Preaching to the Choir

[stanc]

Stan:

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

LR1955

I dunno if there are any, Gene.

As written, the 2A appears to make keeping and bearing arms necessary only to support the then-perceived need/desire to have state militias.

It addresses only defense of the state, with no mention of individual self-defense, let alone sporting purposes.

And, since there haven't been any official state militias for a very long time, there is no need for individuals to have privately-owned weapons suitable for militia use.

I wish I could offer a good idea, but I got nuthin. You?

[IceAxe]

I think think this article from the national review might be helpful to some.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...-bear-arms

[montana]

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.

No Stanc I said a free state is the opposite of a tyrannical state or government my emphasis.

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.

You forgot the word "free" in front of state meaning free state "country". I said tyrannical government not federal government. Talk about using erroneous meaning to what I say.

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.

So what does it mean to you Stanc, the second Amendment protects the right of the government?? people?? to have a free State ?? Explain your meaning.

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


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."

What do you see Stanc? The right of the people to be in a militia, military,?? and to do what with their right to own and bear arms arms ??? Just how do you interpret the Second amendment?

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.

You failed to produce any historical evidence there was division with the interpretation and creation of the second amendment. I have produced many in the founders own words described in the Federalist papers which supports the meaning of the second amendment I prescribe to. I'm still waiting for your evidence or is this historical evidence I cannot see because of the invisible ink you were talking about?

[A5BLASTER]

Stanc I do not know you sir but I wanted to ask a question of you.

What is your opinion on gun ownership, 2A, and gun control?

[stanc]

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.

No Stanc I said a free state is the opposite of a tyrannical state or government my emphasis.

Here's what you wrote in post #49:

"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..."

=stanc]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.

I said tyrannical government not federal government. Talk about using erroneous meaning to what I say.

In post #52 I said:

"[The 2A] does not say the purpose of a militia is for the people to be able to wage war against the government."

In post #54 you replied:

"It states exactly that..."

So, which government were you referring to if not the federal government?

So what does it mean to you Stanc, the second Amendment protects the right of the government?? people?? to have a free State ?? Explain your meaning.

What do you see Stanc? The right of the people to be in a militia, military,?? and to do what with their right to own and bear arms arms ??? Just how do you interpret the Second amendment?

I don't interpret it. I go with what it says:

They thought that militias were needed for defense of the country, so -- since they expected militia members to provide their own individual weapons -- they sought to guarantee that those able-bodied, white males who were required to serve in militias, would be able to own the weapons mandated for militia duty.

You failed to produce any historical evidence there was division with the interpretation and creation of the second amendment. I have produced many in the founders own words described in the Federalist papers which supports the meaning of the second amendment I prescribe to. I'm still waiting for your evidence or is this historical evidence I cannot see because of the invisible ink you were talking about?

Meh. It's been a while since I read it, and I have neither the time nor the interest to go searching for it again.

[stanc]

Stanc I do not know you sir but I wanted to ask a question of you.

What is your opinion on gun ownership, 2A, and gun control?

I'm all in favor of being able to buy and own whatever guns one wants.

I'm opposed to gun control laws.

As to my basic thoughts on the 2A, see post #61, above. In addition, I think that the concept of "unalienable rights" is absurd. In nature, might makes right; only power matters. The only "rights" you possess are those that you have the power to enforce.

[JASmith]

Has anyone noticed that some folks must always be right, have the last word, and argue for the sake of argument even when defending a poorly founded hypothesis takes one into areas damaging to the cause?

[A5BLASTER]

Yes sir I have noticed that myself, thank you for noteing that JASmith.

[JASmith]

I'm all in favor of being able to buy and own whatever guns one wants.

I'm opposed to gun control laws.

As to my basic thoughts on the 2A, see post #61, above. In addition, I think that the concept of "unalienable rights" is absurd. In nature, might makes right; only power matters. The only "rights" you possess are those that you have the power to enforce.

It is all too easy to infer that this statement says that the Declaration of Independence, which ultimately leads to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is equally absurd.

The concept of "unalienable rights" clause is the core theme of all three.

[A5BLASTER]

Ok Stanc I can see your point in how you belive about unalienable rights.

But since you belive they are absord then I ask you with much respect to stop posting because you are infact acting on one of those absord rights called the freedom of speech.

Im sorry Stanc for what will or may be seen as rude comment, but calling our rights absord makes it very very hard to take anything you post seriously.

And I also find it to be a insult to all those that have fought and died to grant these rights and to defend them to this day.

Sorry for posting off topic but I felt I had to call it out.

[stanc]

It is all too easy to infer that this statement says that the Declaration of Independence, which ultimately leads to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is equally absurd.

The concept of "unalienable rights" clause is the core theme of all three.

The "core theme" of all three? Hardly.

It's the core theme of the Bill of Rights, but not the other two.

It's only a small part of the Declaration of Independence, which was primarily a propaganda piece to justify to the monarchies of the world why the Colonies were rebelling against their sovereign.

And the Constitution covers the organization and operation of the federal government.

[JASmith]

The "core theme" of all three? Hardly.

It's the core theme of the Bill of Rights, but not the other two.

It's only a small part of the Declaration of Independence, which was primarily a propaganda piece to justify to the monarchies of the world why the Colonies were rebelling against their sovereign.

And the Constitution covers the organization and operation of the federal government.

