2nd Amendment Run Amok

[Linc]

Trump won the election-gun owners were a major reason why, seems to be the most logical answer.

Guns come after Judges and Abortion with today’s GOP, for JAG. I’ve added Immigration and Deconstruction after God and Gays to give JAGGGID. That looks to be enough for Parscale and Miller.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

This is interesting-what do you claim the second amendment does.

The 2A has two clauses. The right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.

The right to bear arms is quite clearly "render military service" or "militia duty". In other words, the right to use arms in the militia (as stated in the the US Constitution)

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

In this document they're discussing this clause "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

Mr Gerry (of gerrymandering fame) said "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Okay, so, Mr Gerry was worried that people stop having the right to carry arms which would destroy the constitution, or he was worried that people stop having the right to be in the militia which would destroy the constitution?

Well, he very next words were "What, sir, is the use of a militia?" Kind of clear that he's talking about making sure the militia doesn't get destroyed by the Federal Government.

Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Pretty clear that Mr Gerry thought that "bear arms" meant "militia duty"

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Mr Jackson thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service.


It's quite clear that the Second Amendment is about the militia. It says so in the Second Amendment. The first words are "A well regulated militia", the whole point of this militia is "being the best security of a free state".

So, the right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons, weapons the US Federal Government cannot just take when they call state militias up into federal service.

The right to bear arms is the right to militia duty. Because if the US Federal Government could ban individuals from being in militia, then the militia would have guns, but no personnel, and therefore useless.

 

[TurtleDude]

Guns come after Judges and Abortion with today’s GOP, for JAG. I’ve added Immigration and Deconstruction after God and Gays to give JAGGGID. That looks to be enough for Parscale and Miller.

You should vote based on what things matter most to you just as I vote based on what things matter most to me.

 

[Beowulf]

The 2A has two clauses. The right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.

The right to bear arms is quite clearly "render military service" or "militia duty". In other words, the right to use arms in the militia (as stated in the the US Constitution)

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

In this document they're discussing this clause "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

Mr Gerry (of gerrymandering fame) said "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Okay, so, Mr Gerry was worried that people stop having the right to carry arms which would destroy the constitution, or he was worried that people stop having the right to be in the militia which would destroy the constitution?

Well, he very next words were "What, sir, is the use of a militia?" Kind of clear that he's talking about making sure the militia doesn't get destroyed by the Federal Government.

Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Pretty clear that Mr Gerry thought that "bear arms" meant "militia duty"

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Mr Jackson thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service.


It's quite clear that the Second Amendment is about the militia. It says so in the Second Amendment. The first words are "A well regulated militia", the whole point of this militia is "being the best security of a free state".

So, the right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons, weapons the US Federal Government cannot just take when they call state militias up into federal service.

The right to bear arms is the right to militia duty. Because if the US Federal Government could ban individuals from being in militia, then the militia would have guns, but no personnel, and therefore useless.

Amendments notwithstanding, when the states established their union between themselves, they gave their general government absolutely no legislative power to restrict what the people of the several states might posses.

For those who are slower, it means that whether or not there even is a 2nd amendment, the general government has not legislative authority in this area. It has not legislative authority to restrict what the people of the several states may possess.

 

[jimbo]

A worthless answer based on dishonesty and/or ignorance

I'm going with ignorance.

 

[TurtleDude]

The 2A has two clauses. The right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.

The right to bear arms is quite clearly "render military service" or "militia duty". In other words, the right to use arms in the militia (as stated in the the US Constitution)

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

In this document they're discussing this clause "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

Mr Gerry (of gerrymandering fame) said "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Okay, so, Mr Gerry was worried that people stop having the right to carry arms which would destroy the constitution, or he was worried that people stop having the right to be in the militia which would destroy the constitution?

Well, he very next words were "What, sir, is the use of a militia?" Kind of clear that he's talking about making sure the militia doesn't get destroyed by the Federal Government.

Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Pretty clear that Mr Gerry thought that "bear arms" meant "militia duty"

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Mr Jackson thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service.


