Second Amendment: Right To Own A Firearm or MANDATE To Own?

333 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pierpont
Pierpont's picture

In the Heller decision Scalia writes that the 2ed Amendment protected a preexisting right to bear a firearm for self-protection... at least for people who weren't slaves. "The People" sounds all inclusive to us but never meant everyone in the US.

Yet the well regulated militia clause is there in the 2ed for a reason and the Constitution gave Congress in Article 1 Sec 8, the power to set the standards for this citizen militia. These standards were codified in the Militia Acts of 1792 which specify that membership in the militia was NOT voluntary:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.."

and they were mandated to have a firearm with specified equipment and ammunition whether they wanted to own a firearm or not:

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service…."

Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
 
Leaving aside the issue of whether this was the first mandate citizens must purchase something they may not want, this hardly looks like the 2ed was written to protect an individual right for own a firearm for self-protection or hunting. It's a government MANDATE that militia members must own a firearm.

If there's an individual right to own a firearm for self-protection then it's not in the 2ed no matter how much it's bastardized to claim one. It's an unenumerated right in the Ninth. But then neither the Dems and especially the GOP respect the Ninth. As Bork once said, it's an inkblot on the Constitution beneath which we'll never know the Framers' intent.

Comments

Marlin60
  First, slavery was not an

 

First, slavery was not an American invention, we inherited it from the European settlers.  The founders struggled with the issue, please learn your history.  Second, it is sad that you spend so much energy to write such non-sense to support your beliefs.  Read more about the founders and their beliefs on guns.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson,

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"-- George Washington

Fletcher Christian
Fletcher Christian's picture
If the slaves had firearms...

If the slaves had firearms... would there have been slavery?

May I introduce to you... THE TIME HATERS!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIVAnIXeDWs

This concludes the topic...

THANK YOU!  GOOD NIGHT!

 

PS

Fletcher... has left the building.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Marlin60 wrote:First, slavery

Marlin60 wrote:
First, slavery was not an American invention, we inherited it from the European settlers. 
What the hell was the point of your response if you were going to ignore the main issue I brought up? Read the title of the thread again Sport!

 

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Pierpont wrote: Marlin60

Pierpont wrote:

Marlin60 wrote:
First, slavery was not an American invention, we inherited it from the European settlers. 
What the hell was the point of your response if you were going to ignore the main issue I brought up? Read the title of the thread again Sport!

 

Not only that but Marlin seems to forget that America WAS European settlers.  America was mostly British colonizers.  America was built on illegal immigration.  Real inconvenient truths.

Marlin60
You mentioned slavery in your

You mentioned slavery in your opening line.  The 2nd amendment has notthing to to with slavery.  I ignore  your point because it is idiotic Sport!

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
    Marlin60 wrote: Read more

 

 

Marlin60 wrote:
Read more about the founders and their beliefs on guns.
First of all where did I say there WASN'T a right to own a gun in the Constitution. Here's what I wrote again... try reading for comprehension: "If there's an individual right to own a firearm for self-protection then it's not in the 2ed no matter how much it's bastardized to claim one. It's an unenumerated right in the Ninth. But then neither the Dems and especially the GOP respect the Ninth."

But the right was LIMITED in that it didn't include everyone unless you're claiming the Framers were in favor of SLAVES owning guns? Yes or no? Which is it Fluffy?

Quote:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson,

You tell me to read up on US history. Seems you don't even know Jefferson was NOT at the Constitutional Convention. He was in France. And such quotes are pointless unless their content was written into the Constitution.

Show me ANYWHERE in the Constitution where the Framers intended citizens to have the power to overthrow the new federal government. The Constitutional Convention was called after Shays Rebellion was put down here in Massachusetts. Shays had attacked a FEDERAL ARMORY to get more weapons! The Framers never trusted the rabble. The well regulated militia was just that WELL REGULATED and under state control… and could be federalized if need be. Perhaps it's time YOU got your head out of your butt and YOU read the Constitution and the Militia Acts of 1792.

 

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Marlin60 wrote: You mentioned

Marlin60 wrote:

You mentioned slavery in your opening line. The 2nd amendment has notthing to to with slavery. I ignore your point because it is idiotic Sport!

Your inability to comprehend simple logic is not my problem... is it Einstein? My point is the right to own a firearm was NEVER intended to be universal... unless you're claiming the Framers intended SLAVES to have that right. So is that what you're saying? Yes or no? The rights protected in the Constitution were meant for "The People"... the Freemen of the time, not some generalized individual right.

 

And if you actually believe the Second protects the right to bear arms... what was the legal status of this right BEFORE the Second Amendment was ratified?

Last, I'm STILL waiting for you to explain how a MANDATE Militia member own a weapon can be a RIGHT to own! A right implies the right to say NO.

Commonsense461
I would point out that the

I would point out that the bill of rights only applies to citizens of the us and at that time slaves where property not citizens. 

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Those who oppose the spirit

Those who oppose the spirit and letter of the Second Amendment have no interest in facts.

