• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How The Second Amendment Was Reinterpreted To Protect Individual Rights....Less Than 50 Years Ago

RIP U.S. Democracy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 17, 2022
Messages
7,432
Reaction score
6,200
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
As I've stated repeatedly, nobody was talking about the Second Amendment being an unequivocal right to own guns until the late 1970s. So for the first 200 years of this country's history, no Republicans (or Democrats) were talking this stupid shit.

This is nothing but propaganda cooked-up by the NRA less than 50 years ago and it has brainwashed unsophisticated Republican goobers ever since, as this article explains. --

To counter calls for stricter gun laws in the wake of the massacre of elementary school students in Uvalde, Tex., Republican politicians cite the Second Amendment, saying that the government cannot infringe on people’s right to protect themselves, and that this is fundamental to preserving liberty.

“[R]arely has the Second Amendment been more necessary to secure the rights of our fellow citizens,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said at this year’s National Rifle Association convention, held in Houston days after the shooting.
But historians say that the notion that the amendment protects people’s right to have guns for self-defense is a relatively recent reading of the Constitution, born out of a conservative push in the 1980s and ’90s.


The text of the Second Amendment reads: “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 historical consensus is that, for most of American history, the amendment was understood to concern the use of guns in connection with militia service. The Founding Fathers were likely focused on keeping state militias from being disarmed, said Joseph Blocher, who specializes in the Second Amendment at Duke University’s law school.

“An individual’s right to use guns in self-defense is not expressly written in the Constitution,” said Reva Siegel, a law professor at Yale who has written prominent law review articles on the subject.

The interpretation that the Second Amendment extends to individuals’ rights to own guns only became mainstream in 2008,
when the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark gun case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, that Americans have a constitutional right to own guns in their homes, knocking down the District’s handgun ban.

“That was the first Supreme Court decision to strike down a gun-control law in constitutional history,” Siegel said — and at the time, the court’s reading was considered broad even to a number of conservatives.


In the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the “militia” phrase was merely a “preface” rather than part of its integral meaning. With the exception of felons, some people deemed to have serious mental illness, “sensitive places” such as schools or courthouses, or “dangerous weapons,” the Second Amendment allows regular people to own firearms in their homes, he argued.



And here is why all of the Republican Constitution "Originalist scholars" are so full of shit as well. --

More liberal and moderate justices like Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, advocating for the long-standing view that the amendment concerned the use of guns in connection with militia service.

It is “striking” that professed originalists of the constitution, like Scalia, would set aside such a major phrase in the constitution — about militias — in favor of a more modern-day interpretation, Siegel wrote in her paper.


 
As I've stated repeatedly, nobody was talking about the Second Amendment being an unequivocal right to own guns until the late 1970s. So for the first 200 years of this country's history, no Republicans (or Democrats) were talking this stupid shit.
SCOTUS was.

In US v Cruikshank,1876, SCOTUS recognized that "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The decision recognized the right of two former slaves to keep a bear arms, two men who were not in the militia, would not have been allowed to be in the militia, in a state where the militia had been disbanded.

Without the recognition of an individual right to keep and bear arms, Miller, whose entire appeal was based upon that right, would have no standing to have his case reviewed by SCOTUS.

There have been six major pieces of gun control legislation passed by Congress, all prior to Heller: NFA 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, Firearm Owners Protection Act (including the Hughes Amendment) of 1986, the Brady Act, the Assault Weapons Ban and the Lautenburg Amendment.


The word militia isn't mentioned a single time in any of them. The words "individual", "person" and "citizen" are repeated hundreds of times.


In 1982 the Senate published a bipartisan report entitled "the right to keep and bear arms report" that affirmed an individual rights viewpoint.

In 1990 in US v Verdugo-Urquidez SCOTUS affirmed: "...it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

The same state legislatures who ratified the 2nd Amendment ratified state constitutions affirming an individual right. Why do you keep ignoring this?
 
And here is why all of the Republican Constitution "Originalist scholars" are so full of shit as well. --




UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Rene Martin VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ

"The Fourth Amendment provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to "the people." Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy," Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. 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." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292, 24 S.Ct. 719, 723, 48 L.Ed. 979 (1904)

There is a distinctive lack of the word "militia" to be found in this decision which predates Heller by 28 years and the 1994 AWB by four years.

UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Rene Martin VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ




One addendum: "Justice STEVENS, concurring in the judgment."
 
SCOTUS was.


In US v Cruikshank,1876, SCOTUS recognized that "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The decision recognized the right of two former slaves to keep a bear arms, two men who were not in the militia, would not have been allowed to be in the militia, in a state where the militia had been disbanded.

Without the recognition of an individual right to keep and bear arms, Miller, whose entire appeal was based upon that right, would have no standing to have his case reviewed by SCOTUS.

There have been six major pieces of gun control legislation passed by Congress, all prior to Heller: NFA 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, Firearm Owners Protection Act (including the Hughes Amendment) of 1986, the Brady Act, the Assault Weapons Ban and the Lautenburg Amendment.


The word militia isn't mentioned a single time in any of them. The words "individual", "person" and "citizen" are repeated hundreds of times.


