Bill of Rights basics

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

From the Preamble to 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 ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

This establishes the Bill of Rights as informative in naming rights possessed by the people. These rights are fundamentally protected from interference by government. Key among these is the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The 'due process' requirement describes the relationship between between personal human rights and government including the Second Amendment:

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 2A names a right of the people. Like the other rights named in the BoR, the RKBA is a right of the people.

"My father sent my mother a revolver as a gift, which for her was the symbol of what any young girl wants in a marriage, this was for her the means to stay alive, to kill herself or to die fighting." - Assaela Bielski

[jmg257]

1. Of course it is. NOW explain what "to keep and bear arms" means, and re: the amendment's

primary purpose of securing the existence of well-regulated State Militias.

[beevul]

3. Bollocks.

Nobody thinks the primary purpose of amendment 2 is "securing the existence of well-regulated State Militias", other than a tiny handful of "collective rights interpretation" folks.


The primary purpose, is to prevent the federal government from infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms - because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

That is 100 percent self evident.

A well regulated sauce, being necessary to the security of a proper pizza, the right of the people to keep and bear ingredients, shall not be infringed.

Applying the same interpretational methodology as you use in reading amendment 2, the above fictional amendments "primary purpose" would be to secure the existence of sauce - which...again, is 100 percent completely incorrect in the most self evidently obvious way.

[jmg257]

4. You yourself backed my point...

The primary purpose, is to prevent the federal government from infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms - because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Thanks. I know that. And I agree.

At least 2 days worth of debates in Congress on the article which became this amendment, and not ONE mention of the importance of securing the personal liberty to arms for private purposes - only about protecting the militia.

You might want to read a bit more on the importance of the constitutional militias, and why the 2nd was ratified to secure them.

[beevul]

5. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle not a square.

"At least 2 days worth of debates in Congress on the article which became this amendment, and not ONE mention of the importance of securing the personal liberty to arms for private purposes - only about protecting the militia."

It was a Given that individually owned arms were part of the debate, even if they were not discussed as such.

Protecting private arms IS protecting the militias arms - no distinction was made as to which "arms" were protected, or whos rights were protected - because all of the above were protected. The rights being protected belong to the people, NOT just the militia - that's a fact. Had the framers intended ONLY the milita to have their rights protected, they would have made it abundantly clear, and enumerated them as such.


And seeing as its settled law, its a trivial discussion anyway.

[jmg257]

7. And a circle is a shape, which is why my fat friend is in shape.

Yes, it was a given that individual owned arms were part of the debate, or at the least I would figure it was assumed, since the people were for the most part supplying there own arms for militia duty; & that would continue (after some debate) as mandated by the Militia Act. But Congress wasn't given any power over the personal arms of individuals for private use, only given power - quite specifically - for deciding what/how the militias were to be armed.

You make a good argument about the "rights (to keep and bear arms) belong to the people", as did the OP, and I don't disagree. Since the people with some notable exceptions (after some debate) were the militias, in light of Congress' new power over the arms of the militias, there arose the desire for the 2nd - to make sure the militias wouldn't be destroyed by DISarming them, making a standing army necessary.

Which beings us round to the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

[gejohnston]

8. Their view was that a standing army isn't needed

to defend a country, but is needed to maintain an empire. That is my view as well.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. IMHO...

..."keep and bear arms" has been explained and discussed often and at considerable length. I have little to add. The whole point of the 2A is the protection and articulation of the right to own, carry and use "arms". Today, the arms most in the light of debate are firearms. Of the many uses for arms of all types, the personal uses which remain closest to those uses exercised by and expressed in numerous writings of the many founders are also those most rightly protected.

A great deal of discussion and debate also been targeted the term "militia". I do not see the 2A as having the primary purpose of securing the existence of one or more militias. The foundation, funding, civilian control of and participation in a militia is not why the 2A was written. There are many laws including the Constitution where greater detail and specifics on the militia are given. I believe that the BoR is about protecting individual rights. It's very difficult to protect what we can not agree on.

[jmg257]

9. The whole point of the 2nd was to make sure there were well-regulated well armed

militias. It states as much right in the amendment. They were NECESSARY...because without armed effective miltias, the only recourse is a large standing army.

There should be little variance in what was meant by "militia". Those were well understood entities that existed in the colonies for decades. The constitution is quite specific about the regulation & vital roles of "the Militia of the several States". As was the Articles of Confederation which 1st mandated that "every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered,". As the constitution was ratified, there would be debates and different notions of what exactly the militias MAY become because of the new congressional powers over them...organized - general or select, ages, exemptions; the arms and arming; discipling - how to keep them from being abused & destroyed, etc., but they were in the end pretty much a continuation of what had been before.

