[W:1311]The Second Amendment - A Military Right to Bear Arms

[Media_Truth]

One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

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.

Guns Rights activists love to try to add words to the Second Amendment to fit their viewpoint. The NRA actually dishonestly subtracts words. On the wall of their headquarters is the following quote; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", omitting the Military reference.

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “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 one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” This makes the intent very clear.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has cited the Militia reference on a number of occassions. One such case was about a sawed-off-shotgun.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further reading - Michael Waldman is President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the author of the highly acclaimed book, "The Second Amendment - A Biography", which is featured on Goodreads.Com

 

[DebateChallenge]

One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

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.

Guns Rights activists love to try to add words to the Second Amendment to fit their viewpoint. The NRA actually dishonestly subtracts words. On the wall of their headquarters is the following quote; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", omitting the Military reference.

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “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 one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” This makes the intent very clear.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has cited the Militia reference on a number of occassions. One such case was about a sawed-off-shotgun.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further reading - Michael Waldman is President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the author of the highly acclaimed book, "The Second Amendment - A Biography", which is featured on Goodreads.Com

View attachment 67244766

And the militia refers to all able bodied men.

 

[Bum]

And the militia refers to all able bodied men.

Actually.....depending on the class of militia, it also includes females.

 

[Media_Truth]

And the militia refers to all able bodied men.

I agree. Every individual, male or female, has the right to bear arms, if it is discerned that citizens need to be armed for a military need, such as an invasion.

 

[Bum]

I agree. Every individual, male or female, has the right to bear arms, if it is discerned that citizens need to be armed for a military need, such as an invasion.

The citizens already have the right to bear arms.....they are the militia.

 

[Rucker61]

I agree. Every individual, male or female, has the right to bear arms, if it is discerned that citizens need to be armed for a military need, such as an invasion.

Good thing that Congress disagreed with you, SCOTUS disagreed with you, the legislatures of most of the state's disagreed with you, and history disagrees with you.

At this point you are tilting at windmills.

 

[Marvan Buren]

One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

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.

Guns Rights activists love to try to add words to the Second Amendment to fit their viewpoint. The NRA actually dishonestly subtracts words. On the wall of their headquarters is the following quote; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", omitting the Military reference.

Exactly. The NRA does not support the Second Amendment - they pervert it in order to carry out their sole purpose of supporting the interests of gun manufacturers. Even worse, they have allowed themselves to become a funnel for Russian money to be used to influence American politics - the exact opposite of what a group supporting the U.S. Constitution should do.

 

[DebateChallenge]

I agree. Every individual, male or female, has the right to bear arms, if it is discerned that citizens need to be armed for a military need, such as an invasion.

And there always is the threat of invasion, just look at the migrant caravan in Mexico.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Exactly. The NRA does not support the Second Amendment - they pervert it in order to carry out their sole purpose of supporting the interests of gun manufacturers. Even worse, they have allowed themselves to become a funnel for Russian money to be used to influence American politics - the exact opposite of what a group supporting the U.S. Constitution should do.

Number one, your post is full of phoney baloney about the NRA.
Number two, even if what you say about the NRA is true, which it isn't, the fact remains that the NRA is one of the strongest grassroots organization in the USA and gun rights are here to stay.

 

[ttwtt78640]

One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

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.

Guns Rights activists love to try to add words to the Second Amendment to fit their viewpoint. The NRA actually dishonestly subtracts words. On the wall of their headquarters is the following quote; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", omitting the Military reference.

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “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 one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” This makes the intent very clear.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has cited the Militia reference on a number of occassions. One such case was about a sawed-off-shotgun.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further reading - Michael Waldman is President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the author of the highly acclaimed book, "The Second Amendment - A Biography", which is featured on Goodreads.Com

View attachment 67244766

It is convenient, indeed, to assert that a short barreled shotgun is not a suitable 'militia' gun yet a semi-auto rifle with "military style" features (an "assault rifle") should somehow also be exempt as a 'civilian' gun choice. Which is it - military style/use guns are, or are not, able to be owned and carried by the people under the 2A?

 

[chuckiechan]

Actually.....depending on the class of militia, it also includes females.

And freed slaves.

 

[Captain Adverse]

One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

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.

Guns Rights activists love to try to add words to the Second Amendment to fit their viewpoint. The NRA actually dishonestly subtracts words. On the wall of their headquarters is the following quote; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", omitting the Military reference.

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “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 one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” This makes the intent very clear.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has cited the Militia reference on a number of occassions. One such case was about a sawed-off-shotgun.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further reading - Michael Waldman is President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the author of the highly acclaimed book, "The Second Amendment - A Biography", which is featured on Goodreads.Com

No, this kind of argument has been debunked over and over both here in this Forum by myself and others, and out in the real world of political discourse.

