The Constitution means exactly what it says

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
That is exactly correct. And yet, you seem bent on taking away that right of the people.
 
good lord, the troll doesn't have an iq higher than 70....

yes, the constitution says that...thank you for the reminder :palm:

note the troll leaves out the title:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.
 
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home[/SIZE]. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
 
WinterBorn said:
That is exactly correct. And yet, you seem bent on taking away that right of the people.
Click to expand...

Please explain to one not quite as knowledgeable on matters of the constitution.

Why is there wording regarding militias included in the 2nd amendment if the 2nd deals with the people's right to bear arms?
 
alfs1b.gif
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Please explain to one not quite as knowledgeable on matters of the constitution.

Why is there wording regarding militias included in the 2nd amendment if the 2nd deals with the people's right to bear arms?
Click to expand...

You have to remember, our founding fathers had just been through a difficult war of independence with one of the greatest military powers of the day. And they did so without the benefit of a standing military. The militia, at that time, was an armed population. If every citizen had a gun, then the population could be mobilized to defend the nation against any foe, even one on the inside.

The 2nd amendment was not only written to provide a militia, but to provide an armed population to keep the gov't in check. "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

or

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
 
WinterBorn said:
You have to remember, our founding fathers had just been through a difficult war of independence with one of the greatest military powers of the day. And they did so without the benefit of a standing military. The militia, at that time, was an armed population. If every citizen had a gun, then the population could be mobilized to defend the nation against any foe, even one on the inside.

The 2nd amendment was not only written to provide a militia, but to provide an armed population to keep the gov't in check. "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

or

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
Click to expand...



So SmarterThanFew is correct?
 
WinterBorn said:
You have to remember, our founding fathers had just been through a difficult war of independence with one of the greatest military powers of the day. And they did so without the benefit of a standing military. The militia, at that time, was an armed population. If every citizen had a gun, then the population could be mobilized to defend the nation against any foe, even one on the inside.

The 2nd amendment was not only written to provide a militia, but to provide an armed population to keep the gov't in check. "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

or

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
Click to expand...

But it specifically refers to a "well regulated" militia, which would seem to indicate the founding fathers thought some sort of Governmental oversight of said militia was important.

Unless "regulated" had a different meaning back in the day...like I said I'm not terribly knowledgeable on the details.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
But it specifically refers to a "well regulated" militia, which would seem to indicate the founding fathers thought some sort of Governmental oversight of said militia was important.

Unless "regulated" had a different meaning back in the day...like I said I'm not terribly knowledgeable on the details.
Click to expand...

The "regulated" has been said to mean everything from under gov't control to being regulated by the senior members of the militia to perform their duties.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
But it specifically refers to a "well regulated" militia, which would seem to indicate the founding fathers thought some sort of Governmental oversight of said militia was important.

Unless "regulated" had a different meaning back in the day...like I said I'm not terribly knowledgeable on the details.
Click to expand...

perhaps you missed a well reasoned and great explanatin of the second amendment....i'll post it again for your benefit.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home[/SIZE]. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

care to explain how the court is wrong?
 
Sounds like out strict Constitutionalists don't accept the Founder's true intent.
 
Yurt said:
perhaps you missed a well reasoned and great explanatin of the second amendment....i'll post it again for your benefit.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home[/SIZE]. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

care to explain how the court is wrong?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for Zap but I think he was just asking a question, which was a good one, which I thought WB answered well. Maybe he's stated anti-second amendment rights elsewhere but the question was a legit one.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top