Lots of calls for gun control to stop mass shootings and gun violence.
- Thread starter Headhunter
- Start date
There isn't a militia clause. It clearly states the right of the people. The 2nd Amendment didn't give any rights to the states or federal government, just as the other 9 didn't.So Supreme Court Justices, legal experts, linguistics and writing experts, historians, etc. all lack a basic understanding of language or pretend to?
I won't disagree that the interpretation of this amendment has been debated due to its ungrammatical nature. However, to argue the interpretation (which was dominate for a long time) that the militia clause is controlling is somehow based on a lack of basic linguistic understanding is rather disingenuous.
Have you bothered to read the historical documents from the time the Constitution was created? Have you bothered to read any of the original state constitutions? Article XIII from the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution is very clear...
"XIII. 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."
In a time period with no standing army or police departments, it was expected that the individual would be prepared to defend themselves. The 2nd Amendment clearly delineates the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and even specifically commands that the government cannot infringe on that right.
We just have different perspectives on the matter. Search warrants were issued and the ATF chose to raid the compound of a fruity religious cult knowing they were paranoid and well armed. The ATF decided it would show the Branch Dividions who was boss, and raided the compound with 100 or more black uniformed, very heavily armed troops, a military style raid. On well armed and paranoid religious zealots who had no idea who was attacking them or why. The Branch Dividions we’re wrong in how they reacted, horribly wrong. But in my opinion the ATF provoked an Insane reaction when it didn’t have to. Why didn’t it send in a marshal or two, politely knock on the door, explain they had the warrant, explain they had 100 other well armed law enforcers waiting out at the highway they would have to call in if the BDers wouldn’t peacefully honor the warrant? Instead it chose to barge in guns a blazing, determined to show who was who. All hell broke loose, people were needlessly wounded and killed. The FBI stepped in, exercised a degree of patience, until it ran out of patience. It decided to attack the compound with overwhelming force and drive the BDers out by whatever means it decided was necessary, with the result being that innocent women and children were roasted. The FBI, charged with protecting citizens’ rights, did everything but protect the rights of the innocent victims it killed. That’s my perspective. I know yours is diametrically opposite.
Yes there is.
There is a whole other way of interpreting the Second Amendment (one that was accepted by most up till the mid-20th century).
http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf
Yes I have.
Have you researched the English common law, studied the linguistic analysis of the Second Amendment, considered the Supreme Court's rulings and legal commentary pre-Heller?
So because the ATF chose to execute valid warrants, they are to blame? Come on.
Well considering what the ATF knew about the cult and the weapons they had, what did you expect them to do?
Did their leader know though what was going on? Yep.
The ATF provoked an insane reaction by executing valid warrants and protecting themselves from what they suspected was present inside the compound? Do you really believe this stuff?
I can agree with you that there were mistakes made by the federal officials. However, again, all Koresh and his followers had to do was allow the agents to execute their warrants and have their day in court. You know, follow the law. Instead, Koresh chose to engage in a gun battle. He was at fault for what happened.
This is not an example of government tyranny.
Last edited:
IMO the ATF is to blame for the way it chose to execute the warrants. Koresh was absolutely at fault for defying the execution of the warrants. The ATF provoked the Koresh reaction. Did it want or expect the reaction it got? Almost certainly not. It expected a compliant reaction from a goofy group of paranoid fruitcakes, especially when the fruitcakes would see the massive invasion taking place. It was probably shocked to see those fruirtcakes fight back. Yes, I believe this stuff. The ATF wanted the BDers to know it was the bully on the block, and it virtually attacked the compound from every direction. Yes, that's what I believe. It wasn't too long after that massacre that the Ruby Ridge incident happened. Government officials were determined to let the American citizenry know they were in charge, they had the authority, and, by God, they were going to exercise their authority. That's what I believe, yes. Your perspective is opposite of mine, I get that. No use in arguing about it any longer. In my original comment I specifically said I didn't want to hijack the thread, which was about gun control, and it managed to get hijacked anyway.
Painful read. One particularly difficult logic disconnect (highlights added to show the leaps in logic):
Disputing the meaning of the word militia in the Second Amendment, legal scholars ask, does militia refer to an organized and trained fighting force, or does it refer to all individual citizens, from whom the militia is drawn? Gun rights advocates, hoping to show that the Second Amendment invests individuals with the right to own firearms for any purpose, argue that, even if the “militia clause” has some significance, then they would like militia to include everybody. Supporters of gun control prefer to read the Second Amendment as connecting gun ownership specifically with militia service. In their view, militia refers solely to the group of volunteer weekend warriors we now find in the modern National Guard, the military force that evolved from the 18th -century American state militias.
