Interpreting the 2A

[Truebeliever]

After a healthy debate on another thread, I said I would start a separate thread on this subject.

Please watch the following before commenting. It is Scalia explaining the second admendment and what it really means.


Please note how he talks of the historical context of it and it’s wording as if the right to keep and bear arms was not a new right granted by the constitution but preservation of an existing right and understanding before the 2nd Admendment was written.

For those on the gun control side, it means that adults (men at the time) were to bring their own weapons to the militia call ups . And could defend themselves and homes/communities.

But on the other side, historically , the already established right had some limitations or regulations attached including some bans on certain activities and weapons. Hence the Scalia “common use” standard of which the lower courts don’t seem to follow as they should.

Now, I expect the usual absolute argument of “shall not be infringed “ crowd to say it means every “arm “ but I would counter that’s not what that preestablished “ right” was understood to be when it was written.

Please remember that Scilica is the reason Heller passed by a 5 to 4 and even more importantly the McDonald decision. I hope this informative on how the court thinks and sparks a healthy and respectful debate.

This more of how he interrupted the constitution.


And the non binding oral argument of Heller


And the binding opinion as read by him

 

[Marine Cpl]

Many people get bamboozled when these Judges are tasked with finding ways to infinge on our rights. They buy into the whole wordsmithing these Judges put out to find hidden meanings that aren't there that'll serve their purposes into not allowing us to not have certain arms that can be used to dispose of the government or for the method to bear against undesirables or the government itself. Only an ignorant person can't see that it's in the government's best interest to limit these rights to hamper the abilities of the citizenry.

The founders without a doubt gave us the protections of the 2A to be able to dispose of the government and maintain a free state instead of an enslaved state. It even says so in the Declaration of Independence. In this day and age, in order to protect yourself against undesirables and the government itself is the ability to bear concealed. When you have an agent of the government at every street corner watching your every move either on camera or personally, how else are you supposed protect yourself or move unless the firearm is concealed? Whatever armed civil disobedience is organized by the people will be put down quickly if they can identify those by bearing openly. The rebellion is limited without that ability. It limits the ability to go from bearing concealed to bearing openly at the right time.

And as far as personal defense goes which is a part of maintaining a personal free state instead of an enslaved one or hindered one by an undesirable or criminal, bearing concealed is tactically the best method to do so. But the government wants to limit that right and take that tool away from you.

Whatever. People here and elsewhere aren't going to change their minds because...

1. They work or worked for the government and have been infringing on others for a very long time now and see it as normal.

2. They are just flat out ignorant and can't see the whole picture of what these limitations can do and ignorantly legitimize the wordsmithing that a judge has to do to find a way to restrict an amendment that had no written limitations to it like other amendments have.

3. Just don't want to lose an argument even though deep down they see some validity.

Whatever. Think what you want and keep allowing and giving credence to the government in hamstringing you when they play with words.

A well regulated Militia (abled bodied men that can rise up and take up arms), being necessary to the security of a free State ( a free state instead of an enslaved state) , the right of the people to keep (have) and bear (carry) Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nowhere does it say what arms or what method of bearing. If the right was limited, they would have added the clause "as prescribed by law" which actually puts limits on the amendment like they did to the 3rd Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

It's written in plain English. Those amendments that have limitations, say so. They use words like "as prescribed by law", "reasonable", etc. It's crystal clear. There's no need for wordsmithing to try and ponder what they actually really meant. The amendments that are open-ended already have words and clauses to say so. If the founding fathers wanted the Second Amendment to be open-ended, they would have added the same clauses and words that other open amendments have. But because the Second Amendment has no words or clauses, corrupt judges have resorted to wordsmithing to limit it and ignorant people eat it up. It's all there.

If George Washington himself was reincarnated today and he took hold of the effort to dispose of the government like he did in his day, does anyone here think that he would be opposed to himself having a modern rifle that shoots fully-automatic and a concealed handgun for his own personal protection when out and about? Anyone who says yes that he would not be opposed to those restrictions on himself is a flat-out liar.

