The Irrelevant Second Amendment Argument!

[Jnew28]

Please read and share: http://stupidpartymathvmyth.com/1/post/2016/06/irrelevant-second-amendment-argument.html

"The year after the Second Amendment was adopted as part of the Bill of Rights,Congress passed a law requiring all fit adult males to enroll in the militias, with each man required to provide his own basic equipment. Though enforcement of this law would prove very problematic, it is very important to realize how important the passage of this law is to understanding Congress’s conceptualization of the Second Amendment as Congress passed at the time it was passed: within months of its adoption by the states, the right to keep and bear arms as part of the militia allowed by the Second Amendment was coupled with the individual’s responsibility to enroll in the militia and to provide his own basic equipment, including his weapon, for his training and service in the militia. The point is this: the right does not exist without the responsibility. This goes back to the Saxons and early English, where this tradition began. This is not merely conjecture: the entire concept of citizenship in the late eighteenth-century minds of the Founding Fathers, almost universally educated in the Greek and Roman classics, was the same of republican Rome, Founding Fathers’ inspirationfor a republican government of checks and balances and divided government from which they created the American government and U.S. Constitution. In the ancient Roman republic, the Roman concepts of a right and citizenship are counterbalanced by the concepts of responsibility and duty:a right as a citizen is enjoyed because the responsibility of duty is accepted. And in today’s system, the responsibility to keep and bear arms in order to be of service to the militia is not a responsibility for all fit adult makes; in fact, it’s the responsibility of virtually no one."

[former9thward]

1. And your point?

All males (17-45) and (if it was ever taken to court) all females abled bodied are part of the militia. This is current federal law. Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775) Your last sentence is totally wrong.

[Hoyt]

2. So, if you are over 45, you have to turn in your gunz? That would be a good outcome.

[anoNY42]

4. Considering that men generally get more mature as they age,

wouldn't you rather gun ownership skewed older rather than younger?

I imagine young men commit far more gun crimes than older men...

[Hoyt]

5. I think white wingers (the majority of gun owners) get more hateful as they age. And,

they accumulate more guns, buy more lethal accessories, etc.

But getting the 45+ year olds out of the gun accumulation/adulation pool would go a long way to cooling the market and reducing gun spread (old dude buys guns and sells them to any nut with a fist full of cash, or has them stolen).

[anoNY42]

8. Here is the FBI on age and gun crime

The older you get, the less likely you are to murder someone, at least.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_3_murder_offenders_by_age_sex_and_race_2013.xls

[Hoyt]

11. The more likely you are to intimidate people, join right wing groups, buys mote gunz to

compensate for something, etc.

[anoNY42]

23. Perhaps,

but the gun crime stats speak for themselves. Even if older men get more hateful and join RW groups, they are still less likely to shoot people than younger men.

[EX500rider]

17. "buy more lethal accessories" What accessory is more lethal then the gun itself?

[Hoyt]

19. Comprehension problem? Bullets that expand in body, laser sights, hi-cap mags, and the like.

Didn't say they were more lethal than a gun.

[former9thward]

16. Where does the Militia Act say that?

[Hoyt]

20. Ask the poster who posted it? Besides it is one of the definitions of "militia" those who can't

live without gunz use to defend the 2nd Amendment.

[former9thward]

21. The Militia Act says who is in the militia.

Nothing says if you are not in it that means you can't own guns. But no matter, these pro and anti 2nd amendment arguments have been repeated ten thousand times here.

[Hoyt]

22. I know, the way you guys and NRA read, the word "militia" is not in the 2nd Amendment.

[anoNY42]

3. As a poster above already pointed out,

Federal law provides for an unorganized militia that includes, at the very least, all military age males. Now, if you want to limit the constitutional right to just those military aged males, you might get some blowback from feminists and other liberals (like me!).

Furthermore, making the right contingent upon a militia just moves the provision of that right to the states. For instance, if the feds removed the unorganized militia from the books, Texas could still provide for a militia in its own laws, and thus Texans would still enjoy the right to have arms even under your own construction of that right.

Anyway, the 2nd Amendment itself does not have any language limiting it to militia members. Yes it mentions a militia, but it does not in any way limit the right to that militia. In fact, the language of the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that the 2nd Amendment does not create the right at all, and that the right already pre-existed the constitution.

[Hoyt]

6. It mentions "militia," but that doesn't mean anything. Typical gun fancier logic.

Rather than debating, I'll go with Justice Stevens' Dissent in Heller. Can't wait until Clinton gets some non-gun nuts on the Supreme Court.

[anoNY42]

7. Heller was great,

more Justices agreed with me than with Stevens. But sure, go with Stevens anyway...

I'm fine with regulating guns and increased gun control, but it is false to suggest that the first clause of the Amendment limits the second, it just doesn't. The Amendment protects a right of "the people".

[Orrex]

9. Gun advocates always make that claim as if it's self-evident and unchangeable

The Amendment protects a right of "the people".

Sure, for now. All it would take is a single ruling to change this fundamental tenet of gun-advocacy into its complete opposite.

[anoNY42]

25. True, the Court could always re-interpret it,

but that is not really what we are talking about. The Court could re-interpret the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean people here at DU will start thinking that right should be more restricted.

[Hoyt]

10. Yeah, I'm sure you are one of those who feel you are patriotic because you have and promote gunz.

[anoNY42]

24. I don't have any guns,

but I do feel patriotic, thanks!

[ileus]

13. I'll choose to remain progressive on the Second Amendment.

[X_Digger]

15. What a silly conjecture. The second amendment didn't 'allow' anything.

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how rights work.

Here, this should help- it's the preamble to the Bill of Rights:

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: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

Declaratory and restrictive clauses against whom? Abuse of whose powers? The government.

The bill of rights is not a 'the people can' document, it's a 'the government cannot' document.