Jump to content

Gun Control Tramples On The Certain Virtues Of A Heavily Armed Citizenry


Recommended Posts

LINK

 

This guy nails the reason why the 2nd Amendment was put in the Constitution.

 

I find it interesting that the same people that cry about the wealthy having too much and that some of it should be taken er taxed and given to the rest of society are the same ones that want to ABOLISH a CONSTITUNIONAL RIGHT guaranteed to every LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN regardless of RACE, RELIGION OR SOCIAL STRATA and make it such that only the WEALTHY, POLITICIANS, SOCIAL ELITE or CRIMINALS will have access to firearms or armed security. There will be exceptions for professional security companies that only the wealthy can afford. The rest of will be left flapping in the wind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baloney! The Second Amendment was not intended to permit people to take up arms against the government. Google Whiskey Rebellion to see how the founders dealt with those who chose to take arms against government regulation and taxing authority. Treason has always been illegal.

 

Moreover, nothing in Scalia's opinion in DC v.Heller grants an unregulated right to own firearms.

 

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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."[

Edited by Mark B. Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nice to see that someone else is not drinking the Kool-aid like most pro-gun cons.

 

See, what he's trying to explain to you is that the notion of a well regulated militia was not to remove the government but to reinforce the federal government. Prior to the Constitution the government of the United States was EXTREMELY LIMITED and state's could choose not to send it's militia's when the federal government asked.

 

So along comes the Constitution and in there is an amendment making it so that states could not dissolve militia's, which seems on the surface to be a protection against federal over reach but clearly isn't given that the Constitution clearly gives the federal government control over those "well regulated militia's" would serve the federal government or not.

 

You can see why they needed the 2nd amendment, because a state, if given no choice but to send it's militia's at the federal government's call against it's will, the only logical thing they might do is dissolve them. It's clearly in the terms, "A well regulated militia.."

 

 

Remember, nobody makes the first jump.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A well regulated militia" is not protected with keeping and maintaining firearms; nor are the States. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment or the rest of the Constitution says States shall maintain a militia. (the word "shall" occurs 191 times in the original text, so they could have used it if that was the intent)

 

The 2nd Amendment--like every Amendment 1st through 9th--enshrines individual rights. That is the intent, and should be the interpretation.

 

The 2nd Amendment means if I can build a tank, I can own it. It doesn't guarantee my ability to buy it.

 

Obtaining arms (ie. the purchase of) IS covered under the Commerce Clause.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A well regulated militia" is not protected with keeping and maintaining firearms; nor are the States. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment or the rest of the Constitution says States shall maintain a militia. (the word "shall" occurs 191 times in the original text, so they could have used it if that was the intent)

 

The 2nd Amendment--like every Amendment 1st through 9th--enshrines individual rights. That is the intent, and should be the interpretation.

 

The 2nd Amendment means if I can build a tank, I can own it. It doesn't guarantee my ability to buy it.

 

Obtaining arms (ie. the purchase of) IS covered under the Commerce Clause.

So with this line of thinking the government could ban the sale of firearms, but not the manufacturing of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So with this line of thinking the government could ban the sale of firearms, but not the manufacturing of them.
In theory, yes.

 

Although, it becomes a question of whether or not banning the "sale" of a gun is equivalent to banning the "expression" of the right to own a gun.

 

If you make it impossible to exercise a right, you've effectively taken it away. My guess is the Supreme Court would agree, and would strike such a ban down.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, yes.

 

Although, it becomes a question of whether or not banning the "sale" of a gun is equivalent to banning the "expression" of the right to own a gun.

 

If you make it impossible to exercise a right, you've effectively taken it away. My guess is the Supreme Court would agree, and would strike such a ban down.

So we could manufacture all the guns we want. So long as we do not sell them, right? So we have a special offer, a free gun with every gun case sold. Whatta deal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad to see some are still drinking the gun grabber Kool-aid.

 

Baloney! The Second Amendment was not intended to permit people to take up arms against the government. Google Whiskey Rebellion to see how the founders dealt with those who chose to take arms against government regulation and taxing authority. Treason has always been illegal.

 

 

Moreover, nothing in Scalia's opinion in DC v.Heller grants an unregulated right to own firearms.

 

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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 qualification on the commercial sale of arms."[

 

First, I am in full support of background checks for the purchase of firearms. I also agree that those applying for concealed carry undergo an even deeper background check and are fingerprinted. I don't have any issue with those laws. Regulating who can purchase firearms is the correct thing to do. We don't need to ban "assault rifles" as they've been banned since the 1930's using the true definition of "assault rifle" not the BS definition cooked up by the ignorant talking heads on television. Limiting the capacity of magazines (not clips as that is another incorrect term used those ignorant talking heads) won't fix anything either.