Scalia was a clever man. He found a way to add limitations to an amendment that had none (unlike other amendments that clearly have deliberate written limitations in them) by wordsmithing and using conjecture to allow the government to not ever be disposed of and America ate it up like the fools that they are. Some even praise him.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Scalia says in the first video that the 2A was modeled after the English Bill of Rights. I think not.

• Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

I think not. That passage that allowed regulations was deliberately left out of the American 2nd Amendment. They didn't forget to put it in. In fact they put it in the 3rd Amendment. If they wanted it in there they would have put it in there. Wordsmithing and conjecture is what Scalia resorted to. He's the man who single-handedly destroyed the Second Amendment with his corrupt, conjectured opinion that we now have to live with.

 

[Podmonkey]

Humans will have what they want.

 

[@thewheels]

Scalia was a clever man. He found a way to add limitations to an amendment that had none (unlike other amendments that clearly have deliberate written limitations in them) by wordsmithing and using conjecture to allow the government to not ever be disposed of and America ate it up like the fools that they are. Some even praise him.

His acknowledgment of the Miller case AND citing it's failures/shortcomings and then dancing through its minefield to justify specious limitations is beyond comprehension.
The Miller case should have been the canary in the coal mine for the depression generation that was too busy just trying to survive to deal with the encroaching infringements of the NFA and the people still largely trusted the government.

 

[Truebeliever]

Many people get bamboozled when these Judges are tasked with finding ways to infinge on our rights. They buy into the whole wordsmithing these Judges put out to find hidden meanings that aren't there that'll serve their purposes into not allowing us to not have certain arms that can be used to dispose of the government or for the method to bear against undesirables or the government itself. Only an ignorant person can't see that it's in the government's best interest to limit these rights to hamper the abilities of the citizenry.

The founders without a doubt gave us the protections of the 2A to be able to dispose of the government and maintain a free state instead of an enslaved state. It even says so in the Declaration of Independence. In this day and age, in order to protect yourself against undesirables and the government itself is the ability to bear concealed. When you have an agent of the government at every street corner watching your every move either on camera or personally, how else are you supposed protect yourself or move unless the firearm is concealed? Whatever armed civil disobedience is organized by the people will be put down quickly if they can identify those by bearing openly. The rebellion is limited without that ability. It limits the ability to go from bearing concealed to bearing openly at the right time.

And as far as personal defense goes which is a part of maintaining a personal free state instead of an enslaved one or hindered one by an undesirable or criminal, bearing concealed is tactically the best method to do so. But the government wants to limit that right and take that tool away from you.

Whatever. People here and elsewhere aren't going to change their minds because...

1. They work or worked for the government and have been infringing on others for a very long time now and see it as normal.

2. They are just flat out ignorant and can't see the whole picture of what these limitations can do and ignorantly legitimize the wordsmithing that a judge has to do to find a way to restrict an amendment that had no written limitations to it like other amendments have.

3. Just don't want to lose an argument even though deep down they see some validity.

Whatever. Think what you want and keep allowing and giving credence to the government in hamstringing you when they play with words.

A well regulated Militia (abled bodied menthat can rise up and take up arms), being necessary to the security of a free State ( a free state instead of an enslaved state) , the right of the people to keep (have) and bear (carry) Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nowhere does it say what arms or what method of bearing. If the right was limited, they would have added the clause "as prescribed by law" which actually puts limits on the amendment like they did to the 3rd Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

It's written in plain English. Those amendments that have limitations, say so. They use words like "as prescribed by law", "reasonable", etc. It's crystal clear. There's no need for wordsmithing to try and ponder what they actually really meant. The amendments that are open-ended already have words and clauses to say so. If the founding fathers wanted the Second Amendment to be open-ended, they would have added the same clauses and words that other open amendments have. But because the Second Amendment has no words or clauses, corrupt judges have resorted to wordsmithing to limit it and ignorant people eat it up. It's all there.

If George Washington himself was reincarnated today and he took hold of the effort to dispose of the government like he did in his day, does anyone here think that he would be opposed to himself having a modern rifle that shoots fully-automatic and a concealed handgun for his own personal protection when out and about? Anyone who says yes that he would not be opposed to those restrictions on him is a flat-out liar.

