The Second Amendment ONLY applies to Americans in the military (full-time or reserves)

[TurtleDude]

I think a musket-wielding jimmy madison would've looked at tommy jefferson after the Vegas Massacre and said ... "I phucked up bigly on that 2a, tommy."

I don't think there is even a remote shred of reality in that bullshit

 

[TurtleDude]

I hope it doesn't keep you up nights.

The way many gun owners vote is what probably gives him the heebie jeebies

 

[iguanaman]

I can't believe people believe the pro-2A group has the power they have because of gun lobbyists. No one supports the 2A because they might get some financial support. They support the 2A and then some may get financial support because of their position.

Yes and your poop smells like roses too.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

But also the idea that States need their old militias to protect their freedom, is quite obsolete.

Perceived "need" isn't why the Founding Fathers supported the militia. They could have set up a large standing army from the very beginning if they had wanted to.

They supported the militia because they preferred it over a standing army.

I don't think that militias are necessarily obsolete. Switzerland does quite well with their militia.

The connection must be there since they're one sentence,

There is a connection. But it is not because of there being one sentence. That actually doesn't matter.

The connection is that the right to keep and bear arms has always been about people being allowed to have militia-appropriate weapons and become proficient with them (and privately defend their homes with them if necessary).

but the dream of militias being called up only when needed never was a good one. Imagine trying to command a modern military without standardized encrypted communications, it would be a shemozzle.

The militia system seems to work OK in Switzerland. Why couldn't the government set up something like the Swiss militia to give the nation an extra layer of defense?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

I think a musket-wielding jimmy madison would've looked at tommy jefferson after the Vegas Massacre and said ... "I phucked up bigly on that 2a, tommy."

None of the Founding Fathers would ever have regretted protecting freedom.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

None of the Founding Fathers would ever have regretted protecting freedom.

Do you dream for an instant that they meant for slaves to have the right to guns?

"The people" was a euphemism for "white men" and all the high estimations of the Founding Fathers have to be read in this light.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Perceived "need" isn't why the Founding Fathers supported the militia. They could have set up a large standing army from the very beginning if they had wanted to.

They supported the militia because they preferred it over a standing army.

I don't think that militias are necessarily obsolete. Switzerland does quite well with their militia.

Switzerland faces no external threats. The last time they faced a threat (from the Nazis) they bought the invaders off instead of fighting.

There is a connection. But it is not because of there being one sentence. That actually doesn't matter.

Didn't you pay attention before? The amendments are VERY carefully written. Two separate rights (a state power and an individual right) are bundled in one sentence for a reason.

You may not agree with my reason (which is that effective military weapons be included in the individual right) but you can't just dismiss the connection as poor writing style on behalf of the Founders.

The connection is that the right to keep and bear arms has always been about people being allowed to have militia-appropriate weapons and become proficient with them (and privately defend their homes with them if necessary).

No problem with that. There's a part of me which thinks "damn the consequences, let's have consistency for better or worse." Let the people drive their tanks on the public roads, let them fly their armed warplanes, let them cut loose with chemical and nuclear weapons when their girlfriends run off with some other guy. The people would finally see the folly of extending state and federal powers to individuals, and repeal that silly amendment.

The militia system seems to work OK in Switzerland. Why couldn't the government set up something like the Swiss militia to give the nation an extra layer of defense?

Switzerland faces no external threats. It simply does not matter how good their militia is.

 

[pinqy]

I think the original wording is just fine.



That changes the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The changed meaning is all right from a gun rights perspective. It would still mean that the general populace has the right to have military weapons. But it is still different from the original meaning of the Second Amendment.

Except the first draft of the 2A 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.”

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

Ever here of criminals? You think they care about whether the law allows then to have guns.

You do realize I'm pro Second amendment, right?

Militias are bogeyman stories to keep low info libs in line.

The second amendment states very clearly ""the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". Which part don't you understand?

 

[natman]

The amendments are VERY carefully written. Two separate rights (a state power and an individual right) are bundled in one sentence for a reason.

There is no "state power" bundled into the Second Amendment, certainly not in any way that changes the meaning of the 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.

Part one, the prefatory clause:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
The authors thought that a militia was necessary to the security of a free state.