 

Second, you have a very narrow viewpoint of the idea of taking arms against the government. This isn't about a mob of people marching on Washington to seize power. In the case of the Whiskey Rebellion, the government was correct in the actions taken. However, the Whiskey Rebellion did play an important part in establishing the right of free assembly and the right to petition as the Federalists realized that the people could play in important part in government and dropped their opposition to those rights. But widen your idea of an "unjust government". Consider the scenario of a foreign power taking control of part of the US. Without the ability of citizens to bear arms, they would be subject to the whim of an "unjust government" with not ability to defend themselves. History is full of such cases and it's complete and utter arrogance to think it couldn't happen here.

 

Third, Scalia's opinion reinforces the right of citizens to bear arms. The problem is that some want to place so many conditions and qualifications on sale of arms that they will create a virtual ban thus rendering the 2nd Amendment null. If they want the 2nd Amendment abolished then let's go that route and have an open debate of its merits in the modern world. I suspect the gun grabbers don't want an open debate. They'd rather subvert it slowly over time until it's an empty, useless shell.

 

Fourth, Scalia states "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment". I suspect that the Supreme Court doesn't want to tackle that issue because the truth is in the article I posted. They don't want to open that can of worms.

 

It's nice to see that someone else is not drinking the Kool-aid like most pro-gun cons.

 

See, what he's trying to explain to you is that the notion of a well regulated militia was not to remove the government but to reinforce the federal government. Prior to the Constitution the government of the United States was EXTREMELY LIMITED and state's could choose not to send it's militia's when the federal government asked.

 

So along comes the Constitution and in there is an amendment making it so that states could not dissolve militia's, which seems on the surface to be a protection against federal over reach but clearly isn't given that the Constitution clearly gives the federal government control over those "well regulated militia's" would serve the federal government or not.

 

You can see why they needed the 2nd amendment, because a state, if given no choice but to send it's militia's at the federal government's call against it's will, the only logical thing they might do is dissolve them. It's clearly in the terms, "A well regulated militia.."

 

 

Remember, nobody makes the first jump.

 

The 2nd Amendment is not intended to reinforce the Federal government. The seed of the Bill of Rights grew from the treatment of the colonies by the oppressive British Empire. British Army feared an armed populace and made every effort to confiscate any and all arms held by colonists. This illegal search and seizure is what led to the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

 

There were many that felt the Constitution alone would not guarantee that one oppressive government was being replaced by another. While the opening phase mentions a well-regulated militia, it's also says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". That right is explicitly granted to the people not the government. It doesn't say anything about the rights of states or the Federal government,

 

James Madison, who wrote the original drafts of the Amendments, originally intended to place phrasing concerning a citizens right to self-defense as an insertion into the Constitution's Article I, Section 9, between clauses 3 and 4. It was left out in the final document and finally added as the 2nd Amendment.

 

Personally, I think the Founding Fathers were brilliant. They completely understood that large powerful governments could easily become corrupt and trample on the very citizens they were intended to protect. They provided a blueprint for government that insured the individual's rights could not be usurped by the government. Unfortunately, over time we've allowed many of these rights to be chipped away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2nd Amendment is not intended to reinforce the Federal government. The seed of the Bill of Rights grew from the treatment of the colonies by the oppressive British Empire. British Army feared an armed populace and made every effort to confiscate any and all arms held by colonists. This illegal search and seizure is what led to the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

 

There were many that felt the Constitution alone would not guarantee that one oppressive government was being replaced by another. While the opening phase mentions a well-regulated militia, it's also says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". That right is explicitly granted to the people not the government. It doesn't say anything about the rights of states or the Federal government,

 

James Madison, who wrote the original drafts of the Amendments, originally intended to place phrasing concerning a citizens right to self-defense as an insertion into the Constitution's Article I, Section 9, between clauses 3 and 4. It was left out in the final document and finally added as the 2nd Amendment.

 

Personally, I think the Founding Fathers were brilliant. They completely understood that large powerful governments could easily become corrupt and trample on the very citizens they were intended to protect. They provided a blueprint for government that insured the individual's rights could not be usurped by the government. Unfortunately, over time we've allowed many of these rights to be chipped away.