Fortunately, the Constitution itself guides us in the interpretation of militia. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution defines the militia and gives Congress the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
It is the militia’s job, according to the Constitution, to enforce the law, suppress insurrection, and repel invaders. A well-regulated militia, the kind referred to in the Second Amendment, is not a band of irregulars like the Mehdi Militia, a sectarian army fighting against government troops in Iraq. It is not an impromptu posse chasing a villain. It is not a collection of disgruntled white supremacists who reject government authority and refuse to pay taxes. It is not a hunt club. And it is not the collective body of all Americans from whom a militia may be raised.
The second highlighting refers to calling on the militia to do certain things. The third and last highlight then takes that to conclude that it is the militia's only job. It goes on further to state that the militia consists only of males between 18 and 30 years old who are entitled to vote. I'm guessing the author isn't going to advocate for only those people being able to own guns today.
Where is it then?
Every time the Constitution references the "rights of the people," it is referring to individual rights. To think that phrase means something different in the 2nd Amendment is just absurd. The 2nd didn't create a new individual right. It recognized the existing right and prohibited the government from infringing on it.
There is zero evidence in historical documents to support that the 2nd Amendment was intended to restrict gun ownership to service in an organized militia. If you think there is some evidence, post it.
Yep. It's very clear from the historical record that the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right of the people as a whole, not limited to a subset of people who are in a militia.
Yes, you’re correct. My bad. I’m trying to multitask between this message board and writing payroll checks. I hope I don’t screw up someone’s pay! It seems those two incidents happened one right after the other.
On another note the comment was stated “mistakes were made.” It drives me up the wall when I hear apologists of government overreach absolve the overreach by dismissing it as “mistakes were made.” As if admitting the mistakes makes the overreach OK. Yes, innocent women and children were incinerated, but that’s OK, the government officials just made a mistake. Nothing to see here, move along. Can we absolve Koresh’s actions as mistskes were made? Four law enforcement officers were shot and killed in the initial raid. But just ignore it because mistakes were made. Why do government officials get to make mistakes, but not the rest of us.
Now, back to payroll!
Agreed. Mistakes were made by everyone and the ATF should not have made those mistakes as their main duty is executing those warrants which I doubt included the terms "by any means necessary".
Now back to payroll, you can make out a check to Phil.....
There was no government overreach though Dan. The government had valid search and arrest warrants. They were executing those search warrants against a heavily fortified cult! Just because one can agree that mistakes were made, does not mean that translates into government overreach.
I understand the concern for government tyranny. But as I said before, Waco is not an example of government tyranny and to claim otherwise actually hurts your overall argument more than it helps it.
Fair enough, we will just agree to disagree.
Last edited:
I've already shown it to you. It is the first clause in the amendment.
I have already given numerous links that reference the historical evidence to support the other interpretation.
I understand you strongly support the interpretation you are advocating for and that is fine. However, it is not the majority interpretation that was given to the Second Amendment pre-Heller. It is also an interpretation that I believe will eventually be rejected again by the Supreme Court in the future.
Till then, we have to operate within the framework of the Heller opinion, which greatly limits the rational options before us unfortunately. Still, there are a number of gun control laws that have already been mentioned on this thread that should be passed and hopefully they will be eventually.
Last edited:
That is a prefatory clause, not an operative clause. And it doesn't limit the operative clause. You literally have to ignore the entire historical record to conclude the 2nd Amendment limits gun ownership to people in a militia. But even that view is flawed since the militia is literally defined as everyone, so everyone can own guns.
You didn't provide a shred of evidence supporting your position that the 2nd was intended to limit gun ownership to militia members. You posted some links to some opinions. You know what they say about opinions. I posted a single passage from a state constitution that is clear about the individual right. You'll find that all of the discourse from that period supports that single passage. You lefties have nothing but opinion to utilize in this argument since there are zero facts in existence that you can use to support it.
Good talk.
@GL97, do you recognize this work? Pay particular attention to the bolded section.
That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.
That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.
According to the interpreation you are advocating for. However, there is another valid interpretation that disagrees with this claim and makes a very convincing argument that the controlling clause is the first clause. And this was the majority interpretation for most of our nation's history.
Go read the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals rulings pre-Heller. Read legal commentary before the mid-20th century. Read historical studies on this issue. Etc.
Yes I did. Plenty of evidence and facts. I am sorry you can't acknowledge it as usual.
Have a good night.
Last edited:
It takes a reasonable, objective, literate person to read the 2nd Amendment and instantly recognize it was inapplicable to the issues we're facing.
- The first half of the sentence says what it says.
- It's obviously an anachronism. It plainly has something to do with a militia. We had no standing army then. Made sense. The national guard is the closest analog and it's not a real good parallel.
- It's obviously an anachronism. We don't use flintlocks to solve wars. They didn't have .308 and .223 automatic weapons terrorizing the country, either.
- The drafters of that amendment would be the first to say, "Of course that didn't apply. This isn't scripture. Employ reason.
- Nothing matters because Medic et al have resolved to believe the party line. That's that.
Or at the minimal, someone who is willing to set aside the talking points of the NRA and other right-wing groups, have an open mind, and seriously consider the amendment and the history surrounding it.
For those willing to do that, here is a good starting place...
