close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

The second amendment does not give you the right to own a gun

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Razorsharp, Dec 19, 2012.


  1. Razorsharp

    Razorsharp
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    318
    14
    Location:
    VATENNOLINA
    We often hear people say, “The First Amendment gives me the right to say…” or “The Second Amendment gives me the right to have…”

    Both statements are contradictory to the purpose of the Bill of Rights and the founding principles of America.

    America was founded under the principle that we, as citizens, were endowed with certain rights, unlike in other countries, where rights are dispensations from the government. It’s what makes America unique.

    Outside the realm of jurisprudence, The Bill of Rights does not confer any rights to the individual, nor does it empower the Federal Government any degree of oversight. Quite the contrary, each of the Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights is a stricture against the Federal Government, binding and limiting its power.

    The Second Amendment states:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Many who oppose the ownership of firearms by private citizens make the claim that citizens are only permitted firearms when in service of the Militia. That’s a bass-ackwards reading of the Amendment. When the Amendment is properly read, it is obvious that it is the Militia that is dependent on the people’s right, rather than the people’s right being dependent on the Militia. Furthermore, from the words of the Amendment itself, it is also obvious that the right of the people to bear arms preceded any militia involvement and even the Constitution itself.

    Those who favor stricter gun-control legislation, point to the phrase, "A well regulated militia..." as license for the Federal Government to intervene and "regulate" the private ownership of firearms. This is a deliberate misreading perpetrated by those wishing to advance their agenda. The word "regulate", in respect to the Second Amendment, is more closely akin to "trained, equipped and disciplined", as affirmed in David McCullough’s historical novel, “1776”.

    The day's orders form Sullivan deplored the disorter and unsoldierly behavior displayed in the camps in the eve of battle. Yet soldiers were here, there, and everyswhere, strollin about as if on holiday, some of them miles from the lines. "Carts and horses driving every way among the amry, " wrote Philip Fithian. "Men marching out and coming in... Small arms and field pieces continually firing. All in tumult."

    The contrast between such disorder and flagrant disregard for authority and the perfectly orchestrated landing By Howe's troops could not have been more pronounced.

    Arriving at Brooklyn, Washington was outraged by what he saw, and in a letter written later in the day, he lectured Old Put (Gen. Israel Putnam) as he might the greenest lieutenant. All "irregularities" must cease at once. "The distinction between a well regulated army and a mob is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behavior of the latter."
    (Simon & Schuster; page 161)

    Furthermore, to use "regulate", as in to "control the limits of" would be contradictory to the phrase, "shall not be infringed" that resides within the same sentence.

    And finally, the purpose of the "Bill of Rights", as intended by the framers of the Constitution, puts regulation of the private ownership of firearms out of the purview of the Federal Government.

    No, the Second Amendment didn’t give you the right, you already had the right. And barring an amendment to the Constitution, you’ve still got it.

    DARoberts
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. countrygun

    countrygun
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    17,069
    16
    ahem, the phrase "...well regulated" should be viewed in the language of the time it was written an it's meaning then, not an interpretation based on the words as commonly used today.

    "well regulated" referred to being equipped, in parity, and with the REGULAR arms of the day" not "hunting rifles, they never used that word, the used "ARMS and ARMED" not "Muskets' not "Rifles" not "Pistols" ARMS. and they included it in the BOR to insure that ability in perpetuity.
     

  3. oldman11

    oldman11
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2012
    4,714
    1,332
    Location:
    Texas
    Well written, well said; and you are very much correct. Obama needs to read this as he thinks he going to restrict our right to have guns. Good luck with that.
     
  4. Razorsharp

    Razorsharp
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    318
    14
    Location:
    VATENNOLINA
    I said,
    Is that so far from what you wrote that you felt compelled to add a "correction"?
     
  5. GAFinch

    GAFinch
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    5,900
    23
    Location:
    Georgia
  6. countrygun

    countrygun
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    17,069
    16
    It wasn't a "correction" it was a further explanation.



    :panties:



    :tongueout::supergrin:
     
  7. Kirishiac

    Kirishiac
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    67
    0
    I like Penn and Tellers take.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50[/ame]
     
  8. cowboy1964

    cowboy1964
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    18,800
    1,313
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    If it someday comes down to the "militia" interpretration then I foresee some states swearing in every citizen into their "militia" who wants to be sworn in. Texas?
     