Gun control advocates will never rest until the collectivist spirit is expressed—or re-expressed—by the curtailment of our individual right to keep and bear arms.They cling to the myth that restricting the right to keep and bear arms to the state (i.e. the police) will severely curtail if not completely eliminate gun violence.

I, for one, am very suspicious of people and groups that want to restrict my God-given right to own firearms, that the Constitution prevents the government's ability to infringe upon, especially a politician.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: I would

Commonsense461 wrote:

I would point out that the bill of rights only applies to citizens of the us and at that time slaves where property not citizens. 

Thanks for proving the Second was NEVER a universal individual right to own a firearm. Of course you're ignoring the bigger question here whether the Second is even a "right" to own or  a mandate to own.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
camaroman wrote:Those who

camaroman wrote:
Those who oppose the spirit and letter of the Second Amendment have no interest in facts.
So we're in complete agreement that the Second was NOT an individual right, but a collective right that the MILITIAS not be disarmed. Will wonders never cease!

Now do you care to deal with the main question of this thread... whether the Second was a "right" of Militia members to own a fierarm or a MANDATE to own a firearm.

 

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Original Intent and Purpose

Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Introduction

The Second Amendment:

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 original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.

Also this from St. George Tucker, "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction"

William Rawle:

Another jurist contemporaneous to the Founders, William Rawle, authored "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10he describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear ("the prohibition is general") that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right. "

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

There have been many interpretations of the exact meaning of the wording in the 2nd amendment. The militia referred to has historically consisted of every able bodied man in the county, state and nation. Do you think that the founding fathers somehow wrote one thing and meant another? Or that if they meant for a right to be collective, when every other right is individual, they wouldn't have expressly said so.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: I would

Commonsense461 wrote:

I would point out that the bill of rights only applies to citizens of the us and at that time slaves where property not citizens. 

That's not true.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Again, I am extremely

Again, I am extremely suspicious of groups or individuals, especially power hungry politicians, that want to restrict my rights.  Especially those guilty of the fuzzy-headed reasoning, that by restrcting gun ownership, in anyway, by law abiding citizens, will in anyway reduce gun violence and crime.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
camaroman's article

camaroman's article wrote:
There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.
This is amusing since we know that if the Bill of Right did not apply to slaves, then by definition the right to bear arms also could not... meaning this right was NEVER intended to be a universal individual right. And of course there's the actual MILITIA ACTS of 1792 which MANDATE militia members to own a gun. WHERE'S THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT HERE????? A right is the freedom to own or NOT to own a gun. At the core of the well-regulate militia is an individual MANDATE to own a firearm... not the individual right NOT to own. You want THAT right... look to the Ninth. But then the Right is at war with the Ninth.   

Seems all of our right wing friends are determined to EVADE the central issue here.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
camaroman wrote:...Gun

camaroman wrote:
...Gun control advocates will never rest until the collectivist spirit is expressed—or re-expressed—by the curtailment of our individual right to keep and bear arms.They cling to the myth that restricting the right to keep and bear arms to the state (i.e. the police) will severely curtail if not completely eliminate gun violence.

But doesn't the second amendment talk about a militia, and then later congress has the power to regulate the militia?

And 'arms' means... well anything. Today, it could mean an atomic bomb or even wmd. Clearly the technology of military armanent has gone further than what the framers imagined. I could easily go along with allowing people to have an individual right in owning what militia members owned at the time. This would mean mustkets and bayonets. I think any other arms such as cannon or grenade could be locked up in a central facility or could be part of the 'well regulated' militia. That is, congress or the states could pass laws regarding the regulation of these.

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
camaroman wrote: Again, I am

camaroman wrote:

Again, I am extremely suspicious of groups or individuals, especially power hungry politicians, that want to restrict my rights. Especially those guilty of the fuzzy-headed reasoning, that by restrcting gun ownership, in anyway, by law abiding citizens, will in anyway reduce gun violence and crime.

If you are truly upset about those in power trying to take away your rights... I await your condemnation of Scalia and others on the far Right who are negating the Ninth Amendment placing the burden on citizens to fight for their rights instead of on the government to prove there's a legitimate reason to limit them.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/07/thoms-views-judicial-review-and-rights-war-natural-rights

I won't hold my breath.

Capital.0
Capital.0's picture
Your Hard on for Scalia

Your Hard on for Scalia contiues....  starting to get creepy

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Dr. Econ wrote:I think any

Dr. Econ wrote:
I think any other arms such as cannon or grenade could be locked up in a central facility or could be part of the 'well regulated' militia.
Since the state militias of old are now the National Guard, the Second Amendment protects them from being disarmed. If we are looking for an individual right to have a gun for self-protection then it's in the Ninth. But the Right fears the Ninth will be the source of all sorts of rights they don't want citizens to have... like same sex marriage or the right to choose. So they pretend the Ninth is meaningless... and they bastardize the Second into an individual right... all in the name of respecting the Constitution... of course! Their hypocrisy is off the scale.

Commonsense461
Pierpont

Pierpont wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

I would point out that the bill of rights only applies to citizens of the us and at that time slaves where property not citizens. 

