The Object of the Second Amendment

Mick Jagger

Mick Jagger

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
678
Reaction score
0
Location
Dallas
The Object of the Second Amendment​


Let's let the most "valuable expositor of early American republicanism" tell us what the object of the Second Amendment was.

"the [object] of [the] fourth article of amendments to the constitution, since ratified, viz. 'That a militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed'", was to "completely remove all room for doubt or uneasiness upon the subject" of whether "each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same."​
 
lunchmeat said:
Point?
Click to expand...


The Second Amendment was all about granting the
states concurrent power with Congress to arm the militia.

​


Here's the great expositor of Jeffersonian Republicanism explaining the purpose of the Second Amendment.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 272--75
1803

The objects of this clause of the constitution [Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12]... were thought to be dangerous to the state governments. The convention of Virginia, therefore, proposed... "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same"...all room for doubt, or uneasiness upon the subject, seems to be completely removed, by the fourth article of amendments to the constitution, since ratified, viz. "That a militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed."...To which we may add, that the power of arming the militia, not being prohibited to the states, respectively, by the constitution, is, consequently, reserved to them, concurrently with the federal government.​
 
From Wikipedia -

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e., "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4]

Before the Heller decision, there was much disagreement as to whether it protected a collective right or an individual right, because the amendment begins with a prefatory clause that refers to a "well regulated militia."[5][6] Previously, the Supreme Court had not directly addressed the amendment, or had only done so in limited or ambiguous terms.[7]

A minority have argued that because the District of Columbia, which is not a state, was the only government involved in Heller, uncertainty remains concerning whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local jurisdictions by way of incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Court's unambiguous declaration that the right to bear arms is an individual privilege, taken with the Fourteenth Amendment's clear stricture that, "[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," appears to conclusively support incorporation.[8][9]
 
[edit] District of Columbia v. Heller
Main article: District of Columbia v. Heller
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___, decided on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home," and "that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

The Court held that the amendment's prefatory clause serves to clarify the operative clause, but neither limits nor expands the scope of the operative clause. Justice Stevens, in his dissent, called the majority reading "strained and unpersuasive," and says that the right to possess a firearm exists only in relation to the militia, and that the D.C. laws constitute permissible regulation. Justice Scalia, in the Opinion of the Court, called Justice Stevens' interpretation of the phrase "to keep and bear arms" incoherent and grotesque.[
 
pepperman said:
From Wikipedia -

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e., "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.
Click to expand...

I believe you will agree with me that the most difficult problem that arises as we attempt to fairly and objectively ascertain the will of the legislative bodies that made the Second Amendment, is the fact that they deliberately constructed it to contains two part that don't coincide. That is to say, the meaning of "well regulated militia" in the first clause, doesn't coincide with the meaning of "people" in the second clause.

The meaning of the word "people" includes more, much more, than the people in the "well regulated militia."

In 1789, there were rules of legal interpretation that had be established by case law. These rules were universally accepted as the only legitimate method of interpreting a constitution or any other legal instrument.

There was a rule of construction that applied to legal expressions that contains parts that didn't coincide. The rule was,

...that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.
​
The Second Amendment treats "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as merely a means to the intermediate end of "a well regulated militia." "A well regulated militia" in turn is merely a means to final object of
"the security of a free state."

Applying the sacrifice rule, we must sacrifice the meaning of "people" to the meaning of "well regulated militia. Thus, we should understand the Second Amendment's second clause to mean "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
 
Guys,

Don't fall into the trap of answering this bot.

1. He is an internet troll who posts this exact same crap, and nothing else, all over political forums.

2. His real name is Frederick T. Slicer. He goes by screen names like FredFlash and FreddieFriday. He's a member of several atheist and anti-religion blogs. Google him and you'll see that what I'm saying is correct.

3. He will not engage you in an actual conversation; he only wants to play word games and show off what he thinks he knows about subjects that have already been settled.

4. You will note that he has yet to post anything about his car, including pics.

5. You're wasting your time even posting in his threads. He's already tried this numerous times in the politics forum. He has been banned from other forums, and I can prove it.
 
Fossten= Internet Robocop

How the hell do you find this info? What a boring life this dude must have.
 
A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of each state
respectively to organize arm and discipline its own militia, shall not be infringed.
​


Radd said:
The earliest American constitutional commentators concurred in giving this broad reading to the amendment. When St. George Tucker in 1803 published an edition of Blackstone annotated to American law, he followed Blackstone's citation of the right of the subject "of having arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law" with a citation to the Second Amendment, "And this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government."
Click to expand...
Tucker said the Second Amendment meant "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same."

