Just as the Constitution doesn't say everyone has the right to abortion...

shnarkle

Well-known member
Right, because there's no difference between what's happening in these two countries, is there? They're both going through the same hardships, aren't they?

:rolleyes:
Where's our $40B worth of military hardware? We're not going through the same hardships. We're not getting $40B in military hardware.
 

vibise

Well-known member
I was simply responding to your claim, “And those musket owners would have to be part of a well-regulated militia.” Which isn’t necessarily true. The right to bear arms was broad. Not everyone with the right to bear arms would end up in the militia.
That was not clear from the phrasing of the 2nd amendment.
 

mikeT

Active member
That was not clear from the phrasing of the 2nd amendment.
Correct. It came from the interpretation of SCOTUS justices - who have very recently demonstrated that Constitutional interpretation is subject to partisan change.
 

Crazy Ivan

Active member
The fact that you believe the mainstream narrative spotlights that you've made no progress whatsoever in finding anything to the contrary.

And yet you never provided one yourself. That's not just inconsistent, it's a double standard. You ask for a higher standard for what others post than you provide yourself. Perhaps you haven't been here very long. History is presented through the lens of those who write it, and quite often they have an axe to grind, or some other motives.

I grew up believing the same nonsense you're presenting now. It's what they continue to teach in schools so no surprise that people continue to propagate this as if it's a Given.

It is only a double standard if you ask me for a link and I don’t provide it. Because if you did ask for a link, I would. But you insist you don’t want one. That’s not my problem. And thus not a double standard.
 

Crazy Ivan

Active member
That was not clear from the phrasing of the 2nd amendment.

It was totally clear to the people that not everyone with a gun would end up in the militia. I mean…. Come on vibise, don’t be absurd. 85 year old men still had guns but weren’t expected to be in the militia.
 

mikeT

Active member
Bus let's face it - the "Constitution" says whatever the "Supreme Court" du jour SAYS that it says.
I wouldn't agree with that exactly, Bob, but you're right. That was the point of this thread.

Behavior you think is constitutional today can be declared unconstitutional tomorrow. This is true regardless of whether we're talking about abortion or gun ownership. And the people who claim to want the Constitution upheld will have no basis for crying when it happens.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
I already addressed this. It's a prefatory clause that the part I quoted is not dependent on, and well-regulated did not mean what it would mean today. How are you guys this dishonest?
Well yes, you 'addressed' it (if by 'addressed' you mean 'made several completely unsupported claims about'). You provide precisely nothing to show why the part you quoted isn't dependent on the part you omitted, you provided precisely nothing to show that 'well-regulated' did not mean what it would mean today, and you provided precisely nothing to show that whatever the meaning of 'well-regulated' means, it would change the intent of the part you omitted. How are you guys this dishonest?
 

Gondwanaland

Well-known member
you provided precisely nothing to show that 'well-regulated' did not mean what it would mean today, and you provided precisely nothing to show that whatever the meaning of 'well-regulated' means, it would change the intent of the part you omitted. How are you guys this dishonest?
"well-regulated" at the time meant "in proper working order". It didn't mean "pass regulations to control it". In those days you'd say you have a well-regulated watch if your watch was wound and functioning properly.
Well yes, you 'addressed' it (if by 'addressed' you mean 'made several completely unsupported claims about'). You provide precisely nothing to show why the part you quoted isn't dependent on the part you omitted,
I've already gone over this at length with your friend vibise and she ran away, so kindly do not speak falsely like you just did. Let's see if you have some more courage than her.

I make my statement according to grammar and a number of other examples of the use of the prefatory clause around the time of the writing of the Amendment.

Here's an analogy.

“A well kept library, being necessary to the education of an intelligent nation, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Whose right to keep and read books shall not be infringed, the library, or the people?

Is the act of keeping and reading books subservient to how the library is kept?

Does the library have to belong to the state?

Would you accept any infringement on what books you may or may not own and read?


--

The prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit that which follows (the operative clause) to that purpose .

Prefatory clauses are not common today, but in this case it is the equivalent of having written "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Here's Rhode Island's constitution using a similar prefatory clause:
"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty"

Would you assert that Rhode Island only gave the right to publish their sentiments on any subject, to the press? Of course not, that's not remotely how it reads. Yet that's how you are trying to read the 2nd Amendment.

--
Some even more in depth historical evidence that you are talking out your butt:

George Mason, the co-writer of the 2nd Amendment:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778


"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." -- Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

Richard Henry Lee wrote in Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788 that "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves" and made it clear that it "include all men capable of bearing arms" and added that "The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."

The position that the Second Amendment guarantees a right of individual Americans to own and carry (private ownership), was embraced by every known legal scholar in the 19th century who wrote about the Second Amendment (although several wrote about its limitations, all considered it an individual right), and is the consensus of most modern legal scholarship. Any claim to the contrary is pure historical revisionism.

St. George Tucker, a judge and law professor from Virginia, published an edition of Blackstone's Commentaries, in 1803, where he added explanations of how it related to American law, including the new Constitution. Shortly after, Tucker's Blackstone became nearly universally regarded as being the leading American authority on both Blackstone and American law.

Tucker addressed the Second Amendment in several places, clearly saying that it protected the individual, natural right of self-defense. After quoting the amendment he wrote:


"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 colour or pretext whatsoever prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

In his notes concerning Blackstone's description of the individual's right to have and use arms for self-defense, Tucker applauded the Second Amendment's "right of the people" for being "without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." In everything that Tucker wrote he explained that the right belonged to the individuals and not to some collective state right.


William Rawle of Pennsylvania, who had turned down an offer by George Washington to be the nation's first Attorney General, published his View of the Constitution of the United States of America in 1825 with a second edition printed in 1829. In it, especially in the second edition, he made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms belonged to the ordinary citizen, writing that

"No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people."

This same view can again be seen in the very influential 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States by Supreme Court Justice and law professor Joseph Story, as well as in his later Familiar Exposition of the Constitution. By paraphrasing the "right of the people" as the "right of the citizens" -- not of States or members of a militia -- Story left zero doubt that he meant the right to belong to individuals. He unequivocally stated that:

"the right of the citizens to keep, and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic."

Story was even more direct in his Familiar Exposition when he wrote:


"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is by disarming the people and making it an offense to keep arms."

Henry Tucker (son of St. George) shared the view of the Second Amendment as securing an individual right. In an 1831 commentary he stated:


"The right of bearing arms ... is practically enjoyed by every citizen, and is among his most valuable privileges."

And this view was the one expressed after the Civil War as well (Woods 1886, Black 1895) as well as in how the Freeman Bureau Act of 1866, referred to the rights of the people included:

"the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such State or district without respect to race or color, or previous conditions of slavery."
 
Top