Scalia was a clever man. He found a way to add limitations to an amendment that had none (unlike other amendments that clearly have deliberate written limitations in them) by wordsmithing and using conjecture to allow the government to not ever be disposed of and America ate it up like the fools that they are. Some even praise him.

Let the debate begin-lol.

It’s because you don’t see it that way doesn’t mean that you are right.
Scalia wasn’t looking for a clever way to put restrictions on it. He could have just sided with the dissent side.

Scalia also votes against what he personally believes if he knows that the constitution says otherwise. He was constitutionalist and a textualist. Words mattered and what they meant when written mattered to him.

The 2nd as a previous recognized right to bear arms makes sense. He is correct in the wording. And if you think “plain text” of what you think it says, listen to the Heller decision dissent. It’s “plain language “ to those justices that it was for a militia ( as in national guard type under state control).

Again, they had some type of regulation of those arms carried. But effective arms of not being in a citizen’s hands was never considered not to be a right, just which and how were regulated such as storage of gun powder or which types of combat axes were legal. I might compare that to the Geneva/Hague convention restriction of combat arms( for the restriction of certain pole axes). That some arms are restricted for various reasons ( such as amount of gun power stored in one place as to the safety of the town) but not to restrict one’s ability to defend one’s self or be in the militia.

I thought his interpretation of Miller and how the question wasn’t if Miller was in a militia but only on the question of the weapon used ( not common use in milita) was genius. That Miller still in in line with Heller and the individual right to bear arms.

This man is the reason the 2nd admendment is still an individual right and not the collective right of each state.

 

[GOPerfect]

While I respect him as a Judge, I respect the words spoken by our Founding Fathers more....




“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.”



The preceding is the version that was ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson.

The words, punctuation and intent are simple to understand, those you wish to tear it down do that with hateful and political reasons. Taking away our Rights as set forth within the Constitution is easy for some



Many of the following quotes will sum up the true meanings set by our Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution. By reading their own words we can dispel many of the anti’s arguments.



Patrick Henry said, "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" he was critical in the American Revolution with his outspoken positions on Rights.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them."
George Mason

"A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country."


"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"

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation's."

"The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a right to protection, as a social right."

"We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties."

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."

"All men having power ought to be mistrusted."
James Madison


"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every Free State."

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security."

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."


"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”
Thomas Jefferson


"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

"When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."
George Washington

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"

"Fear is the passion of slaves."

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

"The great object is that every man be armed."
Patrick Henry



Our Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing at the time, they had the insight not only to look at their current time; but also to see into the future of the Nation. They made the language of the Bill of Rights simple for a reason. They wanted to ensure future generations had the freedoms that they insisted upon. No additional words needed to be added to the wording of OUR Rights, there were no “trick” phrases added. It was written in a way to leave no room for misinterpretations.



Many Americans who find themselves in disagreement of the 2nd Amendment do so by remaining ignorant to the wishing, teachings and writings of the Framers. Some of the best examples of this ignorance are found everywhere in

Today’s society, we hear it on the news each and every day, we hear it from anti-gun groups and most of all we hear it from our elected officials. They have little or no understanding of the original intent of the Bill of Rights.



"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
These words were spoken by Thomas Jefferson.



While speaking of Thomas Jefferson we need to understand some of his deepest ideas in regards to Government, banking and the Militaries of a Country.



It is obvious that the Founding Fathers felt that Standing Armies were among the most dangerous threat to Liberty. While Jefferson noted that Banking establishments were more dangerous, he still used the collective threat of a Standing Army, which the majority of his peers also felt was a critical threat to Liberty. The Militia, composed of the body of the people, is the natural and most logical deterrent to the abuse of power by a Federal Government or Military Leaders overstepping Constitutional Authority using violence as a means of coercion. James Madison wrote “as the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies it is best to prevent them, by an effectual provision for a good Militia”. Do not be confused on the word “Militia” to infer a trained Reserved Army; to understand the wording of the 2nd Amendment, we need to first understand the mindset of those involved in the writings. James Madison's Definition of a Militia is a “A force composed of the body of the people, trained in arms". Not trained in arms to any one Military standard, only trained with those arms that are individually owned and kept!