It's quite clear that the Second Amendment is about the militia. It says so in the Second Amendment. The first words are "A well regulated militia", the whole point of this militia is "being the best security of a free state".

So, the right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons, weapons the US Federal Government cannot just take when they call state militias up into federal service.

The right to bear arms is the right to militia duty. Because if the US Federal Government could ban individuals from being in militia, then the militia would have guns, but no personnel, and therefore useless.

The underlying purpose of the second amendment-as made clear by both the first wave of constitutional scholars (St George Tucker) and culminating in the Cruikshank decision, was to recognize and guarantee a right the founders saw as existing from the start of mankind-the right of self defense. This right does not require membership in a state run, formed or organized militia to vest and while one of the purposes in recognizing a right to be armed, was to make sure state militias could work properly, the main reason was to recognize this natural right of self defense.

 

[Linc]

You should vote based on what things matter most to you just as I vote based on what things matter most to me.

What can I say to someone who USED to be a Libertarian, as Amash still is? Just think what would have happened for you if Evangelicals had voted for Romney!

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Amendments notwithstanding, when the states established their union between themselves, they gave their general government absolutely no legislative power to restrict what the people of the several states might posses.

For those who are slower, it means that whether or not there even is a 2nd amendment, the general government has not legislative authority in this area. It has not legislative authority to restrict what the people of the several states may possess.

That might be so. But certainly the Founding Fathers were afraid that the US Federal Government could take away people's guns.

Number one reason for this was the US Federal Government could call up militias into federal service. They had the power arm the militia, which could also be the power to disarm the militia. But if these guns were INDIVIDUALS'S GUNS then this would be much harder. Hence why they decided against this clause about religious scruples.

 

[Beowulf]

That might be so. But certainly the Founding Fathers were afraid that the US Federal Government could take away people's guns.

Number one reason for this was the US Federal Government could call up militias into federal service. They had the power arm the militia, which could also be the power to disarm the militia. But if these guns were INDIVIDUALS'S GUNS then this would be much harder. Hence why they decided against this clause about religious scruples.

Which is why they never gave their general government any power to take away people's guns. There is nothing in their document that gives their general government the power to take away people's guns or anything else, for that matter.

And yes, the general government could call up the militia. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the other people of the several states.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

The underlying purpose of the second amendment-as made clear by both the first wave of constitutional scholars (St George Tucker) and culminating in the Cruikshank decision, was to recognize and guarantee a right the founders saw as existing from the start of mankind-the right of self defense. This right does not require membership in a state run, formed or organized militia to vest and while one of the purposes in recognizing a right to be armed, was to make sure state militias could work properly, the main reason was to recognize this natural right of self defense.

Well.... this is a difficult thing.

If we look at state Constitutions and what they said, it's a little confusing.

"1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;"

So, NC has the right to bear arms for the defence of the state.

"1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state"

So, changes slightly. "bear arms for the defence of themselves". What does this mean? Does this mean individuals can defend themselves, or does it mean the people can defend themselves (possibly from the state)?

"1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence"

Here it looks more like defend themselves might be "common defence", but still difficult to know.

"1817 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State."

It wasn't until Mississippi that it looks like they might be including self defense in all of this.

Cruikshank doesn't actually say anything that is different to what I'm saying.

"This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes,"

Basically we're looking at the 2A and restricting powers from the US Federal Government. What powers does it restrict?

The right to keep arms stops the Federal government from preventing individuals from owning weapons. It's interesting if you look at it from this perspective because as long as the US Federal Government isn't preventing individuals from owning weapons then it isn't infringing on the rights of the 2A. So, if it bans certain types of weapons, it isn't infringing on the 2A (regardless of what other things it might be infringing on).

The right to bear arms is more interesting. It stops the Federal government from preventing individuals from being in the militia. The Dick Act literally puts all males aged 17-45 into the "unorganized militia". So all these males are in the militia, so the US govt doesn't need to prevent them being in the militia.

