Dem Sen: Second Amendment Not Meant For Citizens To Take Up Arms Against Government

The supreme court says otherwise. You got no say, your opinion doesn't matter.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

You lose

 

Projecting much, on a potentially for profit basis?

My position is simply and merely, that our Second Amendment exempts as well regulated militia from State laws regarding gun control in favor of the wellness of regulation prescribed by our federal Congress.

- - - Updated - - -

Paragraph (2) supports my position better than paragraph (1) supports your position:

 

But where is there any reference to my question? Where does it mention keeping firearms to overthrow the government?

 

Again, no answer to my question. Again, where is it found that the Second Amendment is connected with a justification to overthrow government?

 

Like good old Daniel, you're gonna play word games. You didn't like the post in which the poster quoted the FFs and wanted something specific well please tell me what you think this means.

Just why would they fear the federal government would disarm the citizens in order to disable the citizen militia? To stop them from _________________ (your answer goes here.)
So word games or honest answer....it's up to you now.

 

There is no reference to such activities for the Militia of the United States. My word games consist of not appealing to ignorance of our supreme Law of the land.

 

Word Games again, you lose

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

You're not on the supreme court, you have no say and you are wrong. You lose

 

No word games on my part:

 

Word Games again, you lose

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

You're not on the supreme court, you have no say and you are wrong. You lose

 

Special pleading much?

Only a well regulated militia is exempted from paragraph (2), by Intelligent Design.

 

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

You're not on the supreme court, you have no say and you are wrong. You lose

 

Dude, are you even aware that paragraph (2) is part of that same ruling?

 

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

You're not on the supreme court, you have no say and you are wrong. You lose

 

Only a well regulated militia is exempted from paragraph (2).

 

It should be mandatory for every American to own a gun.So they can kill each other into extinction
It make a safer place for the rest of the world.Every country(including Canada) hates the US and no,we are not jealous,we just hate the arrogance.The Us is going down the same path as Greece.Pay your bills.You bunch of freeloaders.

 

Are you dense. You don't seem to understand the meaning of "Original Intent""!! Why was it made and what did it mean??? That's "Original Intent"!! How do you find the "Original Intent"?? By reading OTHER writings they put out on the subject. Please show me where you find "abortion" in the 14th Amendment, but the S. Court seem to think they did in 1973. Show me where you find the "Separation of Church State" in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights but the Government uses that line every day. I showed you from writings of the founding fathers why THEY put the 2nd Amendment in but you refuse to acknowledge what they said and meant. They specifically said they put there 2nd Amendment in there to keep the Federal Government in check and to stop it from becoming tyrannical.

 

And you are WRONG once more. I have already posted all the quotes of the founding fathers to blow that one out of the water. If you would bother going back and looking I also posted all the revisions made to the 2nd Amendment as it went throw the it's various forms but when you get down to it the meaning of the 2nd didn't change from the first draft, they just refined the wording.

 

O.K., here is a little something for you to think about. Since the Government bought GMC let's make it a law that you can't drive anything else without paying a separate tax on it that you will not have to pay on a GMC!!! And since Ford refused to play the Governments game lets make the tax double on anything made by Ford. There is NO difference in that and making ANY controversial weapon a class 3 weapon because before the year is out they would ALL be CONTROVERSIL!!!

 

And of course you know MORE about the law and intent than 5 of the S. C. Justices, right??? You need to get over yourself. Owning firearms is an individual right, NOT a collective right like you and your gun grabbing buddies would like to think.

 

I understand the contemporary interpretation of the Second Amendment by the US Sup Ct.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The ratio for that decision is -

The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

Okay, this is because the Constitution was about the states, not individuals. I assume that the Anti-Federalists did not want an all-powerful federal government which would ride roughshod over the states. The states had the right to call up to the militia all able-bodied men and naturally they would have to bring their firearms so the states had a vested interest in ensuring that the federal government didn't use its legislative power to disarm and thereby to render impotent, states' militia. The federal government could have its standing army but it could not tell the states to disband their militia. So that the militia could continue to exist as an effective force, nobody could tell the individuals who may be called up that they couldn't own firearms.

All good. But I'm still not seeing the part where the Second Amendment exists in order that the people may overthrow government.

