Arguments Surrounding the 2nd Amendment

Arguments Surrounding the 2nd Amendment

This is a discussion on Arguments Surrounding the 2nd Amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I have seen a number of good threads that this could be inserted into as one post....but I thought it rated it's own thread. I ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Arguments Surrounding the 2nd Amendment

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Arguments Surrounding the 2nd Amendment

    I have seen a number of good threads that this could be inserted into as one post....but I thought it rated it's own thread. I speak as a teacher of Advanced Placement American Government and American History for over 17 years and a past social studies Teacher of the Year at my inner city high school.

    Somebody on another thread asked the question (and was joined by other posters) as to just where the antis get their arguments that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution refers to some form of a "National Guard."

    Quote Originally Posted by sailormnop View Post
    Agreed! I don't see where the National Guard has anything to do with the 2A. Where are they getting this?
    MY RESPONSE:

    You guys are absolutely correct! The antis use the phrase well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state... as the rally cry to show they're correct. What they fail to admit as part of THAT argument is the following:

    The Second Amendment was written immediately following the American Revolution, however the seeds for it began during the war at the First Continental Congress. Had the Founding Fathers been speaking of a "national guard" THEN they would have been referring to the Tories loyal to King George! Do you think that's what they meant?

    Next, the term well regulated is not a term of legal art. Well Regulated refers rather to a term of military logistics and means "of like type and caliber." For ease of resupply during times of "callout" for a crisis.

    The "National Guard" as it exists today was not created until 1913. It is subject to full federalization as part of the armed forces of the United States. Witness that many of the state guards (including my home state of Florida) are now serving in Iraq.

    You'd have to refer to the Federalist Papers written prior to the ratification of the Constitution by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. This is a series of essays written to convince the public at large as to the necessity for a strong central government and separate state governments (Federalism) being subordinate. Specifically Federalist #27, #28 and especially #46 speak to the importance of having an armed POPULATION. The antis convienently overlook these or dismiss them...as they dismiss the entire Constitution as being out of date and essentially worthless.

    The trouble is that the media supports the anti view. So does the vast majority of the liberal educational establishment who now controls our public PROPAGANDA....I mean out public school systems. It's been going on for FORTY years. That's two full generations of people who now are in a position to truly damage our national infrastructure out of ignorance and wrongly planted misinformation. Planted with a deliberate goal in mind.

    If you think that I'm leading up to some grandiose Conspiracy Theory you're correct. But I think that by this time in our history it should be clear that there is much more emphasis on this goal; given the moves made by more entities than just those groups dedicated to the destruction of the 2nd Amendment like the Brady Bunch! Let me be clear: There is no such thing as "accidental history!" Stuff doesn't "just happen." If you care to look...the links are visible.

    The antis in this country are no more than useful idiots to the people who are truly dedicated to advancing this agenda of evil. If you hadn't realized it before, there is big money behind all of this. Much more than that drawn to either the NRA or to HCI by the normal folks who happen to support either position.

    If you want a comprehensive look at the overall picture you need to look beyond the narrow proposition of the Bill of Rights and more specifically the 2nd Amendment. The base can be easily seen in economics, but the roots go much deeper. But start at the base.

    READ THIS BOOK: The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. It's an examination of the Federal Reserve Bank but it reads like the most thrilling mystery novel you ever read and each chapter is summarized for those of you without the time to read much. Available at amazon.com. I have also seen it at BORDERS Bookstores.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802
    C'mon let's get this thread moving!
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  3. #3
    1943 - 2009
    Array Captain Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    10,372
    Next, the term well regulated is not a term of legal art. Well Regulated refers rather to a term of military logistics and means "of like type and caliber." For ease of resupply during times of "callout" for a crisis.
    I will agree with this definition and I will add that in the Founders' view, "well regulated" also meant "well trained and equipped".

    The antis have totally corrupted the meaning of "well regulated" and the media, and sadly, most of the have bought into it, hook, line and sinker.


    When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
    And the women come out to cut up what remains,
    Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
    And go to your God like a soldier.

    Rudyard Kipling


    Terry

  4. #4
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,637
    Sorry Ex,

    There is a lot to read for those of us unfimular with the papers you mentined.
    I havn't been able to read all of it yet, but here are the links

    Federalist # 27

    Federalist # 28

    Federalist # 46

    Who was that said, "I shall Return" Patton I think.
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,886
    The idea of militia goes back further than the beginning of this country.