It is this very reason that the 2nd Amendment is most pertinent in the protection of "military-style" rifles which are the common infantry arm of the time. Any ban on "military-style" rifles imposed upon the civilian population would be in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment and the public check against possible tyranny. With the direction that the USA is taking, it should be known to all that now is the time that we need the protections of the 2nd Amendment. The government is overstepping its Constitutional Authority on a very regular basis; this has nothing to do with political leanings or parties. This trampling of rights has been occurring on all sides of the political spectrum. No one political party has the sole ownership of overstepping the boundaries’. By removing the right to Bear Arms or allowing Politicians and the Courts to “chip away” these rights, we will become one step closer to more infringements upon all of our rights and if the democratic method fails, we shall have no other recourse and our option to resist tyranny will have become forfeit before it even started. It has been stated many times, once the 2nd Amendment is gone, the rest of the Bill of Rights will have little meaning.



Citizens needing to raise arms against different levels of Governments is definitely not common in the US; however, it has been necessary throughout our short history. The Ludlow Massacre in 1913 is an example of why citizens need to Keep and Bear current Military type firearms. During this massacre, the National Guard of Colorado used machine guns against mostly unarmed miners. The Bonus Army Conflict of 1932 in Washington D.C. is yet another fine example of the Military using its brute force against un-armed civilians. The Battle of Athens, Tennessee 1946 a group of WWII vets took up arms against the local government entities in Athens TN in regards to voter fraud. The Michigan National Guard as well as the US Army in 1967 was called into Detroit to put an end to street riots, dozens of lives were lost. In 1970, students at Kent State University, protesting the war in Vietnam were shot at and killed by members of the Ohio National Guard. In 1993 the Davidian complex in Waco Texas was over run using Federal Law Enforcement Officers as well as members of the Texas National Guard and US Army. Nearly 80 people were killed during that raid.



Those attached to the movement to abolish our rights have no shame in what they do. They will cheat, misinform and lie to win their fight. They use incorrect verbiage to confuse the general population. They talk about “High Capacity” magazines and Assault Rifles as if they are evil in existence. They blame the tool; not the individual persons for the crimes committed against society. They use graphic pictures and scenes to “tug” on the heart strings of honest Americans. They continue the lie because they know if they say the lie enough, if they use “famous” people to say the lies; America will be forced to believe the lie. In the end, the lies end up becoming the truth. Past tyrants knew this to be true; “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State”. This was said by Joseph Goebbels.



Each and every time that our elected officials decide to take against the Right for us to Keep and Bear arms is too many. One infringement is enough. Each and every infringement that “they” have used against us is one to many. Stay focused on what is truly important, remain steadfast in all that you do. They may be winning some of the battles, but we will prevail, we will win the war; the war for our Rights.



That's all I got to say about that!

 

[Curmudgeon]

Jesus dude. Have all those in you copy and past file ready to go?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Let the debate begin-lol.

It’s because you don’t see it that way doesn’t mean that you are right.
Scalia wasn’t looking for a clever way to put restrictions on it. He could have just sided with the dissent side.

Scalia also votes against what he personally believes if he knows that the constitution says otherwise. He was constitutionalist and a textualist. Words mattered and what they meant when written mattered to him.

The 2nd as a previous recognized right to bear arms makes sense. He is correct in the wording. And if you think “plain text” of what you think it says, listen to the Heller decision dissent. It’s “plain language “ to those justices that it was for a militia ( as in national guard type under state control).

Again, they had some type of regulation of those arms carried. But effective arms of not being in a citizen’s hands was never considered not to be a right, just which and how were regulated such as storage of gun powder or which types of combat axes were legal. I might compare that to the Geneva/Hague convention restriction of combat arms( for the restriction of certain pole axes). That some arms are restricted for various reasons ( such as amount of gun power stored in one place as to the safety of the town) but not to restrict one’s ability to defend one’s self or be in the militia.

I thought his interpretation of Miller and how the question wasn’t if Miller was in a militia but only on the question of the weapon used ( not common use in milita) was genius. That Miller still in in line with Heller and the individual right to bear arms.