This was done because they have the National Guard and realized an effective armed force was one where you could remove and discipline members of that force. So, in order for the National Guard to be effective they had to be able to stop individuals demanding to be in the National Guard. The unorganized militia did that.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Which is why they never gave their general government any power to take away people's guns. There is nothing in their document that gives their general government the power to take away people's guns or anything else, for that matter.

And yes, the general government could call up the militia. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the other people of the several states.

But they did.

Article 1, section 8 "Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Also the Founding Fathers weren't stupid enough to realize that power is something people fight for. Things like the Commerce Clause were something the Founding Fathers half predicted.

 

[Beowulf]

Well.... this is a difficult thing.

If we look at state Constitutions and what they said, it's a little confusing.

"1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;"

So, NC has the right to bear arms for the defence of the state.

"1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state"

So, changes slightly. "bear arms for the defence of themselves". What does this mean? Does this mean individuals can defend themselves, or does it mean the people can defend themselves (possibly from the state)?

"1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence"

Here it looks more like defend themselves might be "common defence", but still difficult to know.

"1817 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State."

It wasn't until Mississippi that it looks like they might be including self defense in all of this.

Cruikshank doesn't actually say anything that is different to what I'm saying.

"This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes,"

Basically we're looking at the 2A and restricting powers from the US Federal Government. What powers does it restrict?

The right to keep arms stops the Federal government from preventing individuals from owning weapons. It's interesting if you look at it from this perspective because as long as the US Federal Government isn't preventing individuals from owning weapons then it isn't infringing on the rights of the 2A. So, if it bans certain types of weapons, it isn't infringing on the 2A (regardless of what other things it might be infringing on).

The right to bear arms is more interesting. It stops the Federal government from preventing individuals from being in the militia. The Dick Act literally puts all males aged 17-45 into the "unorganized militia". So all these males are in the militia, so the US govt doesn't need to prevent them being in the militia.

This was done because they have the National Guard and realized an effective armed force was one where you could remove and discipline members of that force. So, in order for the National Guard to be effective they had to be able to stop individuals demanding to be in the National Guard. The unorganized militia did that.

So when the states constituted this treaty between themselves, where did they give it (i.e. the general government) any legislative power to restrict what items the people of the several states might possess?

 

[Beowulf]

But they did.

Article 1, section 8 "Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Also the Founding Fathers weren't stupid enough to realize that power is something people fight for. Things like the Commerce Clause were something the Founding Fathers half predicted.

So you think that this clause gives the general government the power to restrict what items the people of the several states may posses?

 

[Frigidweirdo]

So when the states constituted this treaty between themselves, where did they give it (i.e. the general government) any legislative power to restrict what items the people of the several states might possess?

Probably because the Federalists won.

Also, as I said, power often gets taken in means they might not have wanted, but which the Constitution effectively allows, especially when those who have to protect the Constitution are human beings.

Also, the Constitution has an amendment process. Who knows what amendments would get passed in the future?

 

[Frigidweirdo]

So you think that this clause gives the general government the power to restrict what items the people of the several states may posses?

This isn't really about that. This is about whether the militia would survive or not. Mr Gerry was worried that the religiously scrupulous clause would allow the Federal Government to destroy the Constitution. How?

Well mostly by taking a clause that says "religiously scrupulous people can't be forced into the militia" and turning it around and saying "you're religiously scrupulous, therefore you can't be in the militia".

This was a worry in 1789.

So, a clause that allows the US Federal govt to arm the militia was also a worry. A big enough worry that they put a protection in the form of the Second Amendment.

 

[Beowulf]

Probably because the Federalists won.

Also, as I said, power often gets taken in means they might not have wanted, but which the Constitution effectively allows, especially when those who have to protect the Constitution are human beings.

Also, the Constitution has an amendment process. Who knows what amendments would get passed in the future?

Amendment? Was an amendment passed that gave congress legislative power to restrict what items the people of the several states might possess?