Part two: the objective clause:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In order to have a militia, it's necessary for THE PEOPLE to be able to keep and bear arms.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose, why the right protected by the objective clause is important.
But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause [DC v Heller, page 4]

The objective clause states quite clearly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Note that there is zero, zip, nada that makes the objective clause dependent on the prefatory clause. No "only when". No "ifs, ands or buts." This is exactly what SCOTUS concluded in DC v Heller. They were right.

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” [DC v Heller, page 3]

For more detail, see here.

 

[Rich2018]

The Second Amendment continues to protect our fundamental civil liberties

Absolute BS

What protects civil liberties in the UK and Japan ?
Can you cite an example of privately owned guns protecting civil liberties* - MLK wasn't "packing" was he ?

Your schooling was in error. Neither authorizes gun control

The government has the right to restrict guns based on:

1. The right to regulate inter-state commerce
2. The duty to establish general welfare and common defense

All that clause does is allow the government to collect taxes

Taxing people hardly promotes welfare, spending those taxes does

Said nonsense was fabricated by FDR to undermine the Constitution

I think you'll find that this "interstate commerce nonsense" was actually part of the original Constitution

So in other words, it is military weapons that the people have the right to have

Specifically the SAME (or very similar) kinds of weapons - re-supply and everything

The first part of the Second Amendment is a requirement that the government always maintain a well-regulated militia

It was to allow state governments to do that...and the bit about arms was to ensure it

Plenty of people disagree with you on the need for a militia.

I think having a well regulated militia would be a good thing. The Swiss have one.

No they (the Swiss) don't. They have an army reserve (adult males between two specific ages as defined by Swiss law) - the weapons and equipment are supplied by the national government
The ONLY difference is that the Swiss allow army reservists store their issued guns and ammunition at home with the rest of their personal military equipment

You obviously do not know what a militia is.

That is incorrect. Even if there was no need for a militia, people would still have the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.

There ***IS*** no need of a militia
Therefore there is no need for a right to a gun

Guns are NOT needed for private defense, as proven by the majority of Americans who don't have a gun and pretty much every other country in the world, not actually in a war zone.

That is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms has been around for thousands of years.

Yeah, but we've developed as a species since the days of Barbarism, thousands of years ago
If legal practices from "thousands" of years ago, matter to you so much, are you in favor of slavery or stoning to death for adultary ?

The right to own and keep slaves existed for "thousands of years".

They used to.

Unfortunately they decided to abolish freedom in the UK. But it was not always that way.

I take it you have never been to the UK
The UK stood up against Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler. It endured the blitz and fought WWII alone for a period
"Abolished freedom"? You don't have the first clue of what you're talking about

Freedom will never be obsolete in America.

Or in the UK
Just that the British don't buy into the lie that (privately owned) guns are necessary to preserve it.

That is incorrect. Even without the militia, people still have the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes

So says the Supreme Court
But it was wrong and its ruling was NOT unanimous

And the demise of the militia does not mean that militias are obsolete. It merely means that we need to bring back the militia

No it doesn't - that's why we have a military - you know full time professionals with the latest equipment etc
The militia is an obsolete relic of the 18th century, as is the Second Amendment

Being heritage does not mean that freedom is not real

Of course freedom is real
But as we've established, you don't know what freedom is

The origins of the right to keep and bear arms is lost to history

The transition from the Age of Savagery to the Age of Barbarism

Tribes grew up in fixed locations and developed weapons to defend against other tribes

As I said, we've come on a bit, as a species, since then

 

[RF667799]

[QUOTE="Rich2018, post: 1075803843, member:

I take it you have never been to the UK
The UK stood up against Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler. It endured the blitz and fought WWII alone for a period

Yes, we know. We sent you guns.

 

[RF667799]

Absolute BS

What protects civil liberties in the UK and Japan ?
Can you cite an example of privately owned guns protecting civil liberties* - MLK wasn't "packing" was he ?



The government has the right to restrict guns based on:

1. The right to regulate inter-state commerce
2. The duty to establish general welfare and common defense



Taxing people hardly promotes welfare, spending those taxes does



I think you'll find that this "interstate commerce nonsense" was actually part of the original Constitution



Specifically the SAME (or very similar) kinds of weapons - re-supply and everything



It was to allow state governments to do that...and the bit about arms was to ensure it



No they (the Swiss) don't. They have an army reserve (adult males between two specific ages as defined by Swiss law) - the weapons and equipment are supplied by the national government
The ONLY difference is that the Swiss allow army reservists store their issued guns and ammunition at home with the rest of their personal military equipment

You obviously do not know what a militia is.