This man is the reason the 2nd admendment is still an individual right and not the collective right of each state.

I would debate your post but @GOPerfect kind of killed that notion. All those quotes he quoted showed their intent one hundred percent.

Scalia violated his oath with conjecture. You can see from the words alone that it wasn't modeled after the English Bill of Rights like he says. Their intent was clear and it goes against all that Scalia says.

And to top it off like I posted before, those phrases like "as prescribed by law" which was taken from the English Bill of Rights was not transferred into the Second Amendment. That actual phrase was transferred into the Third Amendment.

 

[GOPerfect]

Jesus dude. Have all those in you copy and past file ready to go?

That is something I put together a few years ago I posted it on the old forum I figured I would remind people of the importance.

 

[Mosinitis]

The only thing we get from these conservative justices is talk and no action. If one more conservative justice is appointed and one lib dies, we still have a court that will refuse to uphold the 2nd amendment.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Well this thread died quickly with @GOPerfect's quotes. Scalia's bullshit goes against everything the founder's actually said and were quoted on.

And again not to mention the clear limitations the founders wrote in other amendments that were taken from the English Constitution itself.

 

[Truebeliever]

All of those quotes do bolster the individual right vs the collective right . You are preaching to the choir on an individual right. But why the words “ well regulated” ? That’s why that comma is so important.

And what exactly was that right recognized as when they wrote it. What was their definition of that right.


First of all. The right of the people to bear arms as defined by the very writers of it was not unlimited arms as some said but rather they had made laws which restricted the use and storage arms before and after they made the admendment. Not disarming people but when, where and who could be armed.

The right of the people to be armed is an individual right but it was not a “suicide pact” either. Meaning they had placed limitations on all those rights.

For example, the first admendment says “congress shall make no law
...abridging the freedom of speech”

Abridge :

1. to reduce or lessen in duration,scope, authority, etc.; diminish;curtail:to abridge a visit; to abridgeone's freedom.

Can’t abridge the freedom of speech but liable laws were made and passed by the framers of the constitution. And laws limititing speech were constitutional under certain circumstances. (Obscenity, regulation of commercial speech , fraud , etc.)


there are limits on the 2nd A well even by their understanding.

A nuke is something that would and should be illegal for the individual to own . Can we agree? And before you say an individual couldn’t do it, a Boy Scout actually did build a breeder nuclear reactor.

But the founders were aware of repeating weapons and no effort was made to ban them. But they had regulated the carrying of certain arms:

“James Madison's proposal for those who violated Virginia's game laws captured the important distinction between civilian and military gun use. In a bill to prevent the killing of deer, Madison proposed that a person who "bear a gun out of his inclosed ground, unless whilst performing military duty" would face penalties of forfeiting their unlawfully killed deer, paying a fine, and being "bound to their good behaviour."88 The language of this statute provides a remarkable window into the way Madison understood the differences between bearing a gun for personal use and bearing arms for the common defense. Additional evidence that the law treated weapons intended for militia use differently than those used outside of a military context may be found in two New Jersey laws that gave the state broad power to disarm disorderly persons and armed assemblies.89

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dearily%20us%20gun%20laws%20&amp=&qs=n&amp=&form=QBLH&amp=&sp=-1&amp=&pq=earily+us+gun+laws+&amp=&sc=1-19&amp=&sk=&amp=&cvid=D4A87C5B3D1E4EE5BE3D096CEE67FADE&amp=&httpsredir=1&amp=&article=4021&amp=&context=flr&amp=&sei-redir=1#search="earily us gun laws"

“ A variety of laws regulating firearms were already in place during the Founding Era. Militia regulations were the most common form of laws pertaining to firearms. 7 Such laws could be quite intrusive, allowing government not only to keep track of who had firearms, but requiring them to report for a muster or face stiff penalties."' Regulations governing the storage of gun powder were also common."9 States prohibited the use of firearms on certain occasions and in certain locations. 2 °

They had some regulations . The question is where do they start and end. Even the dissent in Heller mentions too.