 

Diuretic, it's NOT to overthrow the Government but to keep it in check. The Constitution is suppose to be the law of the land, not some dictator, if one should ever arise we overthrow the dictator but keep the law of the land, the Constitution. Does that make sense to you?? Say if we held an election and the ruling party refused to leave office and not pass on the authority to the duly elected president. At that point we have the right to kick his butt out of the Whitehouse and install the next president even if it meant resorting to arms.

 

I won't and don't accuse you of "word games". I would like, though, to find out where in the Second Amendment it suggests that there is a right to possess firearms for the purpose of overthrowing the government. I'm not asking you to provide that information Daniel, I'm hoping to find out from others.

 

I've been called dense, for sure. I know what original intent means though, because it's an essential element of English common law and it's still a valid process because in my country a court will go to the Hansard, the record of parliamentary debate, in order to find out why a piece of legislation was enacted. I assume that the “original intent” you mention refers to the Constitution and that is fair enough. I'm not being obdurate, I just need to know where the authority is for the interpretation that the Second Amendment was about overthrowing the government. I've engaged in discussion here that indicates it was about securing the states' militia and that seems to be reinforced in Heller. But I still don't see where the Second Amendment relates to the ability to overthrow government. I understand the fact that the Federalist papers were published but I fail to see their authority as to the interpretation of the Constitution and if you could enlighten me on that issue I would appreciate it.

 

That makes sense. Let me just think about that for a minute though. I think I am right if I say that the United States is a federation which (politically) seeks to balance the interests of the states which comprise the "United States" with the legislature and executive which have political power at the federal level. In any federation there will always be tension between the states and the feds. Not a bad thing of itself. The states would see the feds as being able to call upon superior force (federal military) if there was a dispute with the states, so naturally the states want to ensure that if a dictator grabs power in the White House that there are legal means of dealing with that person. I think I understand the point that the Constitution offers a protection against lawful dictatorship. The Founders were well educated in the classics and having built their new nation on the lines of the Roman Republic understood that the Roman Republic was susceptible to dictatorship and indeed so it turned out. They didn't want that to happen. They didn't want a direct democracy but nor did they want the Republic to slide into dictatorship - they were, as I said, well educated and politically very canny. Given the union was about the states agreeing to combine under the federation it had to balance those interests (the history of the U.S. is replete with examples of the tensions between the states and the feds, the clearest example being the Civil War but it wasn't the only event which showed these tensions).

Given that then as I think I posted before, it made sense at the time of the Constitutional Convention to ensure that the states, military at least, could muster sufficient forces to counter those of the federal government, hence the ability of the states to form their militia and so it was sensible to suggest that the feds could not legally tell the states that they could not form their militia. To have the states completely without armed forces would naturally put them at the mercy of the feds. In the formation of the new nation from the original 13 (and those 13 being disparate) to ensure the states could protect themselves makes sense.

But jumping out of there to Heller. The US Sup Ct said the militia thing is irrelevant anyway and the individual should be permitted to own a firearm for self-defence at home. Okay, good and for me at least, non-controversial. So it seems to me that any linkage between the right of the individual to own firearms in accordance with Heller is not relevant to any claim to be able to own firearms in case a federal dictator needs to be overthrown. That seems to be the province of the states and their militia. And that segues into the issue of militia and I am not going to go there yet. I am still wondering about the claim that the Second Amendment is about ensuring individuals have arms in order to be able to take them up against a dictator (fed). If it's about the states being able to call up their militia then fine, I understand that and of course then the debate over the National Guard as state militia takes over.

It seems to me that keeping a federal government in check and the right of individuals to own/possess firearms are not directly connected in law.

 

For crying out load, Daniel, look at what it says. "" Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"". Have you got the right under free speech to stand up in a crowed theater and scream, "FIRE"??? If not, why not, you have "FREE Speech" do you not?? It goes on to say, "For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues"". But, that's up to the STATE NOT the Federal Government to tell the state what they can or can not do as long as the public has the right to own fire arms. The Court went on to give examples, " The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"". Once more, the Federal Government can NOT tell a state that firearms can NOT be carried in state, county, or city court houses, that's up to them, not the Federal Government. Then they went on to uphold some of the provisions of the 1934 Federal Arms Act with their comment on, " Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". In other words, Dan, you haven't a leg to stand on.