See Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 Even though I have not used that argument myself (to avoid obvious strawman fallacies from gun advocates), historians agree that "the people" was not intended to refer to everybody but a representative subset of the people. This fact is not necessary for MY argument, and it's not exactly the topic of this thread, but I just wanted to point out that @Galileo is quite correct.
You are obviously desperate given that that makes absolutely ZERO relevance to my point in this thread. Whether it refers to something that the people are allowed to do, or something that the government is prevented from doing, that "something" does NOT refer to "own guns" but to keep and bear arms.
you keep pretending nothing is relevant to your misrepresentation of what the second means. the government is prevented by the second with banning the ownership of firearms. that is what the founders intended, that is what the entire environment surrounding the second supports and you cannot find a single founder who even remotely supports your specious claims
Bingo! Nothing of what you have said is relevant to may point, as explained in the OP. Not the topic of this thread, but it's curious that that would be their intention and NEVER mention that that was their intention when they debated the final draft of the Amendment.
they didn't think there would be "word weasels" pretending that they had to list every single thing that the government was prevented from interfering with
so it is your learned opinion that "the people" is a term that constantly mutates throughout the bill of rights?
Hah! I just LOVE how your arguments become weaker and weaker every time you post. To claim that the INTENTION of the 2nd A is to protect gun ownership, but then admit that they didn't mention it... I could not ask for a better endorsement of my position...
no one else seems to support your biased analysis. You want to pretend that unless carry, own, possess, use buy, sell etc was mentioned the founders didn't consider it? or maybe they never realized that word weasels-140+ years later would try to ignore the obvious
the following is an interesting read https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/DC_v_Heller.pdf note that most of the briefs supporting the discredited statist interpretation are based on arguments that have nothing to do with the intent of the founders or the language of the second but rather claims about crime numbers, how "deadly" handguns are etc very few even hint on the claim that "keep and bear" does not include POSSESSING OR OWNING. some advance the specious claim that DC is a state not a federal entity and of course the claims about crime is completely worthless
"The great object is that every man be armed." - Patrick Henry Patrick Henry thought the best way to achieve that goal was to change the Constitution to empower the states to arm their own militias. He wasn't making an argument in favor of an individual right to own guns. You can be armed but not personally own any arms. What did Patrick Henry mean by "every man"? Patrick Henry lived in Viriginia and owned slaves. In fact, about 40% of the population of Virginia were enslaved at the time. Do you really think he wanted slaves to be armed? I think by "every man" Henry meant every abled-bodied adult white male in the militia. This is another example of how context can influence the meaning of a word or phrase. The context of the right of the people in the Second Amendment is literally that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
Your opinion is noted. Let’s see who Henry thought should own guns. “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone. Patrick Henry
In context, it seems like he's complaining about the possibility federal arsenals being located within his state but not being under the control of the state legislature. "There are to be a number of places fitted out for arsenals and dockyards in the different states. Unless you sell to Congress such places as are proper for these, within your state, you will not be consistent after adoption: it results, therefore, clearly, that you are to give into their hands all such places as are fit for strongholds. When you have these fortifications and garrisons within your state, your legislature will have no power over them, though they see the most dangerous insults offered to the people daily. They are also to have magazines in each state. These depositories for arms, though within the state, will be free from the control of its legislature. Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? If our legislature be unworthy of legislating for every foot in this state, they are unworthy of saying another word."
still confusing the scope of the right with coverage. I don't see it limited to those actually in the militia as you have been told numerous times, limiting the right to those actually serving is both unworkable and idiotic
so you think that the concept of the bill of rights-which is a limit on the federal government is diminished by "responsibilities" are you ignorant of the fact that every harmful thing one can do with a firearm is banned by law or will result in massive civil penalties? It's not my fault that you oppose obvious rights because you don't like the politics of those who advocate the rights you want to restrict
I agree he is advocating for ownership and control of arms outside the realm of federal control. Patrick Henry and others were concerned the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government. In this speech he elaborates on that concern. Here are some excerpts. While Madison and Henry were political foes, the right of the people, not just militia, to keep and bear arms was included to assuage the fears of Henry and his contemporaries that wanted the power to remain with the people and not have a monopoly on violence given to the federal government. Henry wanted power to resist tyranny in the hands of the people and the states. He wanted militia to have access to privately owned arms because if arming militia was only allowed through the federal government, the people’s ability to retain liberty would cease to exist.
Ummm. The 2A is all about responsibility. It’s there to keep the people responsible for maintaining their liberty.
I don't think Henry got what he wanted. He wanted the federal government to cede its power to arm the militia to the states. Instead, he got an amendment that was meant as an assurance that the federal government would take action to ensure the militia was armed. Some say the main value of the militia to Henry was that it functioned as a slave patrol. That's plausible in a state where 40% of the population were enslaved. "During the debate in Richmond, Mason and Henry suggested that the new Constitution gave Congress the power to subvert the slave system by disarming the militias. 'Slavery is detested,' Henry reminded the audience. 'The majority of Congress is to the North, and the slaves are to the South,' he said.... "Would we think differently about the [second] amendment if we realized that its genesis was, at least in part, a concern with preserving a form of governmental tyranny?" https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-slavery-james-madison.html
But who cares about that anyway? No one here seems interested in assuming the traditional responsibilities associated with serving in a well-regulated militia in order to protect a free state.
Nobody got everything they wanted. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were both compromises between Federalists and anti Federalists. Slavery influenced all kinds of things before and after the Civil War. That’s irrelevant to the argument. It’s a nice emotional appeal but it doesn’t negate the concerns at the macro level of those who wanted less Federal power in all aspects of life and saw an armed populace as the means to that end. I laugh when I hear someone refer to slavery pre 13th Amendment as governmental tyranny. The 13th Amendment only removed the tyranny of slavery from private citizens and reserved it exclusively as an instrument and institution of the state.
What traditional responsibilities? Anyone who publicly engages in “traditional” training exercises and amassing of arms gets labeled as nut jobs and threats to government. And I don’t see the Federal government offering training to the unorganized militia. Take it up with the Federal Government if you want more training for militia members. I think it would be great if the Federal government offered training in tactics, weapons use, and force on force unit sized maneuvers to the unorganized militia. Why do you think such training isn’t offered? Why aren’t you advocating for it instead of assuming many of us don’t prepare ourselves for “traditional” militia roles? Of course there are around 3 million members of the unorganized militia that have years to decades of formal military training….
No thanks. I'm not going to be advocating for something that I don't want and others don't want either (though they may not be honest enough to admit it). I'll keep relying on the FBI, the Coast Guard, the Border Guard, the National Guard, local law enforcement, et cetera for the security of a free state.
Well you may not want it, but you have it. More and more states are going back to Constitutional type arms “bearing”. And just like the vast majority of FBI, Coast Guard, local LE etc. never need use a firearm to be effective, neither does the militia. The benefit exists whether you approve or not. Even people who hate cops benefit from the institution. Same with the militia. Some folks don’t like free speech. But they and the entire country benefit from free speech. Some folks don’t like free exercise of religion. But the country benefits from that right. Some folks would like to be able to take property without compensation, but the entire country benefits from that action being prohibited. Same with the right to keep and bear arms. Some don’t like it, but it’s what allowed the country to exist and it’s what keeps the states United. Without the Union of States you wouldn’t have your Coast Guard or National Guard that you DO like. Funny how that works out. You benefit from rights you don’t even like! Cool.
