Preaching to the Choir

[stanc]

Is this list intended to get a knee-jerk reaction, or a serious discussion of what bearing arms meant when the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified?

Neither, actually. I was quite specific. I posed a question, to be answered by anyone who cares to do so.

If the it is a serious discussion, a little review of the writings of folks who where around then would be a useful start. I will admit I don't have ready access to the time needed to properly research the question but hope one or more of our brother and sister Grendeliers might have the time, skills, and inclination to do a proper research task.

The following comments are offered to give prompts for Google and other search engines:

One of the Militia Acts (1797 I think) was on the books for more than a century and required that every able bodied male possess a firearm of the type used by infantry.

Second Militia Act of 1792 required every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 to have a musket. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Ac...ct_of_1792

While that legislation, enacted by contemporaries of the writers of the Bill of Rights, specified rifles and not the more expensive ordnance, it does tend to illuminate what an individual might be expected to possess.

Except my question is not about what weapons an individual militia member was expected to possess by the Militia Act, but what weapons an individual is allowed to possess according to the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

Since all of those weapons listed in my previous post (with the possible exception of ICBMs and nukes) are suitable arms for equipping a modern militia force, it logically follows that -- if military-type rifles should be available to the public, without background checks or other 2A infringements -- then the noted weapons should be, too.

But, how many folks would really want hand grenades and Claymore mines (let alone any of the more advanced weapons) to be freely and widely available to anyone with the $$ to buy them?

[stanc]

BTW, it looks to me like citing the 1792 Militia Act is not a good basis on which to support the 2A.

This country long ago ceased depending upon militias to provide for the security of a free state. We now have a large, standing army, and state militias have been superseded by the National Guard. In both the Army and the NG, weapons are provided to the individual, not by him.

Accordingly, it is unnecessary for the individual to provide his own weapons for military service. Therefore, it could reasonably be argued that, since the rationale for creating the 2A is null and void, the "right to keep and bear" is also negated.

[JASmith]

I look forward to seeing comments based on research from a variety of forum members

[montana]

http://allnewspipeline.com/Media_Hiding_Truth.php

More mental masturbation!

http://www.redstate.com/diary/johnlibert...a-militia/

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-national-gu...ed-militia

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quota...ng-fathers

[stanc]

More mental masturbation!

http://www.redstate.com/diary/johnlibert...a-militia/

From the above link:

[COLOR="blue"]"The 2nd Amendment – from all accounts written by those who framed and signed the Constitution – was specifically intended to provide a means for the People to defend themselves against a rogue federal government.

The right to form a militia and defend themselves from a tyrannical and un-Constitutional federal government remains with the states and the People as expressed in the 2nd Amendment..."[/COLOR]

Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment says absolutely nothing about the purpose of either the militia or the "right to keep and bear arms" as being defense against a tyrannical government.

More than that, the Constitution states that the militia is to be used to put down insurrections.

Since taking up arms against the government -- whether tyrannical, or not -- would be insurrection, we are left with the contradiction that the militia is (according to the Constitution) supposed to quell insurrection, but also is (according to the opinion of various private individuals, but not the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment) supposed to conduct insurrection.

=================

The author of that article is right about one thing, however: The National Guard is not a militia.

"A militia is an independent force under its own leadership that is formed by Constitutional state and local governments and the People."

This presents another problem for RKBA proponents. Since militias formed by state and local governments were superseded by National Guard units a century ago, the need for "a well regulated Militia" has disappeared. And, since members of the National Guard do not provide their own individual weapons, but are instead armed by the government, there is accordingly no longer a need for private ownership of arms suitable for militia use.

Worse still, the courts have repeatedly ruled that the right to keep and bear is not absolute, meaning that it is Constitutional to ban some times of weapons, as well as concealed carry. Plus, some of the stuff in Heller may prove to be serious problems for gunowners.

[montana]

From the above link:

[COLOR="blue"]"The 2nd Amendment – from all accounts written by those who framed and signed the Constitution – was specifically intended to provide a means for the People to defend themselves against a rogue federal government.

The right to form a militia and defend themselves from a tyrannical and un-Constitutional federal government remains with the states and the People as expressed in the 2nd Amendment..."[/COLOR]

Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment says absolutely nothing about the purpose of either the militia or the "right to keep and bear arms" as being defense against a tyrannical government.

More than that, the Constitution states that the militia is to be used to put down insurrections.

Since taking up arms against the government -- whether tyrannical, or not -- would be insurrection, we are left with the contradiction that the militia is (according to the Constitution) supposed to quell insurrection, but also is (according to the opinion of various private individuals, but not the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment) supposed to conduct insurrection.

=================

The author of that article is right about one thing, however: The National Guard is not a militia.

"A militia is an independent force under its own leadership that is formed by Constitutional state and local governments and the People."