Thanks for proving the Second was NEVER a universal individual right to own a firearm. Of course you're ignoring the bigger question here whether the Second is even a "right" to own or  a mandate to own.

Its a universal right for our citizens.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Capital.0 wrote: Your Hard

 

Capital.0 wrote:

Your Hard on for Scalia contiues.... starting to get creepy

He's BACK! So have you officially run away from even another thread, this one on the Right's War on The Ninth Amendment?

Scalia made himself the target by being such a hypocrite... pretending to revere Original Intent while working through the back door to undermine it.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Commonsense461 wrote:Pierpont

Commonsense461 wrote:
Pierpont wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:
I would point out that the bill of rights only applies to citizens of the us and at that time slaves where property not citizens.

Thanks for proving the Second was NEVER a universal individual right to own a firearm. Of course you're ignoring the bigger question here whether the Second is even a "right" to own or a mandate to own.

Its a universal right for our citizens.

WTF are you evening babbling about now? We're talking about ORIGINAL INTENT... what the FRAMERS intended... not what some right wing hacks on the Supreme Court decided. And predictably you're STILL ignoring the question of how can a MANDATE to own a weapon be the same as a "right to own"? But I won't hold my breath ever expecting an intelligent post from our resident village idiot.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Pier, why are you ignoring

Pier, why are you ignoring CS461's legitimate point that slaves had not rights as they were considered chattel at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights?

And my point of original intention of the framers," Do you think that the founding fathers somehow wrote one thing and meant another? Or that if they meant for a right to be collective, when every other right is individual, they wouldn't have expressly said so." If all other rights are for individuals, why would the second be any different and if , as you contend it is "it is being bastardized", then why didn't the framers address it as such? I think you and others that want to re-write the Constitution to fit your meme are dangerous to the premise of a free society.

Did I ever say I agreed or disagreed with Scalia?

If one wants to go down the road where gun rights are protected by the Ninth Amendment, one winds up running into this quote (thank you, Wikipedia) from Griswold v. Connecticut:

[T]he Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement.

The problem, vis-a-vis Ninth Amendment jurisprudence, is that people have tried it too often in the past (as compared to Second Amendment jurisprudence) and been smacked down by the Establishment. The smackdowns have taken the form of decisions relegating the Ninth Amendment to being a rule of construction, rather than an affirmative rule which says "if you can think of an(unenumerated) right, the Ninth Amendment protects it".

The phony war on drugs comes to mind.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
camaroman wrote: Pier, why

camaroman wrote:

Pier, why are you ignoring CS461's legitimate point that slaves had not rights as they were considered chattel at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights?

So you're not calling our CS for evading the central question of this thread, but I must respond to his side show? I used slaves as the most extreme example to point out the right to a gun never included everyone. The Militia also did not have women or free Blacks. It was a white male only outfit... and even then there were age limits. So pray tell, just what percentage of the total population were even in the state militias? 25-30%?

Quote:
And my point of original intention of the framers," Do you think that the founding fathers somehow wrote one thing and meant another? Or that if they meant for a right to be collective, when every other right is individual, they wouldn't have expressly said so." If all other rights are for individuals, why would the second be any different and if , as you contend it is "it is being bastardized", then why didn't the framers address it as such? I think you and others that want to re-write the Constitution to fit your meme are dangerous to the premise of a free society.
Pray tell, what's my "meme"? That the true right to self-protection is in the Ninth and it's the far RIGHT that is going out of its way to negate the Ninth as part of its war on Natural Rights so it has to bastardize the Second to invent a right there? Sounds like the very judicial activism the Right pretends to decry.

 

camaroman
camaroman's picture
If the other amendments to

If the other amendments to the Bill of Rights addresses the rights of "individuals", then would it not be logical to assume that the 2nd amendment was meant to address "individual" rights' to possess and bear arms? And I disagree with your contention of the 9th based on that logic. That if the framers had intended the 2nd to address the right to bear arms collectively then they would  have worded the amendment differently. All other amendments pertain to "individual rights" why would the 2nd be any different?

captbebops
captbebops's picture
One more time: we have NO

One more time: we have NO IDEA if the 2nd Amendment and a nation where people have the right to own guns may have averted a coup d'etat in the past.  We know in the 1930s the corporatists attempted to overthrow FDR (and non of them went to prison for despite a Congressional investigation).   I would prefer to err on the side of people being able to own guns but not automatics.  BTW, I saw today that Obama failed to reinstate the federal ban on automatics even though he promised to do so.  Many states such as California have state bans against them.

I even read that Senator Dianne Feinstein said this morning that gun banning is not a discussion for an election year.  So stop being "knee jerk" liberals and turn your brains back on.

 

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
camaroman wrote:If the other

camaroman wrote:
If the other amendments to the Bill of Rights addresses the rights of "individuals", then would it not be logical to assume that the 2nd amendment was meant to address "individual" rights' to possess and bear arms? And I disagree with your contention of the 9th based on that logic. That if the framers had intended the 2nd to address the right to bear arms collectively then they would have worded the amendment differently. All other amendments pertain to "individual rights" why would the 2nd be any different?

