Second Amendment

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Jagger, Dec 1, 2008.

  1. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    They wrote the Second Amendment to be ambiguous and difficult to interpret. There's no point trying to get in their heads. Just apply the rules of legal interpretation, accept whatever results and say to hell with it.

    The learned judge wrote,
    BUT, lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the laws itself ought likewise to cease with it.​
    The cause which moved the legislators to make the Second Amendment was the need for "a well regulated militia" to secure the state. Therefore, we should understand the word "people" in the sense that best achieves "the security of a free state." Since a "well regulated militia" is deemed essential to achieving that goal, it appears that "people" should be understood in the sense of that particular signification that would best achieve a "well regulated militia." The signification of "people" that would most likely result in a "well regulated militia" is "well regulated militia" or the "state."

    The best way to ensure the existence of a well regulated militia is to make sure it provided with arms. The founders who made the Original Constitution believed the best way to ensure that the state militias were provided with arms was to grant Congress the power to provide arms to the militias. To protect against Congress neglecting to arm the state militias, the best safeguard would be to grant the states the right to arm their own militias, if Congress neglects to do so.

    For several reasons, an individual right to keep and bear arms wouldn't be the best way to ensure that the militia was armed. For example, the individuals would have no duty to keep the type of arms a well regulated militia would need.
     
  2. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    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.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


    Seems pretty clear to me.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2008
  3. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    Under the Original Constitution, the power to arm the state militias was delegated to Congress. Therefore, the power wasn't reserved to the states or the people.

    The Second Amendment may have been meant to give the states the power to arm their own militias, if Congress neglected to arm them. However, the Second Amendment is so ambiguous it could mean a lot of things.

    I say, just apply the rules of legal interpretation and be done with it.
     
  4. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    You cannot have it both ways. If you think the second amendment only grants the central government the power to arm militias (whatever) you can in no way believe that it also gives the central government the power to disarm citizens. (DC)
     
  5. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    I think I can get into our founding father's heads regarding the 2nd amendment.

    John Adams: “Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."452
    "Here, every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offense..."

    James Madison: “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...[where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

    Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be armed ... . Everyone who is able may have a gun."

    Samuel Adams: "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

    Thomas Paine: "Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order..."

    Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

    Timothy Dwight, Army Chaplain during the American Revolution: "To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defense of themselves and their country."

    Enjoy!
     
  6. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    It gives the states the power to arm their own militias, if Congress drops the ball.
     
  7. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    None of those dudes had anything to do with making the Second Amendment.
     
  8. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    That's a bogus quotation, dude, or at least it's been taken out of context and doctored up.
     
  9. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    RE: Evidence that the founders didn't expect the members of the miltia to provide their own arms.


    The town shall at the expense of the town, shall provide for, and furnish the militia with arms and equipment, which shall remain the property of the town.

    --An act for regulating and governing the Militia of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed June 1793
     
  10. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member


    Prove it...dude.
     
  11. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    Origins of the 2nd amendment:
    Before the United States Constitution or Bill of Rights existed, most of the 13 original states had clauses in their constitutions protecting the right to keep and bear arms. When the time came for Congress to draft the Bill of Rights, states submitted clauses from their constitutions that they thought should be added to the Federal Bill of Rights.
    Three predominant arms clauses existed at that time (many states had word-for-word copies from other state constitutions, and the redundant versions are not mentioned herein.)

    Pennsylvania (1776): That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. (Simplified in 1790 to read “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”)

    Vermont (1777): That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

    Massachusetts (1780): The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

    North Carolina (1776): That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
    We can see in these state constitution clauses the conjoined purposes as viewed by the people at the time the 2nd Amendment was drafted.

    Five states that ratified the Constitution sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. The relevant parts of these written demands are:

    New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

    Virginia: … Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

    New York: ... That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.

    North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms."

    Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.
     
  12. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member


    Oh, so James Madison had nothing to do with the creation of the bill of rights? Let me educate you.

    James Madison had the duty of drafting the Bill of Rights from proposed amendments submitted by the states, and most coming from state constitutions. The Bill of Rights went through several revisions. The initial version of the 2nd Amendment read as follows:

    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.

    The second drafting of the 2nd Amendment saw a rearrangement of the justification and rights clauses, but no change in the intents and purposes therein:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

    Notice that in the original draft, Madison used the phrase “free country” as the object of what is protected by the militia. In subsequent drafts, the word “state” was substituted. This is important because the concept the “state” and “country” are interchangeable, whereas “states” (plural) and “country” are not. Throughout the rest of the Constitution, when the states and their powers were defined, the plural was always used but in the 2nd Amendment it was not. Clearly, the intent of militia protection defined in the 2nd Amendment was to protect a form of government, not define the power of the several states.
    Four further revisions removed objectionable concepts (such as the “conscientious objector” clause). On September 9, 1789, a member of the Senate proposed adding "for the common defense" onto the draft of the Second Amendment. In other words, the proposed wording of the amendment would have read:

    A well regulated militia being the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear arms for the common defense, shall not be infringed.
     
  13. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    You don't even know where it came from. You're a joke, dude.
     
  14. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    In 1789, Constitution's weren't interpreted by examining their origins. They were construed by applying the well established common law rules of legal interpretation.
     
  15. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    In 1789, Constitutions weren't interpreted according to who had something to do with their creation. They were construed by applying the rules of legal interpretation.
     
  16. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member


    Attacking me because you cannot defend your BS argument doesn't help your cause.

    You want more proof that I am right? Here you go:

    The Dick Act of 1903 designated the National Guard as the "organized militia" and that all other citizens were the "unorganized militia" – thus the National Guard is only part of the militia, and the whole militia is composed of the population at large. Before 1903, the National Guard had no federal definition as part of the militia at all.

    Enjoy!
     
  17. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    The Second Amendment doesn't even use the term "whole militia", dude.
     
  18. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    Its implied...dude.
     
  19. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    Like I said, the term used in the Second Amendment is "well regulated militia." A well regulated militia is organized, well armed and well trained according to a good system of military discipline. Congress, in the Original Constitution, was granted power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia. See Article One Section Eight.


     
  20. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    The origin of the phrase "a well regulated militia" comes from a 1698 treatise "A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias" by Andrew Fletcher, in which the term "well regulated" was equated with "well-behaved" or "disciplined".