The 2nd Amendment - What does it mean?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Aaron Spicka -A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.- For the security of a free state sounds to me like the well being of a state is in danger in some way of surrendering its freedom. And I certainly can't seem to understand how a well regulated militia can be applied to separate individuals. Even in an effort to be in congruence with the society of today, how can this amendment be stretched so far? If your so afriad for you or your families safety why do you need a gun to adiquatly defend your family. If one already can or could decide to just try to look at a burglary from a rational standpoint for once that person would hopefully see there are other ways to defend your family. A loud alarm system I think would scare the living crap out of a person trying to rob a house. And other weapons could be used if the intruder became hostile; there are so many things that could be used. Oh but some paranoid person might say, "what if they'd have a gun, than I'll be totally helpless?" Come on, if someone comes in to your home with out making noise you probably screwed wether you have a firearm or not. And if the person does make a sound that alerts you, why the hell would you go in search of the potentially lethal robber to get in a confrontation trying to frighten them out? I haven't passed the bar exam so I am not an expert on law. But this is just a fairly intelligent(common sense) 18 year old confused citizen looking for some other valid points of view other than my own. Thanks

The 2nd amendment, when used in connection with the Consitution, means that the federal govenment cannot tell a state government that they cannot arm their citizens, and that they cannot tell a state that they cannot allow their citizens to bear arms in case the state needs them to be ready for action.

But is Washington DC a state? (that is where they banned the guns that resulted in this case). Is the Supreme Court a law making part of the Federal Government?

The amendment did not say that a state government must arm it's citizens. But if citizens wish to arm their self for that purpose, or for self defense of private property and to insure security for their own life then can the state ban them from doing so? Here in lies the unanswered question, as the amendment did not make clear the details with a lot of fine print. Later law makers attempted to write in the fine print, but they did not write it into the amendment it's self. But Congress was involved in creating those laws that now are used as the interpretation (fine print) and that is why the Gun Lobby got involved.

The Supreme Court must take into concideration the additional laws made by Congress, and state governments, concerning those detials not clearly made by the 2nd admendment.

This gets complex because Congress is not really the Federal Government in the sense that their members represent the state governments, and the people of the states, who elected them and sent them to Washington to represent the will of the states.

But the problem is, can 40 states make rules that the remainder of minority states do not want to honor? Can a majority of states rule over the minority of states? Or can each state do things with independance from what Congress collectively has mandated by majority rule?

Was the 2nd Admendment designed to insure the personal rights of all citizens or just to insure the rights of the states as a governing body?

Do "all men" have the same rights or just those who live in a certain state or city?

[johnwk]

Quote by: Technosoul Was the 2nd Admendment designed to insure the personal rights of all citizens or just to insure the rights of the states as a governing body?

The intention of the 2nd Amendment, which was part of 12 proposed Amendments sent to the States for ratification, is spelled out in Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added …..

Now isn’t that something? Our first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were specifically intended to further restrict the government created under our federal Constitution and prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. The unadulterated truth is, the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were never intended to apply to or restrict the sovereignty of the various States nor interfere with their constitutionally establishment state governments.

It is also important to note that Madison states the following with regard to adopting the Tenth Amendment and federalism:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

And so, the very reason for adopting the first ten amendments was to preserve federalism, our Constitution’s plan.


JWK

[Technosoul]

Quote by: johnwk The intention of the 2nd Amendment, which was part of 12 proposed Amendments sent to the States for ratification, is spelled out in Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789 Now isn’t that something? Our first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were specifically intended to further restrict the government created under our federal Constitution and prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. The unadulterated truth is, the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were never intended to apply to or restrict the sovereignty of the various States nor interfere with their constitutionally establishment state governments. It is also important to note that Madison states the following with regard to adopting the Tenth Amendment and federalism: And so, the very reason for adopting the first ten amendments was to preserve federalism, our Constitution’s plan. JWK

Sounds like Madison was not very happy about the states amending the Consitution, and that he supported the federal government as it was before those amendments were adopted. Apparently he lost his side of an early debate that took place in our history. But what has that got to do with where we stand right now?

[johnwk]

Quote by: Technosoul Sounds like Madison was not very happy about the states amending the Consitution, and that he supported the federal government as it was before those amendments were adopted. Apparently he lost his side of an early debate that took place in our history. But what has that got to do with where we stand right now?

What the historical documentation I have provided establishes is, the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment, are restrictions upon the federal government and grant no power to the federal government to enter the states to regulate or interfere with the right of the people therein to own and possess firearms, whether it be for a state’s militia, or merely for the inalienable right to self defense. The eternal bickering over the word “militia” as it appears in the 2nd Amendment is therefore irrelevant with respect to the powers the people within the respective States have reserved to themselves by the 10th Amendment.


