Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TygrBright

(20,733 posts)
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:01 AM Dec 2012

The 2nd Amendment was NOT written "to protect us from our gov't," FFS...

And I'm getting beaucoup weary of hearing that BS.

If you don't understand the full historical and political context of the second amendment, go and learn before you shoot your mouth off about it being a way of allowing us to "protect ourselves from our own government."

The Revolution was over when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were adopted and ratified. The individuals charged with creating an infrastructure that would allow a newly-independent nation formed of disparate ex-colonies to retain that independence, recognized the pragmatic necessity of empowering a citizen military for defense of the newly-formed nation.

We had mustered out the Revolutionary Army and sent almost everyone home. We had bupkus in the way of standing military forces and bupkus in the way of resources to recruit, train, and maintain such forces. Having had experience with such forces being used to keep uppity colonials in line, we didn't want to go that route in peacetime.

We also had a bunch of ex-colonies who (frankly) didn't think much of each other, weren't really sure they agreed, and didn't much want to cohere if it meant giving up what they thought was the correct way to live & govern themselves in favor of what those other assholes thought was a good idea.

The second amendment was a way of ensuring that should England, Spain or France decide we were a soft target, we as citizens could mobilize an effective response quickly, by having militias available. And since the government couldn't afford to arm or equip those militias, it would be important to ensure that able-bodied potential militia members were able to keep their weapons handy, and that no state would opt out of having a cadre of potential recruits available by restricting people from owning weapons, as was common practice among the major superpowers of the era, who DID have standing armies.

It was a practical measure to ensure we all had the right to defend ourselves and our new nation against anyone who might want to grab back or assert control over any of our sovereign territory. That's why it starts with the words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

It's also important to remember that the Bill of Rights represented two key concepts essential to the building of our nation: 1) The establishment of common ground among some very disparate colonial cultures and beliefs; and 2) the assurance that our central government would protect that common ground for all citizens regardless of which state they lived in.

Most of those protections were aimed, not at protecting citizens of the new nation from their own central government, but from the encroachments of STATE governments, which had different traditions and practices regarding which powers were appropriate for them to exercise over their citizens. It was a way of saying, "In every state in America, you have these rights. You don't need to worry, if you move from Virginia to New York, that the Governor of New York might decide to quarter troops in your home or appoint a gigantic unpayable bail if you're accused of an offense. You don't need to worry, if you're a Catholic from Maryland, that the Protestants in Virginia are going to be able to restrict your access to public office based on your faith."

If you look at the the entire Bill of Rights in the context of a new nation struggling to weld together diverse notions and traditions about self-government, and at the same time empower themselves to stay viable as a nation, the second amendment makes sense.

In a very real sense, the spirit of the second amendment is best exemplified in the modern era by retaining ultimate civilian control over our military establishment, and by ensuring all citizens equal access to service in the armed forces. We now have a standing military force, but it remains, in essence, a citizen military, controlled by civilian elected representatives, and comprised of all citizens regardless of gender, ethnicity, religious belief, state of residence, etc. We still have militias, in the form of national guard units, available for immediate response and our states are empowered to train and arm those militias.

These are the real spirit of the second amendment, not the paranoid nutnicks hoarding canned goods and wearing camo and muttering about the President setting up FEMA camps and conspiring to take their gunz away.

wearily,
Bright



172 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The 2nd Amendment was NOT written "to protect us from our gov't," FFS... (Original Post) TygrBright Dec 2012 OP
Damn right. We must reframe the gun issue and deal with it harsly as a terror instrument graham4anything Dec 2012 #1
I say this as politely as I can -- the entire OP is factually mistaken cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #2
Well, a good many years of historical and Constitutional scholarship don't necessarily... TygrBright Dec 2012 #6
Your education was to no avail cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #13
The Constitution (of which the Bill of Rights is a part)... TygrBright Dec 2012 #15
Oh, FFS... cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #16
The point is absolutely debatable. blackspade Dec 2012 #22
I'll try all caps... IT IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #47
Again, that is your opinion. blackspade Dec 2012 #61
It remains a fact whether you know it or not cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #78
This is how we get global warming and evolution debates. JVS Dec 2012 #90
Um, yeah..... blackspade Dec 2012 #116
And you refuse to provide DATA.... blackspade Dec 2012 #99
type: incorporation bill rights into the Google search box top-right of this page cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #102
I did actually. blackspade Dec 2012 #114
Okay. So you are now *willfully* ignorant. cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #118
Awesome indeed. blackspade Dec 2012 #132
Try this AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #151
actually, that the bill of rights applied only to the federal gov't originally is a matter of fact, HiPointDem Dec 2012 #121
As I pointed out... blackspade Dec 2012 #133
fail HiPointDem Dec 2012 #134
.... blackspade Dec 2012 #136
This message was self-deleted by its author ruxpin Dec 2012 #145
Arguing legal issues with a non-lawyer COLGATE4 Dec 2012 #38
Hey, you two . . . brush Dec 2012 #68
No thanks. I'll continue to stand for truth over lies cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #80
Why do you find it necessary to insult everyone and call them stupid and liars? pangaia Dec 2012 #148
It doesn't matter AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #152
IMO, there is only one thing worse than ignorance, and that is WILLFUL ignorance. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #72
It is amazing cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #81
You are a better person than me. X_Digger Dec 2012 #141
Get on the fucking bus or get off AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #153
It goes to show ....... oldhippie Dec 2012 #113
You just said what I've been thinking as I am reading this exchange. nt DeschutesRiver Dec 2012 #172
That is simply false. white_wolf Dec 2012 #91
This message was self-deleted by its author ruxpin Dec 2012 #144
It is not nearly as simple as that. cheapdate Dec 2012 #103
As American law cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #111
The fact that it even went to the Supreme Court in 1833 cheapdate Dec 2012 #112
Wrong, and that's settled in the Constitution's own words. caseymoz Dec 2012 #155
Flat wrong cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #165
Wrong. And there's not even any doubt about this. caseymoz Dec 2012 #150
I have to agree with Cthulhu here, you make a profound error jberryhill Dec 2012 #126
See #150, and Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution. caseymoz Dec 2012 #158
Not only is it not "spelled out there" jberryhill Dec 2012 #159
Why clarify the state/fed relationship with this clause, then? caseymoz Dec 2012 #160
"Case law is just another opinion" jberryhill Dec 2012 #161
Glad we can agree in a limited way. caseymoz Dec 2012 #164
But your opinion is not historical fact jberryhill Dec 2012 #167
How can opinion take precedence over a written article? caseymoz Dec 2012 #169
When it is signed by a majority of the Supreme Court jberryhill Dec 2012 #171
Where did you go to school? naaman fletcher Dec 2012 #140
Consider the preceding 100 replies in this thread cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #166
maybe I replied to the wrong person... naaman fletcher Dec 2012 #168
thanks. You are so right. cali Dec 2012 #8
Excellent post. n/t Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #27
And - say this as politely as I can - you're full of shit. baldguy Dec 2012 #43
Then why not get off your butt cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #93
This message was self-deleted by its author ruxpin Dec 2012 #146
Actually, I say it as politely as I can nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #49
They want military firepower without the military discipline & civilian control that goes with it. baldguy Dec 2012 #69
Yup nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #76
They disregard that whole "well regulated" piece of it. n/t RomneyLies Dec 2012 #105
"you remember school English? I guess you don't." zappaman Dec 2012 #83
What about the Supremacy Clause? renie408 Dec 2012 #67
You get trapped in a logical loop there jberryhill Dec 2012 #130
You have bought the Fox "News" bullshit Doctor_J Dec 2012 #70
Sigh... cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #82
You are correct Brainstormy Dec 2012 #74
One of the most powerful aspects of the U.S. constitution cheapdate Dec 2012 #98
those pesky details tahoelewis Dec 2012 #129
But the tenth amendment is not a restriction on government power in the first place jberryhill Dec 2012 #131
Yep, pesky details ruxpin Dec 2012 #147
Here's why you're completely wrong jeff47 Dec 2012 #135
i agree with the essence of what the OP was saying samsingh Dec 2012 #156
Thank you so much. Excellent OP. freshwest Dec 2012 #3
Thanks for your OP, TygrBright. JDPriestly Dec 2012 #4
This is true. Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #28
Read Perpich v DOD Kennah Dec 2012 #5
I never stated that the militia IS the US military. nt TygrBright Dec 2012 #7
What you said was ... Kennah Dec 2012 #9
Well, I'm originally from Minnesota, and the Hamline University... TygrBright Dec 2012 #10
You missed a spot Kennah Dec 2012 #11
LOL... hand me some more steel wool. n/t TygrBright Dec 2012 #12
Be careful. You don't wanna set the danged thing off in your hand. Kennah Dec 2012 #14
Okay, you can have your guns SCVDem Dec 2012 #17
And printing presses, too? Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #29
What about machine guns, RPGs, anti-aircraft missiles? Hugabear Dec 2012 #37
crew-served weaponry. Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #40
If you want to look at it historically ElbarDee Dec 2012 #42
That's right. And we have the National Guard and state, county and city/town police brush Dec 2012 #115
That is called bobclark86 Dec 2012 #124
This message was self-deleted by its author A HERETIC I AM Dec 2012 #39
My bad. SCVDem Dec 2012 #64
The nut jobs don't make a lot of sense to me! glowing Dec 2012 #18
You are correct TygrBright fasttense Dec 2012 #19
No, he is not. Nor are you. Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #30
Of course the tenth amendment was passed and ratified well after the rest of it nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #50
I don't understand what you are trying to say. n/t Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #51
You might want to read the tenth nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #54
I read it, and still don't see the point you are trying to make. Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #60
What part of all other rights are you purposely missing? nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #77
Nothing, I just don't see the point you are trying to make. Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #85
Read it again nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #86
This (the tenth amendment) references powers, not rights ..... oldhippie Dec 2012 #120
This message was self-deleted by its author cheapdate Dec 2012 #110
A mentally ill person shooting little kids is not part of a well regulated militia Botany Dec 2012 #20
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the 1st amendment does not mention "Life, Liberty.... A HERETIC I AM Dec 2012 #44
Exactly. blackspade Dec 2012 #21
That is one hell of an opinion you have there, but it is utterly indefensible. 1-Old-Man Dec 2012 #23
It's Quite Defensible ProfessorGAC Dec 2012 #25
Well said Champion Jack Dec 2012 #33
'Xept the history is all but scant nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #55
Why is such a compelling argument "indefensible"? OleDogg1945 Dec 2012 #125
Great Read, Tygr ProfessorGAC Dec 2012 #24
Sorry, this is just wrong. Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #26
You might want to read Federalist 29 nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #57
Fed 29 was in large part, a treatise on the proper organization of the militia X_Digger Dec 2012 #142
The Purpose of The Second Amendment JGug1 Dec 2012 #31
I get the distinct impression that you won't make it to ten posts. n/t A HERETIC I AM Dec 2012 #48
Oh for crying out lows, there is plenty of contemporary documentation nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #56
It may very well happen treestar Dec 2012 #58
It DOES matter what the intent was. Lex Dec 2012 #66
Thomas Jefferson frank380 Dec 2012 #32
The gun culture would provide no help whatsoever against Doctor_J Dec 2012 #71
The fact that americans are doing nothing frank380 Dec 2012 #108
Because the Constitution changes over time Doctor_J Dec 2012 #117
Is TJ the author of the second amendment? Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #127
Agree, we have a political system that allows "revolutions" every 4 years. Old and In the Way Dec 2012 #34
The Second Amendment was about three differnet types of protection: marble falls Dec 2012 #35
IMO it's the "right of self-defense" not the "right to keep and bear arms" that is the key issue. jody Dec 2012 #36
Taken together and in context, the 2nd and 3rd Amendments exist because we're not supposed to have TransitJohn Dec 2012 #41
The Constitution is not a suicide pact Progressive dog Dec 2012 #45
If the purpose was to creeksneakers2 Dec 2012 #92
I disagree Motown_Johnny Dec 2012 #46
The amendment states its purpose quite clearly drm604 Dec 2012 #52
It is a teaching of sorts. Three different kinds of "states", ... Trillo Dec 2012 #73
Exactly! fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #101
K&R treestar Dec 2012 #53
K/R moondust Dec 2012 #59
Logic problem: before the Revolution, the British gov't WAS "our government". Romulox Dec 2012 #62
Don't forget the Indians. The Midway Rebel Dec 2012 #63
You're wasting your time LittleBlue Dec 2012 #65
First Amendment: "Can't Yell Fire" Second Amendment: "Can't Open Fire" napkinz Dec 2012 #75
"Free State" confuses some of those who misinterpret mzmolly Dec 2012 #79
You are correct. Not many people even know that the 2nd Amendment was to keep citizens armed in Lint Head Dec 2012 #84
To all gun-worshipers who think the 2nd will protect you from your government, MsPithy Dec 2012 #87
Yep. And that will not happen. Amonester Dec 2012 #95
You're BACK!!!!! Yay!!! When did you come back? kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #88
+1 NMDemDist2 Dec 2012 #97
Same argument over the same ground for 221 years and counting. Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #89
The 2nd Amendment reads: sulphurdunn Dec 2012 #94
Great point, and ProSense Dec 2012 #96
TWO WORDS: WELL REGULATED fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #100
Isn't Our Military The Well Regulated otohara Dec 2012 #106
Not Sure You Get My Point fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #107
Imagine if we were as serious about "guns" as we are "automobiles" libdem4life Dec 2012 #104
Guns/Cars Lurker Deluxe Dec 2012 #162
I'm guessing this is sincere. The same is true for your kids...up to some level you can do to or libdem4life Dec 2012 #163
Actually, the only thing that could change the current SCOTUS interpretation amandabeech Dec 2012 #109
Collective right vs. individual right. moondust Dec 2012 #119
Time to REPEAL the second amendment Dems to Win Dec 2012 #122
What a load of horse puckey Android3.14 Dec 2012 #123
John Adams Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #128
We can always cherry pick our quotes to support our own bias Android3.14 Dec 2012 #137
This OP does not offer a holistic analysis of the Colonial / Constitution era context... reeds2012 Dec 2012 #138
Exaxtly !!! The forefathers were scared shitless that England would come back ( they did in 1812) SoCalDem Dec 2012 #139
This message was self-deleted by its author jeanmarc Dec 2012 #143
Post removed Post removed Dec 2012 #149
Amen! And a question: tblue Dec 2012 #154
Well rtracey Dec 2012 #157
I think Jefferson put it pretty succinctly when he stated: GoingUnder Dec 2012 #170

