2nd Amendment "rules" should apply to the 14th Amendment

[montana]

https://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2019/08/15/the-dangerous-urge-to-do-something-n2551688

[stanc]

https://townhall.com/columnists/judg...thing-n2551688

I understand the natural fears that good folks have that an El Paso or a Dayton episode might happen again...

"Might" happen again? It's not a question of if, but when.

The colonial weapon of choice was the Kentucky long rifle, while British soldiers used their army-issued version of Brown Bessies.

LOL. No. The colonials' primary infantry weapon was a military musket, mostly the British Brown Bess and the French Charleville.

It is a matter of historical fact that the colonists won the war largely by superior firepower.

LOL again.

Second among the personal liberties preserved in the Bill of Rights from impairment by the government was the right to self-defense.

There is no mention of self defense in the Seccond Amendment. Its purpose was to assure that members of State militias would have access to the weapons they were required to own for militia duty.

The government's job is to preserve personal liberty.

Also wrong. The function of government is to enforce order in society, and exercise control of the people. This results in restriction -- not preservation -- of individual liberty.

The people are entitled to own and possess the same arms as the government...

Not according to the Supreme Court.

[Kswhitetails]

"Might" happen again? It's not a question of if, but when.


LOL. No. The colonials' primary infantry weapon was a military musket, mostly the British Brown Bess and the French Charleville.


LOL again.


There is no mention of self defense in the Seccond Amendment. Its purpose was to assure that members of State militias would have access to the weapons they were required to own for militia duty.


Also wrong. The function of government is to enforce order in society, and exercise control of the people. This results in restriction -- not preservation -- of individual liberty.


Not according to the Supreme Court.

Stanc, I fundamentally disagree with your position on the second. The state militias were made up of individuals; Citizens who were expected to be ready and able to use firearms to defend themselves from oppression from anyone wishing to corrupt their freedom. The entire purpose of amending the constitution this way was to ensure that individuals had access to, ability to train with, and use firearms in defense for as long as necessary between open conflict. This was in order to be prepared to defend themselves from anyone - including government - who wished to disarm them in order to establish the "order and control" you speak of when their liberty was at stake. There was no standing army. How could one expect to re-convene a militia if the citizens had all their weapons confiscated by public decree? Isn't this a bit of a misnomer? The militia was just a group of citizens convened under pseudo military style draft calling men from their homes in times of dire encroachment. My understanding was that during the Rev War, most of the men who made up the original militias were recruited in pubs, private house meetings, and barns. All in secret. The militia was the people. That's why it says that "the right of the people bear arms shall not be infringed." And thus, we were all given the protected status of firearm ownership, practice, and use.

And another thing, just because the SCOTUS says something is right, doesn't make it so. Obamacare, anyone? Unfortunately the golden rule applies just as well, and just as real. Those who have the gold make the rules...

And I agree with the lols above. History should be remembered accurately or not at all.

[stanc]

Stanc, I fundamentally disagree with your position on the second. The state militias were made up of individuals; Citizens who were expected to be ready and able to use firearms to defend themselves from oppression from anyone wishing to corrupt their freedom. The entire purpose of amending the constitution this way was to ensure that individuals had access to, ability to train with, and use firearms in defense for as long as necessary between open conflict. This was in order to be prepared to defend themselves from anyone - including government - who wished to disarm them in order to establish the "order and control" you speak of when their liberty was at stake.

Heh, heh. One of the purposes of the militia is to establish order and control of the people. Refer to Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion for examples.

There was no standing army.

Yes, there was a standing army. It was very small in the late 1780s and early 1790s, but it did exist.

How could one expect to re-convene a militia if the citizens had all their weapons confiscated by public decree?

One couldn't. That's the reason for the 2A -- to assure that militia members would have access to the weapons they were legally obligated to acquire.

The militia was just a group of citizens convened under pseudo military style draft calling men from their homes in times of dire encroachment.

No, the militia was not just a bunch of guys randomly called up and brought together "in times of dire encroachment."

State militias were expected to be functional military units, properly organized, trained, and ready to perform whatever mission was assigned to them.

Nor was it a "pseudo military style draft." It was a real, full-scale military draft that was imposed by the Militia Act of 1792.

My understanding was that during the Rev War, most of the men who made up the original militias were recruited in pubs, private house meetings, and barns. All in secret.

That may have happened, but it's not relevant to the post-Revolutionary War era, when men were openly conscripted into militia service.

The militia was the people. That's why it says that "the right of the people bear arms shall not be infringed." And thus, we were all given the protected status of firearm ownership, practice, and use.

You're making a common error in thinking that "the people" referred to the entire population. That's the meaning given to the phrase today, but in the late 18th Century "the people" did not mean "everybody" -- it meant adult white males, which constituted only a fraction of the populace.

And another thing, just because the SCOTUS says something is right, doesn't make it so.

Totally agree. But, even when wrong, what the SCOTUS says does determine if a law can be enforced.