In 1982 the Senate published a bipartisan report entitled "the right to keep and bear arms report" that affirmed an individual rights viewpoint.

In 1990 in US v Verdugo-Urquidez SCOTUS affirmed: "...it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

The same state legislatures who ratified the 2nd Amendment ratified state constitutions affirming an individual right. Why do you keep ignoring this?

None of this refutes my point. There are all kinds of obscure Supreme Court cases that nobody remembers. In fact, the Second Amendment has been rarely addressed by the Supreme Court, compared to many other sections of the Constitution.

In fact, you are supporting my point -- you are pointing to laws that show that Congress DOES have the right to regulate guns.

And your first link doesn't work.

Here's the bottom line -- Nobody cared about the Second Amendment for the first 200 years of this country's history. It was one of the least mentioned rights in the Bill of Rights for the first 200 years of this country's history. None of the old-timers on this board were talking about the freaking Second Amendment in the 1960s and early 1970s.

All of the gun-obsessed zealots have been victims of NRA and Repug propaganda for the past 45 years. Sad, but true.
 
UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Rene Martin VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ

"The Fourth Amendment provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to "the people." Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy," Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. 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." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292, 24 S.Ct. 719, 723, 48 L.Ed. 979 (1904)

There is a distinctive lack of the word "militia" to be found in this decision which predates Heller by 28 years and the 1994 AWB by four years.

UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Rene Martin VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ




One addendum: "Justice STEVENS, concurring in the judgment."

As my first post states -- "militias"

And Antonio Scalia, a so-called "Constitutional Originalist", completely ignored that the main purpose of the Second Amendment was to address the forming of militias. This just shows what a hypocrite he was.
 
As I've stated repeatedly, nobody was talking about the Second Amendment being an unequivocal right to own guns until the late 1970s. So for the first 200 years of this country's history, no Republicans (or Democrats) were talking this stupid shit.

This is nothing but propaganda cooked-up by the NRA less than 50 years ago and it has brainwashed unsophisticated Republican goobers ever since, as this article explains. --





And here is why all of the Republican Constitution "Originalist scholars" are so full of shit as well. --





No individual rights existed until 1925, what's your point?
 
As I've stated repeatedly, nobody was talking about the Second Amendment being an unequivocal right to own guns until the late 1970s. So for the first 200 years of this country's history, no Republicans (or Democrats) were talking this stupid shit.

This is nothing but propaganda cooked-up by the NRA less than 50 years ago and it has brainwashed unsophisticated Republican goobers ever since, as this article explains. --





And here is why all of the Republican Constitution "Originalist scholars" are so full of shit as well. --




Because mass shootings were extremely rare and the liberals didn't start taking over the joint till the 1960s. JFK was among the last conservative democrats
 
None of this refutes my point. There are all kinds of obscure Supreme Court cases that nobody remembers.

Is this one of those instances where you write thing but meant another, where "nobody remembers" means "I didn't know about it"?

In fact, the Second Amendment has been rarely addressed by the Supreme Court, compared to many other sections of the Constitution.
Which means nothing.
In fact, you are supporting my point -- you are pointing to laws that show that Congress DOES have the right to regulate guns.
But not just willy-nilly. Do you acknowledge that classes of bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment?
And your first link doesn't work.
Weird, it worked for me twice. Try copy/paste instead of click.

Here's the bottom line -- Nobody cared about the Second Amendment for the first 200 years of this country's history. It was one of the least mentioned rights in the Bill of Rights for the first 200 years of this country's history. None of the old-timers on this board were talking about the freaking Second Amendment in the 1960s and early 1970s.
Still doesn't mean anything.
All of the gun-obsessed zealots have been victims of NRA and Repug propaganda for the past 45 years. Sad, but true.
You can believe what you want. If the Constitution and SCOTUS decisions are "NRA propaganda", that doesn't leave you much to work with, does it?
 
As my first post states -- "militias"

And Antonio Scalia, a so-called "Constitutional Originalist", completely ignored that the main purpose of the Second Amendment was to address the forming of militias. This just shows what a hypocrite he was.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 and Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution gave the government everything they needed to "organize, arm and discipline" militias. The Bill of Rights didn't create any governmental powers; it was simply a restriction of the powers of government.
 
kinda reminds one of how many things have changed from their origin...



Bellamy's original Pledge read:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
 
As I've stated repeatedly, nobody was talking about the Second Amendment being an unequivocal right to own guns until the late 1970s. So for the first 200 years of this country's history, no Republicans (or Democrats) were talking this stupid shit.
And yet gun ownership was wide-spread.

[/QUOTE]
And yet gun ownership was widespread during that entire time, wasn't it.
This is nothing but propaganda cooked-up by the NRA less than 50 years ago and it has brainwashed unsophisticated Republican goobers ever since, as this article explains. --
Not even close.
And here is why all of the Republican Constitution "Originalist scholars" are so full of shit as well. --




LOL, the Wa Poo? An opinion piece?
 
Because mass shootings were extremely rare and the liberals didn't start taking over the joint till the 1960s. JFK was among the last conservative democrats

You're wrong about that as well. There was no difference between the Democrats and Republicans on gun control in the 1960s and most of the 1970s.