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
2. I say this as politely as I can -- the entire OP is factually mistaken
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:31 AM
Dec 2012

I don't think you are a bad person. I think you somehow actually believe this stuff, so please allow yourself to be educated on the topic.

The 2nd Amd was written as a limitation on the federal government, and only the federal government.

Its only effect is that the federal government could not ban gun ownership.

If gun ownership was in service of a federal function then there would have been no need or wish for the 2nd Amd. (Think it through.)


It does not require anyone to have a gun. It does not mandate state militias. I limits the federal government's ability to regulate arms. Period.


This sentence may the the least correct thing I have read this week:

Most of those protections were aimed, not at protecting citizens of the new nation from their own central government, but from the encroachments of STATE governments,


Before the 14th Amendment not one word of the bill of rights applied to the states. This is not opinion. It is fact.

It would be more effective to talk about the way the world is different than in the 1780s than to simply invent false history about what the world was like in the 1780s.

The 2nd Amd is a weird relic, but it was most assuredly crafted to secure the state's/people's rights against the federal government.


TygrBright

(20,733 posts)
6. Well, a good many years of historical and Constitutional scholarship don't necessarily...
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:28 AM
Dec 2012

...constitute an "education," so I will meekly accept your exhortation to "be educated" on the topic, and will study some more. (Gee, what a sacrifice... !)

Your observations do highlight a deficiency in the OP, and I definitely did not adequately emphasize this: The major purpose of the Constitution was to weld together disparate former colonies. The former colonies had largely conceived of themselves as self-governing in the wake of the Revolution, and the establishment of a central government was threatening. The Constitution, by clearly delineating the structure and responsibilities of the Federal government, and the Bill of Rights, by clearly enumerating various limitations on the Federal government's authority, was a way of reconciling the self-governing former colonies to the authority of the central government.

Nevertheless, if you look at the very specific "charters of rights" and "declarations of rights" made by the various colonial governments in the run up to the Revolution, and to the documents and memoranda submitted by the newly-formed state governments in respect to the Constitutional convention, it is abundantly clear that the specific rights enumerated in the Bill represent both the common ground of liberties demanded, AND the obligation of the Federal government to ensure that those liberties not be abridged.

You cannot divorce the Bill of Rights from the Constitution. The Constitution creates the powers of the central government and the authority of the Federal Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in precedence over the states' authority. That is, where the Constitution speaks, it guarantees the rights of all citizens of the nation.

The restrictions in the Bill of Rights were never intended to apply only to the Federal Government. No state is permitted to set unreasonable bail, to quarter troops on the populace, to restrict freedom of speech, etc.

The framing of the Bill of Rights as limitations on federal power was intended to reassure states and citizens that the federal government would a) not infringe on the rights of citizens in these areas, AND b) not infringe on the rights of states to govern in areas not specifically restricted by the Constitution (see: Amendment 10.) In essence, this is to say that freedom of assembly and petition may not be denied by the federal government and, therefore, also not by state or local governments, but that since the Constitution says bupkus about how states will elect their state governments, that will be up to the states.

Nor did I state anywhere in the OP that the intent of the second amendment was to mandate anyone to have a gun or to mandate state militias-- merely that no governmental entity could restrict the ownership and maintenance of the weapons necessary for a well-regulated militia. No citizen is required to participate in a militia, no state is required to maintain a militia. Merely, no government may impede the functioning of a well-regulated militia by prohibiting the ownership and maintenance of the weapons required for such a militia.

The entire Constitution of the United States of America applies, and has always applied from the moment of it's final ratification, to every American state. No state is permitted to enact laws or regulations that are unconstitutional, such laws and regulations are not valid. That's how the multiple jurisdictions of our government cascade in authority to weld together many into one.

And a critical issue for that welding together and maintaining the integrity of the newly-formed nation was our right to defend our existence as a nation, by ensuring that a well-regulated militia may exist to ensure the security of the nation.

We have the right to defend our nation with a well-regulated militia. No jurisdiction of government may impede or abrogate this right, nor restrict us as citizens from participating in such a militia and owning and maintaining the weapons required for such service.

We also have the right to think and say wackjob shit about black helicopters and FEMA concentration camps, and the right to skulk around in camo in the woods and drink beer with our fellow wackjobs, but that's protected by the FIRST amendment, not by the second amendment, and that right does not necessarily include the right to accumulate a huge arsenal of unregulated weapons that have nothing to do with defending our national sovereignty via a well-regulated militia.

specifically,
Bright

P.S. I don't claim to be the final authority on this, Constitutional scholars have been arguing about it for centuries and will continue to do so. But I do maintain that it is an interpretation well-grounded in historical context, Constitutional semantics, and legal, social, and economic traditions of representative democracy: at least as much as, if not more so than, the absolutist "GUNZ GUNZ GUNZ and MOAR GUNZ for anybody and everybody and the damn gummint can't do damn thing about it" interpretation.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
13. Your education was to no avail
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:03 AM
Dec 2012
The restrictions in the Bill of Rights were never intended to apply only to the Federal Government.