This presents another problem for RKBA proponents. Since militias formed by state and local governments were superseded by National Guard units a century ago, the need for "a well regulated Militia" has disappeared. And, since members of the National Guard do not provide their own individual weapons, but are instead armed by the government, there is accordingly no longer a need for private ownership of arms suitable for militia use.

Worse still, the courts have repeatedly ruled that the right to keep and bear is not absolute, meaning that it is Constitutional to ban some times of weapons, as well as concealed carry. Plus, some of the stuff in Heller may prove to be serious problems for gunowners.

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." I guess your logic means a tyrannical government is a free state and the government can infringe on rights. You obvious did not read the founders statements on the Second amendment but hey they were the ones who created it so lets ignore the Federalist papers and listen to the new interpretation by the progressives. The court had 4 judges rule the Second Amendment does not give an individual any rights to own guns even though it is in the Bill of Rights. Government has powers not rights so this is a moronic argument argued by morons for morons. Our rights are not absolute since we cannot yell fire in a movie theater has been a long used argument to those who wish to impede our freedoms. I hate to explain this to the dim witted but this is the misuse of a freedom not an excuse to limit a freedom. We have laws on the way we cannot use firearms such as robbery and murder but in defense of our property, lives and freedom it is legal. I guess it depends on what is is.

[stanc]

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."

Yup, like I said. Absolutely nothing in there about insurrection against a tyrannical government.

However, it also brings up another point: Since the militia concept was abandoned 100 years ago, it demonstrates that militias are not something that a free State truly needs to have.

I guess your logic means a tyrannical government is a free state and the government can infringe on rights.

Never said a tyrannical government is a free state, so that part of your comment is irrational.

And since the government has been infringing on "rights" for at least a century, clearly they can do so.

You obvious did not read the founders statements on the Second amendment but hey they were the ones who created it so lets ignore the Federalist papers and listen to the new interpretation by the progressives.

I'm not interested in interpretations. Whenever people "interpret" something written in plain English, it's because they want it to mean something other than what it says.

I'm just looking at what the 2nd Amendment actually says. And there is nothing in it which says the purpose of a militia is for the people to be able to conduct insurrection, while the Constitution specifically states the militia is to be used against insurrection.

The court had 4 judges rule the Second Amendment does not give an individual any rights to own guns even though it is in the Bill of Rights. Government has powers not rights so this is a moronic argument argued by morons for morons. Our rights are not absolute since we cannot yell fire in a movie theater has been a long used argument to those who wish to impede our freedoms. I hate to explain this to the dim witted but this is the misuse of a freedom not an excuse to limit a freedom. We have laws on the way we cannot use firearms such as robbery and murder but in defense of our property, lives and freedom it is legal. I guess it depends on what is is.

Chaotic sentences. It's not at all clear what you're trying to say.

[LR1955]

BTW, it looks to me like citing the 1792 Militia Act is not a good basis on which to support the 2A.

Stan:

If so, tell us those historical things that do support the 2A.

LR1955

[montana]

Stanc ,after reading your reply I'm starting to understand what you meant by mental masturbation. You stated the 2nd amendment says nothing about a tyrannical government yet it clearly states the "security of a free state" thus you must consider a tyrannical government a free state since you see nothing in there about a tyrannical government. Free state means opposite of tyrannical government so your comment is irrational .

Yes, governments have been infringing on peoples rights yet that does not mean it is OK or desirable by definition just by yours I guess?

You are not interested in the interpretations by people ??????? You used the courts interpretations and yet are they not people???? You scoff at the creators interpretations yet use the progressive people in the courts as an example. I guess you meant to say you are only interested in the opinion of the progressive people in our courts and not the people who actually created the Second Amendment.

Lastly if people in government disregard the Constitution it is not the citizens creating an insurrection it is the people in government who are creating the insurrection thus the militia can put down the insurrection by the people in government.

[Bravo Vector Tango]

The mere inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights intrinsically infers that it is a right of the people, and exists because the framers understood that an overreaching government will do as they wish, and operate with impunity "above the law" in their own eyes.

The fact that the rights of the American citizen have been under ever-increasing duress from our own elected servants (read: Government) for the last century should serve as a hallmark of the true intentions of those that have slowly cemented their own foundation of power, while eroding that of the people. in light of a government that seeks to erode the very founding ideals established for it's own citizens, this alone should stand as a beacon of the rising tide of tyranny.

The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and The Bill of Rights serve as an established high ground, afforded to the American citizenry in a nation that is by, of and for the people. Not by, of and for the government to subjugate and dominate.

The very spirit of what it means to be American was forged in the blood and fire of insurrection, uprising against a tyrannical authority of government - I cannot conclude that it would ever be in the design of this great country, to not hold fast the same ideals, by blood, courage and honor - Red, White and Blue.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

Declaration of Independence, In Congress, July 4th, 1776.