The clause states "the right of the PEOPLE (not the "Militia") to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If it meant what your argument states, then "People" would have been replaced with "Militia" or some other referent of MILITARY power. In fact your own reference of "the militia being the body of the people" reinforces the ideal that an armed populace is the best defense of the nation, not an organized military force.

The bottom line? The authors wrote exactly what they meant to say, not what you would like to think it means.

 

[Rexedgar]

This topic should come up right after grace this afternoon!

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

 

[dogboy49]

This topic should come up right after grace this afternoon!

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

In my family, the discussions start right after the first bottle of wine is opened. Usually doesn't take long for it to go downhill, either. :argue

 

[PleasantValley]

One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

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.

Guns Rights activists love to try to add words to the Second Amendment to fit their viewpoint. The NRA actually dishonestly subtracts words. On the wall of their headquarters is the following quote; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", omitting the Military reference.

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “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 one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” This makes the intent very clear.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has cited the Militia reference on a number of occassions. One such case was about a sawed-off-shotgun.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further reading - Michael Waldman is President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the author of the highly acclaimed book, "The Second Amendment - A Biography", which is featured on Goodreads.Com

View attachment 67244766

This is already settled law.
It is an INDIVIDUAL right.
The author needs to do some more studying...but since he studies in NY, I can see why he never learned this fact.

:beatdeadhorse

 

[jamesrage]

One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

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.

Guns Rights activists love to try to add words to the Second Amendment to fit their viewpoint. The NRA actually dishonestly subtracts words. On the wall of their headquarters is the following quote; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", omitting the Military reference.

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “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 one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” This makes the intent very clear.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has cited the Militia reference on a number of occassions. One such case was about a sawed-off-shotgun.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further reading - Michael Waldman is President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the author of the highly acclaimed book, "The Second Amendment - A Biography", which is featured on Goodreads.Com

View attachment 67244766

Every 2nd amendment opponent has tried that argument and failed. As others have pointed out if the 2nd amendment only applied to the militia then the 2nd amendment would only say the militia the right to keep and bear arms, not the people the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[haymarket]

And the militia refers to all able bodied men.

At one time - yes. But the militia no longer exists and has been replaced by a standing armed forces and professional police forces.

 

[haymarket]

And freed slaves.

Where do you book a meeting of those folks these days so they can drill and practice?

 

[Rucker61]

At one time - yes. But the militia no longer exists and has been replaced by a standing armed forces and professional police forces.

In law, it does still exist, both at the federal and at state levels. In Colorado the militia falls under Article 17 of the state constitution. In Texas it's more active than in most states. Note that the Texas State Guard is not the National Guard as established by Congress.

https://tmd.texas.gov/state-guard

 

[Media_Truth]

No, this kind of argument has been debunked over and over both here in this Forum by myself and others, and out in the real world of political discourse.

The clause states "the right of the PEOPLE (not the "Militia") to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If it meant what your argument states, then "People" would have been replaced with "Militia" or some other referent of MILITARY power. In fact your own reference of "the militia being the body of the people" reinforces the ideal that an armed populace is the best defense of the nation, not an organized military force.

The bottom line? The authors wrote exactly what they meant to say, not what you would like to think it means.

The military is composed of people. The meaning is very clear...

 

[Rucker61]

Where do you book a meeting of those folks these days so they can drill and practice?

That's up to the state governors and POTUS.

 

[OrphanSlug]

One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

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.

Guns Rights activists love to try to add words to the Second Amendment to fit their viewpoint. The NRA actually dishonestly subtracts words. On the wall of their headquarters is the following quote; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", omitting the Military reference.

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “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 one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” This makes the intent very clear.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has cited the Militia reference on a number of occassions. One such case was about a sawed-off-shotgun.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further reading - Michael Waldman is President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the author of the highly acclaimed book, "The Second Amendment - A Biography", which is featured on Goodreads.Com

View attachment 67244766

Tried and failed argument, if it were otherwise we’d be disarmed already.

 

[Media_Truth]

Good thing that Congress disagreed with you, SCOTUS disagreed with you, the legislatures of most of the state's disagreed with you, and history disagrees with you.

At this point you are tilting at windmills.

The SCOTUS has been in agreement on a number of occassions.

One of the first rulings came in 1876 in U.S. v. Cruikshank. The case involved members of the Ku Klux Klan not allowing black citizens the right to standard freedoms, such as the right to assembly and the right to bear arms. As part of the ruling, the court said the right of each individual to bear arms was not granted under the Constitution.

Although the above ruling was definitely racist, it does challenge the right of each individual to bear arms.

 

[WCH]

This topic should come up right after grace this afternoon!

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

Wouldn't matter at my house. We are all pro-second.

 

[TheGoverness]

This has already been settled already. The Supreme Court has ruled that citizens have a fundamental right to bear arms. People keep bringing this up like it's supposed to change everything.