2nd Amendment: Has it changed since 1789?

What are you talking about?

The Constitution only mentions gun rights once...in the Second Amendment and there in the context of a "well regulated Militia".

You keep trying to tie a definition of militia created 120 years after that to that document. That's BS.

The only reference to militia in the Constitution other than the 2nd is in Article 1 Section 8 where it describes the militia as anything BUT the unorganized mob you claim it to be.

 

That's not true. You tell me how is "the people" connected to "a well regulated militia". Every other instance where "the people" is used in the constitution and bill of rights it always refer to the average citizen. Why did they all of a sudden switched to mean "the militia"? Think about it. They just fought with a king who wanted to disarm the populace. Do you really think they would allow only the government to have all the guns?

 

Prove this to be true.

 

You know there is no necessary relationship between the militia and the people who enjoy the protection of the 2nd.

You know nothing in the Constitution, anywhere, does any such thing.

Why do you choose to be wrong?

- - - Updated - - -

Don't feed the trolls.

 

The SCotUS agrees.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/494/259.html

 

Lesh loves to live in a state of denial. The first militia statute was enacted only one year after the ratification of the Second Amendment. That law was expanded a year later. According to Wikipedia:

" It (The Militia Act of 1792) conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages of 18 and 54 in 1862.)

Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

The bottom line here is that the very first militias under the Second Amendment were citizens bringing their own private arms to the fight.

You would think that IF Lesh and danielpalos were right, people like James Madison, who authored the Second Amendment would be raising holy Hell about a law requiring a civilian militia to show up with their own private arms. I mean, Madison was a United States Congressman by this juncture. So far I haven't found any resources to tell me who introduced that bill nor who supported it; however, George Washington, as president, urged Congress to pass a militia bill in 1790 during his first address to Congress.

Nine of ten Amendments to the Constitution limit government and the Second Amendment limits the ownership of arms to police and military??? They keep arguing this from the hip because they know it can't be defended any other way. But, the bottom line is, the Militia Act of 1792 required civilian militia to show up with own private arms. "the Right of the people..."

 

From the above link

The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct.[6] The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the president in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second act.[7] Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.

That's an ORGANIZED militia

I never said the Constitution limits arms in any way...and in fact I don't believe that it does.

But it doesn't "protect gun rights" in any way other than as part of an organized or "well regulated" militia.

 

SCALIA agrees...and he very likely will be overturned.

 

WAKE UP LESH. If the soldier had to show up with their own musket, then they had private arms in 1792. That was that major part of the Constitution you choose to ignore...the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

It was NOT about the militia having a guaranteed Right; the "regulation" was that people show up with their own private firearms AND a minimal amount of ammo if called into service. You're on the verge of outdoing the board troll for silly posts.

The Second Amendment guarantees an unalienable Right with the primary benefit being that civilians can protect the country with the use of their private arms - which the government has no de jure authority to control. AND the government has said so.

 

And Article 1 Section 8 gives the Congress the power to form a militia...and in so doing DESCRIBES that militia

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

That militia is "organized, armed, and disciplined and it has Officers authorized to discipline and train it.

 

The ORGANIZED militia has no bearing on the UNORGANIZED MILITIA. Both are acknowledged in federal statutory law with the Supreme Court ruling that the government did not grant you the Right to keep and bear Arms because the Right predates the Constitution and IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON THAT INSTRUMENT (THE CONSTITUTION) FOR ITS EXISTENCE.

 

Where do you find this "unorganized militia? In the same Century as the Constitution?

 

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

I am not part of the standing army - the military of the United States; I'm not a part of any National Guard nor a Naval Militia but, if this country needs me I have a weapon and the know how to be of service.

This is not the first time we've quoted the U.S. Code (that is the official laws of the U.S.) in this thread... it's done numerous times. Having trouble keeping up?

 

You simply don't know what you are talking about. Natural rights are recognized and secured in States Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

Well regulated militia and the unorganized militia, are defined by statute.