Regards,

JWK

[Technosoul]

Quote by: johnwk What the historical documentation I have provided establishes is, the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment, are restrictions upon the federal government and grant no power to the federal government to enter the states to regulate or interfere with the right of the people therein to own and possess firearms, whether it be for a state’s militia, or merely for the inalienable right to self defense. The eternal bickering over the word “militia” as it appears in the 2nd Amendment is therefore irrelevant with respect to the powers the people within the respective States have reserved to themselves by the 10th Amendment. Regards, JWK

The lower courts agree with you.

(but not because Madison wanted it that way).

Is Washington DC a state? If not then state rights have little to do with this debate because that is where the gun ban was put into effect.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: johnwk Now isn’t that something? Our first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were specifically intended to further restrict the government created under our federal Constitution and prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers.

Indeed. And in the case of the 2nd Amendment, the intent was to keep our militiary power, which is "necessary of the defense of a free state", out of the hands of the federal government by maintaining a systen of well regulated and trained citizen state militias - comprised of THE PEOPLE - instead of a large standing federal army.

Quote by: johnwk whether it be for a state’s militia, or merely for the inalienable right to self defense.

Except it doesn't say that... it SPECIFICALLY says, "a well-regulated militia being necessary...". Nor does it say "own" or "possess"... it says, specifically, "keep and bear arms", which implies keeping arms ready for military service.

Quote by: Technosoul The lower courts agree with you.

No they don't Techno... 8 of the 11 Federal Circuits of Appeal have affirmed and expanded on Miller, declaring that we have a "Collective Right" to bear arms for the purpose of a militia, but not an "individual right" to own firearms.

.

[Chris the Chees]

The Second Amendment is a prime example of why it is utter folly to base ones legal system and laws on documents concieved and penned in the 18th century, more over documents which are vague in their wording and obsolite in their intentions. The argument that the "founding fathers wanted [insert idea]" is not an argument for keeping said idea in practise in 2008. The founding fathers are dead and so is the society they lived in.

The Constitution and all its amendments should, rather like the Magna Carta, be confined to a Museum and a new one drawn up, and after 25 years that one be sent to a museum and a new one created, and so on.

[johnwk]

Quote by: Technosoul Is Washington DC a state? If not then state rights have little to do with this debate because that is where the gun ban was put into effect.

See POST 238

Quote by: johnwk BTW, I would say the law being questioned in the SC is un-constitutional for a reason which has nothing to do with guns. The gun law in question was not enacted by Congress. Under our Constitution Congress, and only Congress, has been granted power: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-- Congress has un-constitutionally delegated its power to legislate in all Cases whatsoever within the district of Columbia to the Council of the District of Columbia, created by Congress under the Home Rule Act of 1973. But the Council of the District of Columbia has not been elected by the people of the United States respectively as commanded by our Constitution, and thus, the gun law in question has not been enacted by agents authorized to legislate under our Constitution. Those authorized to legislate in the district of Columbia are explicitly to be elected by the people of the united States respectively. JWK "If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?" Justice Story

[johnwk]

Quote by: johnwk

Now isn’t that something? Our first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were specifically intended to further restrict the government created under our federal Constitution and prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers.

Quote by: Sonart . Indeed. And in the case of the 2nd Amendment, the intent was to keep our militiary power, which is "necessary of the defense of a free state", out of the hands of the federal government by maintaining a systen of well regulated and trained citizen state militias - comprised of THE PEOPLE - instead of a large standing federal army.

The intention for the first ten amendments to our Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment, is stated in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789, the intention being:
“to prevent misconstruction or abuse of” the new government’s “powers“.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added …..

JWK

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: johnwk “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of” the new government’s “powers“.

Yes, johnwk, I know... we agree... I'm sorry, did I stutter?

The intention of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the abuse of federal power in the hands of a standing federal Army by placing responsibility "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" mostly in the hands of well-regulated, "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;", CIVILIAN (the People) state militias.

Alas, such well-regulated CIVILIAN state militias no longer exist today, therefore the Amendment is basically meaningless.


.

[Milton Bradley]

Gun Control reducing crime is a myth.....

The truth about Right to Carry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgNUqtkXT...re=related

20/20 Investigation:
YouTube - John Stossel Links Gun Control to Higher Crime Rates

Compiled videos on the value of individual carry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3EdeH5PB...re=related

History of Gun Control facts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_1r6aUJo...re=related

NRA on the untold story of gun confiscation after Katrina:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26w...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79...re=related

NRA: To See Where Gun Licensing Leads, Look To England
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd...re=related

NRA: The great gun debate at the UN. (4 parts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmg_zMuQE...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WwLz9hBZ...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD1YmYuRt...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVKvyYqtJ...re=related

The Clinton GUN BAN story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxBJaAioX...re=related


The facts are in, the lies exposed, the agendas revealed.