    It actually stems from the european surf, lord relationship whereas the the people under the control of the lord, ie property owner, were required to take up arms, whatever they had at the time, rake, hoe, axe, etc, to protect the lords land in case of an invasion by another. Being that they were not land owners themselves but lived on the lords land they had an obligation to protect the land they occupied.

    Today, we do not have anything similar to the militia that is mentioned in the 2nd, amendment. Since 1775 when they first standing army was organized to help the local militias that were already organized, the militia that is mentioned in the 2nd amendment has all but disappeared. Thereby leaving the standing army or current active military, and the national gaurd for our defense of the country.

    Like it or not, the only militia that is left is the individual citizen that chooses to have a weapon. Not really what was originally intended.

    If in fact there were to be a very large militia that was being organized and well managed, I am sure that the ATF, FBI, or Homeland Security would not be too far behind in trying to find a way to disarm any that got too big, or had more weapons than they deemed necessary.

    Just look at what happened to the militias in the 80's and 90's, and how the government went to great lengths to monitor them and shut some of them down.

    I do not think that the framers of our constitution or the few that wrote the federalist papers had any notion that our country would eventually outspend all the other countries in the world on defense by 10 to 1 either. So like it or not, times have changed, we do not have the intended militia mentioned in the 2nd amendment, and there are laws regulating ownership of firearms, and there will likely be more to come.

    No matter how loud you scream or cry or beg, you aren't going to change much that goes on in the law making process until the $$$$ are taken out of the equation, the framers definately didn't see the $ being like they are today and that is what it really boils down to. How many of your licenses for concealed carry were free? Not mine.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array cagueits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    911
    Heres a link I found interesting:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...2/#annotations

  7. #7
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,863
    The arguments around the Second Amendment all one fatal flaw - in order for the right to bear arms to be anything but an individual right, the term "of the People" must have a completely different meaning in the Second Amendment than it has in the First, Forth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
    There can be no doubt that the specific phrase "the people" here refers to each and every citizen of the nation. Each person has the individual right to petition the government, or to peaceably assemble with one another.

    Amendment IV

    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.
    Again, the specific phrase "the people" refers to each individual citizen of the nation. The right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is an individual right.

    Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    In what is getting to be a pretty monotonous consistency, the specific phrase "the people" once again refers to the body politic.

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    Nothing different here. The rights are retained by the citizenry of the nation as a whole.

    It is worth noting that the specific phrase "the people" occurs only two other places in the Constitution and Bill of Rights as adopted by the framers.

    The first place is in the Preamble:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    Once again, it is plain that "the people" refers to the citizenry of the nation as a whole, not to any sub-part of the citizenry.

    The other place it appears outside the listed amendments is in Article I, Section 2:
    The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
    Here again, the phrase "the people" refers to the entire body of the citizenry of the nation.

    Out of the 7 uses of the phrase "the people" in the Constitution, it is apparently widely agreed that the phrase secures the right of the citizenry as a whole.

    Amendment II

    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.
    Some, however, hold that in the Second Amendment, the phrase "the people" refers now to something other than the citizenry as a whole. Some argue that in this instance - and only in this instance - the phrase "the people" really means "the militia".

    No explanation is given for why the framers would shift to this new meaning of "the people" for this one amendment, and then back to the original definition for the 9th and 10th amendments.

    It seems reasonable to me to say that the framers were quite precise in their use of language. Had they intended the right to keep an bear arms to apply only to the militia, they would have written:

    Amendment II

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    But they did not do so. The deliberately used a phrase that has a specific meaning throughout the entire rest of the document. The only reasonable explanation for this is that they intended the right to bear arms to attach to the same people that the rights to peaceable assembly, the right to petition for redress of grievances and the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure attach to - the citizens of the United States, individually and collectively.

    Matt
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by 4my son View Post
    Sorry Ex,

    There is a lot to read for those of us unfimular with the papers you mentined.
    I havn't been able to read all of it yet, but here are the links

    Federalist # 27

    Federalist # 28

    Federalist # 46

    Who was that said, "I shall Return" Patton I think.
    MacArthur said that. Thanks for the links, gonna read these and then maybe chime in.

  9. #9
    VIP Member
    Array goawayfarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fork Union, Virginia
    Posts
    2,701
    Most people don't get any education of the Constitution. That should be the one subject EVERY American should know.

    As for the Second Amendment, it should be treated just like the other Amendments that speak to INDIVIDUAL rights & LIMITS on government.