There ***IS*** no need of a militia
Therefore there is no need for a right to a gun

Guns are NOT needed for private defense, as proven by the majority of Americans who don't have a gun and pretty much every other country in the world, not actually in a war zone.



Yeah, but we've developed as a species since the days of Barbarism, thousands of years ago
If legal practices from "thousands" of years ago, matter to you so much, are you in favor of slavery or stoning to death for adultary ?

The right to own and keep slaves existed for "thousands of years".



I take it you have never been to the UK
The UK stood up against Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler. It endured the blitz and fought WWII alone for a period
"Abolished freedom"? You don't have the first clue of what you're talking about



Or in the UK
Just that the British don't buy into the lie that (privately owned) guns are necessary to preserve it.



So says the Supreme Court
But it was wrong and its ruling was NOT unanimous



No it doesn't - that's why we have a military - you know full time professionals with the latest equipment etc
The militia is an obsolete relic of the 18th century, as is the Second Amendment



Of course freedom is real
But as we've established, you don't know what freedom is



The transition from the Age of Savagery to the Age of Barbarism

Tribes grew up in fixed locations and developed weapons to defend against other tribes

As I said, we've come on a bit, as a species, since then

Guns are NOT needed for private defense, as proven by the majority of Americans who don't have a gun..."

Fire extinguishers are unnecessary, as proven by the majority of Americans who don't have one...

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Guns are NOT needed for private defense, as proven by the majority of Americans who don't have a gun..."

Fire extinguishers are unnecessary, as proven by the majority of Americans who don't have one...

If people who feel particularly threatened are more likely to buy a gun, then you have a race to the bottom. Because being involved in other crimes is a huge cause of insecurity: the law won't protect you without also prosecuting you, so you have to defend yourself.

The gun owner's dream of everyone having a gun is actually a nightmare. Ghetto USA.

 

[Rich2018]

If people who feel particularly threatened are more likely to buy a gun, then you have a race to the bottom. Because being involved in other crimes is a huge cause of insecurity: the law won't protect you without also prosecuting you, so you have to defend yourself.

The gun owner's dream of everyone having a gun is actually a nightmare. Ghetto USA.

It's a wet dream until they get shot by one.

 

[RF667799]

If people who feel particularly threatened are more likely to buy a gun, then you have a race to the bottom. Because being involved in other crimes is a huge cause of insecurity: the law won't protect you without also prosecuting you, so you have to defend yourself.

The gun owner's dream of everyone having a gun is actually a nightmare. Ghetto USA.

I'm a gun owner, and I don't dream that everyone own a gun.

The problem with guns in "the ghetto" is not that there are so many of them. Do you have evidence of their per capita possession being so much higher there? Even if everyone in "the ghetto" owns a gun, it is still obviously a small minority of the citizens there causing problems with their guns.

 

[Bullseye]

You do realize I'm pro Second amendment, right?

Not sure how that applies to the post I responded to.

The second amendment states very clearly ""the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". Which part don't you understand?

I understand it all. I also understand there are volumes of laws clarifying those words.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Absolute BS

Not at all. The Second Amendment does protect our civil liberties.

What protects civil liberties in the UK and Japan ?

Nothing does.

Neither country is free.

Can you cite an example of privately owned guns protecting civil liberties* - MLK wasn't "packing" was he ?

You have that all twisted around and backwards. It is our civil liberties that protect our guns.

The government has the right to restrict guns based on:
1. The right to regulate inter-state commerce
2. The duty to establish general welfare and common defense

That is incorrect. Neither authorizes the government to restrict guns.

Taxing people hardly promotes welfare, spending those taxes does

Agreed.

I think you'll find that this "interstate commerce nonsense" was actually part of the original Constitution

It was not. FDR concocted it to undermine the Constitution.

Specifically the SAME (or very similar) kinds of weapons - re-supply and everything

Agreed.

It was to allow state governments to do that...and the bit about arms was to ensure it

I see the first half of the Second Amendment as mandating that the feds do their part in upholding the militia as well.