A "good many years of historical and Constitutional scholarship" notwithstanding, prior to the incorporation of the 14th Amendment the bill of rights limited only the Federal Government.

Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government.

The OP is based on a fundemental error, and the erroneous history promulgated is something imagined from that error.

The reason the fairly recent Supreme Court ruling finding (with which I strongly disagree) finding a personal right in the 2nd Amendment was such a big deal was that as an individual right, like speech and religion, it was subject to incorporation. (The right to own a gun was the hold-out in the long process of incorporation.)

TygrBright

(20,733 posts)
15. The Constitution (of which the Bill of Rights is a part)...
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:17 AM
Dec 2012

...has always applied to every jurisdiction that is part of the United States of America.

sleepily,
Bright

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
16. Oh, FFS...
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:27 AM
Dec 2012

We are not **arguing** because the point is not debatable. I am not interested in discussing with you what you imagine to be the case. I am informing you of FACT.




(The OP will not likely do this, but anyone reading this who thinks the bill of rights limited the states should disabuse themselves of the error as quickly as possible, and reading anything about the incorporation of the bills of rights while be useful. "Incorporation" Most important Constitutional thing of the last 120 years. Google "incorporation bill rights" It's easy.)

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
22. The point is absolutely debatable.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:01 AM
Dec 2012

Your opinion is just that.
You are informing everyone of you opinion based on your interpretation of the facts.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
47. I'll try all caps... IT IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:51 AM
Dec 2012

Q: Did the Bill of Rights apply to the States
A: No.

This is a FACTUAL question.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
61. Again, that is your opinion.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:34 PM
Dec 2012

You are suffering from intellectual failure.
Yelling and snark does not equal fact.

If you care to post actual facts rather than your interpretation of them I'll be willing to look them over, but until that happens your repetition of your opinion holds no weight with me and I suspect many others here.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
78. It remains a fact whether you know it or not
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:18 PM
Dec 2012

You seem to think that 2+2=4 is my opinion.

Given that, I don't see that it makes any difference what you think.

There are 50 states, also.

And water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen.

All opinion.


blackspade

(10,056 posts)
99. And you refuse to provide DATA....
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:27 PM
Dec 2012

to back up your statement.
Until then you are shooting your mouth off.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
102. type: incorporation bill rights into the Google search box top-right of this page
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:34 PM
Dec 2012

Select "web search"

Hit "Search!" button.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
114. I did actually.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:35 PM
Dec 2012

But incorporation only applies to the 14th amendment onward.
That does not in any way settle the issue as to what were the original expressions, limitations, and supremacy of the BOR over the states. The fact that it took until 1833 to 'settle' what you call an original 'fact' of the BOR underscores the vacillation of the federal court in its imposition of constitutional clauses over the states.
This is the origin of 'Brights thesis about the original intention of the BOR by it's writers.
How later courts interpreted and implemented the BOR has obviously varied depending on the era.
If you look up Federalism in that Google box it will explain all of this to you.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
132. Awesome indeed.
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:14 AM
Dec 2012

You make me laugh.

The fact that you are so hell bent on ramming down my throat was not settled constitutional law until 1833.
I believe that I have conceded the point that from 1833 to 1925 that you are correct in saying that the BOR did not, for all practical purposes, apply to the states.
However, before 1833 that was not the case. There were numerous cases up to 1833 showing the vacillation of the SCOTUS on this very issue.

L8R




 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
121. actually, that the bill of rights applied only to the federal gov't originally is a matter of fact,
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:20 PM
Dec 2012

not opinion.

little respect for the 'constitutional studies' of anyone who doesn't acknowledge that basic fact.

Response to blackspade (Reply #61)

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
38. Arguing legal issues with a non-lawyer
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:32 AM
Dec 2012

is a lot like trying to teach a pig to sing. You don't get anywhere and it just annoys the pig.

brush

(53,475 posts)
68. Hey, you two . . .
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:47 PM
Dec 2012

. . . stop arguing. Seems you both feel that the 2nd Amendment is used (and is misinterpreted) by many gun nuts, to justify having a home arsenal . . . the whole "well regulated militia" thing. I think you both agree that that clause is long outdated as we have a standing army now, the National Guard and state and local police even so we don't need every Tom, Dick and Crazy armed to the teeth and waiting to blow away some intruder, or thinking they can someday overthrow an overreaching federal government. I say restrict "killing weapons", hand gun and automatic weapons, to the police and military. The public can get their gun joneses satisfied if they want with "hunting/sporting weapons", rifles and shotguns. I say let's get it done quickly because even kids are getting slaughtered now. These incidents used to be years apart now they're happening once or twice a week now (the Oregon mall one, the football player one, the Newton elementary school one and the Alabama hospital one). Until we do something we'll all be holding our breath and dreading WHEN'S THE NEXT ONE GOING TO HAPPEN.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
80. No thanks. I'll continue to stand for truth over lies
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:21 PM
Dec 2012

I am not writing here to ban guns or not ban guns.

I am stating something about the history of law in the USA, and will not start believing imaginary nonsense in order to promote building a bigger opinion army.

What would such an army stand for, having already embraced delusion?

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
148. Why do you find it necessary to insult everyone and call them stupid and liars?
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:22 PM
Dec 2012

IF you are right and you feel no one listens to you, why not just drop the whole thing. Just let those who do not agree with you remain 'delusional,' if that is what you think they are. That is fine. You will never convince them. You can also lessen your anger at them.

But IF you are wrong, then you have made a fool of yourself.

 

AldoLeopold

(617 posts)
152. It doesn't matter
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:32 AM
Dec 2012

Your history of law means nothing compared to the lives of children.

Get on the bus or get off.

Let me say it again.

Get on the bus or get off.

Choose.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
72. IMO, there is only one thing worse than ignorance, and that is WILLFUL ignorance.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:15 PM
Dec 2012

Some people get so attached to their opinions that they REFUSE to accept facts that contradict their opinion.

You are 100% correct in your assertion about the Constitution and BoR. It is literally stupefying to see such willful ignorance in action.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
81. It is amazing
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:33 PM
Dec 2012

Anyone can google "incorporation bill rights" in seconds.

Some people don't want to, because on some level they suspect it would probably not end well.

So instead just keep saying, "That is your opinion."

Dude, in some deep philosophical way everything is just my opinion, but in some more normal, useful way, when I forward your complaint to Wikipedia my work is done. Take it up with them. Request the page be edited.

Wikipedia, and every legal textbook, and pretty much every source in the world, may be wrong. It is, indeed, possible.

Every 19th century SCOTUS decision way have been the opposite of what he thinki it was... who knows? Some conspiracy, whatever.

But it isn't my job to prove the reality of the world to every person I speak to.

So they can just switch to "that is just wikipedia's opinion, as well of the opinion of every legal textbook, etc." and we're good.

Or ask a lawyer. Or read a book... something other than deducing reality entirely from one's own emotional state, wishes, etc..

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
141. You are a better person than me.
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:05 PM
Dec 2012

In the face of such willful ignorance, I don't think I would have been quite so nice.

 

AldoLeopold

(617 posts)
153. Get on the fucking bus or get off
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:34 AM
Dec 2012

Are you on the bus or not?

Will you fight to control and restrict the access of firearms in this country or not?

 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
113. It goes to show .......
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:20 PM
Dec 2012

that ..."Well, a good many years of historical and Constitutional scholarship don't necessarily constitute an education" is true.

The OP's position is historical revision.

Response to TygrBright (Reply #15)

cheapdate

(3,811 posts)
103. It is not nearly as simple as that.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:40 PM
Dec 2012

As one of the authors of the Bill of Rights, Madison came to believe that it ought to be applied against the states as well as against the national government. He was joined in this belief by many people, including (for self-interested reasons) property owners. The question first went to the Supreme Court in 1833 in Barron v. Baltimore -- which ruled that the Bill of Rights applied only against the national government. But the question has remained contentious and has been litigated ever since. It's still not entirely settled and may never be. But with the 14th amendment and Hugo Black's subsequent interpretation of it -- I believe it's essentially settled in the minds of most Americans.

But my point is that it was never as unequivocal as you suggest.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
111. As American law
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:15 PM
Dec 2012

As American law the BoR did not, in fact, apply to the states.

And the states that ratified the thing seem to have understood that just fine.

And even Madison did, circa 1791.

However one slices it, Before the 14th Amendment it was continuously the state of the law in the United States of America that the limitations on the federal government that we call the Bill of Rights did not apply to sate government.

Whether that is equivocal or not is kind of a judgment made by the reader.


There was always discussion and disagreement as to whether it should also apply to the states, but not so much about whether it did.


cheapdate

(3,811 posts)
112. The fact that it even went to the Supreme Court in 1833
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:19 PM
Dec 2012

is clear evidence that it was an unsettled question before then.

caseymoz

(5,763 posts)
155. Wrong, and that's settled in the Constitution's own words.
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:40 AM
Dec 2012

See #150. Refer to the US Constitution, Article 6, Section 2

The only thing in dispute was whether the Federal Government had the strength to enforce its laws and principles on the states, despite the fact that the states had ratified the Constitution, which directly declared the Federal Government had that authority.

The Civil War wasn't made over principle. It was made over power. States were always bound by the Bill of Rights, in theory. In fact, the Federal government gave the states a lot of latitude.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
165. Flat wrong
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:39 PM
Dec 2012

Sorry, this is willful ignorance.

