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

[DebateChallenge]

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 But the militia no longer exists and has been replaced by a standing armed forces and professional police forces.

And since at the time the 2A was written the militia consisted of all able bodied men and not today, therefore the 2A states that all able bodied men have the right to bare arms and that's how it is to this day.

 

[Rucker61]

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.

Cruikshank said "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." If the only right is that of the militia, shouldn't it have read "bearing arms in a militia"? A more careful reading would interpret "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" to actually include all lawful purposes for bearing arms, such as hunting, target shooting and self defense. Are these lawful purposes limited to those in a militia?

 

[Media_Truth]

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.

Actually, that is not true, until a recent SCOTUS ruling.

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

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.

Guns have always been allowed, but there was a mish-mash of regulations, and each state had it's own criteria.

 

[Rucker61]

Actually, that is not true, until a recent SCOTUS ruling.

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

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.

Guns have always been allowed, but there was a mish-mash of regulations, and each state had it's own criteria.

The major pieces of federal gun legislation are NFA 1934; Gun Control Act of 1968; Firearm Owners Protection Act 1986; Brady Act; 1994 Assault Weapons Ban; Lautenberg Amendment to FOPA 1986.

How many times is the word "militia" mentioned in total in each of these acts? How many times are the words "people", "citizen", "individual" mentioned in these acts?

 

[Media_Truth]

Cruikshank said "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." If the only right is that of the militia, shouldn't it have read "bearing arms in a militia"? A more careful reading would interpret "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" to actually include all lawful purposes for bearing arms, such as hunting, target shooting and self defense. Are these lawful purposes limited to those in a militia?

This is not about gun bans (i.e. hunting and target shooting). Even when the Supreme Court ruled for the Military references of the 2nd Amendment, they still didn't outlaw firearms. The case of the sawed-off shotgun not being classified as a Military Weapon, and thus not being protected by Amend2, did not suggest outlawing guns.

 

[yankintx]

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.

Yup

I dislike guns, and the gun deaths. But I will defend an individuals right to own. Now I would support the wording being altered, but it must be done with the Amendment process. I believe as a nation that will happen eventually.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

a guy who is funded by gun banner foundations who started with the premise that gun control is good and works backward to try to "prove" that nonsense.

Its a fool's errand. The gun banners have to start with the commerce clause and convince us the founders really believed that this section was intended to give the federal government power over individual citizens acting in their own states. They cannot.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

who "discerns that need"? if its a government agency, than your entire lie is completely destroyed.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

one of the sillier lies of the bannerrhoid movement is to try to demonize the NRA by lying about its purpose. Most anti gun laws are designed to harass the NRA because leftwing activists despise the NRA helping conservative candidates.

none of the anti gun activists have any honest belief that the second amendment is somehow what the bannerrhoid organizations claim. But being lefties, they will always subjugate the truth to political expediency

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

Rights are not granted based on need they can be removed only based on due process of law. You seem to be confusing a right of the people with a state issued privilege.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

every few months or so, some hard core leftwing gun banner thinks he has some new mutation of the second amendment that will support the bannerrhoid movement's jihad against private gun ownership. They all fail and mainly because their attempt to rewrite what the founders intended, fail to account for the undeniable fact that the founders intended that the second guarantee a RIGHT the founders already saw as existing. A right that PRE EXISTED all government. SO when the theory of the month demands that the the second amendment only vests after permission from the government, the military, or the militia, they prove how dishonest they are because a RIGHT THAT WAS HELD AS EXISTING since the dawn of man, DOES NOT REQUIRE THE PERMISSION of subsequent organizations to vest.

End of story

 

[Skeptic Bob]

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.

No “if” about it. The Founding Fathers already discerned that to be the case by including the 2nd Amendment. It doesn’t say the right will not be infringed “during times of military necessity”.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

most of the idiocy we saw from racist circuit court judges was their deliberate dishonesty in claiming if the constitution didn't create the right, it didn't exist nonsense. What Cruikshank properly holds is that

1) the right exists prior to the constitution (because nothing in the constitution abrogated the right)

2) and that (at the TIME) the second amendment only applied to the federal government.

nothing in Cruikshank supports your nonsense

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually, that is not true, until a recent SCOTUS ruling.

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

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.

Guns have always been allowed, but there was a mish-mash of regulations, and each state had it's own criteria.

he's lying because

1) there was no supreme court rulings specifically on the issue until FDR intruded upon the second amendment

2) The Miller decision didn't say what he dishonestly claims

 

[haymarket]

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

And none of that is a militia that defends the nation or state as it did at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment. That is gone with the wind.

 

[haymarket]

That's up to the state governors and POTUS.

So where would freed slaves in the militia meet to train these days?

 

[haymarket]

And since at the time the 2A was written the militia consisted of all able bodied men and not today, therefore the 2A states that all able bodied men have the right to bare arms and that's how it is to this day.

You can bare your arms all you want - don't even wear a shirt for all I care. But there is no militia today and thus the rights attached to them no longer exist either.

 

[Rucker61]

So where would freed slaves in the militia meet to train these days?

Individual soldier skills like marksmanship can be practiced at various gun ranges should anyone, including freed slaves, be so inclined.

 

[Rucker61]

You can bare your arms all you want - don't even wear a shirt for all I care. But there is no militia today and thus the rights attached to them no longer exist either.

The militia doesn't have rights. In law, the mitia still exists. See also Texas State Guard. .

 

[haymarket]

Individual soldier skills like marksmanship can be practiced at various gun ranges should anyone, including freed slaves, be so inclined.

Which freed slaves would those be?

 

[haymarket]

The militia doesn't have rights. In law, the mitia still exists. See also Texas State Guard. .

The militia, no longer exists. It has been replaced with professional soldiers. There are lots of laws on the books which are obsolete. The militia is one of them.

 

[Rich2018]

And the militia refers to all able bodied men.

So the US Constitution deems that every able bodied man, in the USA, is a member of the militia ?

 

[ttwtt78640]

So the US Constitution deems that every able bodied man, in the USA, is a member of the militia ?

Nope, but the SCOTUS has ruled the 2A as being a right of the people independent from their militia status.

 

[Rucker61]

So the US Constitution deems that every able bodied man, in the USA, is a member of the militia ?

No, the Constitution grants Congress the power to "organize, arm and discipline" the militia. Congress decides who is required to be in the militia.

 

[Rucker61]

Which freed slaves would those be?

Any that are natural born Americans or permanent resident aliens that aren't prohibited persons.