So what was the legal status of the right to own a firearm for self-protection BEFORE the Bill of Rights was ratified? Are you saying it can only be described in terms of the Second and its Militia clause? The first 8 Amendments are basically restrictions of government's powers, and I supposed that can be considered a declarations of right but it's more in the negative. It's the NINTH that's the Rosetta Stone to understand our relationship between individual rights and government power... and it's the Ninth the Right is at war with. That being said YOU'RE STILL EVADING THE QUESTION THIS THREAD POSES: is the Second a "right" to own or a mandate to own? There's only about 4-5 months between the Second being ratfied and the passing of the Militia Acts. Congess surely KNEW the intent of the Second when mandating Militia Members MUST provide themselves with a suitable firearm.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
captbebops wrote:even read

captbebops wrote:
even read that Senator Dianne Feinstein said this morning that gun banning is not a discussion for an election year. So stop being "knee jerk" liberals and turn your brains back on.

What the hell you even babbling about? Where did I say ANYTHING about banning guns? I asked some SIMPLE questions... knowing that Congress, consistent with its Article 1 sec 8 responsibility

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

 

passed the Militia Acts just months after the ratification of the Second's ratification, can the Second be seen as a RIGHT to own a firearm for militia members or a MANDATE to own? And what was the legal status of this "right" BEFORE the Bill of Rights was ratified?

camaroman
camaroman's picture
The amendment says nothing

The amendment says nothing about a mandate. The Second Amendment provides that "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."  It says, " the RIGHT of the PEOPLE" I read nothing about any mandate into the amendment. It is a right that shall not be infringed. Only people can and should have rights. Not groups, not corporations, not churches...

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
camaroman wrote:The amendment

camaroman wrote:
The amendment says nothing about a mandate. The Second Amendment provides that "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." It says, " the RIGHT of the PEOPLE" I read nothing about any mandate into the amendment. It is a right that shall not be infringed. Only people can and should have rights. Not groups, not corporations, not churches...

Still ignoring my question where was the individual right to own a firearm BEFORE the Second was ratified?

We KNOW what the Second says... the question if Congress intended individual Militia members... white males between 18 and 45ish, be REQUIRED to have a firearm, then where is the individual "right" to own? Central to the concept of a right is CHOICE. Where is the choice in being REQUIRED to procure a suitable firearm and equipment?

The "right" here is like the other first 8 amendments... it's a restriction on GOVERNMENT not to disarm these Militias. The "People" NEVER meant everyone. And now that these state militias are the National Guards, the Second as an individual "right" is rendered moot. But that right still exists under the Ninth.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Bush_Wacker wrote: Not only

 

Bush_Wacker wrote:

Not only that but Marlin seems to forget that America WAS European settlers. America was mostly British colonizers. America was built on illegal immigration. Real inconvenient truths.

It's been said, victors get to write the history of any war and in this case the "legality" of immigration to "America" was determined by whom? Gee... mainly the English. Were there any pre-existing Native American "laws" prohibiting the English from setting up colonies? It was might makes right… and perhaps that's what happened to the "lost colony" at Roanoke. Or it was trying to make deals with the Native Americans as the Pilgrims did. At this stage, it's pretty difficult to claim any of this was "illegal"… though it may have been immoral. Who knows. I'm still pouring though the earliest documents of the Pilgrims of Plymouth. They arrived to find much of the area devastated by a plague that wiped out much of the native population. Skulls were still littered around the sites of old villages. These diseases were introduced to "America" by Europeans who unknowingly were immune. The natives were not.  

haroldmarshall
haroldmarshall's picture
Please cite your sources for

Please cite your sources for these so-called quotations..."Read more" indeed!

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
haroldmarshall wrote: Please

haroldmarshall wrote:

Please cite your sources for these so-called quotations..."Read more" indeed!

Talking to me? Who the hell knows since you refuse to use the QUOTE function.

Gee, I thought I already cited my sorces... the Constitution, the Second Amendment, and the Militia Acts of 1792. What else do you need????? 

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Pp, " YOU'RE STILL EVADING

Pp, " YOU'RE STILL EVADING THE QUESTION THIS THREAD POSES: is the Second a "right" to own or a mandate to own?"  post # 28

Pp, "Still ignoring my question where was the individual right to own a firearm BEFORE the Second was ratified? post #31

Answer to post #28--The amendment says nothing about a mandate. The Second Amendment provides that "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." It says, " the RIGHT of the PEOPLE" I read nothing about any mandate into the amendment. It is a right that shall not be infringed. Only people can and should have rights. Not groups, not corporations, not churches... The 2nd says NOTHING about any "mandate"

Answer to post #31--Pp, " The "People" NEVER meant everyone." Then who the hell did People mean? Its deinition may have been restrcted to only males, as females and slaves were not recognized in that sense in those times. Slaves were considered chattel and women were prohibited from owning property. Common law princple of "feme covert" So to be technical, people mentioned in the Bill of Rights were free white men. But the 2nd says the "RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed." Therefore that RIGHT existed under common law but was enumerated in the 2nd. If the phrase, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, was removed then the amendment would not have the same meaning. " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed. Why was the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms put in there if the framers had any other intent they would have worded it differently. 

