Here is what we are up against.

Mcwsky09

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
1,517
Reaction score
1,174
Location
The North Coast
One of my best friends from college - who grew up in England and now lives in California with his wife and children - posted a link the following:

NEW DISCOVERY: First Half of Second Amendment - Free Wood Post

when I pointed out to him that the site is satirical - much like the Onion - his response:

Oh absolutely. It's just saying something I've been pointing out for years.[\quote]

I replied with a link to this site:

Explanation of the Right to Bear Arms | Lawyers.com

which now appears to be broken - dang it.

I did grab quote from that page:

"The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean that most Americans have a constitutional right to defend themselves and their property, with force if necessary."

I will admit that years ago, before I was a gun owner myself and did some research on this topic, I had a similar opinion - that the 2nd Amendment referred to the National Guard for example - although I never doubted my right to defend myself - I had simply not considered the use of a firearm as begin necessary to do so - thankfully along with being older I am now also wiser.
 
Register to hide this ad
My state considers anyone of legal age and able to bear arms as part of the voluntary militia.

INDIANA CODE IC 10-2-3-1 Sec. 1 read as follows: "Pursuant to Article 12, Section 1 of the Constitution of Indiana, The militia shall consist of all able-bodied persons... and said militia shall be divided into two (2) classes. First, Sedentary; Second, National Guard. The Sedentary militia shall consist of all persons subject to bear arms under the constitution of the State of Indiana who do not belong to the active militia.


I am not an active member, but I have been asked to join SOL a few times.
 
He came back with examples of where the SCOTUS made rulings which were later overturned - related to race and such - how's that for sleight of hand - because the court doesn't have a perfect track record means that we can discount any ruling we don't happen to agree with?
 
Well-regulated back then referred to well trained, as I understand it. The intent of the 2A as we glean from the writings of Jefferson and Madison indicate that they expected responsible Americans to be armed and prepared to exercise that for a variety of reasons, including recreation from time to time; and not just to revolt against the G. That article is most ignorant, and I would not be surprised to find that LaPierre was taken way out if context or it was fabricated.
 
At the time that the Constitutional Convention adopted the US Constitution the original draft was found to be unacceptable to a sufficient number of delegates that it would not pass, hence the Bill of Rights was added to overcome the concerns of those delegates.

At the same time there was no such thing as local or state police forces, or the National Guard. The militia was understood to mean the entire population equipped with their own arms.

The militia of the United States is effectively created within the US Constitution, consisting of all able-bodied men within a certain age group.

The Militia Act, contained in the United States Code, implements the militia and governs its uses and command structure. Periodically changed and updated over the years, the Militia Act now defines the Militia of the United States to consist of all able-bodied males between 18 and 45 years of age. The Militia Act serves as the statutory authority under which the Selective Service Act has operated for generations, and all legal male residents of the US are required by law to register under the Selective Service Act and are subject to induction in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

Our Constitution has also been amended to include prohibitions on discrimination based upon age and gender. This has effectively expanded membership in the militia to all adult citizens and legal residents.

Each state has full legal authority to establish and maintain a state militia, and all have done so. The laws creating the National Guard during the early part of the 20th Century served to codify and regulate the state and national militia(s) and regulate command and control (in service to the state under command of the governor until such time as "federalized" by order of the president and/or authorized by act of Congress).

The argument over the use of the word "militia" in the Second Amendment is one of the easiest arguments to overcome, simply by reference to the full text of the Constitution as well as current and past iterations of the Militia Act and Selective Service Act. There can be no question that all adult citizens and legal residents are, in fact, the Militia of the United States.

The use of the words "well regulated" must be parsed in the original meaning at the time this amendment was drafted, which was to the effect that the militia was properly organized, commanded, disciplined and trained to perform its duties. These responsibilities are primarily on the several states, and secondarily on the federal government, not on individual militia members. Failure of the government to effectively organize, command, train, or discipline the popular militia (or even to acknowledge its existence) has been the fault of elected and appointed government officials.

In any serious and objective examination of Constitutional issues some of the primary sources include the Federalist Papers (circulated during the Constitutional Convention arguing in favor of adopting the proposed Constitution and federal government) and the Anti-Federalist Papers (circulated in opposition to adoption of the Constitution and proposed federal form of government). In both of these sources are many writings reflecting the leading minds of the time. Taken as a whole, it is clear that the Founders recognized the militia as consisting of three categories of service; (1) the "popular militia", consisting of the whole body of the people, armed; (2) the "select militia", those having been specifically called into active militia service (state armed forces, local and state law enforcement agencies); and (3) the military forces of the United States under command of the president pursuant to laws passed by the congress.

The entire "well regulated militia" argument is a red herring thrown out by those who fail or refuse to accept the entire concept of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Some choose to view things with government as a group ruling the people, rather than the obvious and clearly stated commitment of the Founders for a government serving the people at the peoples' will and pleasure.

The entire concept, and the true genius behind our Constitution, is one of a government limited by having only those powers and authority delegated to it by the people. My argument is that the people possess all powers and authority, and the government cannot possess any power or authority that the citizens do not have to delegate; and further, that the act of delegation does not relieve the citizens of those powers and authority. In short, if the people do not have the right to keep and bear arms then the government authority to keep and bear arms on behalf of the people cannot exist.

The Constitution serves as the social contract binding the several states and all citizens together under one national government. When the Constitution is violated by the national government neither the several states nor individual citizens are bound by that contract; i.e.: the national government has no legal basis on which to do anything, and operates solely as a tyranny.
 
The strangest part to me are those who think that of all the times in the Constitution where "right of the people" is mentioned that ONLY in the 2nd Ammendment does it not mean an individual right. I think it was Verdugo vs Irquidez(spelling) where the USSC came to the same conclusion.
 
Several other people joined that conversation and have done an excellent job of supporting my position, even better than I could have, with dozens of quotes from numerous founding fathers and a long and clear document detailing the tyranny of the crown at the time.
Not unexpectedly the antis fall back on their usual mantras, times have changed, that's not what they meant, and we need common sense legislation etc.
 
We do need some common sense legislation, in more areas than guns. Common sense should lead you to the conclusion that the lawful citizens should have guns. I find it interesting that most liberals will argue that people have all kinds of rights even remotely not mentioned in the constitution, yet find one that is so well documented to be wrong.

Why is the right to cause death and mayhem with motor vehicles so acceptable? Where does it say democracy in the Constitution? Where does it say you have the right to vote no matter what? Where does it protect your computer or the airwaves? Where does it say executing a murdering scum bag is cruel and unusual? During the time it was written criminals were executed and hardly by the perfect mixture of chemicals.
 
The Second Amendment contains two thoughts, separated by a comma. They are related in that both concern a right recognized by the Constitution, but they are different in that one refers to "militia" and the other refers to "the people."
 
Every amendment that uses the phrase , "The People" has always been recognized to mean the people at large. But the Second Amendment use of "The People" does not mean the people at large. It means the Government. BS!
 
He came back with examples of where the SCOTUS made rulings which were later overturned - related to race and such - how's that for sleight of hand - because the court doesn't have a perfect track record means that we can discount any ruling we don't happen to agree with?
Ask him if he thinks Brown v. Board of Education was decided "wrongly" and will eventually be overturned.
 
Not unexpectedly the antis fall back on their usual mantras, times have changed, that's not what they meant, and we need common sense legislation etc.
Ask them if "times have changed" since the passage of the 13th Amendment. Ask them if it's time for "common sense" slavery.

Few things give me more pleasure than rubbing their noses in their own ignorance and malice.
 
Back
Top