Refer to Post #67

[stanc]

Refer to Post #67

Meh. If you don't want to be corrected, don't make blatantly inaccurate statements.

[JASmith]

Meh. If you don't want to be corrected, don't make blatantly inaccurate statements.

...that sounds like an interesting admission!

[Bravo Vector Tango]

I'm all in favor of being able to buy and own whatever guns one wants.

I'm opposed to gun control laws.

As to my basic thoughts on the 2A, see post #61, above. In addition, I think that the concept of "unalienable rights" is absurd. In nature, might makes right; only power matters. The only "rights" you possess are those that you have the power to enforce.

I think what Stan is doing here, is doing an Excellent job of playing Devil's advocate. I know for me personally, at least - having someone to argue (like gentlemen, of course) my point against, is much more effective in developing an intellectual and scholarly foundation for supporting the 2nd Amendment, the ideology of the founding documents, and the principles of American freedom in general.

Stan,

The founding documents are insurance against the exact situation you explain, where rights are determined by force. without inalienable rights, without equalizers, we will always default to "Might makes Right", Bully rules. particularly when it comes to Governments, this is true tenfold, and easily observable in our own government. Where we (the people) have given them inches of power, they've taken miles - it won't stop, and the wages of a system like this can be only death, oppression or a combination of both, for the people. this is the exact form of Tyranny, the very ideals of America were born of, the exact overreaching power that was shaken from our shoulders when we separated from British rule.

The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights and Amendments stand as our voice as one people, Declaring our rights, The documents themselves, the Ideals of Freedom, the foundation on which America stands, that IS the Might of the people - and we must always remember how to enact and draw upon that Might, for we will be challenged.

The 2nd Amendment is paramount to the other inalienable rights established by the founding documents, and indeed, serves as both a lynch pin holding it all together, and as a last physical resort, when those with all the Might come knocking. Government eroding our rights as they have for the last century, is nothing but a bully slowly dismantling the wall around your home, pretty soon, that bully has a clear line of sight, and plenty of stones to throw.

Edited for structure, clarity.

[WitchDoc]

As a new guy here, and reading this entire thread, it just seems disheartening that one would argue so vehemently for/against the 2A. You say that you (Stanc) are for the 2A, but yet argue with almost everyone who has chimed in here. I will be argued against as well, I fully expect. You do have your facts readily available and spit them out like a ma-deuce, with flagrant disregard to actual conversation. I don't know if you are trying to correct or educate or just plain argue with your brothers here.

I am one of those who did fight for our Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To exercise your right to free speech and say that anything about these documents are absurd, is actually absurd in itself. That is your opinion but you tout a serious need for fact. It is easy to cut/paste what you consider facts to a message board, and maybe you have all this info memorized. I just don't find it respectful how you are going about it. I don't think that is what this forum represents. I'm all about facts and education, but you sir, need some higher power. See, that is what our founding fathers were referring to as far as where these rights came from. You don't sound like you believe in this same higher power, and that is cool with me, but if you did, it may make a little more sense on the unalienable rights...

Annnnnnd go! Rip apart my post like you have everyone else. I have my big-boy pants on and I can take it.

[bwaites]

Wow, this has been an entirely useless thread! No one has actually mentioned that there is PLENTY of documentation of Founding Fathers thought and writings on the reasoning for the 2nd Amendment. Washington for instance, "A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."

“Following the revolution but previous to the adoption of the Constitution, debates over militia proposals occupied a large part of the political scene. A variety of plans were put forth by figures ranging from George Washington to Baron von Steuben. All of the proposals called for a general duty of all citizens to be armed.” (Sources: The most extensive studies of these militia proposals are John McAuley Palmer, Washington, Lincoln, Wilson: Three War Statesmen (New York, 1930); Frederick Stern, Citizen Army (New York,1957); John Mahon, The American Militia: Decade of Decision 1789-1800 (Univ of Florida, 1960).)

“George Mason, drafter of the Virginia Bill of militia rights, accused the British of having plotted “to disarm the people—that was the best and most effective way to enslave them”, while Patrick Henry observed that “The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun”.

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
― Alexander Hamilton

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
― James Madison

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
― Richard Henry Lee, The Letters of Richard Henry Lee 1762-1778 V1


"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense..." - John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471(1788


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775



Others have investigated it at length through readings of the Founders:

“The Right is General - It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia as has been elsewhere explained consists of those persons who under the law are liable to the performance of military duty and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrollment of all who are fit to perform military duty or of a small number only or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all and if the right were limited to those enrolled the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is that the people from whom the militia must be taken shall have the right to keep and bear arms and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.”
― Thomas McIntyre Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America;

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed…The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops… "-- Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution" (1787), in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in fill possession of them." - Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliott, Debates

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." - James Burgh "Political Disquisitions: Cr, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses" [London, 1774~1775]


"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803


This is only a short version, but there is little doubt what the Framers intended with the 2nd Amendment if you actually research and read their writings.

[montana]

Wow, this has been an entirely useless thread! No one has actually mentioned that there is PLENTY of documentation of Founding Fathers thought and writings on the reasoning for the 2nd Amendment..

Actually I did on post #44.

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

[JASmith]

bwaites,

Thanks for bringing some real research into the discussion!

The facts you presented help clarify a lot of the confusion most of us, especially me, have about the underpinnings of the 2nd Amendment.

[bwaites]

Actually I did on post #44.

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

Sorry, I apologize! You did and I missed it!