Pp, "  There's only about 4-5 months between the Second being ratfied and the passing of the Militia Acts. Congess surely KNEW the intent of the Second when mandating Militia Members MUST provide themselves with a suitable firearm. "

The Militia Acts of 1792 were passed to clarify control of the various state militias. Some wanted the Federal government to have control (federalists), while others wanted the states to retain control over their repective militias (anti-Federalists. The acts were a compromise giving the federal government the authority to regulate the militias, but officer appointments were left to the states. And, yes, it did require members of the militia to own and maintain a suitable firearm and accoutrements. But as this was expensive for poor members states and later the federal government started issuing arms.

James Madison proposed 20 amendents to the first Congress, 10 of which were eventually adopted. His original wording of what eventually became the 2nd amendment was, "

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Notice the first phrase? This wording came from the constitutions of various states that specifically guaranteed the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for self defense.

James Madison originally proposed this amendment as an insertion into the Constitution's Article I, Section 9, between clauses 3 and 4. This section mentions prohibitions on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. All of these are individual civil rights that are used by citizens to defend themselves against unjust government officials. All of these limit the power of the government.

Since this is where Madison believed the insertion of the 2nd Amendment should go, this interpretation says, he must have understood the right to bear arms as an individual right. If Madison had intended "the right to bear arms" only as a state right, he should have included the 2nd Amendment in Article I, Section 8, which describes Congress' military power over the militia.

Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/2nd-amendment.html#ixzz21Q00lZF1

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
camaroman wrote:Pierpont

camaroman wrote:
Pierpont wrote:
, " YOU'RE STILL EVADING THE QUESTION THIS THREAD POSES: is the Second a "right" to own or a mandate to own?" post # 28

Answer to post #28--The amendment says nothing about a mandate. The Second Amendment provides that "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." It says, " the RIGHT of the PEOPLE" I read nothing about any mandate into the amendment. It is a right that shall not be infringed. Only people can and should have rights. Not groups, not corporations, not churches... The 2nd says NOTHING about any "mandate"

And only some PEOPLE coud be allowed into the Militias... able-bodied white males between 18-45ish. It's hardly everyone. It's perhaps 25-30% of the US populatio at the time.  

You're ignoring the historical context. The Constitution gave Congress the power to create the militias and standards for their discipline. That PRECEDES the Second. Congress sets those standards in The Militia Acts passed mere months after the Second is ratified. You're pretending the Second stands on its own when in fact the original intent of these militias was mandatory membership and a mandate militia members procure a suitable firearm and equipment. WHERE'S THE CHOICE HERE?

If the BoRs intended just an individual right… it would have been worded as the First Amendment: Congress Shall Pass No Law Restricting The Right To Own A Firearm. The Second Amendment is to protect the MILITIAS from being disarmed or disbanded. The individual right to own a firearm is in the Ninth along with all the other natural rights we know we have… the right to fall in love or not, marry or not, have kids or not, have a livelihood, have a favorite color or not… own a firearm OR NOT. The far Right refuses to acknowledge the Ninth so for political reasons it has to find the right to bear arms in a bastardized Second by pretending the Militia context is of no consequence.   

 

I ask again... what was the legal status for the right to own a firearm between the ratification of the Constitution and BEFORE the ratification of the Second? It was just assumed to be a natural right safe because the Constitution gave the federal government NO power to disarm individuals... at least the freemen. The Second is a restriction on government to insure the Militias are a viable force.  

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Pp, Your argument that only

Pp, Your argument that only some people (able bodied free white males 18-45ish) may be factual, but only as to those being required to belong to a militia. Do you think that free white males over the age of 45 were not allowed to possess arms?  A simple understanding of the realities of life at that time would lead one to the commonsense conclusion that all free white males and probably quite a few others possessed firearms.

I am not ignoring historical context, you are misinterpreting or ignoring fact. You have it backwards. The Bill of Rights were ratified December 15, 1791. The Federalists and anti- Federalist were unanimous in their support of the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. This would locical and unequivically lead one to the conclusion that the 2nd amendment and the founding fathers intended that the people be armed for duty in a militia , as well as a right to keep and bear arms for their self-protection.

The Militia Acts of 1792 : Wiki, "The Militia Acts of 1792 were a pair of statutes enacted by the second United States Congress in 1792. The acts provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection. This authority was used to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794."

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

I am out of time right now but will have more later.