    To understand the Second, all that should be required is to look at what the Founders had to say on the subject:

    • George Mason: ". . . to disarm the people; that . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    • Richard Henry Lee: ". . . to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
    • James Madison, drafter of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist No. 46 scorned European despotisms as "afraid to trust the people with arms," and assured his countrymen that they need not fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."
    • Samuel Adams asserted in the Massachusetts convention that "the said Constitution be never construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
    • James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in his list of basic human rights.
    • Patrick Henry said, "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
    • Thomas Jefferson: "One loves to possess arms"; and advising his 15-year-old nephew, he wrote, "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."


    As to who the 'militia' is:

    George Mason. Framer of the Declaration of Rights, Virginia, 1776, which became the basis for the U.S. Bill of Rights: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
    Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca

    "If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith

    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

  10. #10
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,903
    One Only Needs To Look At How The Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania State Constitution Was Worded Concerning Right Of Ownership Of Firearms To Make Perfectly Crystal Clear That The 2nd Amendment was intended to be a RIGHT of All Citizens To Keep & Bear Arms.

    Right to Bear Arms
    Section 21.
    The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.


    And I LOVE this one:

    Reservation of Powers in People
    Section 25.
    To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by ExSoldier View Post
    If you think that I'm leading up to some grandiose Conspiracy Theory you're correct. But I think that by this time in our history it should be clear that there is much more emphasis on this goal; given the moves made by more entities than just those groups dedicated to the destruction of the 2nd Amendment like the Brady Bunch! Let me be clear: There is no such thing as "accidental history!" Stuff doesn't "just happen." If you care to look...the links are visible.

    The antis in this country are no more than useful idiots to the people who are truly dedicated to advancing this agenda of evil. If you hadn't realized it before, there is big money behind all of this. Much more than that drawn to either the NRA or to HCI by the normal folks who happen to support either position.

    If you want a comprehensive look at the overall picture you need to look beyond the narrow proposition of the Bill of Rights and more specifically the 2nd Amendment. The base can be easily seen in economics, but the roots go much deeper. But start at the base.
    I have kind of a weird question for you. Say somehow they slowly remove the right to bear arms so that at some point there's a cut off and we're like England/Australia/whatever. I think it's safe to say that probably half of all gun owners would do as their told. Leaving possibly 20% of the country with weapons. What do you think happens from here?

    Personally, I don't think the military would get too involved, but it could happen. What goes down next? Any ideas?

    I'll look into getting this book.

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by 4my son View Post
    Sorry Ex,

    There is a lot to read for those of us unfimular with the papers you mentined.
    I havn't been able to read all of it yet, but here are the links

    Federalist # 27

    Federalist # 28

    Federalist # 46

    Who was that said, "I shall Return" Patton I think.
    That would be MacArthur when he was forced from the island of Corregidor.

    You'll have to read the Federalist papers carefully as the language is formalized English from that era. Also the meat of the matter is found closer to the end. This is where I usually trip up my A.P. students who usually do a superficial analysis or rely on a cheat book like Cliff Notes. They're turning in the first set of 20 papers I assigned tomorrow. I'll be doing a lot of grading.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Lightbulb It's going to be Baaaaaaaaad

    Quote Originally Posted by SammyIamToday View Post
    I have kind of a weird question for you. Say somehow they slowly remove the right to bear arms so that at some point there's a cut off and we're like England/Australia/whatever. I think it's safe to say that probably half of all gun owners would do as their told. Leaving possibly 20% of the country with weapons. What do you think happens from here?

    Personally, I don't think the military would get too involved, but it could happen. What goes down next? Any ideas?

    I'll look into getting this book.
    I'm more of a pessimist. I think that given a choice between prison or turning in their guns 90% of armed Americans would roll over and crawl. They'd whimper and go: Baaaaaaa Pleeeeeease don't hurt my family or me! Say there is a round number of 100 million gun owners. That means 90 million will meekly hand the guns to the gov't. But that still leaves a hard core group of gun owners who won't roll over. 10 MILLION a large portion of whom will be former military and a larger portion of those having seen combat. And a chunk of those will be ex SpecOps. It could be very interesting!

    Case in point: My best buddy retired as a Special Forces 05 and went to Maine to teach JROTC in a very rural area. Y2K rolled around and he got a little bit nervous. So he puts the word out into the SF community. And lo...but FIVE of his former A-Teams show up at his place for one wild blowout of a New Years Eve Party! That's 60 green beanies. They got together two days before the BIG day and did a little recon. From ingredients found in the kitchen they cooked up enough explosives to do the job. What job?

