Enlightening analysis: "In 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed a law setting out the terms for pardons by the governor for persons who had been involved in Shays's rebellion against the state in the previous year.135 Those who had taken up arms against the state were, with some exceptions, able to seek a pardon from the governor.36 To obtain the pardon, however, a person needed to take an oath of allegiance to the state and deliver his arms to the state for a period of three years. 137 In addition, during the same time period, the person would be unable to serve as a juror, hold government office, or vote 'for any officer, civil or military. ' 138 "The nature of the other disqualifications that went along with disarmament only underscores the civic character of the right to bear arms. Those seeking pardon were not robbed of a right to free speech or free exercise of their religion, rights indisputably associated with individuals. Instead, the penalties deal more with the rights and obligations associated with a citizen's duty to society: participation in government as a political official, participation in the legal process as a juror, participation in the electoral process as a voter, and participation in the militia." https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr The RKBA was viewed as a right to participate in government rather than one of the more personal rights such as freedom of religion.
I'm not in the Militia, because not only am I not a gun owner, I don't even live in the US! However, if I was an American, I would like to think that I would be a gun owner and would be ready to fight in the militia if required.
You would be ready? You are trained in basic infantry commands and are qualified on your service weapon?
We can fix this and be 100% Constitutional all around disband the large portion of the US Army and National Guard and Require each state and territory have a Home Guard using existing models as the basis of the law and then leave it to states to meet manpower requirements based on their population with some Federal support for standardization. Then leave the Governors as the command of each one with the legislature structuring these. And re-route money to boost the Marines, Coast Guard, Navy and Air Force to keep these the main Federal forces. In the event of an all out war keep sufficient infrastructure to arm up and place in the new law for the Militias they are automatically send up for Federal war duty. Then leave States decide on the second amendment issues for gun ownership tied to Home Guard membership. The States can be simple letting anyone in the service with a gun or limit it to provided access to them or something in between. It seems to me if the Militia was a clear your in uniformed service to that and its in a State system then any weapons outside of these would be illegal and the debate would be muted since if the M-16 is say the 'standard militia weapon' and these are held in State armories and locked up until the Home Guard is mobilized then you shouldn't get weapons meant to kill people outside of that. And only then if your a member of this force.
The relevant phrase is keep and bear arms. It is both keep and bear, not merely keep or bear. This is the same intellectual dishonesty addressed in the Caetano ruling with various cities and states attempting to read the Heller ruling to not protect dangerous or unusual weapons. The united state supreme court stated, in explicit and absolute terms, that the correct standard was dangerous and unusual weapons, not simply dangerous or unusual. It must be both simultaneously, not merely one or the other because it is more convenient. Because it was understood that there was no need for qualifiers in the amendment. Otherwise future governments would have read the qualifiers as being the only circumstances under which firearms were legal, while being illegal under all other circumstances. Only to those that do not agree with them for political reasons.
The actions of individual states have no bearing on the meaning behind the second amendment within the united states constitution, as it did not apply to them at the time. It was only after the civil war, and the ratification of the fourteenth amendment, that the federal-level bill of rights began to apply against the actions of corrupt individual state governments.
Other members have noted the individual Vegas Giants fishes from a moving boat. Others still have noted that he does not keep a full set of cups in his cabinet.
They were allowed to purchase another firearm - their right to keep and bear arms wasn't taken away, just the firearm they used against the government. Can you respond to posts 596, 692 and 603?
Hence an aspect of the source of Jefferson's choice in his preference of "dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." True Freedom can be dangerous. It means people have more opportunities to act selfishly, irresponsibly, or even criminally. The law in the United States is based on the premise that all people are "innocent until proven guilty" and places the burden of proof on the government. In the end, guilty people manage to sometimes evade penalty for their crimes; but that's okay because "I would rather see a hundred guilty men go free than see one innocent man imprisoned." The same is true with guns. That guns are readily available to ordinary people means that guns are used more often in suicides than elsewhere in the world, and more often in crime than elsewhere in the world... but they are also used far more often in lawful self-defense than anywhere else in the world, even though an appallingly small percentage of Americans choose to be armed for self-defense. But, more importantly, the American people continue to have the right to possess the most effective tools with which to resist tyranny and totalitarianism on the part of their own government.
That point is certainly arguable; but it is indeed tragic that so few people comprehend the legitimate benefits of an armed society.
Do you currently know basic infantry commands and are you qualified on your service weapon. In fact what is your service weapon?
Indeed - a firearm is used >3x more often in self-defense than to commit suicide, and >8x more often in self-defense than to commit murder.
go brush up on the concept of natural rights and when you actually understand the concept, then you won't have to ask silly questions of me.
congress never was properly given any power to restrict what sort of arms private citizens own or keep or bear and the second amendment recognizes a right that is not dependent upon being in the militia NEXT
I have two questions, I wonder if you could answer them in a non politician way (ie. just actually answer them straight) 1) In your eyes, which government in a Western country has turned tyrannical? 2) Do you feel the criteria to freedom in a country is based on one thing, "I'm allowed a gun"? Here's a list of tyrannical countries to help you. https://www.governmentvs.com/en/tyranny-countries/model-48-4