  9. English

    English
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    4,585
    41
    Location:
    London
    Razorsharp,
    Entirely agreed.

    English
     
  10. Ringo S.

    Ringo S.
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    967
    0
    Who cares now? Whatever Supreme court say, that's will be the low....
     
  11. Jarhead247

    Jarhead247
    Expand Collapse
    Bitter & Clingy

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    100
    0
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    Razor - Can I share & give appropriate credit?
     
  12. 427

    427
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    6,997
    0
    Location:
    KUMSC
    10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
     
  13. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc
    Expand Collapse
    MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    34,969
    6
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    It's always been funny to me, but it seems so clear.

    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.


    Because well regulated militias are necessary, the people's right to have arms will not be infringed. It's not a prerequisite, it's a reason that they wanted the people to have arms, unrestricted by tyrants.

    It's easy.


    The hard part is how to deal with evil men with arms. Instead of disarming all good men, why don't we empower the good to oppose the evil.

    It sure seems simple.
     
  14. beforeobamabans

    beforeobamabans
    Expand Collapse
    FYPM

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    5,596
    0
    Location:
    Crossroads of America
    When faced with knuckleheads who want to use the militia clause to warp the true meaning of 2A (and won't listen to reason), I take another tact. I believe the true meaning of the federal amendment is informed by state constitutions written later. If militias were central to the right to keep and bear, then one would expect to see them repeatedly referenced in state documents modeled after the national elucidation of rights.

    Indiana's constitution, written after 60 years of experience with the U.S. constitution does a nice job of simplifying the positive declaration of the people's (not militia's) right. Article 1, Section 32 states plainly and simply:

    "Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

    So, in all honesty, I really don't care how people want to interpret 2A. I live in Indiana and live under it's constitution. I always refer them to Article 1, Section 32 which does a nice job of clearing things up.
     
    #14 beforeobamabans, Dec 19, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2012
  15. Alpine

    Alpine
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2000
    719
    0
    Location:
    Texas
    Apologies if this is hijacking, but this makes me think. As an american citizen do I have a right to be in the militia? If so, would it be unconsitutional to restrict that right based on age and sex? If not, could Congress repeal this law and thereby eliminate the militia and by extension the 2d amendment?

    eta: Congress created the national guard and naval militia, so could surely eliminate them. Why not the unorganized militia too?
     
    #15 Alpine, Dec 19, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
  16. Atlas

    Atlas
    Expand Collapse
    transmogrifier

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2001
    12,512
    10
    Location:
    north of the equator

    :perfect10:
     
  17. Gunnut 45/454

    Gunnut 45/454
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    12,129
    9
    Alpine
    Simple answer Nope! As Congress derives it power from the COTUS. This is why it takes an amendment to the COTUS to chamge it! Each individual state has the power to have it's own militia seperate from the Feds! As has been stated the Bill of Rights are a restriction on the Feds! This is why I'm so pissed right now with all this talk of COMPROMISE on gun control! They don't have the right to enforce ANY GUN CONTROL ON US! :steamed:
     
  18. Gunnut 45/454

    Gunnut 45/454
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    12,129
    9
    Alpine
    Simple answer Nope! As Congress derives it power from the COTUS. This is why it takes an amendment to the COTUS to chamge it! Each individual state has the power to have it's own militia seperate from the Feds! As has been stated the Bill of Rights are a restriction on the Feds! This is why I'm so pissed right now with all this talk of COMPROMISE on gun control! They don't have the right to enforce ANY GUN CONTROL ON US! :steamed:
     
  19. SDDL-UP

    SDDL-UP
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    536
    1
    Location:
    Idaho
    Somewhere in the Federalist Papers, it was stated that if an individual showed up for militia duty inappropriately equipped, they could be given the proper equipment, then CHARGED for it. THE INTENT of the Second Amendment was crystal clear then, and it is crystal clear now. Do not be fooled - we, as individuals, have rights.
     
  20. jeanderson

    jeanderson
    Expand Collapse
    Toga!... Toga!
    Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    4,886
    2,175
    Location:
    A planet with no sign of intelligent life
    Good post.

    The Constitution and other founding documents make it clear that we, the people, are "endowed by our creator" with certain inalienable rights. As you point out, the rights are inherently ours, and are not granted to us by the state.

    Liberals just don't get this concept. They think government is the ultimate arbiter of what right you have or don't have.
     
Loading...