- - - Updated - - -

the Organized, or well regulated militia, is what is declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

 

That was written in the 20th Century if I'm not mistaken. It is neither part of the constitution nor a contemporary of that document.

If I'm wrong about that date please correct me.

 

You don't know what YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Unalienable Rights are given to us at birth and are above constitutions.

 

Lesh you don't have a point. You are corrected.

The FIRST Militia laws passed, while the founding fathers were active legislators, REQUIRED the people to report for militia duty with their own private arms.

The FIRST time a court invalidated a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds, they specifically stated that:

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

This was followed by other state court rulings:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

From the words of the founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence through the Debates and the various discussions along with personal letters, the intent of the Second Amendment is perfectly clear. American Liberty is the result of armed citizens standing up to tyranny. It formed the basis of how this country was founded.

If the earliest militia was required to bring their own private arms, then surely you have to see the weakness of your argument... ESPECIALLY when the father of our country signed the freaking law requiring citizens to bring their own private arms AND the author of the Second Amendment is a United States Congressman when the earliest militia laws are enacted.

What in the Hell is your real argument? You have nothing. You cannot explain the aforementioned facts, nor the thousands of quotes by many of the founding fathers that clearly and unequivocally prove the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms. Where in the Hell is your argument? Article 1 Section 8 isn't it. It does not purport to define a militia; it merely tells us how they are to be organized when called into service.

On and on this has gone, Lesh, but at the end of the day, no matter what any law says, the INTENT of the law ends with the courts. Bottom line: the AUTHOR of the Second Amendment nominated Chief Justice Joseph Story to the United States Supreme Court and Story believed in the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

The founding fathers left many admonitions about how we were to interpret the Constitution and warning of the evils that would befall the Republic to do so any other way. Now, I don't know what freaking fairy tale you believe in, but you haven't shown one, single, solitary piece of evidence to refute the INTENT our founding fathers had with respect to the Second Amendment.

 

What I thought, Everything you have found was written well after the Constitution.

Thanks for playing

 

when we defeated england, the people organized themselves into militias. they did not a piece of paper telling them about their human right of self defense.

 

You simply don't know what you are talking about. Natural rights are recognized and secured in States Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

Liar Liar pants on fire.

 

I have a Good argument, usually. Only the right likes to project due to having nothing but fallacy, while claiming to be for the "gospel Truth" of any given issue:

You simply don't know what you are talking about. Natural rights are recognized and secured in States Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

Your "arguments" are such B.S that even self-proclaimed liberals disagree with you. Dude you're a legend in your own mind. Furthermore, either you are the world's worst liar OR you cannot read. Example:

NOBODY, including me, has said that natural rights (sic) are secured by the Second Amendment. So, how do you reconcile that with the truth?

Secondly, I have shown over and over, that factually, states do NOT secure Rights. According to the Declaration of Independence, which at head of the United States Code (the official laws of the United States), is very unequivocal: Your Rights are bestowed upon you by a Creator and are unalienable. That word, unalienable, is all that is necessary to disprove your entire premise. That word is not a fallacy. To continue that line of reasoning is moronic at best after it's been disproven over and over.

Thomas Jefferson:

“The Declaration of Independence...[is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.”

James Madison (AUTHOR of the Second Amendment):
Date: March 4, 1825 "And on the distinctive principles of the Government of our own State, and of that of the United States, the best guides are to be found in –1. The Declaration of Independence as the fundamental act of Union of these States."


This is not stuff I'm pulling out of my axxx as you say. It's not fallacy, "soothsay" nor hearsay. These are the words of the people to whom you are arguing against. The only thing you bring to the table is B.S. that you've been unable to sell to even the people on the same side of equation as yourself.

You've lied on this board and you've used gay references to try and bring attention to yourself. You are an embarrassment to the left and an enemy to the right. You've become a sick joke. It's time you gave the board a break and hit the books. Come back under a different name and leave the Second Amendment to people whose IQ is at least greater than their shoe size.

 

It does not matter how many times you repeat this statement that you know to be false, it remains a statement you know to be false.