 

[Beowulf]

This isn't really about that. This is about whether the militia would survive or not. Mr Gerry was worried that the religiously scrupulous clause would allow the Federal Government to destroy the Constitution. How?

Well mostly by taking a clause that says "religiously scrupulous people can't be forced into the militia" and turning it around and saying "you're religiously scrupulous, therefore you can't be in the militia".

This was a worry in 1789.

So, a clause that allows the US Federal govt to arm the militia was also a worry. A big enough worry that they put a protection in the form of the Second Amendment.

Right. So we agree that the militia clause doesn't give congress the power to enact legislation that would restrict what the people of the several states might possess.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Amendment? Was an amendment passed that gave congress legislative power to restrict what items the people of the several states might possess?

No. And that clearly wasn't the point.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Right. So we agree that the militia clause doesn't give congress the power to enact legislation that would restrict what the people of the several states might possess.

No, we don't agree. Clearly the Second Amendment was written for a reason. What reason do you think the anti-Federalists had for making the 2A?

 

[calamity]

No, we don't agree. Clearly the Second Amendment was written for a reason. What reason do you think the anti-Federalists had for making the 2A?

Slave patrols

 

[CLAX1911]

A worthless answer based on dishonesty and/or ignorance

The idea of military grade is funny to me. I have a friend that served in the army for 12 years. He said anything that you come across that's military-grade is junk. He told me everything the military issues to you is absolute garbage made the cheapest most cost-effective way they could possibly do it.

So he says military grade is not something to desire.

That being said I think calamity was talking about military class. And again that's a profoundly ignorant argument because a black powder cap and ball 1888 Navy revolver is military class.

 

[Beowulf]

No, we don't agree. Clearly the Second Amendment was written for a reason. What reason do you think the anti-Federalists had for making the 2A?

We don't agree that the militia clause doesn't give congress the power to enact legislation that would restrict what the people of the several states might possess? Are you saying that it does?

 

[Frigidweirdo]

We don't agree that the militia clause doesn't give congress the power to enact legislation that would restrict what the people of the several states might possess? Are you saying that it does?

I'm saying it can. For the same reason that the interstate commerce clause currently gives Congress the power to do many, many things, including restricting guns sales and the like.

The militia clause gives the Federal govt the power to arm the militia. Therefore it could DISARM the militia. Therefore if an individual were to join the militia, be required to bring their own gun along, it could then be taken from them.

However, they made the Second Amendment which then half prevents this. Then they decided to not use the militia anyway, which totally annuls this anyway. But.... it COULD.

However, mostly no, the militia clause in article 1 section does not empower the Federal government to make legislation. However this is more about how power works than what the clause was designed to do.

 

[Beowulf]

I'm saying it can. For the same reason that the interstate commerce clause currently gives Congress the power to do many, many things, including restricting guns sales and the like.

Clause 3 of article 1, section 8, only gives congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. It give congress not power to restrict what the people of the several states may possess.

The militia clause gives the Federal govt the power to arm the militia. Therefore it could DISARM the militia. Therefore if an individual were to join the militia, be required to bring their own gun along, it could then be taken from them.

Arm the militia. Disarm the militia. Give them boots. Take away their boots. What does that have to do with the people of the several states?

However, they made the Second Amendment which then half prevents this. Then they decided to not use the militia anyway, which totally annuls this anyway. But.... it COULD.

However, mostly no, the militia clause in article 1 section does not empower the Federal government to make legislation. However this is more about how power works than what the clause was designed to do.

There's no power granted in the constitution that would permit any law restricting what the people of the several states may possess.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Clause 3 of article 1, section 8, only gives congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. It give congress not power to restrict what the people of the several states may possess.
Arm the militia. Disarm the militia. Give them boots. Take away their boots. What does that have to do with the people of the several states?

There's no power granted in the constitution that would permit any law restricting what the people of the several states may possess.

Exactly my point.

The Constitution says one thing to you, reality says something different. Power is power. People search for it. The Founding Fathers were totally aware of this, and as such they made the Second Amendment.