I would say it has become all to clear that the anti-gun people just want you disarmed under any pretense.


I suspect they must have plans for us that require us to be disarmed.


You can see just from the people that post here that many of them would run your life for you if they had the opportunity.


Fear authoritarians, or suffer later.

[Mick Jagger]

Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse For His Judicial Activism


In the excerpt below, from the U. S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of Heller v. D. C, authored by a notorious judicial activist, Justice Scalia, announces his intention to follow a rule of constitutional construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense they were normally and ordinarily used by ordinary citizens of the founding generation.

The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation.

Scalia needs to resign from the Court, go back to law school and learn about the "rules of construction." As one of his own sources says, "The meaning of the constitution must be ascertained by the application of such rules of interpretation as were understood and recognized as just and valid, at the time the constitution was framed and adopted." At the time the Constitution was made, the well established common law rules of construction didn't include any rule which dictated that a legal instrument was to be understood according the the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens of the generation that produced the instrument.

Scalia is an activist. He doesn't want to be bound by the rules of construction as were understood and recognized as just and valid, at the time the constitution was framed and adopted, because they won't produce results that square with his personal views.he wants. So, he digs up some nonsense he found in the dicta of an 1930's judicial opinion.

He does this merely to have a pretext to substitute his personal opinions for the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Second Amendment, in the name of the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens.

[Charlatan]

The right to a militia and the right to keep and bear arms? When someone has a firearm they are empowered to use force to protect themselves, and when a country defends itself it is also doing a good thing by protecting the people.

If a counry did not have soldiers protecting it it would be easy prey for it's neighbours, so disbanding all armies would save money and make people feel safer. There are some countries in Europe that don't have armies as they see no need for them. Keeping trained troops will help fight other trained troops and that is why they are endorsed, but if there were no trained troops then all would be safe. If there were no guns then there would be less invasions as I don't see many people being able to use knives to fight - it takes something psychologically to fight with other weapons, and using a gun is easy because all you do is pull the trigger. You don't actually have to will yourself to kill a person, all it takes is a flex of the finger.

If there were no armies then there would be more peace, because the orders to invade come from someone who has great power but could not really fight themselves as they are too old to do so. WIth trained armies all you need to do is issue an order and the act of war is made eaiser to call for and support with troops on the ready, so, if there were no tropps on the ready then there would be no organised war so to speak and civilians would find it hard to invade each other's countries because of deployment. If no citizens could be deployed - lacking transport - there would be more peace. Riots, sure, but from a perspective of peaceful things people would not find it easy to carry out war. With the bluntening of the point of the sword people would not go to war, and there would be need for the other countries to keep troops to defend against them, although they could invade the ill equiped nations without militia.

So if all the countries went and destroyed their arsenals there would be no mass slaughter of each other. Countires would be forced to negotiate their way to success as they would have no alternatives. So what does the army do that is good? Kill other armies? If there were no armies then they would not be able to decree from parliament that going to war is possible. Would the people riot? Yes, but there are police to deal with them, so what is the point of keeping an army if you can get your neighbours to abandon the same cause? Having no armies would free up funds for other things, so are armies out dated? Take nuclear disarmament, same thing, if there were no nukes then there would be more free time for people to worry with. It is easy to hide nukes, but hard to hide armies.

So let's say that someone keeps a secret militia and invades the other country. WIthout troop transport their would be no swift deployment of troops making the journey long and arduous. What state today is in a position to attack it's neighbours? Then the wars will be over a longer strech than in the past requiring ships and stuff, without which there would be no war.

If every nation abandonded their arsenals and kept instead extra police, then they would save money and have a better patrolled state. So what do you do with firearms that the police need? You might have to keep the police in stock of rubber bullets to cause pain but not harm people, and with the abolision of fire arms manufacture there would be no fire arms for criminals and terrorists to arm themselves with.

Or let's ban the distribution of gun powder and it's processing. That would lead to a healthy situation - people protecting themselves with rubber bullets instead of killing people, criminals only wounding their prey. Sounds like a better world to me, so why not?

The problem is that people want to kill each other it seems. A nuke free world? Only possible if there are no armies in the first place. What use have you for nukes if there is no war? Financial gain? It's hard to see why this fear of feeling vulnerable still exists when it is so easy to curb it. I am sure though that getting rid of all the arms around today at present would be a hard task.