You cannot read up on the topic, however glancingly, without finding that the BoR did not apply to the states.

caseymoz

(5,763 posts)
150. Wrong. And there's not even any doubt about this.
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:28 AM
Dec 2012

Article VI, Section 2 reads as follows:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."


This article is unamended. It reads exactly the same now as it did when the Constitution was adopted. It's extremely clear. Everything in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights was made apply to the states from the very beginning. Period. That last clause is probably the most unambiguous one in the document. It cannot be read any other way. No State Constitution and no state law is supreme to the Federal Constitution and all laws and treaties made under it, and every judge in every state is supposed to be bound to the Federal Constitution and federal law first and foremost.

If this was disputed leading up to the Civil War, it was because the Federal Government wasn't perceived as strong enough to enforce this. The principle of Federal supremacy over the States wasn't even questionable. The Southern states had no principle to stand on, they just believed they could weasel out of the deal.

Why do people, including Justices, pretend this section doesn't exist? They have their own agendas, and I'm sure the Constitutional debates and Federalist Papers give them a variety of opinions with which to obfuscate, hedge, and give the states latitude. However, this doesn't change the way this section reads. In a straight conflict with the Federal government, the states had to yield, and that was always expected.

However, when Conservative judges call themselves constructionists, they are bullshitting. If they were strict constructionists, states rights would not even be called states rights. It would be called state jurisdiction.



 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
126. I have to agree with Cthulhu here, you make a profound error
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:48 PM
Dec 2012

"The restrictions in the Bill of Rights were never intended to apply only to the Federal Government."

No. We fought a civil war to get to that point. Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights was understood to apply solely to the federal government.

Now, most states had similar provisions, but it is not until after the 14th that the Bill of Rights is understood to apply to the states.

This DOES have an interesting connection with the Second Amendment, in that the point was to preserve the state militias, as the federal government was not understood to have a standing army.

The Second Amendment became an anachronism.

caseymoz

(5,763 posts)
158. See #150, and Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution.
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:29 PM
Dec 2012

Article VI, Section 2 reads as follows:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

It's spelled out there, and it's not even ambiguous. There was never any doubt: if the federal government had the power to enforce it, that federal authority superseded state authority. The South only thought it could weasel out of the terms, calculating that the Federal government did not have the power to enforce it.

It was federal power, not federal authority, that was in doubt.

So why would it need be implied in the 14th Amendment? Because some states apparently didn't get the message.
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
159. Not only is it not "spelled out there"
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:38 PM
Dec 2012

....but you are making the same logical loop error I noted elsewhere in the thread. If you say "it is the supreme law of the land" with the understanding that it only applies to the federal government, you haven't actually made any inroad to saying that it applies to states. That is precisely why it is not "implied" in the 14th Amendment, but expressly stated in the 14th Amendment.

You can certainly say, "well I think this language in the Constitution means X", but your personal interpretation doesn't trump some 200 years of interpretation and application by the Supreme Court. ANY course in Constitutional Law covers the history of this question quite well.

caseymoz

(5,763 posts)
160. Why clarify the state/fed relationship with this clause, then?
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:45 PM
Dec 2012

". . . and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Why would the Framers put that in?

I'll clarify this: I'm not talking about how it got fucked up later as states tried to weasel out of it and as the federal government had to compromise. I'm talking about what they meant when they wrote it, later case law notwithstanding. Considering how many compromises had to go into writing the Constitution, this section is very clear.

And I'm not saying later case law should be ignored, but it's spelled out in black and white how the Constitution was meant to to apply to the states when it was written, and would have been if the Constitution hadn't also given the Federal government the contrary task of accommodating slavery.

Maybe, just to make sure you understood, I should have said "reiterated in the 14th" Amendment rather than "implied," or perhaps, "very strongly implied," but I didn't think it would be so hard to go from one to the other. A reiteration is, after all, a very strong implication.

And reiteration was necessary, because some states had missed the meaning the first time, and because slavery made the Bill of Rights ambiguous for enforcement over the States. If the federal government hadn't tried to accommodate slavery, there would have been no doubt. In other words, if the most glaring flaw in the Constitution wouldn't have been there, nobody would have tried to hedge on the meaning of Article VI, Section 2.

And for "loop" error you refer to, I don't believe other posters cited Article 6 a counterargument. How can you parse the word "Land" to mean everyplace except the states? The states were practically the entirety of the settled land. Do you even notice that error? If "land" doesn't mean "states," it doesn't mean anywhere. And then there's the word "supreme": It can't be supreme and restricted.

And here's the other absurdity, how can federal government declare enforcement on the states in the 14th amendment if it never had the right to declare that power to begin with? I don't make my assertions out of ignorance of Constitutional history, I make them because there's no other honest, logically sound interpretation that can fit.

I'm not talking about case law, I'm not talking about anything else but those words. If there's ambiguity in Article VI, Section 2, find it. Describe it to me. Because I don't see it. No matter what was done later, how could it be read any other way?

I'll agree absurdities about the Bill of Rights not applying to the states were asserted over it later. They are now popularly believed, but if these absurdities are treated as the bedrock truth, the Constitution is invalid, because that's the main section that describes the relationship of federal and state power. It doesn't have the phrase "separation of powers," by the way.

Case law is just another opinion. It might be an opinion informed by the opinions of previous generations. More importantly, it happens to be the opinion of the powers that be at the time the cases were ruled. Because it's an opinion, however, I can give my contrary opinion, whether it's the enacted one or not.

caseymoz

(5,763 posts)
164. Glad we can agree in a limited way.
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:36 PM
Dec 2012

Really, if case law had anything to do with precedent in deciding whether the Bill of Rights applied to the states, the precedent would have started and stopped with Article VI, Section 2. What came after was just compromise.
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
167. But your opinion is not historical fact
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:02 PM
Dec 2012

We know what were the opinions prior to the 14th Amendment, and your opinion was not it.

Orly Taitz is of the opinion that the courts can invalidate a president.

As long as each of you is not purporting to assert historical fact or actual law, that's fine.

caseymoz

(5,763 posts)
169. How can opinion take precedence over a written article?
Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:40 AM
Dec 2012

The 14th Amendment was written about 75 years after the Constitution.

How are we basing our knowledge of that opinion? By what those guys wrote down. Therefore, how does that better inform us of intent the intent 75 years before when Article VI, Section 2?

If that article didn't inform them, then I have to ask why? As I pointed out, it looks unambiguous. Apparently, it was qualified by the 10th Amendment, but notably, the 10th amendment didn't alter the wording of Article VI, Section 2.

Again, it comes back to slavery. The biggest mistake in the Constitution. It was such a violation of the Bill of Rights that, in practice, the federal government couldn't press the point. It had to compromise for 70 years. Therefore, there was a disconnect between what was written in the Constitution and what people were used to doing.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
166. Consider the preceding 100 replies in this thread
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:43 PM
Dec 2012

and you should get a sense that you are mistaken, which is no crime.

A lot of people have the erroneous idea that because the BoR (mostly) applies to states today it always did. I didn't learn otherwise until I was in my mid-20s, at least. That common impression is, however, false.

Not opinion. Factually false.


Jberryhill is a smart guy and a lawyer. Read his replies.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
43. And - say this as politely as I can - you're full of shit.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:48 AM
Dec 2012

Spouting fascist RW NRA lies in a polite way doesn't make them any less fascist, or any less RW, or any less NRA, or any less untrue.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
93. Then why not get off your butt
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:53 PM
Dec 2012

and start telling every law school in the US, and every publisher of legal texts, and every state and federal court to stop spouting these fascist RW NRA lies?

This isn't group therapy. We are not here to help you deal with your delusions.

You are utterly wrong... mistaken, incorrect... on a question of fact, not opinion.

It happens. We have all been there, though we don't always put the pie into our own face quite as dramatically as telling people they are full of shit fascists or whatever for the heinous crime of having learned true things.

I would suggest you look into the factual question, satisfy yourself that you are wrong, and go forward a little humbler but much better informed.

Response to baldguy (Reply #43)

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
49. Actually, I say it as politely as I can
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:53 AM
Dec 2012

You are wrong.

The second has a series of dependent clauses, you remember school English? I guess you don't.

If you owned an infantry weapon, the Kentucky riffle, you reported for drill once a month. This even started before 1776. It was part of the social contract.

These militias also served as constabulary by the way.

So you want an sks, congrats soldier, here is your drill schedule...or join the police department.

zappaman

(20,605 posts)
83. "you remember school English? I guess you don't."
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:40 PM
Dec 2012

Pot meet kettle.]
Are you going to lecture us on "riffles" again?

renie408

(9,854 posts)
67. What about the Supremacy Clause?
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:43 PM
Dec 2012

Article VI, Clause 2 pretty much says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Wouldn't that mean that the Bill of Rights supersedes state laws automatically? Just because the Supreme Court heard cases that establish this fact, that doesn't mean that the fact didn't exist prior to it being publicly established...does it?

I am not a lawyer and I am just trying to understand the points being made here.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
130. You get trapped in a logical loop there
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:48 AM
Dec 2012

The thing is that, yes, it is the supreme law of the land. But when you combine that with the fact that it was considered "supreme" only with respect to federal issues, you end up back at the starting point.

Take the First Amendment, for example. If you read it quite literally, prior to the 14th Amendment, it only restricts what "Congress" can do in relation to the listed things. That's pretty specific, if you think about it.

Where the supremacy clause gets interesting is in the various cases dealing with situations in which the Constitution assigned a power to Congress, but Congress didn't, in a particular instance, exercise it. For example, can a state dam a navigable waterway used for interstate commerce in a situation where Congress, having supreme authority over that subject matter, hasn't said one way or the other.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
70. You have bought the Fox "News" bullshit
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:04 PM
Dec 2012
Its only effect is that the federal government could not ban gun ownership.