Thank you and God bless the American People on this day of our independence,
BVT

Edited to add: Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence.

[Slappy]

Ryan was in Texas the end of last week firing automatic weapons on some ranch, go figure. Had a friend that was there for those that are wondering why I knew this. Spouting that Texas is backing the latest bill coming on Wednesday and spewing how he/they worked it and worded the bill to benefit everyone? Also saying this is something that had to be done because of the other side? BANG BANG!!

[stanc]

Stanc ,after reading your reply I'm starting to understand what you meant by mental masturbation. You stated the 2nd amendment says nothing about a tyrannical government yet it clearly states the "security of a free state" thus you must consider a tyrannical government a free state since you see nothing in there about a tyrannical government.

Huh? No mention of tyrannical government equals "tyrannical government is a free state" in your mind??? My only response to that "logic" is: Wow!

Yes, governments have been infringing on peoples rights yet that does not mean it is OK or desirable by definition just by yours I guess?

Never said it was either okay or desirable. All I said is that they are able to do it.

You are not interested in the interpretations by people ??????? You used the courts interpretations and yet are they not people???? You scoff at the creators interpretations yet use the progressive people in the courts as an example. I guess you meant to say you are only interested in the opinion of the progressive people in our courts and not the people who actually created the Second Amendment.

It would be helpful if you didn't ascribe your own (and usually erroneous) meanings to what I say.

When I said I wasn't interested in interpretations, that includes those of progressives.

The courts' interpretations cannot be ignored or dismissed, however, since they determine law, whether the opinion of the court is rendered by progressive judges, or conservative ones.

As for the opinions of the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they were not in unanimous agreement on these issues. Some wanted power to reside in the Federal government; others wanted power to be with the States. The resulting compromise gave us the vague wording in the 2nd Amendment, which -- as I previously stated -- does not say the purpose of a militia is for the people to be able to wage war against the government.

Lastly if people in government disregard the Constitution it is not the citizens creating an insurrection it is the people in government who are creating the insurrection thus the militia can put down the insurrection by the people in government.

Heh, heh. You can make up your own definition of "insurrection" if you wish, but don't expect it to have the force of law.

As for the notion of militias putting down "insurrection" by the Federal government, that's gone badly for everyone who's tried it in the last 240 years.

[stanc]

The mere inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights intrinsically infers that it is a right of the people...

Concur. (Although I think "rights" are a figment of the imagination, and do not exist in reality.)

...and exists because the framers understood that an overreaching government will do as they wish, and operate with impunity "above the law" in their own eyes.

If that's true, then why isn't there something to that effect in the 2nd Amendment? Why does it only address security of the State, and not security of the individual?

[montana]

Huh? No mention of tyrannical government equals "tyrannical government is a free state" in your mind??? My only response to that "logic" is: Wow!

A state which is not free is a tyrannical government- my logic

Your quote;Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment says absolutely nothing about the purpose of either the militia or the "right to keep and bear arms" as being defense against a tyrannical government.

So the right of the people to own and bear arms for a free state says nothing about the purpose of the militia or the right to bear arms when it states exactly that??? put that WOW and logic right back at yourself.



It would be helpful if you didn't ascribe your own (and usually erroneous) meanings to what I say.

When I said I wasn't interested in interpretations, that includes those of progressives.

So you are not interested in the interpretations of progressives on the court but then you state:

The courts' interpretations cannot be ignored or dismissed, however, since they determine law, whether the opinion of the court is rendered by progressive judges, or conservative ones.

But the actual creators of the Second amendment has no bearing to you or the actual meaning ????

As for the opinions of the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they were not in unanimous agreement on these issues. Some wanted power to reside in the Federal government; others wanted power to be with the States. The resulting compromise gave us the vague wording in the 2nd Amendment, which -- as I previously stated -- does not say the purpose of a militia is for the people to be able to wage war against the government.

It states exactly that and they were in agreement on that subject. Show me quotes from the framers of the second amendment that shows division about the Second amendment since you just proclaimed they were divided on this subject. Yes there was much division with centralized power vs states powers, we had a civil war over it.


Heh, heh. You can make up your own definition of "insurrection" if you wish, but don't expect it to have the force of law.

You may not consider a government ignoring constitutional law and due process as an insurrection but that is exactly what it is since no one is above the law.

As for the notion of militias putting down "insurrection" by the Federal government, that's gone badly for everyone who's tried it in the last 240 years.

Yes, the US is special in that regards but a well trained and armed populace is not easily put into slavery unlike the normal disarmed populaces that have been murdered and enslaved through out history.

[Bravo Vector Tango]

Concur. (Although I think "rights" are a figment of the imagination, and do not exist in reality.)