The question is where the limits are. The common use should be the minimum standard for types of weapons. Standard capacity is common. Semi auto is common.

Perphaps the standard should be more than just common use . Effective combat . Semi auto. An m14 is still effective in semi auto but limit to a 5 round magazine would not be. In the future , maybe armor penetration might be more important so armor piercing ammo might be considered in the near future as legal under that standard.

The founders interpretation of that right that was not be “infringed “ was not much different than those rights that could not be “abridged”. They recognized limitations to them. It’s where that line is the problem. Can a state stop a drunk man with a handgun in his hand from walking down the street. I think we can agree to that. Or maybe a sober man from walking down the street with the gun in his hand because he felt like it- I think some here would say the man could do that under the second admendment.


At least now, it is now recognized as an individual right as opposed to a state right, thanks to the Heller decision

Sorry about the strike out. Having text problems for some reason

 

[Marine Cpl]

Well regulated at the time if you Google it meant in working order.

Here are quotes from the time...

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

So in order to have a ” well regulated militia" or a militia in working order, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

When you infringe on the citizenry to not have certain arms or deny them practice, it isn't in good working order now is it?

 

[holdover]

How does anyone derive limitations of arms from the writings of the founding fathers?They can't. The intent is crystal clear .

Over and over they mention the need for arms in self defense, in defense of freedom in defense of the people, in defense against the government. How do I interpret all they have said and come to the conclusion that arms should be limited to the people?

In order to do that I have to disregard everything they have said. limtations of arms contradicts everything they have spoken about .thier intent was made perfect clear in their writings, I don't need a judge to interpret plain English.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I can understand politicians and judges wanting to limit it because it is in their interest to do so.

But fellow gun owners that want to as well? That can only stem from ignorance. All the evidence is there of their clear intent in the Constitution itself by reading other amendments that have limitations.

Then you have actual quotes from newspapers of the time where they who wrote the Constitution actually explain it themselves.

To turn a blind eye to that and favor a corrupt judges decision based on false conjecture is to want those rights limited yourself.

 

[Tinman]

The best explanation of the Second Amendment.

 

[Truebeliever]

How does anyone derive limitations of arms from the writings of the founding fathers?They can't. The intent is crystal clear .

Over and over they mention the need for arms in self defense, in defense of freedom in defense of the people, in defense against the government. How do I interpret all they have said and come to the conclusion that arms should be limited to the people?

In order to do that I have to disregard everything they have said. limtations of arms contradicts everything they have spoken about .thier intent was made perfect clear in their writings, I don't need a judge to interpret plain English.

They read “people “ as plural as opposed to the individual. I disagree but that’s how they see it.

As far as writings. Madison actually wrote the text of the constitution.

I gave you his quote earlier of where he did have hunting arms banned where military arms would not be.

They made laws that regulated how arms were to be stored ( powder ) . This is more than Hamilton ‘s federalist papers which supported individual rights. But it did not say no regulation could be made.

And Madison who also wrote some of the federalist papers did say:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

But he did pass laws to regulate how they are carried and stored. BIG difference between that and disarming the people.

You are arguing for no regulation at all. Laws against storing black powder next to the fireplace would be wrong in your mind. Remember that a fire or explosion could burn the whole town down. BIG difference.

I think everyone on this forum is in agreement that the right is individual but nothing it could not be regulated to some degree. The question is what is that degree. Could an arms making make bad ( barrel explode type) firearms under the 2A and not be shut down or forced to make changes?

Could open carry be required as opposed to conceal carry or visa-versa?

 

[Marine Cpl]

They read “people “ as plural as opposed to the individual. I disagree but that’s how they see it.

As far as writings. Madison actually wrote the text of the constitution.

I gave you his quote earlier of where he did have hunting arms banned where military arms would not be.

They made laws that regulated how arms were to be stored ( powder ) . This is more than Hamilton ‘s federalist papers which supported individual rights. But it did not say no regulation could be made.

And Madison who also wrote some of the federalist papers did say:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

But he did pass laws to regulate how they are carried and stored. BIG difference between that and disarming the people.