As seen numerous times over the last 20 years, the right-wing courts have now decided that no entity (town, village, state, etc.) can ban gun ownership.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
82. Sigh...
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:39 PM
Dec 2012

As we have also seen numerous times over the last 20 years, 1791 was more than 20 years ago.

Funny how that works.

Brainstormy

(2,380 posts)
74. You are correct
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:17 PM
Dec 2012

In my opinion also, the poster has taken away completely incorrect assumptions about the 2nd amendment.

cheapdate

(3,811 posts)
98. One of the most powerful aspects of the U.S. constitution
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:10 PM
Dec 2012

was that it was written in the name of and was binding upon "We the People". This was (and is) one fundamental difference between it and the the Articles of Confederation -- which was an agreement between the states.

 

tahoelewis

(10 posts)
129. those pesky details
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:02 AM
Dec 2012

I hate to spit hairs with you but the 10th amendment of the US Constitution states this: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I added the italics just in case you missed the obvious. Therefore your statement: "Before the 14th Amendment not one word of the bill of rights applied to the states." is just a little bit inaccurate.

Also, the "bill of rights" refers only to the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with the "Bill of Rights".

Not too often that someone writes one sentence that is wrong twice.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
131. But the tenth amendment is not a restriction on government power in the first place
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:44 AM
Dec 2012

It's not clear what hair you are trying to split, in the sense of the sentence to which you are taking issue. The context of the discussion here are about clauses which restrict government power.

What the tenth amendment does, as a reserve clause, is simply to state that any power not affirmatively granted to the federal government is reserved to the states. That actually reinforces the point Cthulhu is making. It doesn't "apply to the states" in the sense that it does not restrict the power of the states under any restriction which is applied by the Bill of Rights to the federal government. Quite literally the states are not "required" to do anything under the tenth amendment, unless you are arguing that they are somehow required to exercise an infinite number of powers reserved to them.

In other words, can you explain what the tenth amendment requires a state to do, or to refrain from doing?

You can't. Ergo, it doesn't apply to them, as it neither requires not forbids any action on the part of any state.

ruxpin

(4 posts)
147. Yep, pesky details
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:03 PM
Dec 2012

" Also, the "bill of rights" refers only to the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with the "Bill of Rights". "

Not quite sure you got the point if you think that's actually a response to his point.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
135. Here's why you're completely wrong
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:31 AM
Dec 2012

The supremacy clause.

I'd like you to explain how, exactly, the supreme law of the land did not apply to the states.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
156. i agree with the essence of what the OP was saying
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:18 AM
Dec 2012

thinking that gun owership offers protection against the Federal Government is ridiculous (with all due respect). If this was the case, we better have access to more potent weapons. however, guns can be used against other citizens, which they are all too often.

if a gun is only a tool, then control that tool.

this is not about any rights, it is about paranoia, profits, and the selfish interests (and narrow mindedness) of the gun nuts.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
4. Thanks for your OP, TygrBright.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:39 AM
Dec 2012

In any event, the authors and ratifiers of the Second Amendment did not envision the sophisticated weapons that mass murderers are using to terrorize society today. They would most likely be horrified at the rhetoric and the arsenals of the gun fanatics in our country.

 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
28. This is true.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:35 AM
Dec 2012

But they also did not foresee automobiles or computers.

Rights of free speech and search and seizure still apply there, though.

Kennah

(14,116 posts)
9. What you said was ...
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:36 AM
Dec 2012

"We still have militias, in the form of national guard units, available for immediate response and our states are empowered to train and arm those militias."

Read Perpich. The National Guard, State Guard, Reserves are not the militia. They are the military. Congress said so, and the SCOTUS confirmed it in a 9-0 decision.

TygrBright

(20,733 posts)
10. Well, I'm originally from Minnesota, and the Hamline University...
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:42 AM
Dec 2012

...Constitutional scholar who prepared the amicus brief opposing the Perpich suit made it abundantly clear that the scope of that decision relates solely to command jurisdiction and NOT to Constitutional status.

But for the purposes of this discussion it's not overwhelmingly relevant except as an argument by exclusion to distract from the gravamen of the assertion, so I'll go ahead and say, OMG, you're right and I'm wrong and that invalidates my entire argument and I'm off to humbly do penance by polishing bullets at Tina's Range Gear, now.

amusedly,
Bright

 

SCVDem

(5,103 posts)
17. Okay, you can have your guns
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:43 AM
Dec 2012

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Whatever was available when the 2nd was ratified you can have.

Muzzle loaders for everyone!

 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
29. And printing presses, too?
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:40 AM
Dec 2012

Look, I am as in as much anguish over these children as nearly any bystander. I've lost sleep over it.

My ideas on the second amendment are changing.

But there are some realities that are still realities, and they are going to have to be addressed, not puttied over with falsehoods for convenience.

The second amendment states "arms". It does not state "arms of the 18th century".

The idea behind the second amendment is that the people were to keep and bear arms that enable them to serve as military troops in an emergency. In the 18th century, that was a muzzleloader (not breechloader). Today, that is a modern rifle.

None of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are limited to 18th century technology. We still have freedom of speech using computers. We still have the right to valid searches and seizures with telephones and automobiles.

 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
40. crew-served weaponry.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:34 AM
Dec 2012

The second amendment is almost universally accepted to be about small arms appropriate for a soldier to carry.

It is not generally accepted to include explosives or crew-served weaponry.

An argument can be made in favor of machine guns but I am content for them to be restricted as they already are.

ElbarDee

(61 posts)
42. If you want to look at it historically
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:47 AM
Dec 2012

from the context of those who wrote it at the time then there were no lines to be drawn.

The point was to protect the people from oppressive government, i.e. the British government, dictating to the people their actions. The colonials also had a great fear of a standing army and did away with the one mustered for the revolution right after. (And we continue to do it to this day, always downsizing when we don't need a huge army- the last time was under Bill Clinton in the 1990s)

When written the individual was responsible to have a gun and form when called to defend the town or state. It would have been beyond stupid to say, "Have a gun, but make sure it's not a modern military weapon with a bayonet, and gawd forbid it's a brown bess musket! Something like a 38 caliber squirrel gun will be fine."

However in today's society where we have Law Enforcement and a huge standing army it makes no sense to have guns in the hands of the people.

brush

(53,475 posts)
115. That's right. And we have the National Guard and state, county and city/town police
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:36 PM
Dec 2012

That's "well regulated militia" enough. Hand guns and automatic weapons in the hands of military and police only. Sporting/hunting guns (shotguns and rifles) should be enough to satisfy the gun jones of those of the public who want them and say they need a gun for protection. I for one don't want to live in a country where everyone is walking around carrying heat. You think we have a lot of these shootings now, just wait until the NRA's fantasy state comes about? If that happens, these shootings won't even make the news there'll be so routine. Massacre clean-up businesses will sprout up, along with discount, mass funeral service companies.

bobclark86

(1,415 posts)
124. That is called
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:18 PM
Dec 2012

a straw man argument. It is a logical fallacy.

The Supreme Court has ruled there is a right to individually possess firearms. There are limits, however, and ALL of the things you mention are heavily regulated, so obviously legislators have chosen that to be the line.

Response to SCVDem (Reply #17)

 

glowing

(12,233 posts)
18. The nut jobs don't make a lot of sense to me!
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:55 AM
Dec 2012

They were fine under Bush and collected guns and thought the war was awesome and supported the military. Most still do, but now they are scared of the black dem president and they are all "bunkering" down like morons.

And I'm not talking about the other idiot "militias" that r against all govt... That's another category.

 

fasttense

(17,301 posts)
19. You are correct TygrBright
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:04 AM
Dec 2012

And all RW weapon fetishistic fool's heads are exploding.

There are 2 myths the NRA weapon fetish RepubliCONS believe about the constitution and you have just exploded those myths.

Myth 1: The 2nd Amendment means we all have a right to keep weapons and use them against the federal government, even if the federal government has tanks, aerial bombs and drones. Those little guns, even automatics that are so handy at killing mass civilians you don't like, are never going to protect you against the weapons of destruction the federal government keeps in their arsenal.

Myth 2: The constitution is for the federal government NOT the States. Yes, of course it applies to the states and prevents the states from abridging an individuals rights, but that's just a side affect, Not the true intent of the Constitution. Our founding fathers loved the states and thought that anything done by the states is not covered by the Constitution. Though how the Constitution protects people from government but not state government is a funny little twist of logic that makes RW talking points so absolutely useless to people who think.

And if you read the first few post you got, you get someone who thinks just like a RepubliCON and who is quoting you those two myths.

But since you seem to have common sense and aren't fooled by RW talking points, I have a question for you about the amendments or bill of rights. Notice that in all but the 2nd, and perhaps the 7th amendment, the writers do NOT explain themselves. Amendments 1, and 3 through 6 and 8,9 and 10 start with an action. Congress shall, No soldier shall, The rights of the the people...shall, No person shall, Excessive bail shall, the enumeration ....shall. In the 7th it is clear why they defined it. They had to put a dollar amount on it so that every petty dispute over 2 cents would Not become a jury trial. But in the 2nd they give a less specific explanation and explain that their purpose is to keep a well regulated Militia. Yet the gun fetish freaks ignore those words as if they have no import. But they are most certainly very important because no other amendment explains itself without reference to a dollar amount.

So my question is, do you suppose the writers of the Constitution thought that some citizens would seize on the idea of owning weapons to the exclusion of everything else, so that they explain the purpose of the amendment up front to allow for control of weapons? The ignorant fools who claim to be justices don't interpret it that way but using simple logic it seems to me to be the purpose. Why else explain the amendment up front when the other amendments don't explain themselves that way.



