Why the 2nd Amendment may no longer be revelent to the Federal Government

[hm2 clark]

About a week ago I was in my adult martial arts class. At the end of the class a guy came in to pick up his 17y/o son. He announced that he had gotten his opinion published in the local paper regarding "The real meaning of the 2nd Amendment." I looked around at the class of 16 people. Americans all. But only the 17y/o boy my 16y/o daughter and myself were native English speakers ore even from the Anglosphere. The rest Russian-Cuban-Korean-Philipino-who-knows-what had all passed their citizenship tests. But 13 out of 16 people in that room thought that the Bill of Rights was about as revelent as the Monroe Doctrine or the Dread Scott decision. None of them had read or even heard of Locke or Hume or Smith ( whos ideas made the Bill of Rights posible). Since that father who made the statement was born, the population of his country has just about doubled, most of it from imigrents, just trying to work and fit in. The Washington government is counting on this diluting of the American Spirit to befuddle Americans who have not yet had enough time to fully assimilate in the free American culture. Washington is counting on cowering these new Americans into believing that the 2nd Amendent is no longer revelent. And if Washington gets resistance from educated/ traditional Americans, it will just bring in and grant citizenship to as many more aliens as necessary to get its way. //It's kinda connected.

[Taylormade]

That's does make a lot of sense, lets legalize all the illegals who are just happy to be here and don't care what happens with the original constitution and Obama will be there to give them free phones and wipe their ass.

[Deer Hunter]

About a week ago I was in my adult martial arts class. At the end of the class a guy came in to pick up his 17y/o son. He announced that he had gotten his opinion published in the local paper regarding "The real meaning of the 2nd Amendment." I looked around at the class of 16 people. Americans all. But only the 17y/o boy my 16y/o daughter and myself were native English speakers ore even from the Anglosphere. The rest Russian-Cuban-Korean-Philipino-who-knows-what had all passed their citizenship tests. But 13 out of 16 people in that room thought that the Bill of Rights was about as revelent as the Monroe Doctrine or the Dread Scott decision. None of them had read or even heard of Locke or Hume or Smith ( whos ideas made the Bill of Rights posible). Since that father who made the statement was born, the population of his country has just about doubled, most of it from imigrents, just trying to work and fit in. The Washington government is counting on this diluting of the American Spirit to befuddle Americans who have not yet had enough time to fully assimilate in the free American culture. Washington is counting on cowering these new Americans into believing that the 2nd Amendent is no longer revelent. And if Washington gets resistance from educated/ traditional Americans, it will just bring in and grant citizenship to as many more aliens as necessary to get its way. //It's kinda connected.

I use to live in Central FL (Eustis and Tavares)and the mix of people was very diverse back then, 21 years later im sure its that much worse. The Dems are and did push the race and immigrant card. Theyre oxyMORONS, MORONS being the main portion. Heres what I mean. "To save the kids we're going to ban semi automatic weapons and if you dont like it we'll drag you behind our truck until you do! Or "We've got to shoot Wayne Lapierre and anybody else associated with with the NRA to keep everybody safe." Its amazing how violent pacifists are, is it not?

[Grendel-Gene]

That's does make a lot of sense, lets legalize all the illegals who are just happy to be here and don't care what happens with the original constitution and Obama will be there to give them free phones and wipe their ass.

I knew about the obamaphones.... but the obama TOILET PAPER is a new one!!!! ha ha ha!!! No wait!! As a good muslim he uses his hand!!!! THATS IT!!! ha ha ha !

[Sojorboy]

What I fail to understand is "they" are willing to risk their lives to get her because American is so good
But yet once they get here they try to change everything ?

[COTNTOP]

I do contract maintenance for the DOD and a large percentage of personnel have some foreign accent. Don't look like the America i was raised in.

[Dogue]

What I fail to understand is "they" are willing to risk their lives to get her because American is so good
But yet once they get here they try to change everything ?