But that's probably a minor quibble.

No they (the Swiss) don't. They have an army reserve (adult males between two specific ages as defined by Swiss law) - the weapons and equipment are supplied by the national government
The ONLY difference is that the Swiss allow army reservists store their issued guns and ammunition at home with the rest of their personal military equipment
You obviously do not know what a militia is.

How is "what the Swiss have" not a militia?

What part of their system does not conform to the definition of the term militia?

There ***IS*** no need of a militia
Therefore there is no need for a right to a gun
Guns are NOT needed for private defense, as proven by the majority of Americans who don't have a gun and pretty much every other country in the world, not actually in a war zone.

All this talk about "need" is thinking like a British serf.

Break out of that mindset. Need is irrelevant when it comes to the rights of free people.

There ***IS*** no need of a militia

There doesn't have to be a need. The Founding Fathers said we have to have one.

Therefore there is no need for a right to a gun

There doesn't have to be a need. Free people have the right to have guns.

Guns are NOT needed for private defense, as proven by the majority of Americans who don't have a gun and pretty much every other country in the world, not actually in a war zone.

There doesn't have to be a need. Free people have the right to use their guns for the private defense of their homes.

continued (5000 word limit)

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Yeah, but we've developed as a species since the days of Barbarism, thousands of years ago
If legal practices from "thousands" of years ago, matter to you so much, are you in favor of slavery or stoning to death for adultary ?
The right to own and keep slaves existed for "thousands of years".

Freedom is just as valuable today as it was thousands of years ago.

I take it you have never been to the UK
The UK stood up against Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler. It endured the blitz and fought WWII alone for a period
"Abolished freedom"? You don't have the first clue of what you're talking about

I know exactly what I am talking about. The UK have abolished their freedom.

Or in the UK

Well, I'll agree that the concept of freedom isn't obsolete in the UK. But the fact remains that freedom no longer exists in the UK.

Just that the British don't buy into the lie that (privately owned) guns are necessary to preserve it.

You have that all twisted around and backwards. It is our civil liberties that protect our guns.

So says the Supreme Court
But it was wrong and its ruling was NOT unanimous

So in other words, it is important to vote for Republicans (both pro-Trump and anti-Trump) in every election, because progressives mean to abolish freedom in America if they are given a chance to do so.

No it doesn't - that's why we have a military - you know full time professionals with the latest equipment etc

The Founding Fathers overrule you. They say we have to have a militia.

The militia is an obsolete relic of the 18th century,

The example of the Swiss says otherwise.

as is the Second Amendment

Freedom will never be obsolete.

Of course freedom is real
But as we've established, you don't know what freedom is

I know exactly what freedom is, and it includes the right to keep and bear arms.

The transition from the Age of Savagery to the Age of Barbarism
Tribes grew up in fixed locations and developed weapons to defend against other tribes
As I said, we've come on a bit, as a species, since then

Freedom is just as valuable today as it was back then.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Switzerland faces no external threats. The last time they faced a threat (from the Nazis) they bought the invaders off instead of fighting.
Switzerland faces no external threats. It simply does not matter how good their militia is.

But their militia does seem to be a competent military force. It provides a model for how a militia can still work in today's society.

Didn't you pay attention before? The amendments are VERY carefully written. Two separate rights (a state power and an individual right) are bundled in one sentence for a reason.
You may not agree with my reason (which is that effective military weapons be included in the individual right) but you can't just dismiss the connection as poor writing style on behalf of the Founders.

I see no significance to putting both rights in the same amendment beyond the fact that they both deal with weaponry.

I do agree that the individual right includes effective military weapons, just not for the reason of grammar or for the reason of the location of the clauses being next to each other.

The Second Amendment does not actually create or define the right to keep and bear arms (which existed long before this country was created). Rather, the Second Amendment protects a preexisting right from infringement.

If you look to the history of the right in England, it was always about the people having infantry weapons, practicing and being proficient with them, and using them for the private defense of their own homes.

No problem with that. There's a part of me which thinks "damn the consequences, let's have consistency for better or worse." Let the people drive their tanks on the public roads, let them fly their armed warplanes, let them cut loose with chemical and nuclear weapons when their girlfriends run off with some other guy. The people would finally see the folly of extending state and federal powers to individuals, and repeal that silly amendment.