 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
30. No, he is not. Nor are you.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:45 AM
Dec 2012
Myth 1: The 2nd Amendment means we all have a right to keep weapons and use them against the federal government, even if the federal government has tanks, aerial bombs and drones. Those little guns, even automatics that are so handy at killing mass civilians you don't like, are never going to protect you against the weapons of destruction the federal government keeps in their arsenal.

It is worth noting that despite our massive technological superiority, the United States has not won many military engagements in the last 70 years.

Also note that in the case of a civil war such massive attacks would destroy our own infrastructure and tax base causing far more damage than the guns in civilian hands by themselves.

Myth 2: The constitution is for the federal government NOT the States.

Sorry, but this is not a myth. As was pointed out above, prior to the 14th amendment, adopted in 1968, not one word of the Bill of rights applied to the States.

But in the 2nd they give a less specific explanation and explain that their purpose is to keep a well regulated Militia. Yet the gun fetish freaks ignore those words as if they have no import. But they are most certainly very important because no other amendment explains itself without reference to a dollar amount.

So my question is, do you suppose the writers of the Constitution thought that some citizens would seize on the idea of owning weapons to the exclusion of everything else, so that they explain the purpose of the amendment up front to allow for control of weapons? The ignorant fools who claim to be justices don't interpret it that way but using simple logic it seems to me to be the purpose. Why else explain the amendment up front when the other amendments don't explain themselves that way.


The second amendment provides a reason for the people to keep and bear arms. Perhaps even the main reason. But it does not stipulate that this is the only reason to keep and bear arms.

It is like saying, "I am out of bread, so I am going to the store." This does not mean that stores only sell bread, or that the only reason I go to stores is to buy bread. It just means in the context of this sentence, I need bread and I can buy it at a store.
 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
77. What part of all other rights are you purposely missing?
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:18 PM
Dec 2012

It's like the second fans missing the well regulated militias.

 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
85. Nothing, I just don't see the point you are trying to make.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:43 PM
Dec 2012

Could you invest more than a couple of lines of text to try and tell me what you are trying to say by referencing the 10th amendment in this discussion?

The OP was trying to make the case that the second amendment was more a restriction of the states than the federal government. We know this is not true, not the least of which is because until the 14th amendment none of the bill of rights was enforced against the states.

The tenth amendment says all rights not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people.

What is the point you are trying to make here?

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
86. Read it again
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:52 PM
Dec 2012

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

(The second speaks of a well regulated militia...then there is the supremacy clause. To see the context, you might start with Federalist 29)

Have an excellent day.

I am now convinced people like to quote something they know both jack and shit about. I m sure the founders would classify this as a failure. The experiment is over.

 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
120. This (the tenth amendment) references powers, not rights .....
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:15 PM
Dec 2012

... there's a difference. The tenth does not address rights at all.

Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #30)

Botany

(70,291 posts)
20. A mentally ill person shooting little kids is not part of a well regulated militia
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:45 AM
Dec 2012

It is time for America to stand up and say loudly that somebody's 2nd amendment
rights do not supersede all of our 1st amendment rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. And by that I mean the freedom to shop for Xmas presents at a mall
in Oregon, or go to a movie in Colorado, or drop your kids off at kindergarten so they
can learn their letters, numbers, and how to play nice w/others.

My heart is breaking for all involved.

?w=440&h=330

A HERETIC I AM

(24,321 posts)
44. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the 1st amendment does not mention "Life, Liberty....
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:49 AM
Dec 2012

and the pursuit of happiness"

In fact, those words do not appear ANYWHERE in the US Constitution.

They are in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

1-Old-Man

(2,667 posts)
23. That is one hell of an opinion you have there, but it is utterly indefensible.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:09 AM
Dec 2012

And anyone who had ever taken the time to research the scanty history of the 2nd amendment would know that your entire diatribe above is simply indefensible.

ProfessorGAC

(64,425 posts)
25. It's Quite Defensible
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:19 AM
Dec 2012

You may not agree with the interpretations that would formulate said defense, but it's certainly a defensible position.

Your opinion on the matter is not the absolute word on the subject.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
55. 'Xept the history is all but scant
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:20 PM
Dec 2012

And contemporaneous documents support it. This includes the very available Federalist 29

OleDogg1945

(2 posts)
125. Why is such a compelling argument "indefensible"?
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:34 PM
Dec 2012

... I agree with your lead-in "Old Man"; that was, indeed, "one hell of an opinion". The logic of it seems utter compelling to a mind, such as mine, as must admit to being totally uninitiated on this issue. As to its being "utterly indefensible"; however, please, don't keep those of us who search blindly in the shadows, for enlightenment on this subject, in the dark; pray, don't "leave us hanging", as it were. Tell us why you say that, what the writer offers us, as to the context and intent of the 2nd amendment, cannot be defended. I'd like to hear from you as to the facts that support the conclusion you've drawn, at least as you understand the facts to be. I look forward to your analysis.

 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
26. Sorry, this is just wrong.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:32 AM
Dec 2012

Every time this argument comes up, there is a simple thing to point out that destroys the whole argument.

If the idea was not to protect against the federal government, why, instead of a decentralized militia controlled by the states, did they not opt for a centralized militia controlled by the central government?

The cost would be the same, so it's not financial, as you suggest.

It's about avoiding concentrations of power.

The entire government was formed as a system of checks and balances.

This is why we have separate branches of government for the judicial, legislative, and executive functions.

This decentralization of power also extended to the military. The idea was to not have a federal standing army, or at least for the states to be able to counter it.

In a very real sense, the spirit of the second amendment is best exemplified in the modern era by retaining ultimate civilian control over our military establishment, and by ensuring all citizens equal access to service in the armed forces. We now have a standing military force, but it remains, in essence, a citizen military, controlled by civilian elected representatives, and comprised of all citizens regardless of gender, ethnicity, religious belief, state of residence, etc.

In fact, what we have today is a "military class" of citizen. Because we have a volunteer military, most of America insulated from the consequences of military service. Civilians aren't in control of our military - they are largely disconnected from it. And the ones who choose to participate in it are of a select mentality concerning America's military adventures over the last 70 years.

We still have militias, in the form of national guard units, available for immediate response and our states are empowered to train and arm those militias.

The National Guard today essentially functions as reserve federal troops.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
57. You might want to read Federalist 29
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:27 PM
Dec 2012

For starters.

What they envisioned is Switzerland, not our current mayhem. Hell, Hamilton even touched, prophetically, on our current mayhem.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
142. Fed 29 was in large part, a treatise on the proper organization of the militia
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:13 PM
Dec 2012

Please, quote me a portion of FP29 that seems to say what you think it does.

JGug1

(320 posts)
31. The Purpose of The Second Amendment
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:47 AM
Dec 2012

Dear Sir.....you can argue all you want about what the purpose of the Second Amendment was. You weren't there and no one alive was either and as far as I have EVER seen, there are no contemporary notes to advise us of the purpose. IT EXISTS and it says this:
As passed by the Congress:
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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.
So, it doesn't matter what the intent was. The constitutional amendment needed to change the dynamics of owning guns is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Further, if it did, there are so many firearms out there that removing them would be impossible. IF you choose to focus on controlling automatic weapons, know that it is very easy to convert a semi-automatic rifle to automatic. Attacks on schools are VERY common in China, mostly with knives. Recently, a son killed his father and someone else before committing suicide with a bow and arrows. It isn't the weapon. It is the nut job and liberals need to stop calling people who like firearms crazy and begin to work with them, especially the NRA, to find ways to sort out those nut cases. THAT, my liberal colleagues, is our best route to any existing solution.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
56. Oh for crying out lows, there is plenty of contemporary documentation
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:23 PM
Dec 2012

You might want to start with Federalist 29, follow that with the letters between Adams and Jefferson...just at the top of the pile.

This level of, forgive me, ignorance...is astounding.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
58. It may very well happen
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:28 PM
Dec 2012

Amendments have been added and repealed before. If anything, we have proof that we need to re-adjust the Second Amendment to modern realities.

Lex

(34,108 posts)
66. It DOES matter what the intent was.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:40 PM
Dec 2012

You know ZERO about modern Constitutional interpretation if you think the framer's intent "doesn't matter."

 

frank380

(27 posts)
32. Thomas Jefferson
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:05 AM
Dec 2012

"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.

The founding fathers weren't trying to preserve hunting. They made their intentions abundantly clear over and over.


An unarmed country would be a very bad thing if we had a serious national emergency while the republicans controlled all branches of the govt.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
71. The gun culture would provide no help whatsoever against
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:08 PM
Dec 2012

an oppressive or tyrannical government. Over the last 20 years we have seen election theft, voter suppression, 1st amendment zones, the patriot act, union busting, and so on, and not a single shot has been fired in opposition to any of these moves. Your premise is now proven bullshit.

 

frank380

(27 posts)
108. The fact that americans are doing nothing
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:54 PM
Dec 2012

does not change jeffersons words. And it does not change the intent of the 2nd amemdment. The founding fathers overthrew their govt., the british. They did their best to make sure it could happen again, they were pretty confident it would need to happen eventually.

I can't imaging why you believe the actions of modern americans changes the meaning of the constitution.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
117. Because the Constitution changes over time
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:44 PM
Dec 2012

thankfully. Now your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (that the modern day gun nuts somehow will prevent a slide into tyranny) is, in the 21st century, ridiculous, as is proven my previous post. Since its primary purpose at this time is to put innocents in grave danger, it should be amended like the other vestiges of the days of slavery and musket balls.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
127. Is TJ the author of the second amendment?
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:06 PM
Dec 2012

Thought so.