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  camaroman wrote:Pp, Your

 

camaroman wrote:
Pp, Your argument that only some people (able bodied free white males 18-45ish) may be factual, but only as to those being required to belong to a militia. Do you think that free white males over the age of 45 were not allowed to possess arms? A simple understanding of the realities of life at that time would lead one to the commonsense conclusion that all free white males and probably quite a few others possessed firearms.
ARE INCAPABLE OF COMPREHENSION????? How many times have I said over and over again that the right to self-protection or just to own a firearm is a NINTH AMENDMENT RIGHT. Historically this all important amendment has been swept under the carpet by both parties... but the social conservatives really want to negate it. It's so much easier for the NRA to bastardize the Second because if taken out of context it SOUNDS as an absolute right to bear arms… than deal with an amendment that says rights not mentioned are also protected... even if that is the HEART of the Constitution's protection of natural rights. The NRA has done us all a great disservice.

 

 

Quote:
I am not ignoring historical context, you are misinterpreting or ignoring fact. You have it backwards. The Bill of Rights were ratified December 15, 1791.
What do I have backwards? The Militia Acts were approved a few months later as I said… May 1792.

 

Quote:
The Federalists and anti- Federalist were unanimous in their support of the right of an individual to keep and bear arms.
Sure as an unenumerated right. Do you even know what a right is? If government forces one to do something, IT'S NOT A RIGHT, it's a MANDATE. I ask again for the twentith time: where is the individual right in the Second when militia members were REQUIRED to own a weapon whether they wanted to or not??? The right in the Second is to protect the viability of a well-regulated militia to protect the security of a free state.

 

Quote:
This would locical and unequivically lead one to the conclusion that the 2nd amendment and the founding fathers intended that the people be armed for duty in a militia , as well as a right to keep and bear arms for their self-protection.
ROTF You're too enthralled with your own defective logic. The Second says NOTHING about self-protection does it? Deal with it!

 

And I'm STILL waiting for you to explain the legal status of the individual right to own a firearm BEFORE the Second. We have a 3.5 year gap between the ratification of the Constitution on March 4, 1789 and the ratification of the BoRs in Dec 1791. Did that right NOT exist during that time? Or was it simply accepted as a natural right which the Constitution had no power to interfere with? (Of course the states may have reserved the power to do so).

haroldmarshall
haroldmarshall's picture
Pierpont

Pierpont wrote:

haroldmarshall wrote:

Please cite your sources for these so-called quotations..."Read more" indeed!

Talking to me? Who the hell knows since you refuse to use the QUOTE function.

Gee, I thought I already cited my sorces... the Constitution, the Second Amendment, and the Militia Acts of 1792. What else do you need????? 

Look above my post in the pale blue bar where it clearly states that this was a reply to post #2... Sorry to disappoint you, but the amount of misinformation in the quotations made it a moral issue, preventing me to repeat them... Knowing how and doing so are two different things.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
haroldmarshall wrote:Pierpont

haroldmarshall wrote:
Pierpont wrote:

haroldmarshall wrote:
Please cite your sources for these so-called quotations..."Read more" indeed!

Talking to me? Who the hell knows since you refuse to use the QUOTE function.

Gee, I thought I already cited my sorces... the Constitution, the Second Amendment, and the Militia Acts of 1792. What else do you need????? 

Look above my post in the pale blue bar where it clearly states that this was a reply to post #2... Sorry to disappoint you, but the amount of misinformation in the quotations made it a moral issue, preventing me to repeat them... Knowing how and doing so are two different things.
  Missed that... my apologies.

 

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Pp, "And I'm STILL waiting

Pp, "And I'm STILL waiting for you to explain the legal status of the individual right to own a firearm BEFORE the Second."

Think about what life was back during those times. Logic would dictate that most people were armed for protection and it was a given as common law and written into many state constitutions.

Wiki, "Modern scholars Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan have stated that James Madison "did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."[43] In contrast, historian Jack Rakove suggests that Madison's intention in framing the Second Amendment was to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that the militias would not be disarmed.[44]

"Struggling under the inefficiencies of the Articles of Confederation, delegates from Virginia and Maryland assembled at the Mount Vernon Conference in March 1785 to fashion a remedy. The following year, at a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, 12 delegates from five states (New JerseyNew YorkPennsylvaniaDelaware, and Virginia) met and drew up a list of problems with the current government model. At its conclusion, the delegates scheduled a follow-up meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for May 1787 to present solutions to these problems, such as the absence of:[58][59]

  • interstate arbitration processes to handle quarrels between states;
  • sufficiently trained and armed intrastate security forces to suppress insurrection;
  • a national militia to repel foreign invaders.

It quickly became apparent that the solution to all three of these problems required shifting control of the states' militias to the federal congress and giving that congress the power to raise a standing army.[60] Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution codified these changes by allowing the Congress to do the following:

  • provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
  • raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
  • provide and maintain a navy;
  • make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
  • provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
  • provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Some representatives mistrusted proposals to enlarge federal powers, because they were concerned about the inherent risks of centralizing power. Federalists, including James Madison, initially argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary, sufficiently confident that the federal government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome a militia.[61] Federalist Noah Webster argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army.[62][63] Anti-federalists, however, advocated amending the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights providing more explicit constraints on the new government. Many Anti-federalists feared the new federal government would choose to disarm state militias. Federalists countered that in listing only certain rights, unlisted rights might lose protection. The Federalists realized there was insufficient support to ratify the Constitution without a b

ill of rights and so they promised to support amending the Constitution to add a bill of rights following the Constitution's adoption"

 

Notice that the appointment of officers AND the training of the militia was reserved to the STATES.