 

If i may take the last first, my feeling is that is a naive statement at least on the surface. The founders as we call them, are not simply a small group of brilliant men who planned the fate of our country against the backdrop of nothingness. That's an insane thought to me. These men, many of whom are extremely flawed were not the only people to partake in the push for our countries birth nor where they alone in the back and forth concerning the Constitution. Many of the objections to the Constitution by anti-federalists, which ultimately helped get the Bill of rights written were not members of the Constitutional congress or convention. To suggest that the founders by themselves formed our current government and out of their own thought is to ignore the effect of the people and also the past works of self or partial self rule following years of experiments in government.

 

Further more, I think your view of history is typical of most Americans when it places an inordinate amount of emphasis on what happened years before and not on what was currently happening. They had lived with a government for almost 4 years and the recent struggles of the young country, along with potential future issues was considered as much as that which had occurred in the past.

 

Finally, it occurs to me that you incorrectly hold a single parenthetical as the important part of the 2nd Amendment. If you read it in correct English, the statement is "A well regulated militia,(1.),(2.), shall not be infringed. The two parentheticals, 1."being necessary to the security of a free state," and 2. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" serve to explain and emphasize the important part of the statement. The 1st. is implicit in it's standing for the rights of states. The 2nd. does not establish the rights of people to bear arms against the country, nor for pleasure or simply to exercise a right. It establishes it solely as a measure of security within the confines of a well regulated militia.

 

Control over militia's and of course our national guard is elsewhere within the Constitution so the 2nd. amendment never had to suggest that right nor did i say it did. I did suggest that it made state militia's a right, which it clearly does.

 

If you'd like to different look at the Constitution, the 2nd. Amendment and the history related to all things militia and standing army i think this is a smart piece of work that clearly shows some flaws in the standard 2nd. Amendment theory.

http://www.fpri.org/footnotes/1210.200704.maslowski.creationusarmedforces.html

Edited by Langston Hughes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the constitution or not, I hold to the concept that there exists the god-given right to protect ones self and their family. Only man made laws suppose to supersede that right, and I suggest that comes from politicians and despots wanting control over their subjects.

 

A cell phone is worthless in defending against attack. It doesn't offer enough threat of bodily damage to provide more than information for the investigators to use to locate the scene of the crime.

 

And as long as our president, congressmen, mayors and councilmen are protected by firearms, then the citizens they represent shall be allowed no less protection.

 

My litmus test. If you were in that school when the mass murderer began shooting kindergarteners, one of whom is your own child, would you use a handgun in your hand or lay it down using the same arguments you use when NOT in that situation.

Edited by FiredMotorCompany
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, it occurs to me that you incorrectly hold a single parenthetical as the important part of the 2nd Amendment. If you read it in correct English, the statement is "A well regulated militia,(1.),(2.), shall not be infringed. The two parentheticals, 1."being necessary to the security of a free state," and 2. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" serve to explain and emphasize the important part of the statement. The 1st. is implicit in it's standing for the rights of states. The 2nd. does not establish the rights of people to bear arms against the country, nor for pleasure or simply to exercise a right. It establishes it solely as a measure of security within the confines of a well regulated militia.

 

Control over militia's and of course our national guard is elsewhere within the Constitution so the 2nd. amendment never had to suggest that right nor did i say it did. I did suggest that it made state militia's a right, which it clearly does.

 

If you'd like to different look at the Constitution, the 2nd. Amendment and the history related to all things militia and standing army i think this is a smart piece of work that clearly shows some flaws in the standard 2nd. Amendment theory.

http://www.fpri.org/footnotes/1210.200704.maslowski.creationusarmedforces.html

 

The U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) - The Supreme Court indicated that: "the term 'the people,' as used in the Constitution's First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with the United States to be considered part of that community". In other words, NOT the states or Federal government but individual citizens.

 

Given that, your explanation doesn't make sense. Another interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that it's broken into 4 parts separated by commas:

 

  1. "A well regulated Militia,
  2. being necessary to the security of a free state,
  3. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
  4. shall not be infringed."

 

The first two are related to each other as the second explains the need for the first. The third must stand alone using the definition from the case above as it can't relate to states. The fourth is the only verbal statement so "shall" applies to the first two parts equally. So another way to read it would be "Neither a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, nor the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be infringed."

 

The Supreme Court in U.S. v. Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992)), stated, "Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States." "The most familiar of the substantive liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the Bill of Rights." "... rights already guaranteed to the individual against federal interference by the express provisions of the first eight amendments to the Constitution."