I've got my own founding fathers - since this seems to be a game of quotes...

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

-JA

Old and In the Way

(37,540 posts)
34. Agree, we have a political system that allows "revolutions" every 4 years.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:14 AM
Dec 2012

Our country is not the US of the 1770's. We spend $600BB+/year on the common defense. Those that keep guns because they don't trust our government are the true enemies of democracy.

marble falls

(56,359 posts)
35. The Second Amendment was about three differnet types of protection:
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:14 AM
Dec 2012

1. If there was threat from outside the US our government couldn't protect us from.
2. If there was a criminal threat from within the US our government couldn't protect us from.
3. If there was an unresponsive, right wing, oligarchical government foisted on us that refused to respond to the people, that started arresting whole-scale without regard to law.

 

jody

(26,624 posts)
36. IMO it's the "right of self-defense" not the "right to keep and bear arms" that is the key issue.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:19 AM
Dec 2012

I believe most philosophers who acknowledge that humans have natural rights place the "right of self-defense" at or near the top.

If humans have rights, the question shifts to the source of those rights and in the U.S., that source is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That source is confirmed in debates leading up to the publication of the Bill of Rights which says in its Preamble, "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:"

IMO our continued debate over firearms is about the type of tool a law-abiding citizen should be allowed to use to exercise her/his unalienable right of self-defense, i.e. "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life".

Pennsylvania adopted its constitution on 28 Sep 1776 before it ratified our Constitution on 12 December 1787. The PA constitution said, "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." It also said, "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 to say "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

As an inalienable right it is impossible for PA citizens to have given the right of self-defense away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR. PA citizens acknowledged that fact by retaining the right of self-defense in their constitution when they modified it just five months after they ratified the BOR.

What is a "right" in PA should be a "right" in the other 49 states.

TransitJohn

(6,932 posts)
41. Taken together and in context, the 2nd and 3rd Amendments exist because we're not supposed to have
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:36 AM
Dec 2012

a standing army. The Framers considered having a standing army a huge threat to liberty.

Progressive dog

(6,862 posts)
45. The Constitution is not a suicide pact
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:49 AM
Dec 2012

The "protect us from our government" crap is incredibly stupid.
So they are claiming that a government controlled by the people has a suicide pill built into it.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
That's the preamble, show me where it gives gun nuts the right to wage war against their own government.
This is the treason clause of the Constitution.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
For the gun nuts who continue these claims, where is the part that allows them to protect themselves from their government?

creeksneakers2

(7,468 posts)
92. If the purpose was to
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:50 PM
Dec 2012

facilitate revolutions, how do they explain:

Article 1 section 8: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions;

Article 4 section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Also, shortly after the Constitution was passed, the feds used three state militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

Perhaps the founding fathers were more in favor of revolution when they were revolutionaries and less in favor when they were the ones governing.

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
46. I disagree
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:50 AM
Dec 2012

I believe it was created so that slave states could defend what they saw as their right to keep slaves.

There were federal armed forces at the time, most notably the navy. The country as a whole would have responded to a threat from a foreign nation.

drm604

(16,230 posts)
52. The amendment states its purpose quite clearly
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:15 PM
Dec 2012
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 key here being the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state".

Giving citizens the ability to overthrow their government would be directly at odds with the goal of protecting the security of that government.

It strikes me that if the intent was to give citizens the ability to overthrow their government then the phrase would have been something like "being necessary to the security of free men".

You may argue that "free state" referred to the individual states and that the intent was to give citizens the ability to protect their state from the federal government. But surely, if you have enough firepower to overthrow the federal government then you have more than enough to overthrow your state government, so it's still at odds with protecting the security of the state.

In any case, I find it incredible that any government would want to give its citizens the right to violently overthrow it.That's basically saying that those with the most firepower should be the ones who make the rules, which is clearly at odds with the freedoms the founding fathers wanted to protect.

Trillo

(9,154 posts)
73. It is a teaching of sorts. Three different kinds of "states", ...
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:17 PM
Dec 2012

Consider "state", then consider "free state" vs "non-free state". A state without any qualifier could be either "free" or "non-free", so the adjective chosen in the constitution was "free", which is a more specific kind of state.

In the above sense the founders were teaching us what transformations cause a "free state" to become another kind of state.

fightthegoodfightnow

(7,042 posts)
101. Exactly!
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:32 PM
Dec 2012

That would be called treason!

Agree 100%.

Now about those first three words....'a well regulated' .....when do we begin?

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
62. Logic problem: before the Revolution, the British gov't WAS "our government".
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:34 PM
Dec 2012

Arguments that only one generation of Americans (i.e. the first) had the right to resist a (hypothetically) tyrannical government are logically and morally unpersuasive.

The Midway Rebel

(2,191 posts)
63. Don't forget the Indians.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:36 PM
Dec 2012

At the time of the framing of the Constitution and B of R we still had a continent full of Indians that scared the shit out of us every now and again. We would be at war with with them for another 100 years, and in some ways we still are.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
65. You're wasting your time
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:40 PM
Dec 2012

It doesn't matter what the original intent or even the text of the Second Amendment. Only the interpretation matters, and the overwhelming majority of this country interprets it as a constitutional right to bear arms.

mzmolly

(50,957 posts)
79. "Free State" confuses some of those who misinterpret
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:18 PM
Dec 2012

the amendment. They believe "state" means Arkansas.

Lint Head

(15,064 posts)
84. You are correct. Not many people even know that the 2nd Amendment was to keep citizens armed in
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:41 PM
Dec 2012

case the country was attacked because the founding fathers did not see the need for a standing army. They wrote extensively about it. Now that we have a military with rockets, tanks, drones, submarines and nuclear weapons there is no need for people to be called up if we are attacked. That is what the draft is for and was used for during WWI, II and the Vietnam conflict. People who are holding on to advanced weapons just in case the Anti Christ or some alien conqueror takes over the US government is misinformed and needs to bone up on civics and American history. The 2nd Amendment does protect our right to defend ourselves and provide meat for our tables, even thought that is antiquated. But to save our country from some tea bagging, tin foil hatters idea of a take over of the USA is not only a waste of time but a waste of mind. Dead children don't care the caliber of the weapon that murdered them. The NRA and their tea bagging right wing bigoted supporters are the only ones who feel a need for weapons that can kill often and quickly.

I would feel much better defending myself against someone with a knife, hammer, crow bar or axe than a semi automatic gun.

MsPithy

(809 posts)
87. To all gun-worshipers who think the 2nd will protect you from your government,
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:56 PM
Dec 2012

HELLOOOO!

If your government (federal, state or local) wants to get you, they will drop on a drone on your ass, no matter how many guns you own.

Amonester

(11,541 posts)
95. Yep. And that will not happen.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:00 PM
Dec 2012

Heck, if it didn't happen 'under' the cheney/bu$h junta.... no way it ever will!

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
89. Same argument over the same ground for 221 years and counting.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:28 PM
Dec 2012

Could it possibly be that, in light of the fact that consensus is no more likely today than it was a century ago, our time would be better spent discussing potential solutions to immediate problems. Or would you rather just keep screaming at each other?

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
94. The 2nd Amendment reads:
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:59 PM
Dec 2012

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 statement has always seemed clear to me: Militias are groups of armed civilians who can be called to military service on short notice and can bring their own weapons to defend the state against whatever violent threats it may face. Militias are not the National Guard or the Reserves. To have a militia, the state must have an armed citizenry in possession of personal weapons. The problem we face today is that we have a citizenry armed to the teeth and no militia to justify it, as if just owning a gun was a right without a responsibility. If the need for a state militia has passed, the Constitution should be amended to reflect that and the uninfringed right to bear arms curtailed.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
96. Great point, and
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:05 PM
Dec 2012

"The problem we face today is that we have a citizenry armed to the teeth and no militia to justify it, as if just owning a gun was a right without a responsibility. If the need for a state militia has passed, the Constitution should be amended to reflect that and the uninfringed right to bear arms curtailed."

...a perfect summary of the problem detailed in the OP.



fightthegoodfightnow

(7,042 posts)
100. TWO WORDS: WELL REGULATED
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:28 PM
Dec 2012

You write:

It was a practical measure to ensure we all had the right to defend ourselves and our new nation against anyone who might want to grab back or assert control over any of our sovereign territory. That's why it starts with the words "A well-regulated (emphasis added) militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

It's also important to remember that the Bill of Rights represented two key concepts essential to the building of our nation: 1) The establishment of common ground among some very disparate colonial cultures and beliefs; and 2) the assurance that our central government would protect that common ground for all citizens regardless of which state they lived in.


It's more important to remember the first Three words of that Amendment.
 

otohara

(24,135 posts)
106. Isn't Our Military The Well Regulated
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:46 PM
Dec 2012

militia?
Will the military be the first to take down by our new army of gun owners?

fightthegoodfightnow

(7,042 posts)
107. Not Sure You Get My Point
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:49 PM
Dec 2012

If the second amendment protects individual prvate gun ownership, the Constitution provides it can and should be WELL REGULATED.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
104. Imagine if we were as serious about "guns" as we are "automobiles"
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:44 PM
Dec 2012

as to the manufacture, purchase, licensing, training, written and proficiency test, registration, annual re-registration complete with appropriate mechanical check, taxes on the consummable--gasoline (ammunition), legal status of owners, requirement to carry license at all times, responsibility and stiff penalties for any incident of injury, transfer of title and legal disposal.

We have done this before as a nation and it needs to be done with guns before we have every six-shooter wannabe or scared to death grandma or confused and angry kid or secessionist wackjob packing heat for protection.

