what is your thoughts on this

[deduke1907]

In spite of what the The Gazette, the National Riffe Association and many citizens believe, the Second Amendment to the Constitution does not give individuals the right to own a gun.
It states: “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.”
A militia, as defined by Webster, is a body of citizen soldiers. The Second Amendment is thus the authority for the existence of the armed forces reserves or National Guard, and has nothing to do with personal firearms ownership.
David J. Baker
Colorado Springs

delete

 

[Crazy K38]

yes BUT the term militia does not apply ONLY to the national guard, and if they are in the reserves or the national guard they are armed forces not civilian, therefore it does if one is in such an organization such as the NRA

 

[deadin]

Where has "David J. Baker" been for the last 20 or 30 years?
That argument has been countered so many times and so many ways that I've lost track.
Of course, there are still people that think the Earth is flat, the Holocaust didn't happen and the moon landing was faked.

As my old Granny used to say, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

 

[m657]

Amazing how a simple statement from that citizen can wipe away 230 years of constitutional law by a multitude of experts arguing the issue with far more intensity.

What does he have to say about the nearly 50 state constitutions that also deal with 'the right of the people'?

I'm not going to list my real thoughts on the issue. He is simply wrong.

 

[TXbug]

There are two schools of thought on this.
1) The second amendment defends the right of the individual to own and possess a firearm.
2) The second amendment defends the right of a group of individuals, a militia, to possess firearms.

I agree with the first, as did the United States Supreme Court in the Heller
decision.

Now, why the second amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court is not incorporated to all jurisdictions as is the other Bill of Rights, is a mystery to me.

Penn and Teller explain the 2nd Amendment (caution harsh language)

Penn and Teller explain the 2nd Amendment part 1 long version
Penn and Teller explain the 2nd Amendment part 2 long version
Penn and Teller explain the 2nd Amendment part 3 long version

 

[USAF385]

The use of the commas in the 2nd Amendment have been an issue for a while.

Interesting tid bit I came across:

Commas and the Second Amendment

 

[shortranger]

Following this guy's logic, Congress can't pass any laws to prevent themselves from disrespecting churches. Says so, right in the First Amendment.

David

 

[geoff40]

The Constitution spells out the liberties and rights extended to individual persons, not to the States or government.
In the 1st and 4th amendments, nobody ever argues contrary, that "the people" means the people. The people have the right of freedom of the press and speech, and the people have the right to peacefully assemble. But these scholarly meddlers who think they are smarter than the average Joe claim "the people" in the 2nd doesn't really mean the people, it means "militia" or the State.
The rest of my response would get me in trouble....

 

[Pisgah]

I've never understood where the problem with the phrasing comes from. Paraphrased, it could read :"Everyone knows that a militia is important, and a militia is made up of individual private citizens; therefore, Congress can never take away the individual citizens' right to keep and bear artms. That way, we never have to worry about whether a militia can be raised and armed."

 

[The Rabbi]

In spite of what the The Gazette, the National Riffe Association and many citizens believe, the Second Amendment to the Constitution does not give individuals the right to own a gun.
It states: “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.”
A militia, as defined by Webster, is a body of citizen soldiers. The Second Amendment is thus the authority for the existence of the armed forces reserves or National Guard, and has nothing to do with personal firearms ownership.
David J. Baker
Colorado Springs

delete

That would have been a legitimate reading prior to Heller. But the Supreme Court gives definitive readings, and did so in Heller. The court ruled blah blah we all know this now. And that reading of the 2A is no longer possible.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Mr. Baker:

The Constitution does not "give" rights, it merely affirms and enumerates rights that were commonly known and believed to exist at the time of its adoption.

The Militia of the United States is described in the United States Code as consisting of all able-bodied males over the age of 17. The Militia Act, in its evolving incarnations for many years, has been the basis for Selective Service.

The militia of each state or territory is defined within the states' constitutions and statutes; invariably the militia is defined as all able-bodied citizens of the state.

Your argument does not stand up under even the most fundamental research. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are seriously misinformed on this subject.

 

[Dennis The B]

geoff40 wrote:

The Constitution spells out the liberties and rights extended to individual persons, not to the States or government.

Just the opposite. A constitution by definition defines the limits on the government, not individuals.

Out of some fear of rights losses, the first ten amendments were adopted to clarify to original document.

The concept of the U.S. Constitution was to define the powers of the government, and allow them very limited power over the governed.

Also, it should be noted that the first ten amendments are aimed at individuals and the several states. Not until the Thirteenth Amendment did Congress get mentioned as having the power to enact laws to enforce a constitutional amendment. This is when power turned irrevocably toward a strong federal government.

 

[The Rabbi]

That is incorrect. The BoR initially restricted the federal gov't from doing those things. States were free to do so. And I think many states had religious qualifications for state office. You are right the 13th A and principle of incorporation put an end to that.

 

[willy]

Mr. Baker:

The Constitution does not "give" rights, it merely affirms and enumerates rights that were commonly known and believed to exist at the time of its adoption.


.

Exactly!
The bill of rights isn't given to us.
They are inalienable rights!
They can't be taken away or even voted away!
At least that is the way the constitution reads.

BUT THE CONSTITUTION IS WALKED OVER AT THE WHIMS OF CONGRESS WHENEVER IT BENIFITS THEM!

And we the sheeple sit back and let them!

 

[The Rabbi]

Exactly!
The bill of rights isn't given to us.
They are inalienable rights!
They can't be taken away or even voted away!
At least that is the way the constitution reads.

BUT THE CONSTITUTION IS WALKED OVER AT THE WHIMS OF CONGRESS WHENEVER IT BENIFITS THEM!

And we the sheeple sit back and let them!

I thought you just said these rights couldn't be taken away? If so, how can Congress walk all over them?

 

[G-Mac]

I thought you just said these rights couldn't be taken away? If so, how can Congress walk all over them?

They do it by playing word games.

For example, "....shall not be infringed".

Now, OK, define "infringed".

Depends what the meaning of "is" is.

 

[willy]

I thought you just said these rights couldn't be taken away? If so, how can Congress walk all over them?

How does congress walk all over them?

We the sheeple let them!

Well how do you take a felons right to keep and bare arms away from him, while it is illegal to deny him any of his other inalienable rights?
According to the constitution they can't take this right from him.
When they can take one right from us ,then they can take them all.
It's just a matter of time.

 

[BarbC]

Just as the anti-Second Amendment crowd says that the Founding Fathers couldn't foresee semi-automatics, etc., so couldn't they foresee the army of liberal lawyers picking apart the Constitution's phrases in an effort to subvert the intent of the document.

 

[The Rabbi]

How does congress walk all over them?

We the sheeple let them!

Well how do you take a felons right to keep and bare arms away from him, while it is illegal to deny him any of his other inalienable rights?
According to the constitution they can't take this right from him.
When they can take one right from us ,then they can take them all.
It's just a matter of time.

Felons aren't allowed to vote either. I don't know what point you are making.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just as the anti-Second Amendment crowd says that the Founding Fathers couldn't foresee semi-automatics, etc., so couldn't they foresee the army of liberal lawyers picking apart the Constitution's phrases in an effort to subvert the intent of the document.

It isn't liberal lawyers doing this. It is what lawyers do, and judges. That's why there are courses in ConLaw and law schools.