 

Furthermore, the definition of "militia" as stated in the US Code (Section 10, 311) has two distinct classes: the organized militia (the National Guard) and the unorganized militia (able bodied citizens who are not a part of the organized militia; essentially everyone else). Traditionally, those in the unorganized militia were expected to supply their own firearms.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LH,

 

Section 8 of the Constitution establishes State's role in the establishment of Militia. If what you say in your next to last sentence were the case, the 2nd Amendment would be redundant. The actual text says.....

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


You go astray (as I see it), because you ignore the difference between state and State.

The ratified 2nd Amendment text is lower-case. That is, the "state" of freedom, not the freedom of States (ie. governments). People are free to organize themselves as a matter of mutual protection from [insert most-favored boogieman here] using weapons they are Constitutionally-protected to possess.


If you want to argue intent, please establish they couldn't or didn't differentiate between State and state. Also, in the context of Amendments 1, and 3-9 why the need to establish a "State" right in the 2nd, when the 10th Amendment does just that.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LH,

 

Section 8 of the Constitution establishes State's role in the establishment of Militia. If what you say in your next to last sentence were the case, the 2nd Amendment would be redundant. The actual text says.....

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

You go astray (as I see it), because you ignore the difference between state and State.

 

The ratified 2nd Amendment text is lower-case. That is, the "state" of freedom, not the freedom of States (ie. governments). People are free to organize themselves as a matter of mutual protection from [insert most-favored boogieman here] using weapons they are Constitutionally-protected to possess.

 

If you want to argue intent, please establish they couldn't or didn't differentiate between State and state. Also, in the context of Amendments 1, and 3-9 why the need to establish a "State" right in the 2nd, when the 10th Amendment does just that.

 

Good point. I had not noticed that before and it makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. I had not noticed that before and it makes sense.

I suppose the question of upper vs. lower case is nitpicking even though the (as ratified) lower case is closer to the original intent, but regardless of which is used, it doesn't alter the operative portion of the Amendment;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the question of upper vs. lower case is nitpicking

 

Not nitpicking at all. Case is very important in legal contract language. E.g. in one contract we defined Services (capital S) to include a specific list of tasks to be performed. Using Services (capital S) referred to these specific tasks but services (lower case s) did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not nitpicking at all. Case is very important in legal contract language. E.g. in one contract we defined Services (capital S) to include a specific list of tasks to be performed. Using Services (capital S) referred to these specific tasks but services (lower case s) did not.

Which is why I requested to LH he establish the ratifiers of the text couldn't or didn't differentiate between lower case "state" and upper case "State".

 

I have no proof either way, but I do know there are inconsistencies between versions which suggest they didn't. However, such inconsistencies would suggest the common noun usage (state). "State" as a capitalized word is a proper noun and would always be capitalized. But again, I'm looking at it from a modern grammatical standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ranger,

Archives.gov has the transcript of the 2nd Amendment as such.

 

 

Amendment II

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

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

 

 

In the picture of they have you can download, Article the Fourth says this,

 

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.

This is the ratified version dated March 4th, 1789 if you look closely at the document.

Edited by Langston Hughes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, 1946: Wiki.

 

The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ranger,

Archives.gov has the transcript of the 2nd Amendment as such.

 

In the picture of they have you can download, Article the Fourth says this,

 

This is the ratified version dated March 4th, 1789 if you look closely at the document.

I don't deny at all the national archives electronic version. March 4, 1789 is when the Constitution went into effect, NOT the Bill of Rights; which was adopted by Congress months later. The version you're looking at is a draft. The Bill of Rights wasn't fully ratified (by Virginia) until December 15, 1791 when it became effective. By the time it went from the Congress to all the States and back, there were many different versions of the same Amendment.

 

As I said before, such variation would seem to say there was no particular relevance other than common usage. As best I can tell (from everything I've been able to track down) the comma between the words ...free state and the right of the people... seems to be consistent among all of them. This single comma separates the operative clause from the prefatory of the Amendment. Some would say the prefatory is a condition, however then you would be forced to explain how the common noun use of the prefatory clause sets any specific condition. And as a justification the prefatory becomes even less relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LH,

 

Section 8 of the Constitution establishes State's role in the establishment of Militia. If what you say in your next to last sentence were the case, the 2nd Amendment would be redundant. The actual text says.....

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

Ranger,

I realize that what I have posted is contrary to what many believe and almost heresy if you will to a majority of Americans, however I still feel that many have it wrong, including you. The problem is that you brought up the state vs. State(s) issue and I find that it actually works against you.