In other words, Tucker interpreted the word "people" to mean "each state respectively" and "keep and bear arms" to mean "organize, arm and disciple its own militia."

Doing the math, and we see that Tucker read the second amendment to mean,
A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of each state respectively to organize arm and discipline its own militia [whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same], shall not be infringed.
​
It doth appear that the great Saint George Tucker put the "collective right" construction on the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear.
 
Mick Jagger said:
A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of each state
respectively to organize arm and discipline its own militia, shall not be infringed.
​


Tucker said the Second Amendment meant "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same." [/i]

In other words, Tucker interpreted the word "people" to mean "each state respectively" and "keep and bear arms" to mean "organize, arm and disciple its own militia."

Doing the math, and we see that Tucker read the second amendment to mean,
A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of each state respectively to organize arm and discipline its own militia [whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same], shall not be infringed.
​
It doth appear that the great Saint George Tucker put the "collective right" construction on the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear.
Click to expand...

Are you an anti gun nut ?
 
Sen. Hubert Humphrey's statement, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, Feb. 1960, p. 4 (1960): "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
 
In honor of Mick's 12,365th thread on this exact subject, I'm buying a new MBR this week. I'm torn between a PTR91 (an HK91 clone) and an M1A.

I've got the pros and cons down to a few things:

PTR91
Pros:

Cheaper
Cheap as dirt magazines
Lighter weight, smaller
Ultra-sturdy and reliable
Parts are common, not that you need any

Cons:
Charging handle on left side, way up front, awkward
It's a clone
Hard recoil (can be eased with recoil buffer)
Shorter barrel
Not very attractive

M1A
Pros:

Gorgeous rifle
Accurate
Long barrel; more fps
Friendly to left-handers like me (charging handle on right side)
Status symbol

Cons:
Heavy
Mags are 4X more expensive
$500 more than PTR 91
Parts are expensive

I'm truly a coin flip to buy either one. I need help! Any thoughts?
 
Whatever one's more quality built I'd say go with that. You always second guess yourself after buying something of lower quality.
 
pepperman said:
But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
Click to expand...

When some of the founding fathers spoke about the right to bear arms as a guard against arbitrary government, the government they were referring to, in many cases, was the U. S. Government. Some of them believed the state militias would be loyal to the states and would fight an army raised by Congress.

In the 1960's, the state militias of some of the states were loyal to the President of the U. S., who used them to impose racial integration in state schools, which some states viewed as tyrannical arbitrary government.

So much for that idea.
 
Mick Jagger said:
When some of the founding fathers spoke about the right to bear arms as a guard against arbitrary government, the government they were referring to, in many cases, was the U. S. Government. Some of them believed the state militias would be loyal to the states and would fight an army raised by Congress.

In the 1960's, the state militias of some of the states were loyal to the President of the U. S., who used them to impose racial integration in state schools, which some states viewed as tyrannical arbitrary government.

So much for that idea.
Click to expand...
Nice job of cherrypicking. I can cite Ruby Ridge and Waco as examples of arbitrary tyrannical government. So now you're wrong.

See?
 
The Bill of Rights is a limitation upon government not upon individuals
Click to expand...

The Bill of Right came about because 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. The Second Amendment's object was to prevent Congress from abusing its power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", by neglecting "to provide for arming the militia", by declaring "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same."

George Mason during the Virginia Ratification Convention expressed a widespread distrust of Congress and the possibility that it would not fund the arming for the militia as an excuse for the creation of a standing army, which could later to be used as an instrument of tyranny by Congress.

The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless—by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them, &c. … Should the national government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing a standing army. … But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,—yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,—what chance is there for preserving freedom?​

The Second Amendment was meant to be protection against a possible abuse by Congress. The right protected is really the right of a state to maintain an armed militia, or national guard, as we call it now. The American people feared that Congress might, by passing a law, prohibit the states from arming their citizens. Then having all the armed strength at its command, the national government could overwhelm the states. Such a circumstance has never happened, but this amendment would prevent it. The Second Amendment does not give anybody or everybody the right to possess and use firearms. The states may very properly prescribe regulations and permits governing the use of guns within their borders."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 80 (members: 0, guests: 80)
Back
Top