sad state of teaching history in our nation's universities!
Well we could fall into their failed logic trap and argue all day long what a Militia or Well Regulated Militia means and it would not change a thing. The way the sentence is structured, in English, means we have a right to keep and bear arms”
What these self proclaimed enlightened ignoramuses never dare expose is that the first part of the statement never contradicts the second part. In fact the 2nd part could stand alone and the meaning would be exactly the same.
Even if the 2nd Amendment read: “Guns are very dangerous to any government, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” would still mean the US Constitution is simply restating our rights as citizens to be armed.
There is nothing which contradicts or limits, “shall not be infringed” yet we have allowed the most dishonest people on the planet, lawyers and politicians, to infringe on those rights and IMO we have allowed them to invalidate the vast majority of the Constitution.
Anyone but me think all the 5-4 decisions from the less than Supreme Court are simply political crap with no grounding in the Constitution? Tell me how 9 brilliant Constitutional scholars could possibly spew forth constant 5-4 decisions unless they are traitors to the Constitution hiding behind black robes.
Meet my weapons friend.
Meet my weapons friend.
The wording of the Second isn’t the issue right now. (It is for us, but we’re on the defensive and mapping out our trenches!)
Progressives are HOWLING for a complete disarmament of the people. That will never happen, of course, but it doesn’t stop them from howling. Obummer loves to hear their howls, which does not work to our advantage.
It’s going to be a rough couple of months. We all know they’re going to try and pass some stupid and ineffective new gun laws, which we of course will fight tooth and nail.
Just hang tough, folks. They might jam through another pointless ban on “assault weapons” but it won’t change a thing. Just be ready to howl even louder if they try for the whole enchilada, which Obummer just might.
We know what the Second means. They need to know too.
the MEME of the MSM is is “GUN BANS WORK”, it is just not far enough or detailed emough.
They start with the assumption that the last would have worked BUT FOR....
The low information voters will not see this deception. (how often do you beat your wife? compound trick)
The left is just going by the “we need magic words.”
Certainly this high-tech weapons system could not have been envisioned by the framers. There is no way they meant for normal citizens to have such a destructive weapon in their possession. </sarc>
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals. Any discussion of militias is redundant.
That was pretty basic high tech, but the Founders knew about just how powerful the earliest firearms technology had been ~ and they thought it was perfectly acceptable for private individuals to own the very best!
You all missed my tag.
You all missed my </sarc> tag.