History 101: Why the 2nd Amendment?

[Bok Tuklo]

True, when those “rights” are unstated in the constitution they can more easily become state issued privileges, as we see with the “gun control” proponents who wish to convert our 2A rights into mere state issued privileges - that’s much harder to do with rights stated in (protected by?) the constitution.

Stated or unstated. It doesn't matter. They brushed aside section 3 of the 14th Amendment. They have stripped the vote from Electors. They have legalized bribery. They pulled Executive immunity straight out of their ass.

"Rights" are the whims of 5 (for now) people in black robes on any given day and they may change their minds tomorrow.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Stated or unstated. It doesn't matter. They brushed aside section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

They did no such thing, they simply recognized (obeyed?) Section 5 of the 14A.

They have stripped the vote from Electors. They have legalized bribery. They pulled Executive immunity straight out of their ass.

"Rights" are the whims of 5 (for now) people in black robes on any given day and they may change their minds tomorrow.

The SCOTUS works in mysterious ways.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

They did no such thing, they simply recognized (obeyed?) Section 5 of the 14A.

Yes, I know you liked that they did so.

The SCOTUS works in mysterious ways.

There is no mystery.

 

[JMB1911A1]

As this Court has shown, Constitutional amendments are unnecessary.

"Rights" given can be taken away on a whim.

No constitutional rights have been taken away.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, I know you liked that they did so.



There is no mystery.

Yes, I know you didn’t some decisions, but liked others.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

No constitutional rights have been taken away.

Of course not. They aren't constitutional rights any longer.

Sort of a tautology on your part but okay.

 

[Rich2018]

The 2nd Amendment gives one and only one justification for people to keep & bear arms - the maintenance of a militia.

 

[JMB1911A1]

The 2nd Amendment gives one and only one justification for people to keep & bear arms - the maintenance of a militia.

No it doesn't because the 2A doesn't grant any rights. It prevents infringement on the rights of the people by the government.

 

[Rich2018]

No it doesn't because the 2A doesn't grant any rights. It prevents infringement on the rights of the people by the government.

Read it, it does.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Read it, it does.

You would fail the citizenship test.

The preamble to the BoR.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Misconstruction or abuse of whose powers? The new Federal government.
Declaratory or restrictive phrases acting on who? The new Federal government.

The Bill of Rights did NOT grant any rights. It was specifically put in place to prevent the new Federal government from infringing on existing rights. We then had to extend those protections of our right from state government interference in the 14A.

 

[rahl]

The 2nd Amendment gives one and only one justification for people to keep & bear arms - the maintenance of a militia.

No it doesn’t

 

[Rich2018]

You would fail the citizenship test.

But not an English test

Not interested in the inadequacies of the USA's citizen test.

 

[JMB1911A1]

But not an English test

Not interested in the inadequacies of the USA's citizen test.

Once again with the dishonest quotes.

If you cannot understand why we have the Bill of Rights, then arguing about it just reveals the lack of knowledge in your argument.

 

[Rich2018]

Once again with the dishonest quotes.

What quotes
Or is the problem that you just don't know what a quote is ?

If you cannot understand why we have the Bill of Rights, then arguing about it just reveals the lack of knowledge in your argument.

I cannot understand why you regard it like evangelists regard the Ten Commandments
It's as if you view it as the word of god and not that of a group of middle-aged, white, male, property owners some 230 years ago.

 

[JMB1911A1]

What quotes
Or is the problem that you just don't know what a quote is ?

You selectively edited my quote. I have never done so when I quote you.

I cannot understand why you regard it like evangelists regard the Ten Commandments
It's as if you view it as the word of god and not that of a group of middle-aged, white, male, property owners some 230 years ago.

 

[CLAX1911]

Read it, it does.

It's specifically says that right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed it doesn't Grant a right no words on any paper in the history of humanity has ever granted a right.

If you read the declaration of Independence you will see what grants rights.

 

[RF667799]

"Slave codes" back up your argument. Guns were viewed as property rights, just like other property from my understanding.

If the intent was that man could own guns, black people would have been included. Since they were not, it proves guns as property only, not a "gun" right for all citizens, but a property right in which blacks could not.

Virginia enacted a statute that led to a total gun ban for free Mulattos, Negroes and Indians. In 1712, the statute was revised, calling for a total gun ban for Negroes to prevent insurrections, according to “Laws Designed to Disarm Slaves Freedmen, and African Americans,” a research paper.

In 1792, blacks were excluded from joining the militia, which was created under the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The militia was limited to able-bodied white men between 18 and 45.

Other states enacted similar laws. In Florida, homes of slaves and free blacks were searched for guns. If a gun was found, it was confiscated.

In 1828, Florida said free blacks could carry guns if they had court permission. It wasn’t until the Civil War that black men who fought for the Union Army were free to carrying guns.

Prohibitions against blacks owning guns continues to crop up.

In 1968, Congress passed the Gun Control Act. Robert Sherrill, a supporter, said the legislation was passed not to control guns but to control blacks.

Gun control historically has meant prohibiting blacks from owning one

Since the massacre of students at a Parkland, Florida, high school, the airways have been buzzing with talk about gun control—making it tougher through state and local laws for individuals to own a gun. In today’s world, gun control may mean the same thing to blacks and whites, but that hasn’t...

theatlantavoice.com

Thankfully Heller opened up gun ownership to all, and rid us of the racial discriminating laws related to gun ownership. Now, there are still some personal issues with this, with regards to some people, but, Heller did help clear up legal ownership.