Even happens to native born Americans; many from the NE pack up their lives and move to FL for a 'better life', then they try to change FL into what they had up north. I guess there's a comfort level in having a Nanny State/Govt and some people are afraid to be free of that.

[michaelmew]

About a week ago I was in my adult martial arts class.

What style(s) are you studying?

-mm

[stanc]

...13 out of 16 people in that room thought that the Bill of Rights was about as revelent as the Monroe Doctrine or the Dread Scott decision.

I'm inclined to agree. When the 2nd Amendment was written, there was a small standing Army, and state militias formed the bulk of land forces.

Today the regular Army is the main land force, augmented by the Army Reserve and Army Reserve National Guard; official state militias long ago ceased to exist.

[cory]

I'm inclined to agree. When the 2nd Amendment was written, there was a small standing Army, and state militias formed the bulk of land forces.

Today the regular Army is the main land force, augmented by the Army Reserve and Army Reserve National Guard; official state militias long ago ceased to exist.

1. The official state militia does exist the National Guard.

2. According to a ruling by the supreme court in 1930 something. We the people are the militia the 2nd Amendment refers too.

3. The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with a national military or limiting the rights of the people. They are there to limit the power of the Federal Gov, protect us citizens from a tyrannical gov., and when necessary guaranteeing the people the ability to act when the gov. becomes tyrannical, as the founders believed it would.

[vanguard138]

Well stated.

[BjornF16]

Gents,

Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land. For the entire 18th, 19th and first portion of 20th Centuries, it wasn't even questioned that the "militia" was the entire US citizenry.

From US Supreme Court Ruling in Presser vs People of Illinois (1886):

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.

Later, the 14th Amendment was passed which made the Bill of Rights apply to states as well as Feds (see Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v Chicago).

[stanc]

1. The official state militia does exist the National Guard.

Army Reserve National Guard units do perform some of the same functions that state militias used to, but I'm pretty sure the ARNG is not officially considered a militia. Can you cite a source that it is?

2. According to a ruling by the supreme court in 1930 something. We the people are the militia the 2nd Amendment refers too.

I think you'll find that "the people" are considered a reserve (unofficial and unorganized) militia. The 2nd Amendment addresses only "well regulated" (official and organized) militias.

3. The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with a national military or limiting the rights of the people. They are there to limit the power of the Federal Gov, protect us citizens from a tyrannical gov., and when necessary guaranteeing the people the ability to act when the gov. becomes tyrannical, as the founders believed it would.

The 2nd Amendment says no such thing. To the contrary, it says that the purpose of the militia is security of the state. And IIRC, elsewhere in the Constitution armed rebellion is made unlawful.

[BjornF16]

Stan,

See the Militia Act of 1903 (aka the "Dick Act"):

The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as the Dick Act, was initiated by United States Secretary of War Elihu Root following the Spanish–American War of 1898, after the war demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, and in the entire U.S. military. The act formulated the concept of the National Guard and also ensured that all state military forces were simultaneously dual reservists under the authority of the Army Reserve. This last measure was to prevent state governors from using National Guard forces as "private armies", in many ways as had been done in the American Civil War and to ensure that the President could, at any time, mobilize state military forces into the federal armed forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

[BjornF16]

I think you'll find that "the people" are considered a reserve (unofficial and unorganized) militia. The 2nd Amendment addresses only "well regulated" (official and organized) militias.

Stan, you are incorrect. Please see Supreme Court Ruling in Presser v People of Illinois:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.

source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ge...6/252.html

As you know, Supreme Court rulings are the Law of the Land.

Additionally, here are the words of the 2A:

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.

.

"well regulated" meaning trained in firearms use...not ONLY a official militia organization. "necessary to the security" meaning it does no good if the people have guns but don't know how to use them (or bullets to fire from them). The Supreme Court has said that the 2A applies to us all.

