This one is intended to protect the militia. Because a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state. The standing army at the time would not have been able to handle that like it does today.
"Everything will be fine! you can trust big brother! History has shown that absolute power never corrupts!"
A lot of cherry picking going on there. The phrase "for the defense of themselves" could refer to collective rather than personal defense. "It could also be argued that if the people’s right to bear arms in defense of themselves is understood as having been collective, it wouldn’t add anything to the right to bear arms in defense of the state. But I’m not so sure that we can rule out the possibility that if there was thought to be a right of collective self-defense (or a collective right of self-defense), it was thought to extend to threats such as conflicts with Native Americans, which could have endangered one or more communities but not the state as a whole. And if there was thought to be such a right, it seems reasonable to think that it would have been associated with militia service." https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=42613 Regardless, the term "bear arms" almost always had a military meaning at the time the Second Amendment was written.
I haven't said anything about existing or not. I'm saying that the right to bear arms is protected BECAUSE a well-regulated militia was necessary. I'm only talking about the 2nd A. Whatever individual rights states recognize is not in the 2nd A.
See "Necessary and Proper" Clause. Exactly. Because a well-regulated militia was necessary at the time, the right to bear arms... Now a well regulated militia is not necessary. We have a dependable standing army that will take care of the job thousands of times. more effectively.
It can't protect the militia. Once called into federal service, the government has the power to "organize, arm and discipline" the militia, which includes the power to "disorganize and disarm" the militia. See Article One, Section Eight, Clause Sixteen.
Again, the right of the People to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon the existence of the Constitution. The militia is.
It would be very interesting if the states standing militia Generals agreed with your stunted view of things. Why do we have the militias given you call them not at all needed?
The link makes the case. There’s nothing else to be said. The Courts ruled on the right of individuals to own arms based on many of his quotes. But if I must be the person writing the explanation here it is. first let’s introduce Tench Coxe. He was a huge supporter of the bill of rights. He wrote letters in support of the federalist papers and was in contact with direct founding fathers as they wrote the federalist papers (I hope most know the significance of these papers). He was an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress from 1788 to 1789. He was born in 1755 and came of age with the American revolution. He studied law at the College of Philadelphia So he was no fool to Law or the English language. While he was elected into the Continental Congress in 1788 he supported the adoption of the newly signed Federal constitution. Which makes him a 2nd degree founder. While supporting his decision to support the adoption of the new constitution he wrote articles for the Pennsylvania Gazette which was owned by Benjamin Franklin. Also a major issue Coxe was ahead of his time on was he was an advocate to and I quote “Exploding the principles of negro slavery”. I mention this to show he was not only a man of the 2nd amendment but he was a man of great morals. In fact… Coxe's growing alignment with Thomas Jefferson and other Republicans led to his dismissal from office by President John Adams in 1797. Yup… good dude back to the 2nd…. Let me quote some of his quotes that assisted the courts in the ruling that it was the intent of the second amendment to guarantee the right of an individual to bear arms. I also hope you all note how he says “it’s the right of the people” quote 1: Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.) Quote 2: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” Notice the term private arms? Or how he says it’s the right of the people? Or how he says that no state nor federal government can deprive us of this right? So go ahead, argue with a persons opinions who grew up and was apart of our founding.
Heller did not create any rights, it agrees with the Second Amendment. District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.Jun 19, 2021 District of Columbia v. Heller | Summary, Ruling, & Facts https://www.britannica.com › event › District-of-Columbi...
Golem announced states have no rights. By that he must mean Government has no rights. So all the rights are for we the citizens. Our right is named. There is no waffling. It clearly says citizens rights are not to be infringed. It does not put the control of the state militia under the authority of the Feds. For the President to create the use of the Militia, he must declare a state of emergency first.
"While at first glance this would seem to provide proof of an individual right, it is not clear in what capacity the people’s private arms are protected. Are they protected as private citizens or are they protected because as militiamen citizens were expected to provide their own weapons for militia duty? Coxe’s statement ultimately tells us little about how people understood the individual or collective nature of the right to keep and bear arms in the late-eighteenth century." http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5200 Anyway, the only purpose of the RKBA mentioned in the Second Amendment concerns the militia. That trumps whatever Coxe meant.
That’s because it does. The fact that we don’t have the right to full extent as they interpreted it then is because of leftist activism. It was the 2nds intent to arm the citizenry and not the government. If that’s not obvious as day I’m not sure how I can explain it any better.
The term “Militia” in the 1700’s was a term that described an armed citizenry, not an armed government. That should be obvious. The 2nd was a designation of a right to an armed populace. His quotes make that obvious and if you research how that term was interpreted at the time you will find this to be factual.
One simple question answers everything. Whose rights were in the Bill of Rights? Could they have been for the Feds? Does the Feds actually need rights? Some claim states do not need them. I see many Democrats who deny citizens have those rights. They deny it is the citizens right to not have the right to bear arms not be infringed. Fortunately in Heller the Court ruled we citizens bear those rights and also our right to bear and own arms is not to be infringed. EVER. Abortion has never been shown as a named right. Guns have been named as our citizens rights.
A very substantial contribution. As far as I’m concerned there is absolutely no way we can prove this to be true further. No one who is no stranger of research or unbiased reading will argue with this and will understand it is the exact reason why the courts ruled this to be a private right. They can complain as much as they want. It won’t change the fact the courts agree and there is good historical standing to back it up.
Joe knows. I know. And now the Democrats know. How many of us know the law? I mean the constitutional law? We have Democrats that play word games yet they should by now have learned the law. We told them and told them. The same guy locating the right to not own guns should locate in it the right to terminate the baby in the womb. Where does it say women get to do that?
Believe it or not we do have democrats on our side. None sitting in Congress as far as I know but we do have some. I know some democrats that are as stanch 2 Amendment supporters as you and I. They’re just not as vocal. I’m a believer in the American populace to protect this right. I hope it never dies
I welcome Democrat posters to jump right in. Are all of them anti human rights? Joe says nope. We will learn at the same time.
Do you happen to know who Jim Webb is? I would have voted for him in 2016 if he would have won the democrat primaries. He would have been far better than Trump on many issues including guns. He never would have never endorsed a bump stock ban. He also would have been better on foreign affairs. He may not have been better on trade agreements but that’s the only thing I can think of. He really was an extraordinary man but the democrats roasted him in the debates on gun rights. Everything he would have been great at was overshadowed by his 2nd amendment stance.