    Well if the world went to hell, they planned to go tow exits up and down the nearby interstate and (as they put it) drop the spans. That would force anybody who cared to come looking to make the approach on foot thru the woods and against 60 of the most dangerous men in the US Army. Knowing these guys as well as I do, I would not go against them. Period. Still, they've all got families, too. That's the weakest link.

    Cops MIGHT hate the orders to confiscate, but then again, maybe not. Look at New Orleans. The military is mostly made up of young men who are products of the public schools. What kind of curriculum has been pushed for the last 40 years? Is it pro-gun and pro-freedom? I think NOT! Cops and soldiers are taught that any civilian who owns a gun is evil....period. If they need a little more pressure to move ahead with the order, they only need to be reminded of the penalties under UCMJ or for the police to be reminded what happens to cops in prison, not to mention the cops families who will never see a dime of his pension and he'll be in prison making friends in the showers. I think that the New Orleans scenario is a pretty ugly example of what might follow.

    I know, a LOT of states passed laws making this kind of gun grab unconstitutional according to state law. However, remember the doctrine of supremacy. Federal law trumps state law every time. Also remember that the NRA got a court order mandating that the lefty mayor of N.O. Ray Nagin MUST return all confiscated guns. But they keep dragging their feet. Any local government can usurp state or federal laws...especially if an antigun Gov or Pres allows them to do so!
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array gregarat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    US
    Posts
    862
    Wow.. I just noticed these posts.

    I have kind of a weird question for you. Say somehow they slowly remove the right to bear arms so that at some point there's a cut off and we're like England/Australia/whatever. I think it's safe to say that probably half of all gun owners would do as their told. Leaving possibly 20% of the country with weapons. What do you think happens from here?

    Personally, I don't think the military would get too involved, but it could happen. What goes down next? Any ideas?
    I am concerned about how "Klinton style firearm laws" can easly be made today. Its like How Hittler didnt mind if people had firearms. Just as long as if, they stored them in a firing range. Wouldnt ya know? He tricked the German people into giving up their firearms! After all the firearms were secure in the "shooting range/club" bang! He has the police lock the "shooting range/club".
    Its scary how many Americans would fall for the same trick, today!



    2nd. If it did come down to taking away firearms, from the people . I dont know of any LEO's who would want to, knock the door in on 20% of their population. The people that only get speeding tickets. If I were in a LEOs shoes, I wouldnt think it would be worth it. Im not in their shoes, so thats a wild guess, and MHO.

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,054
    One point I brought up in another thread was that the first part of the 2A "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." is the justification clause and the empowerment clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed" is the limit clause, to protect that right and not reduce the effectiveness of the militia.

    Basically what this is saying is "The people's right to keep and bear arms is needed and should not be infringed upon BECAUSE having the people well equiped and serve as the defense of the state is necessary for its security. If you infringe upon the people's right, you are weakening the defense of the state at the lowest common denominator, the soldier and defender himself, and thus compromising the safety of your fellow Americans and the right for a country to exist and defend itself against all threats."

    That is my personal interpretation of the Second Amendment. Long live the United States of America.

    The 2A also realizes that having a standing army is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That is why the people are to be relied upon by the government to defend it, that is why the people are the militia and that is why we have the RKBA, because there isn't really supposed to be a standing military. Every couple years, Congress has to vote to renew the military, because of this. I'll try to search around at school tomorrow and find out the clause. They would be stupid not to. If they didn't vote to renew, there would be no military and then the people, ie the milita, would be the only way to defend from attack. Over the decades, we have become accustomed to having a military for primary defense and this caused some Americans to believe that we don't need the 2A anymore because the military is there to protect us from war-type threats.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. open carry in kansas, lawrence and surrounding area.
    By gunnut785 in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: September 14th, 2013, 09:43 AM
  2. The most idiotic arguments against carry ever.
    By JohnK87 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: March 1st, 2010, 10:49 AM
  3. Oral arguments in Chicago gun case
    By dldeuce in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 28th, 2009, 08:07 AM
  4. Nordyke v. King oral arguments
    By Anubis in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: January 27th, 2009, 10:40 PM
  5. Counter Arguments for rational data
    By cphilip in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 17th, 2007, 02:16 PM