Finally, Cory is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in that the Bill of Rights was put in place to protect the PEOPLE from the Federal Government, and the 14th Amendment places that burden also upon the States. See Supreme Court Ruling in McDonald v. Chicago (http://guncite.com/court/fed/McDonaldvChicago.pdf)

[Variable]

Army Reserve National Guard units do perform some of the same functions that state militias used to, but I'm pretty sure the ARNG is not officially considered a militia. Can you cite a source that it is?

I think you'll find that "the people" are considered a reserve (unofficial and unorganized) militia. The 2nd Amendment addresses only "well regulated" (official and organized) militias.

The 2nd Amendment says no such thing. To the contrary, it says that the purpose of the militia is security of the state. And IIRC, elsewhere in the Constitution armed rebellion is made unlawful.

"The people" indeed refers to the people as a whole, with those capable of bearing arms comprising the unorganized "militia".

"Well regulated" in the parlance of the day means competent and trained. I.E. A well "regulated" timepiece/clock-- accurate and reliable. Not "controlled by federal regulations (laws)". The true meaning is that "the people" are not to be forbade, limited, or denied access to arms, as that would decrease their ability to be competent (and respond to threats) with them.

The Federalist papers leave absolutely no wiggle room in what their intent was. "We" ("the people") are not to be debarred, fettered, forbade, limited, etc... the right to keep and bear arms. Our right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. Period.

[BjornF16]

Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller (1939) upheld a conviction against a Mr. Miller (a civilian) who owned/possessed a short barreled shotgun. The rationale for upholding the conviction (under the National Firearms Act of 1934) was that the Court had no knowledge of the militia or military of needing a short barreled shotgun, and therefore it could be regulated.

U.S. v Miller -The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

US v Miller basically validated the Courts opinion in Presser v Illinois (1886) regarding the definition of the "militia" in 2A, and actually remanded the case back to the lower courts to see if there was any evidence that a short barreled shotgun contributed to the "efficiency of a well regulated militia" (or "in common use at the time"). The lower courts could find no such evidence and upheld the conviction.

I'm not sure why we don't hear more of US v Miller as precedence. According to this ruling, ANY weapon that contributes to the "efficiency" of a well regulated militia (or National Guard, or military organization), should be LEGALLY owned by a citizen.

source: http://guncite.com/miller.html

[stanc]

Stan, you are incorrect. Please see Supreme Court Ruling in Presser v People of Illinois:

:confused: Huh? You say I'm incorrect, then cite Presser, which says the same as I did -- that the people are a reserve militia.

Additionally, here are the words of the 2A:

"well regulated" meaning trained in firearms use...

Not quite. It actually meant organized and trained for military operations.

"necessary to the security" meaning it does no good if the people have guns but don't know how to use them (or bullets to fire from them).

Incorrect. "Security" refers to maintaining the territorial integrity of the state and well being of its citizens, not to marksmanship training or access to bullets.

Finally, Cory is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in that the Bill of Rights was put in place to protect the PEOPLE from the Federal Government...

But, where does the 2nd Amendment say anything to that effect?

[Kikn]

It seems there may be a simple solution.

Form independent militias outside the scope of the national guard as it is funded and controlled by the federal government.

Since the 2ND amendment recognizes the right of people to form a militia and those in the militia cannot be denied the right to own arms as being part of the militia.

[stanc]

"The people" indeed refers to the people as a whole, with those capable of bearing arms comprising the unorganized "militia".

Concur.

"Well regulated" in the parlance of the day means competent and trained. I.E. A well "regulated" timepiece/clock-- accurate and reliable. Not "controlled by federal regulations (laws)".

Again, concur.

The true meaning is that "the people" are not to be forbade, limited, or denied access to arms, as that would decrease their ability to be competent (and respond to threats) with them.

Agreed, but this part can be considered no longer relevant.

First, almost all modern military weapons are not available to the vast majority of private citizens, therefore competency is not possible.

Second, necessary training for most modern weapons is provided by the armed forces.

The Federalist papers leave absolutely no wiggle room in what their intent was.

However, the Federalist papers are not law. What is in the Constitution is what the OP addressed.