Thanks for the historical lesson on how gun control has so often been a tool of oppression and bigotry.

 

[RF667799]

You selectively edited my quote. I have never done so when I quote you.

At least this time he didn't actually change your words into other words.

 

[CLAX1911]

Thanks for the historical lesson on how gun control has so often been a tool of oppression and bigotry.

Look into the Cruikshank decision.

 

[Noodlegawd]

My point is, as you will see,....

I doubt it. I assume you thought we would "see" something based on your other two threads, but you fell far short of making us see anything other than the fact that you fell far short.

Bottom line: an individual right to own weapons was simply not addressed in the 2nd A . It wasn't in the debates in Congress, it wasn't mentioned (other than explained above), it simply wasn't an issue they paid ANY attention to. They didn't feel the need.

Except for that whole "right of the people" thing.

 

[Rich2018]

You selectively edited my quote. I have never done so when I quote you.

I just quoted the part I wished to reply to

By all means if you thing the meaning of your post was changed. Please elaborate.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Very well stated. And quite above the heads of most gun proponents. They have their long standing beliefs. Showing them bothersome facts and history is not going to change them. They will believe what they want to believe.

Connecting "the people's right to keep and bear arms" to "the militia's mission of repelling foreign invasions" means that we all have the right to have machine guns with armor piercing ammo.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As this Court has shown, Constitutional amendments are unnecessary.
"Rights" given can be taken away on a whim.

They showed the exact opposite of what you describe. They have adhered to the letter of the Constitution.

Stated or unstated. It doesn't matter. They brushed aside section 3 of the 14th Amendment. They have stripped the vote from Electors. They have legalized bribery. They pulled Executive immunity straight out of their ass.
"Rights" are the whims of 5 (for now) people in black robes on any given day and they may change their minds tomorrow.

That is incorrect. All they have done is uphold the letter of the Constitution.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed! After all, it's the "translation" that matters, not what's written in the constitution. It's as vague as the Bible for a reason.

That is incorrect. There is nothing even remotely vague about the writing of the Constitution.

The leftist position that it is okay to pretend that the Constitution says something that it doesn't, is nonsense.

 

[rahl]

I just quoted the part I wished to reply to

By all means if you thing the meaning of your post was changed. Please elaborate.

You edit out the portions of posts which directly address and refute your point in an attempt to fool others into thinking you haven’t been refuted. You also make a post, copy it, then delete that post and make a new post and paste your initial reply in some hilariously pathetic attempt to be the last to post in a thread. You’ve been caught doing this dozens of times by numerous posts. It’s ****ing hilarious

 

[Ginger Ale]

That is incorrect. There is nothing even remotely vague about the writing of the Constitution.

The leftist position that it is okay to pretend that the Constitution says something that it doesn't, is nonsense.

I disagree, it's one reason we're having this convo. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be. Aside from a few diehards, most people realize the constitution is a living document, that's influenced by the judges that translate it. The 2nd is living proof of that.

An example of it being justice dependent. On June 28th, 2010, justice Alito rules in favor of individual gun rights, but at the same time, justice Stevens logic was that the 2nd did not apply to the states, and in his words if the constitution, if read properly, didn't' even apply to individuals outside of the militia context. Majority ruled here, and Alito framed the translation but, if there were more justices that held Stevens view, we'd be talking about something different right now.

It is interpreted. Why do you think Trumps so set on getting "his" justices in there, why is the left? And they're both promising all kinds of shit based on it. The right is fully aware of how vague that constitution is, and how party bias the court has become. Not even an argument here.

 

[natman]

3- It is NOT that an individual right to own arms doesn't exist. It does! At least for now. But that's thanks to the Heller decision. Not to the 2nd A as written. It was legislation passed by Scalia., but that will also be a different topic.

It's a popular myth that Heller changed everything and that Scalia invented a completely different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It didn't. Heller is consistent with SCOTUS' presentation of the 2nd spanning three different centuries:

[Citizens] enjoy rights which the "courts would be bound to maintain and enforce," including the rights "to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Scott v. Sandford, 1857 60 US 691, 705

"The people's right to bear arms, like the rights of assembly and petition, existed long before the Constitution, and is not "in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876 92 US 542, 553

"Individuals have a right to possess and use firearms for self-defense."
U.S. v. Beard, 1895 158 US 550

The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." .... US v Verdugo-Urquidez, 1990 paragraph 8

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
DC v. Heller, 2008 page1

But very little mention of an individual right to own weapons were in the discussions about the 2nd A. And in the few instances when there was, it was quickly dismissed. For instance, the minority anti-Federalists of Pennsylvania wanted to include "... for the defense of themselves and their own state, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."

It was not only voted down, it was ridiculed. During the debates, Noah Webster asked sarcastically why not add “...that Congress shall never restrain any inhabitant of America from eating and drinking, at seasonable times, or prevent his lying on his left side, in a long winter’s night, or even on his back, when he is fatigued by lying on his right.”

As usual, you've misinterpreted the source material. Noah Webster isn't ridiculing the idea of gun ownership; he's ridiculing the redundancy of having to mention something so obvious. In doing so, he underestimated the ability and willingness of modern anti gun rights advocates to twist and distort anything in their attempts to change history.