 

As to the 9th, again wiki, 'Gun rights activists in recent decades have sometimes argued for a fundamental natural right to keep and bear arms that both predates the U.S. Constitution and is covered by the

Oganization of the STATE militias.

WIKI, "First Militia Act of 1792

The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the president to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe."[3] The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act".[4]This provision likely referred to uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion. The president's authority in both cases was to expire after two years.

[edit]Second Militia Act of 1792Front page of a newspaper announcing the second Militia Act of 1792.

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musketbayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall."

 

Yes, the militia acts required all able bodied men between the ages of 19-45 to report for duty and required them to be armed and equiped. THIS was in the acts of 1792 and NOT in the 2nd. What about free white men older that 45 and others? Do you not think they had a right to be armed because they damned sure weren't required. Did they not have any rights of firearm ownership and possession?

 


 

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  camaroman wrote:Quote: Pp,

 

camaroman wrote:
Quote:

Pp, "And I'm STILL waiting for you to explain the legal status of the individual right to own a firearm BEFORE the Second."

Think about what life was back during those times. Logic would dictate that most people were armed for protection and it was a given as common law and written into many state constitutions.

My god feel like I'm having a conversation with a 5 year old. We're not talking about your "logic", such as it is. I asked for the legal status of any federal guarantee of a right to bear arms for freemen BEFORE the ratification of the BoRs.

It's clear there are NO written guarantees. Our natural rights were protected by virtue of how the Constitution was constructed... that it had limited powers... therefore the People only surrendered what was necessary for the creation of those powers. There's no way to enumerate all these rights since the list is endless depending on how we imagine them. The Ninth, when ratified,  confirmed that was the intent of the Constitution and overed them all... while the first 8 amendments provided active restrictions on government power. The right to bear arms is in THE NINTH. The Second is a prohibition on government not to disarm the militia which were made up of able bodied white males. The Second did NOT guarantee any individual right since it already was protected.

 

 

Quote:
Yes, the militia acts required all able bodied men between the ages of 19-45 to report for duty and required them to be armed and equiped. THIS was in the acts of 1792 and NOT in the 2nd. What about free white men older that 45 and others? Do you not think they had a right to be armed because they damned sure weren't required. Did they not have any rights of firearm ownership and possession?

 

You're hopeless. You're AGAIN trying to isolate the Second from its legal context. The powers of Congress to organize and set standards for the militia, the Second, and the Militia Acts ALL deal with the same state-based militias. And it's clear that if these able-bodied white males are REQUIRED to have a weapon, then it's NOT A RIGHT. You do know the difference between a right and a mandate, right?

Clearly older men were not "required" to own a weapon because they were no longer in the militia. But they still had the right to own a firearm per the Ninth.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
The 2nd is also a prohibition

The 2nd is also a prohibition of the government to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms!!!

And, yes I understand to difference between a right and a mandate. The mandate is NOT in the 2nd, it is in the ACTS!!!

What part of this do YOU not comprehend?

"Gun rights activists in recent decades have sometimes argued for a fundamental natural right to keep and bear arms that both predates the U.S. Constitution and is covered by the Constitution's Ninth Amendment; according to this viewpoint, the Second Amendment only enumerates a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms."

Got that? The 2nd enumerates the pre-existing RIGHT of ownership.  

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
    camaroman wrote:The 2nd

 

  

camaroman wrote:
The 2nd is also a prohibition of the government to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms!!!
Yup, as long as they are state militia members... now the state National Guards.

Quote:
And, yes I understand to difference between a right and a mandate. The mandate is NOT in the 2nd, it is in the ACTS!!!

What part of this do YOU not comprehend?

It doesn't matter!!! It's The Militia Acts that define how the Militias will operate. Under the supremacy clause the Militia Acts have the SAME STANDING as the Second since they were made pursuant of the Constitutional mandate Congress set up and discipline these Militias. You continue to try to isolate the Second from the actual Militias themselves... then like all the other gun nuts you can claim the right "not be infringed" stands alone.

Quote:
"Gun rights activists in recent decades have sometimes argued for a fundamental natural right to keep and bear arms that both predates the U.S. Constitution and is covered by the Constitution's Ninth Amendment; according to this viewpoint, the Second Amendment only enumerates a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms."

Got that? The 2nd enumerates the pre-existing RIGHT of ownership.

My god, how many kinds of stupid are you???? HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM? But it was NEVER intended for the entire population and it can be found in the NINTH. The militia members of Second are REQUIRED to have weapons. THAT IS NOT A RIGHT!!  

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Pp, "Yup, as long as they are

Pp, "Yup, as long as they are state militia members... now the state National Guards."

Are they still required to furnish their own firearms and accoutrements?

