2nd ammendment battle

[DeboofordaRon]

I've noticed a huge discussion that the 2nd was put into place for militias only and not for individual citizens. As of right now I highly doubt that, especially reading all the quotes of Jefferson. My whole point is I'm trying to render a good argument against my boss and I've fallen short many of time, I've still made a good argument though.

I'm hoping you guys can help me make a better case. I know law dictionaries are very slant about definitions of words (especially black laws dictionary). I understand the argument has turned into a lawyers wet dream of interpretation. Can anyone help me out in pointing out the language that makes the 2nd a citizens true friend.

All the best and love...

-De Boo for Da Ron

[nate895]

the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I don't see how that isn't an individual right.

[WilliamC]

"A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

Does this sound like keeping and reading books is only people who vote, or for individuals?

[DeboofordaRon]

Wiliamc

I definitely have read that and agree whole heartily. But, am I to argue a rephrasel? I really think my boss can be a RP guy but he's waiting on Al Gore...I can argue how much of a crook he is, but to no avail. His attempts and reiterating his environmentalism towards world peace he doesn't see the globalism behind him. My real point is he affiliates gun control to control of crime and doesn't see a discussion past crime/guns are the issue of cime and that the constitution is out dated.

[OddballAZ]

Here is a quick video that explains it alittle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

Basically there is two parts of the 2nd amendment, or in other two "clauses" to it.

The full text is:

"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."

The first part of the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Is simply stating there is a NEED for a free country to keep a well regulated military. With that need of a military comes the possibility that the military could overthrow the civilian government in a coup and then the country is no longer a free state. This happens all the time throughout history. Don't think it can't happen now? Look at Pakistan. What about that other South East Asian country recently in the news... I can't remember the name.

The word "militia" was used in place of the word "Military" back then. The word "militia" now days means a citizens military. The term "free State" is NOT talking about the states as in CA, AZ, NM, ect... The term "free State" was always used to describe a country that is not run by a tyrant or dictator.

Here is a further breakdown of the words:

"A well regulated Militia," - A military.

"being necessary to the security of a free State," - is needed for the security of a country that is free.


Now the 2nd part of the amendment:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This part is stating THE RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It isn't giving you the right. The right pre-exists. The Constitution and our government doesn't give you any rights. The people had all the rights already. The Constitution is written to restrain the government from infringing on our rights.

I can find more info on this if you want. I have some things to do but later today I can dig up some good links.

Even if the court wants to act like it can't read English and says the 2nd Amendment gives only a militia the right to keep and bear arms it doesn't do shit for now. The Fed government would still have to ban guns. Which would then be in direct violation of at least 45 states constitutions that have very specific language that says a person can own a gun. The court would just undermine the peoples faith in the court and probably put us on a fast track to a second civil war.

This is from Arizona's Constitution:

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."

Links to all states: http://www.saf.org/Constitutions.html

[Malum Prohibitum]

Perhaps you should point out the following

1. The bill of rights is a set of restrictions on government to guarantee individual rights. How pointless would it be to give the government the right to keep arms?

2. The period definition of 'militia' was all able bodied men. The wording seems to indicate that the *use* of arms may be regulated, but not the possession, nor carrying of.

3. Some state versions of the 2nd amendment, drafted by many of the same people at the same time are far more explicitly determinative of an individual right. This is supportive of the general intent being an individual right, not a collective one.

Honestly, I cant imagine how intellectually dishonest one has to be to even begin to say that the bill of rights is about individual liberty *except* for the right to keep and bear arms. Even the most leftist of constitutional scholars now admit that it is meant as an individual right. To ignore it destroys all credibility.

[knappz]

This to me makes the most logical sense:

The Supreme Court views the words “the people” in the Second Amendment to have the same meaning as in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. If “the people” really meant the right of states to maintain a militia, then we would be left with the absurd notion that only the states have the right to peaceably assemble, only the states have the right to be secure in their persons and property, etc.

Also, In my opinion I think the problem my lie with the definition of “regulated” rather then "militia" - 18th Century definition of regulated would have been: “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped.” It does NOT refer to a professional army.

17 Century people used the term “STANDING Army”
to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia.It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity.

A well regulated [equipped] militia [body of citizens] being necessary to the security of a free state, [therefore] the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[RedLightning]

Even if the 2nd ammendment just applied the militia...
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.” George Mason 1725-1792

[pcosmar]

A few quotes from the founders.

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).


"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)


"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])


"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

And then there is this


"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)
Or this

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

It is not hard for me to understand. Plain and simple.

[DeboofordaRon]

Thanks!

[DeboofordaRon]

Thats the ammo I was looking for! No pun intended :)

[DeboofordaRon]

Here is a quick video that explains it alittle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

Basically there is two parts of the 2nd amendment, or in other two "clauses" to it.

The full text is:

"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."

The first part of the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Is simply stating there is a NEED for a free country to keep a well regulated military. With that need of a military comes the possibility that the military could overthrow the civilian government in a coup and then the country is no longer a free state. This happens all the time throughout history. Don't think it can't happen now? Look at Pakistan. What about that other South East Asian country recently in the news... I can't remember the name.

The word "militia" was used in place of the word "Military" back then. The word "militia" now days means a citizens military. The term "free State" is NOT talking about the states as in CA, AZ, NM, ect... The term "free State" was always used to describe a country that is not run by a tyrant or dictator.

Here is a further breakdown of the words:

"A well regulated Militia," - A military.

"being necessary to the security of a free State," - is needed for the security of a country that is free.


Now the 2nd part of the amendment:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This part is stating THE RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It isn't giving you the right. The right pre-exists. The Constitution and our government doesn't give you any rights. The people had all the rights already. The Constitution is written to restrain the government from infringing on our rights.

I can find more info on this if you want. I have some things to do but later today I can dig up some good links.

Even if the court wants to act like it can't read English and says the 2nd Amendment gives only a militia the right to keep and bear arms it doesn't do shit for now. The Fed government would still have to ban guns. Which would then be in direct violation of at least 45 states constitutions that have very specific language that says a person can own a gun. The court would just undermine the peoples faith in the court and probably put us on a fast track to a second civil war.

This is from Arizona's Constitution:

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."

Links to all states: http://www.saf.org/Constitutions.html

FRICKEN AWESOME! I'm loading my gun with nothing but knowledge.

[loupeznik]

The best argument for determining the founder's intent concerning the second amendment is a look at how the issue was addressed in state constitutions:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

This is an excellent reference. It allows us to see how the founders might have rephrased this intent.