Amazon product ASIN 1476747458
Darn those pesky facts contained in the historical record. Party line is how you operate, so it's not difficult to see why you think the way you do. Your lack of ability to grasp the history that formed the basis for the 2nd Amendment is what's concerning.
Why do you own so many guns syskatine?
No, you didn't. Cite one fact from the sources you posted that supports the notion that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the right to keep and bear arms to people in a formal militia. Just one.
Already have. There's no smoking gun in it for you. Georgia tried to ban handguns in 1837. Unconstitutional. DC tried the same. Unconstitutional. Those cases couldn't pass the legal test for one class of firearm, let alone all of them. Maybe you can point to a ruling that eliminated the right to keep and bear arms. I'm not aware of a single one.
I'm having a great night. A good night wish to you too.
That history is quite clear. Like painfully clear. Those who try to ignore it or attempt to change it are those who are on the losing side of the argument.
@syskatine even knows this. That's why he always resorts to ad hominem attack in these conversations. As predictable as the movement of the earth around the sun.
@GL97, I'll leave you with something to ponder before I sign off for the night.
There is nothing in the historical record about debates or discussion regarding who had the right to keep and bear arms. None at all. It was universally regarded as a natural right of all free people. All of the discussion centered around whether it should be codified in the Bill of Rights or not. That single fact destroys the left's attempts to revise the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
The individual right to have arms was even codified in the English Bill of Rights in 1689. Violations of those rights by the monarchy, including attempts to disarm the public, are what led to the Revolutionary War.
Those Founders were some seriously smart guys. Just imagine where we might be today had they not codified that individual right in the 2nd Amendment. Donald Trump could literally be Hitler.
There is nothing in the historical record about debates or discussion regarding who had the right to keep and bear arms. None at all. It was universally regarded as a natural right of all free people. All of the discussion centered around whether it should be codified in the Bill of Rights or not. That single fact destroys the left's attempts to revise the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
The individual right to have arms was even codified in the English Bill of Rights in 1689. Violations of those rights by the monarchy, including attempts to disarm the public, are what led to the Revolutionary War.
Those Founders were some seriously smart guys. Just imagine where we might be today had they not codified that individual right in the 2nd Amendment. Donald Trump could literally be Hitler.
The historical record is just an excuse to talk about something besides the plain language. I give a shit. I can read the text of the second amendment. It's an anachronism, and that's very clear.
You know the drill -- first you have to tell me the difference between intellectual honesty and hypocrisy, THEN I'll let you touch my gun.
Those pesky facts again.
I guess I should give you credit for being honest enough to admit that the 2nd Amendment isn't about a militia. You just don't think it should exist any longer. I'm cool with that argument. That's actually logical in comparison to the bullshit that claims the 2nd limited the right to keep and bear arms to some militia.
Yo Ponca, I'll need three checks: one for me, and one each for my brothers Darrell.
In the mail.Yo Ponca, I'll need three checks: one for me, and one each for my brothers Darrell.
I think both are fairly clear and convincing for those who truly consider the issue apart from talking points or trying to prove their own viewpoint. I know my view on the Second Amendment changed the more I considered both.
I do understand though how the alternative interpretation has taken root, unfortunately. But as you alluded to, a plain reading of the amendment by a reasonable person divorced from ideology establishes some common conclusions.
Last edited:
Yes, exactly. Lefties can't muster any factual evidence to support their argument so they've resorted to attempts to bastardize language and ignore the historical record to muster an argument. But even that baseless argument falls flat when one realizes that the "militia" refers to everyone but the government.
It's weird that you support this alternative interpretation given your apparent knowledge of the facts. Intentionally obtuse?
3 and 4 are pure speculation. The context of modern weapons applies both directions such that they very well would think that the people's right should be sufficient to be proportional to potential threats. It isn't the right to bear muskets.
That argument is self defeating. If they wanted to create a right for people to have sufficient weapons to repel invaders then the SA should cover planes, bombs, missiles, biological weapons, etc. I haven't heard anybody yet say that.
Read the Stevens dissent in Heller. Even it notes that arms means military weapons.
I think they get a little hard on every time one of these deals happen. They love knowing that the biggest losers in the country have the ability to kill a person every second with a twitch of the finger. It's the great loser equalizer -- great people can lose it ALL in a second because we empower shitty people with the instant power of life and death over their betters. "Yeah, I may not be worth a shit, but I can still kill you."
Dehumanizing gun right supporters is a great strategy if you don't want a legitimate debate.
Here is an article to help you guys: http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/06/6-reasons-right-wing-friend-isnt-coming-side-gun-control/
Here is an article to help you guys: http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/06/6-reasons-right-wing-friend-isnt-coming-side-gun-control/
Dehumanizing is what the shooters do to their victims. These second amendment wackos get their rocks off with it. These sickos LIKE seeing a loser with the power to wreck lives.
Keep defending the ability of losers to kill good people. There's no other explanation for the devotion to violence.