Both Reagan and Nixon favored the 1968 Gun Control Act. The NRA supported it as well, before they became a white supremacist organization.

As I've stated, everything changed in the late 1970s. That is when the NRA Second Amendment propaganda garbage started, under the leadership of a convicted murderer named Harlan Bronson Carter.
 
You're wrong about that as well. There was no difference between the Democrats and Republicans on gun control in the 1960s and most of the 1970s.

Both Reagan and Nixon favored the 1968 Gun Control Act. The NRA supported it as well, before they became a white supremacist organization.

As I've stated, everything changed in the late 1970s. That is when the NRA Second Amendment propaganda garbage started, under the leadership of a convicted murderer named Harlan Bronson Carter.
I am almost never wrong, the gun control laws was racist and to destroy the black panthers. Reagan was a Democrat back then

( didn't I already school you on this already)
 
And yet gun ownership was widespread during that entire time, wasn't it.
And both Democrats and Republicans supported gun control. So you can't explain how the Republicans became a bunch of gun-obsessed lunatics.

Well, I can explain it --- the White Power NRA and the Republican Party in the late 1970s didn't like the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, or the gay rights movement.
 
You're wrong about that as well. There was no difference between the Democrats and Republicans on gun control in the 1960s and most of the 1970s.

Both Reagan and Nixon favored the 1968 Gun Control Act. The NRA supported it as well, before they became a white supremacist organization.

As I've stated, everything changed in the late 1970s. That is when the NRA Second Amendment propaganda garbage started, under the leadership of a convicted murderer named Harlan Bronson Carter.
Wasn't that about the time some folks started trying to ban handguns?
 
I am almost never wrong, the gun control laws was racist and to destroy the black panthers and Reagan was a Democrat back then

( didn't I already school you on this already)
Nope. You did no such thing.

Reagan was the REPUBLICAN governor of CA, elected in 1966. LOL, you simply know nothing.

The gun rights movement became a white man's movement in the late 1970s, regardless of what the Black Panthers did in the 1960s.

It was a white man's movement...in response to the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, and the gay rights movement.
 
And both Democrats and Republicans supported gun control.
Until Dems went off the cliff.
So you can't explain how the Republicans became a bunch of gun-obsessed lunatics.
They didn't. You've been lied to.
Well, I can explain it --- the White Power NRA and the Republican Party in the late 1970s didn't like the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, or the gay rights movement.
Total nonsense. Do you know greater percentages of Republicans voted for Voting Rights Act AND Civil Rights Act then Dems? Dems are the party of racism, dude.
 
Nope. You did no such thing.

Reagan was the REPUBLICAN governor of CA, elected in 1966. LOL, you simply know nothing.

The gun rights movement became a white man's movement in the late 1970s, regardless of what the Black Panthers did in the 1960s.

It was a white man's movement...in response to the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, and the gay rights movement.

Nope the 1968 guns laws was racist and anti women to the core
 
Wasn't that about the time some folks started trying to ban handguns?

What "folks"? You mean both Republicans and Democrats? Nixon wanted to ban handguns as President in the early 1970s.

So what did the Democrats "do" to turn the NRA against them?.....Well, I already told you. And it had NOTHING to do with guns.
 
Nope the 1968 guns laws was racist and anti women to the core

For argument's sake, let's just roll with your bullshit....both Democrats and Republicans and the NRA supported your "racist" 1968 gun law.
 
Until Dems went off the cliff.
When? What did the Democrats do in the late 1970s to turn the NRA against them?

You can't name ANYTHING related to guns.

Total nonsense. Do you know greater percentages of Republicans voted for Voting Rights Act AND Civil Rights Act then Dems? Dems are the party of racism, dude.
More lies. That is why 90% of African Americans started voting for Democrats in the late 1960s/early 1970s.
 
And both Democrats and Republicans

All Republicans?
supported gun control.
All gun control, or just the terms in GCA 1968? 49 of 53 Republican senators and 161 Republican Congressmen voted for FOPA 1986 which removed some of the restrictions from GCA 1934.

So you can't explain how the Republicans became a bunch of gun-obsessed lunatics.

Well, I can explain it --- the White Power NRA and the Republican Party in the late 1970s didn't like the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, or the gay rights movement.
Or bans on handguns.
 
Nope. You did no such thing.

Reagan was the REPUBLICAN governor of CA, elected in 1966. LOL, you simply know nothing.

The gun rights movement became a white man's movement in the late 1970s, regardless of what the Black Panthers did in the 1960s.

It was a white man's movement...in response to the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, and the gay rights movement.

Tell them about the racist gun control that Reagan supported during his tenure as governor. Then tell 'em again how the GOP and Dems were united on gun control.
 
As my first post states -- "militias"

And Antonio Scalia, a so-called Constitutional Originalist, completely ignored that the main purpose of the Second Amendment was to address the forming of militias. This just shows what a hypocrite he was.

We know he does not act professionally on the court - which should be no surprise for someone nominated by a Republican President.
 
Back
Top Bottom