 

In every instance in the Bill of Rights where one or more of the states is mentioned they use a capital S, which your right is meant to indicate a state such as Maryland, Virginia etc.

 

 

 

THE Conventions of a number of the States,....be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States....and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States.....Amendment VI; In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State

 

Now look again at the 2nd amendment and how is it that you can not see that this is the same as the other points within the Bill of Rights.

 

 

 

 

Amendment II

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again I am going to make the same case.

 

The Articles of Confederation did not allow for the calling forth of State Militias or requiring States to give taxes to the depleted Federal government so instead of reforming a government with very limited power, those at the convention ultimately choose to work on a new more powerful federal government instead of just updating the old. They did not go there to create a limited form of federal government as we are constantly told.

 

As such Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, as Ranger reminded us gives the newly empowered government the right to call forth the States militias.

 

 

 

 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

Now if we read what is written there the militia's were specifically there to suppress insurrections at both the state and federal level and nothing in the next bit would guarantee the rights of States to a Militia as this section of the Constitution could be altered by subsequent amendments. Therefore a Bill of Rights, which was argued for by those who opposed the Constitution originally and not the Federalists was added, which included the 2nd. Amendment that gave States the right to have armed militia's.

 

So again I suggest that what we have been led to believe is true is not. The Founders did not create a limited form of government, they increased the federal power and the 2nd. Amendment was not written to allow for the potential overthrow of the government but to allow for Militia's that would be called to protect the land against insurrection and potential invasion. The founders were not working on history but the very real Shay's rebellion to which they could not call state militia's and the still very real threat of England who had maintained forts within the continent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again I am going to make the same case.

 

The Articles of Confederation did not allow for the calling forth of State Militias or requiring States to give taxes to the depleted Federal government so instead of reforming a government with very limited power, those at the convention ultimately choose to work on a new more powerful federal government instead of just updating the old. They did not go there to create a limited form of federal government as we are constantly told.

 

As such Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, as Ranger reminded us gives the newly empowered government the right to call forth the States militias.

 

Now if we read what is written there the militia's were specifically there to suppress insurrections at both the state and federal level and nothing in the next bit would guarantee the rights of States to a Militia as this section of the Constitution could be altered by subsequent amendments. Therefore a Bill of Rights, which was argued for by those who opposed the Constitution originally and not the Federalists was added, which included the 2nd. Amendment that gave States the right to have armed militia's.

 

So again I suggest that what we have been led to believe is true is not. The Founders did not create a limited form of government, they increased the federal power and the 2nd. Amendment was not written to allow for the potential overthrow of the government but to allow for Militia's that would be called to protect the land against insurrection and potential invasion. The founders were not working on history but the very real Shay's rebellion to which they could not call state militia's and the still very real threat of England who had maintained forts within the continent.

Here is the original 2nd Amendment text as proposed by James Madison on June 8, 1789.....

 

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

 

Here is a link presenting the history of the Bill of Rights. Feel free to find anything (outside of your own opinion) that suggests ANY Founder's opinion that the right to keep and bear arms is:

1. contingent on the existence of a State-facilitated militia; and

2. not an individual right.

 

Here is an excerpt on the proceedings of the debate (as it applies to the 2nd Amendment).

 

Those who opposed the Bill of Rights felt that to define such rights was to suggest the Government was given more power than it was intended to have. Madison's Amendments were intended to enshrine individual rights, and he says so in his speech when he proposed them to Congress (source).

 

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, if they were satisfied on this one point. We ought not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes, and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this Constitution. The acquiescence which our fellow citizens show under the Government, calls upon us for a like return of moderation. But perhaps there is a stronger motive than this for our going into a consideration of the subject. It is to provide those securities for liberty which are required by a part of the community; I allude in a particular manner to those two States who have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the Confederacy. It is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs, that a re-union should take place as soon as possible. I have no doubt, if we proceed to take those steps which would be prudent and requisite at this juncture, that in a short time we should see that disposition prevailing in those States that are not come in, that we have seen prevailing in those States which have embraced the Constitution.

 

Feel free to make your case, based on the Founders' comments themselves and the original debate, that they did not intend to create a limited form of government. (limited in the sense that the Bill of Rights is a limitation on the Federal)

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the original 2nd Amendment text as proposed by James Madison on June 8, 1789.....

 

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

 

Game, set, match.

 

Let's not forget that the only way for a State to have an armed militia is for the PEOPLE of that state to have Arms. You can't have an armed militia without armed citizens.

 

Trying to argue otherwise is foolish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...