They rode horses...we have been to the moon. They died of horrible diseases...we have antibiotics and insurance. They had to protect each other...we have the local police, FBI, State Police, 911, CIA, Highway Patrol, etc.


Lurker Deluxe

(1,031 posts)
162. Guns/Cars
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:32 PM
Dec 2012

The rules to oeprate a vehicle are there to protect people from unsafe situations. You are free to build your own vehicle from the ground up, with no regulation and no rules. I could have 14 wheels and six engines and could propel itself by any means you see fit. The tires could be made of wood and it could run on the tears of puppies.

However, to operate it on a PUBLIC roadway it must conform to the rules. If you have the land, you can drive whatever you like on your own PRIVATE property. Or you can build a vehicle for a purpose (rock climbing) and then transport that vehicle to the location that it will be used, in those situations the government says nothing about the things you speak.

Guns are different than any other product and have no reasonble comparison as to how they should be regualted.

I would tend to agree that these "assualt rifles" have no general purpose, and I would have no desire or need to own one. They are out there, now we have to figure out how to regulate thier possession. Attempting to take my 12G is not going to get you where you want to go.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
163. I'm guessing this is sincere. The same is true for your kids...up to some level you can do to or
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:28 PM
Dec 2012

with them as you choose on your private property or in your home. There are laws and rules that provide boundaries, however...even though you "made them".

Same for guns on your private property or any homebrew, back 40 vehicle you devise. But guarantee you if that vehicular concoction ... or your 12G whatever the hell that is ... kills or wounds someone...your property or not...registered or not...you are held liable and subject to incarceration based on rights of other people/the public. Then your own family will suffer by default.

And yes, if society decides, wisely I might add, that you be required to declare this closely-held piece...then get it licensed and accept responsibility for it ongoing. Because if ever it strays out of your backyard for whatever reason, and hits my kid or anyone else's, your life will change significantly. I'm guessing it would be the same for you and yours...given someone else's situation not quite a pristine as yours. Or, one of your kid's friend gets hold of it.

Please notice that this did not have to do with "taking away" your piece, unless its illegal.
Just be responsible, register it, continue to be legally responsible for it and realize that the safety of you and yours could depend on someone else's idiocy...surely not yours.

That's why the vehicle laws...nobody gets in their car to go kill people. But more than a few buy guns to hurt people...in offense or defense. Shit happens and just consider it's for the idiots that met all the requirements but still drive drunk or speed or disregard laws or get drugged and gun-happy vs. the innocent folk, like the your kids and kids at Newtown.

Small price to pay, IMHO.

 

amandabeech

(9,893 posts)
109. Actually, the only thing that could change the current SCOTUS interpretation
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:03 PM
Dec 2012

of the 2d Amendment would be a majority of liberal justices on the court.

It is possible that we will see a center-right court sometime during the next four years, if one of the older conservative justices like Kennedy or Scalia or maybe Thomas should decide to retire or if one of them dies or becomes seriously ill.

Even then, the concept of stare decisis (sp), meaning not overruling previous decisions unless there is a clear and important reason for doing so, could keep the court with the current expansive view of the 2d.

moondust

(19,917 posts)
119. Collective right vs. individual right.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:54 PM
Dec 2012

"The right of The People" is not necessarily the same as "The right of every citizen."

If the Second Amendment is interpreted to grant unspecified and thus unlimited gun rights to every citizen, as the NRA would have us believe, it is a certain recipe for domestic murder and mayhem as well as an invitation for individuals to form their own private armies capable of challenging the government and/or seceding. That's not how you form a "more perfect union."

It's about guaranteeing the collective the right to defend itself.

 

Dems to Win

(2,161 posts)
122. Time to REPEAL the second amendment
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:22 PM
Dec 2012

I just sent this to my congressional representative (she's retiring soon):

Dear Congresswoman Woolsey:

Repeal the Second Amendment Now.

It is irrational that we have a constitutional right to own a gun but not a car. A car has utility and purpose, transporting us to where we need to go, and occasionally tragically causing death. Guns have the sole purpose of causing death. They have no other utility.

Please, I beg of you, in your final days in Congress, make the most courageous stand of your life. Introduce a bill to amend the Constitution, striking the second amendment from the Bill of Rights. Take the one real, bold, sane action that will be a fitting memorial to the children and adults massacred in Newtown.

Only after the second amendment is repealed can we have meaningful regulation of guns, which rationally needs to be much stronger and more rigorous than the licensing and insurance requirements for cars, rather than far weaker as is currently the case. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

Challenge your congressional colleagues to pass your bill and send the amendment to the states for ratification. Stand up to the bloodthirsty, moneyhungry NRA. Trust that in all states of our union, there are enough people who love children more than they love guns. Let us have a REAL, meaningful conversation about rights and guns and death.

Challenge your colleagues to exhibit as much courage as a kindergarten teacher or an elementary school principal.

Repeal the Second Amendment Now. It is obvious what we need to do to have any hope of preventing further Newtowns. No other response is proportional to this ongoing catastrophe.

Repeal the Second Amendment Now.

Respectfully,

 

Android3.14

(5,402 posts)
123. What a load of horse puckey
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:22 PM
Dec 2012

Just goes to show that we have our own revisionists who just make crap up to reinforce their own bias. It's just as obnoxious as the ignorant yucksters who pretend the USA is based on God's law or some.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
128. John Adams
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:21 PM
Dec 2012

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 3:475 (1787-1788).

 

Android3.14

(5,402 posts)
137. We can always cherry pick our quotes to support our own bias
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:19 AM
Dec 2012

"Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." - Noah Webster

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," Coxe was a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789.

reeds2012

(91 posts)
138. This OP does not offer a holistic analysis of the Colonial / Constitution era context...
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:23 PM
Dec 2012

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:54 PM - Edit history (2)

"These are the real spirit of the second amendment, not the paranoid nutnicks hoarding canned goods and wearing camo and muttering about the President setting up FEMA camps and conspiring to take their gunz away."

After #Sandy, no one can be admonished as a "nut" for "prepping" and having enough food to sustain one's family through hardship. #McDonalds and #Carl's Jr are not real food. The 'instantaneous' mechanisms of corporate capitalism are not reliable at all times.

I enjoyed reading through the connections of your arguments, but we should also look at the entire historical context, as you say.

Consider...The Declaration, written by and through the historical context you invite us to immerse ourselves in, declared that we, the people, should be able to throw off tyrannical government. Jefferson also said watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots every few decades could be seen as an imperative. You overlook that context in your above argumentation. I'm not arguing for bloodshed, just pleading for you to have a holistic historical analysis. The founders had a much different view of gun ownership than your reductive cherry-picking alludes.

The issue is unfortunately very complex. Guns are lethal. They take away loved ones. Sometimes even children. Who cannot shed tears after what recently happened? But who can also not see the value in a single mother equipped to take out the drugged-out thief and rapist breaking into her home and attempting to violate herself and her children? Who among us wants to mount a billboard on our residence that says in huge letters: "I do not own any guns. The nearest cop will arrive 45 minutes after I call 9-1-1. Please feel free to break into our home, steal our belongings, and rape each and every one of us to your heart's content."

Yes, guns are designed to kill. Different than a car, which can also kill, but is designed to move a person from A to B. The problem with these types of comparisons is that they, too, are also too reductive. The mouth is not only designed for talking. It takes in food, it can satisfy sexual functions, . And likewise, guns are not only designed to kill, but to instill fear in the criminal that s/he should think twice or thrice before breaking into a responsible citizen's home and brutalizing the vulnerable who would be even more vulnerable if a full gun ban were to be imposed, as many are calling for.

The issue isn't as black and white as many are making it out to be. We live an increasingly sick and perverse nation. At times owning a firearm is the only safeguard against the mentally ill, like we saw this year in Connecticut, Aurora, Oregon, etc. And what was the solution in Conn? Calling in the SWAT, armed with ... guns.

My take.

SoCalDem

(103,856 posts)
139. Exaxtly !!! The forefathers were scared shitless that England would come back ( they did in 1812)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:27 PM
Dec 2012

so it made a lot more sense to send the soldiers back home with their weapon instead of warehousing them somewhere to rust away or be stolen.

The soldier got a "free" gun to hunt with, and was armed in case he had to fight the British again.. The whole "militia" language was there to remind men that they might be called up again, so they better practice & drill..just in case..

Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Response to TygrBright (Original post)

tblue

(16,350 posts)
154. Amen! And a question:
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:37 AM
Dec 2012

I love you for taking the time to write this. Better than I ever could have.

One question: Isn't this pro-gun blathering about a 'right' to defend against gov't treason talk?

 

rtracey

(2,062 posts)
157. Well
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:45 AM
Dec 2012

Reading and "listening" to all this allows me to add my 2 cents. Thank GOD for the 21st amendment, now all you constitutional scholars, shut-up and have a drink.... If all this scholarly talk is in reference to the murders last weekend, then think of it this way. We need comprehensive Mental Healthcare Reform. We need to invest in Mental Healthcare, like we do for cancer, let's raise billions in research for mental healthcare. Let's let our front line people, such as teachers and caregivers have the right and ability to report problematic/disturbed/abused/isolated children to the authorities without the fear of reprisal and being a scapegoat. If a teacher says I believe little Billy is showing signs of violence toward other children, let's investigate, instead of pushing it aside and claiming it as a generational phase developed by viewing Dogs of War video games. We all know gun control in this country will not work. We as a country need to come together and figure out these problems now before another attack of this nature occurs again.

Nothing in the Constitution can help this country unless we as the country agree on something.

 

GoingUnder

(10 posts)
170. I think Jefferson put it pretty succinctly when he stated:
Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:44 AM
Dec 2012

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms" - from the Virginia Constitution.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The 2nd Amendment was NOT...