The 2nd says nothing about any requirements. "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." Where is the word required found in the 2nd. It says a well REGULATED, meaning trained, prepared militia which would also mean armed.

The phrase " the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers... of the 4th amendment obviously refers to an individual right. What the fuck do you think "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means. why would it mean anything different, dipshit? the right not to be infringed does stand alone. The crown tried its damnedest to disarm the citizenry of the colonies in an effort to prevent exactly what happened.

Pp, "My god, how many kinds of stupid are you???? HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM? But it was NEVER intended for the entire population and it can be found in the NINTH. The militia members of Second are REQUIRED to have weapons. THAT IS NOT A RIGHT!!  "

What the fuck are you talking about? Of course the Constitution protects the right ( OF THE INDIVIDUAL) to keep and bear a firearm. Where does it say that it was never intended for the entire population? Are you saying that it restricted ownership to only those that were required (by the militia act, the second act of a later date) to serve? I don't think so. Where can it be found in the 9th that firearm ownership was not intended for the entire populace as "the people" were defined and refered to throughout the Constitution , in those times?

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
camaroman wrote:Pierpont

camaroman wrote:
Pierpont wrote:
"My god, how many kinds of stupid are you???? HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM? But it was NEVER intended for the entire population and it can be found in the NINTH. The militia members of Second are REQUIRED to have weapons. THAT IS NOT A RIGHT!!

What the fuck are you talking about? Of course the Constitution protects the right ( OF THE INDIVIDUAL) to keep and bear a firearm.

Can anyone now wonder why I think you're braindead? I REPEATEDLY have said the Constitution protects the individual right of freemen to own a weapon and you're so crazed YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND THE WRITTEN WORD!!!

Quote:
Where does it say that it was never intended for the entire population?
AGAIN… the "People" never meant everyone. If it did, then slaves would also be also be covered by the Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to…. secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Does your warped view of US history include slaves having "liberty" or the Second Amendment right to own a firearm? The right of the Militia, about 25-30% of the population, not to be disarmed is DIFFERENT from the unenumerated right of "The People" to own a firearm. NEITHER right includes slaves. The Framers/First Congress NEVER intended a universal individual right. The "People" originally never meant the entire population.  That's not to say that LATER these rights were not extended to former slaves. But that is NOT "original intent".

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Pp, "Can anyone now wonder

Pp, "Can anyone now wonder why I think you're braindead? I REPEATEDLY have said the Constitution protects the individual right of freemen to own a weapon and you're so crazed YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND THE WRITTEN WORD!!!"

You are delusional!!! I have qualified the meaning of persons as designated during the late 18th century. Why are you obfuscating the meaning, dipshit? Free white men in colonial times was NOT limited to 18-45 year old males required to serve in the militia, exclusively.Why are you obssessed with then fucking militia. The framers of rthe Constitution did not extend the right to keep and bear are soley to those that were required to serve in the fucking militia. What does the term"people" mean and include today. Does it still exclude blacks and women as delineated in those times? I don't think so. So what is your definition of "the People" today? Or does the right to keep and bear arms in your restrictive mind still only  to include 25-30% of the populace? BULLSHIT!!!

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
camaroman wrote:Free white

camaroman wrote:
Free white men in colonial times was NOT limited to 18-45 year old males required to serve in the militia, exclusively.Why are you obssessed with then fucking militia. The framers of rthe Constitution did not extend the right to keep and bear are soley to those that were required to serve in the fucking militia.
 Yup you are f*ckin' braindead. No matter how many times I say the Ninth originally protected the natural rights of freemen to own weapons... you just REFUSE to see it... yet end up saying the same thing. But the Second Amendment WAS about the Militia. It's time you dealt with reality Fluffy. But I fear you're too lost in a Gun Nut fantasy version of US history.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
BULLSHIT!!! your definition

BULLSHIT!!! your definition of freemen is bogus!!!

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
camaroman wrote: BULLSHIT!!!

camaroman wrote:

BULLSHIT!!! your definition of freemen is bogus!!!

Another of your empty assertions. Are you suggesting the original intent of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights protected the rights of slaves as if they were freemen? Yes or no?

Please post again when you finally have something intelligent to write. I won't hold my breath.

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
Pierpont wrote:[...] Are you

Pierpont wrote:
[...] Are you suggesting the original intent of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights protected the rights of slaves as if they were freemen? Yes or no?[...]
I can't answer for camaroman but MY answer is of course no. For the umpteenth time, in this thread and at least two others similar to it with 200+ posts, slavery, as heinous as it was, has absolutely nothing to do with whether the 2nd enumerated a common (collective) or individual right to keep and bear arms.

The logic tree is simple: a singular class (free,white,male,able-bodied,18-45 years of age), and two conditionals: common (collective) and individual. The decision of the supreme Court and therefore the present day interpretation of the law of the land, the only one that matters, is that a majority of people of THAT time using language of THAT time saw the right as an individual one.

My own analysis, important only to me, is that this decision is the correct one. You can find a right to keep and bear in the 9th if you want but for me and sCOTUS it's in the 2nd.