The right to have infantry weapons isn't really a state or federal power.

It won't extend to nuclear weapons. It would cover things that an individual soldier would carry on the battlefield. Things like grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.

And at the moment, the courts are not even extending the right to cover infantry weapons. Heller is focused on the sorts of weapons that are appropriate for private self defense.

Do you dream for an instant that they meant for slaves to have the right to guns?
"The people" was a euphemism for "white men" and all the high estimations of the Founding Fathers have to be read in this light.

And not even all white men. But we have since changed the Constitution to expand "the people" to mean everybody.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Except the first draft of the 2A 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.”

There are earlier versions. Here's what was proposed by the Virginia Ratifying Convention:

17th. 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.

18th. That no soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the laws direct.

19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

There is no "state power" bundled into the Second Amendment, certainly not in any way that changes the meaning of the 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.

Part one, the prefatory clause:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
The authors thought that a militia was necessary to the security of a free state.

I see the first half of the Second Amendment as being a separate and independent clause, not as a prefatory clause.

I think the Founding Fathers foresaw people claiming that militias are obsolete and unnecessary, and they wrote the first half of the Second Amendment as a mandate that the government always have a well regulated militia.

"Well regulated" meaning that the militia is well armed and well trained so that it is an effective fighting force.

I think @Spirit of The Millennium has a similar view, and sees the first half of the Second Amendment as giving state governments the right to form their own militias if the feds do not bother to do so.

Part two: the objective clause:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In order to have a militia, it's necessary for THE PEOPLE to be able to keep and bear arms.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose, why the right protected by the objective clause is important.
But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause

I agree that any part of the Second Amendment that deals with state power does not limit the part of the Second Amendment that protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

Not sure how that applies to the post I responded to.

You responded to my post. I'm sure of that.

I understand it all. I also understand there are volumes of laws clarifying those words.

If in fact you did understand, your know your attempting to preach to the choir. Am I going to have to explain what "preaching to the choir" means to you as well.

 

[Rich2018]

The Second Amendment does protect our civil liberties

No it doesn't
Privately owned guns have never protected any civil liberties
MLK wasn't "packing"

Nothing does.

Neither country is free.

Then how do you explain civil liberties in the UK and Japan ?
How come the English/British have remained free for centuries ?

Then again, I was forgetting that you don't know what freedom is.

You have that all twisted around and backwards. It is our civil liberties that protect our guns.

No, it's the 2A
Without that blood soaked constitutional relic, we could ban guns

Or are you trying to say that people who don't have a gun, don't have civil liberties ?

That is incorrect. Neither authorizes the government to restrict guns.

In your opinion, not in mine
Banning guns would undoubtedly improve general welfare.

FDR concocted it to undermine the Constitution.

Says who ?
(ie: please cite a qualified person).

I see the first half of the Second Amendment as mandating that the feds do their part in upholding the militia as well.

The 2A does not state that the federal government, nor any state government shall form a militia.

How is "what the Swiss have" not a militia?

What part of their system does not conform to the definition of the term militia?

Because it's part of the Swiss army

Militia's in the USA were transformed into the National Guard which is part of the US army
National Guardsmen are NOT militiamen.

All this talk about "need" is thinking like a British serf.

Break out of that mindset. Need is irrelevant when it comes to the rights of free people.

Need is what government and militaries are based on
If you don't need a certain right, why have it ?

There doesn't have to be a need. The Founding Fathers said we have to have one.

If you "have" to have something, don't you pretty much need it ?

There doesn't have to be a need. Free people have the right to have guns.

No they don't
No other country in the world grants a right to a gun, except the USA. Are you going to say only people in the USA that own guns are "free"
Some countries grant rights that the USA does not...are their people more "free" than those in the USA ?

Free people have the right to use their guns for the private defense of their homes.

No they don't

Indeed there are many people in the USA who're denied that right to defend their homes with guns.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Absolute BS

What protects civil liberties in the UK and Japan ?
Can you cite an example of privately owned guns protecting civil liberties* - MLK wasn't "packing" was he ?

While he didn't, MLK Jr. Tried twice to get a concieled carry licence, but was denied. In a may issue state.