You are arguing for no regulation at all. Laws against storing black powder next to the fireplace would be wrong in your mind. Remember that a fire or explosion could burn the whole town down. BIG difference.

I think everyone on this forum is in agreement that the right is individual but nothing it could not be regulated to some degree. The question is what is that degree. Could an arms making make bad ( barrel explode type) firearms under the 2A and not be shut down or forced to make changes?

Could open carry be required as opposed to conceal carry or visa-versa?

If those regulations interfere with personal defense or militia use, then yes.

Hunting regulations are an entirely different situation. They don't interfere with the people's ability to keep and bear to maintain a free state.

 

[Mosinitis]

Storage of powder near a fire falls under reckless endangerment. What does it has to do with the 2nd Amendment is beyond me.
Similarly you can't use freedom of speech defense when committing a fraud.
Here we are talking about the right to posses an object on self or at home. Apples and oranges.

 

[Mosinitis]

True believer in bullshit.

 

[Truebeliever]

If those regulations interfere with personal defense or militia use, then yes.

Hunting regulations are an entirely different situation. They don't interfere with the people's ability to keep and bear to maintain a free state.

Yes, but regulation on what could be carried at the time.

Again, can the government require open carry? Many states did to arms such as knives at that time. The bill of rights was meant to limit the federal government, not the states. Remember what year it was made to apply to the states. And when Heller was made to apply to the states ( McDonald case).

 

[ricklovin93]

The last four words of the 2nd amendment, probably the four simplest words in the entire bill of rights, are the only words that matter when interpreting the 2nd.

 

[spat]

The intent of the 2A was clearly for the citizens to be the masters of government, and not the other way around.

The only interpretation that makes sense to me is that for a regulation to pass muster, it must apply equally to the government and its agents as it does to each citizen.

Want to outlaw mustard gas, fine as long as the military doesn't have any anymore either. Notice that because the government can't tax itself, no taxes or fees on arms would be permissible. Similarly for permits and licensing.

Want to outlaw concealed carry ? Only of no one in the military or law enforcement is allowed to either.

Want some regulation about storing powder ? Fine as long as it applies to everyone.

 

[Mosinitis]

The government can take away the rights we had for generations, because if not, someday Boy Scouts will carry nuclear weapons?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Yes, but regulation on what could be carried at the time.

Again, can the government require open carry? Many states did to arms such as knives at that time. The bill of rights was meant to limit the federal government, not the states. Remember what year it was made to apply to the states. And when Heller was made to apply to the states ( McDonald case).

If it interferes with personal defense then no. Those many states were wrong too.

 

[Truebeliever]

If it interferes with personal defense then no. Those many states were wrong too.

Again, what is interference. Open carry but banning concealed? A concealed dagger was frowned upon then.

They banned certain weapons before and after the constitution at the state level including laws made by the following fathers.

We aren’t debating an individual right but the limits of it.

 

[FrankenCub]

The bill of rights was meant to limit the federal government, not the states.

Ok, so the State can violate the BOR at it's whim and not be held accountable, and is held in higher regard than the Fed gov.
By your statement right there, NY and any other leftist state can make firearms ownership illegal. Then claim, hey, you are allowed to carry a pocket knife so you are free to Bear Arms.

 

[Truebeliever]

Ok, so the State can violate the BOR at it's whim and not be held accountable, and is held in higher regard than the Fed gov.
By your statement right there, NY and any other leftist state can make firearms ownership illegal. Then claim, hey, you are allowed to carry a pocket knife so you are free to Bear Arms.

Ahm, that’s why the 2nd was incorporated in each state’s constitution in some fashion.

And yes, the bill of rights DID NOT necessarily apply to state governments . The fourth admendment did not apply to state criminal prosecution until Mapp v Ohio( 1961)


Mapp v. Ohio - Wikipedia

It’s not as easy understanding it as just by reading the admendment without knowing its context at the time it was written.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

That’s why the McDonald case was so important.

 

[FrankenCub]

If the BOR doesn't hold weight over the States, it has no teeth anywhere in government. Bad actors in State government can strip the Rights of the people until there are no Rights left across the country then it wont matter if the fed is in check or not. Those bad actors will control the fed.