If that's true, then why isn't there something to that effect in the 2nd Amendment? Why does it only address security of the State, and not security of the individual?

let us examine the actual linguistics of the 2nd amendment.

"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."

"being necessary to the security of a free State"

lets particularly examine "free State"

the free State, surely refers to encompass all the lawful citizens and their elected representatives, as one body. indivisible. the elected representatives the apparatus of the will of the free people, by design. the free states, then encompassing the union of the United States of America.

Alternatively, I think a "free State" could infer a "free state of nature" in context. However, I think under no circumstances, does the "free State" allude to the "State" as a reference to Central Government as we commonly see it referenced today (Example: The State VS. Heller).

Edit to add: the more i think about it, the more I align with it meaning "Free state of nature" because that is exactly what the documents establish across the board, the rights of the people, to live in a free state of nature - outside the persecution of an overreaching, tyrannical government.

[37L1]

Why is "State" capitalized if it refers to a "free state of nature"?

[Bravo Vector Tango]

Why is "State" capitalized if it refers to a "free state of nature"?

Good point, perhaps the prior interpretation, is more accurate after all.

[JASmith]

...then why isn't there something to that effect in the 2nd Amendment? Why does it only address security of the State, and not security of the individual?

Because the writers of the Bill and the folks that voted for it, having just fought a bloody war to through off the yoke of a tyranniical government that was bleeding th dry, viewed the right to bear arms as patently obvious.

They also new first-hand the costs of even a successful insurrection.

[stanc]

Huh? No mention of tyrannical government equals "tyrannical government is a free state" in your mind??? My only response to that "logic" is: Wow!

A state which is not free is a tyrannical government- my logic

Now, that is not a totally unreasonable statement. However, what you said is that not mentioning "tyrannical government" is the same thing as saying a "tyrannical government is a free state." Big difference.

Your quote; Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment says absolutely nothing about the purpose of either the militia or the "right to keep and bear arms" as being defense against a tyrannical government.

So the right of the people to own and bear arms for a free state says nothing about the purpose of the militia or the right to bear arms when it states exactly that??? put that WOW and logic right back at yourself.

The only thing it says in regard to the reason for having a militia is security of the State. It does not say that waging war on the Federal government is a reason for having a militia.

It would be helpful if you didn't ascribe your own (and usually erroneous) meanings to what I say.

When I said I wasn't interested in interpretations, that includes those of progressives.

So you are not interested in the interpretations of progressives on the court but then you state:

The courts' interpretations cannot be ignored or dismissed, however, since they determine law, whether the opinion of the court is rendered by progressive judges, or conservative ones.

But the actual creators of the Second amendment has no bearing to you or the actual meaning ????

Correct. It's written in plain English, so I take it to mean what it says, whereas you and most other people want it to mean something else, so you "interpret" it to mean what it doesn't say.

If the framers really meant something else, I think they were intelligent enough to have written it so that it says what they meant.

As for the opinions of the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they were not in unanimous agreement on these issues. Some wanted power to reside in the Federal government; others wanted power to be with the States. The resulting compromise gave us the vague wording in the 2nd Amendment, which -- as I previously stated -- does not say the purpose of a militia is for the people to be able to wage war against the government.

It states exactly that...

Really? Is it written in invisible ink or something? Because when I read it, I sure don't see:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the people to be able to wage war against the government, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

...and they were in agreement on that subject. Show me quotes from the framers of the second amendment that shows division about the Second amendment since you just proclaimed they were divided on this subject. Yes there was much division with centralized power vs states powers, we had a civil war over it.

And part of that division was reportedly over the subject of militias, and who should control them. The prefatory clause in the 2nd was a compromise that appears to me to be intentionally rather vague, so as to get both sides to approve it, even though it doesn't explicitly address the matter.

Heh, heh. You can make up your own definition of "insurrection" if you wish, but don't expect it to have the force of law.

You may not consider a government ignoring constitutional law and due process as an insurrection but that is exactly what it is since no one is above the law.

Again, that's only your definition.

insurrection : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government ~ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection

[stanc]

let us examine the actual linguistics of the 2nd amendment.

"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."

"being necessary to the security of a free State"

lets particularly examine "free State"

the free State, surely refers to encompass all the lawful citizens and their elected representatives, as one body. indivisible. the elected representatives the apparatus of the will of the free people, by design. the free states, then encompassing the union of the United States of America.

Alternatively, I think a "free State" could infer a "free state of nature" in context. However, I think under no circumstances, does the "free State" allude to the "State" as a reference to Central Government as we commonly see it referenced today (Example: The State VS. Heller).

IIRC, in Heller, the majority opinion is that "free State" is synonymous with "free country" -- which would correlate with your first idea, that it refers to the entire body of people...and, I would submit, the territory in which they reside, for without state/national boundaries, there is no "state" as such.