Of course the 2nd was written to protect the arms of the people/militia - it was because Congress was given new power involving those arms, of the militias, that the 2nd was deemed needed...to keep the militias from being destroyed by DISarming.


The reason I ask to explain "keep and bear arms" is THAT is where the real controversy lies...and not without cause...

Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. {just as you state in the OP}
Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with their other powers, congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary.

bearing arms = militia

Mr. SCOTT objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He said, if this becomes part of the constitution, we can neither call upon such persons for services nor an equivalent; it is attended with still further difficulties, for you can never depend upon your militia. This will lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, as in this case you must have recourse to a standing army

bear arms & keeping arms = militia (the only article in the constitution re: arms was dealing with the militia)

And it continues through the debates, showing the importance of the militia purposes of the article/amendment, not the personal nature of the security it offered.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. I guess we'll have to agree...

...to disagree on that.

[jmg257]

12. No worries...always interesting to discuss! Nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. Have a nice evening. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. If I might respond after further reflection...

It is no minor detail that at the time of the Revolution a great majority of the people of the US favored the concept of militias organized by and answering to the several States. The 2A plays a critical role to enable and protect militias and their members which is distinct from ensuring militias.

Being civilian organizations, the civilian members must have an RKBA in order to be effective. Protecting the RKBA (of individuals) enables their militia participation. Relying upon the government to arm the militia removes by one step the fundamental civilian nature of the militia.

JFK: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

[jmg257]

24. Agree. The Constitution ensures the militias...

Last edited Tue Oct 15, 2013, 06:03 PM - Edit history (1)

by giving them very specific very vital roles. It also SHOULD have ensured they were armed, as congress was to provide for that.

The 2nd ensures them too (they are "necessary&quot , AND makes sure they are well regulated, and viable - enabled - they can't be DISarmed.

It was debated whether the govt would arm them...not just via guidelines to type, but in how they would be supplied. Most founders preferred the people arm themselves, some specifically didn't trust the govt to supply them -

Dec 16th 1790
Mr. Wadsworth then pointed out the great danger of providing large numbers of citizens with firearms and requiring that those arms be returned after use, which could become an excuse to disarm large numbers of citizens: “Is there a man in this House who would wish to see so large a proportion of the community, perhaps one-third [poor, apprentices, minors] armed by the United States, and liable to be disarmed by them? Nothing would tend more to excite suspicion, and arouse jealousy dangerous to the Union.”

Constitution Convention 1787

Mr. KING, by way of explanation, said that by organizing, the Committee meant, proportioning the officers & men — by arming, specifying the kind size & caliber of arms — & by disciplining prescribing the manual exercise evolutions &c.
...
Mr. MADISON observed that "arming" as explained did not did not extend to furnishing arms; nor the term "disciplining" to penalties & Courts Martial for enforcing them.
Mr. KING added, to his former explanation that arming meant not only to provide for uniformity of arms, but included 4 authority to regulate the modes of furnishing, either by the Militia themselves, the State Governments, or the National Treasury: that laws for disciplining, must involve penalties and every thing necessary for enforcing penalties.

All fine in 1790, but somewhere along the way the people decided they didn't care to ensure or enable THE militias; they didn't want to enjoy their duty/right to serve; they decided the vital roles of the militia weren't really so vital; that a huge standing army was the best means of security, and that the govt supplying the arms for our newly created well-regulated militia is just fine. This diminishes the purpose of the 2nd in securing the constitutional militias of the several States AND the people's 'necessary' role in it, as they no longer exist, nor serve as they once did.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. Agree and disagree

A great deal has been said about the Founders and their disdain for standing armies. A standing army was obviously provided for in the Constitution. It was left to the individual States to organize and officer their own Militias. As you have highlighted there was popular resistance to federal arming/disarming of the Militias. After the NG was formed subsequent legislation provided that enrollment in each State's NG was also simultaneous enrollment in the NG of the United States.

During the 19th century the several States grew closer due to advances in travel and communications. As economic cooperation began to demonstrate, specialization made sense and certain sacrifices would improve the overall condition of the general welfare of the People. This was true of military/Militia as well.

During the early 20th century, due to the numerous wars and the increasing acceptance of US involvement in foreign affairs, the People accepted the idea of a large standing federal force. These evolutions from State Militias to a standing federal army demonstrate an acceptance by the American People of this country's world involvement and their trust of the federal government.

Whatever the structure of the main federal force, its composition, membership and officers are drawn from the civilian People of the several States. It can't be argued that such a force intrinsically benefits by restricting arms from non-members.

The 2A is part of the BoR. The BoR exists to protect individual rights from government abuse. This is evident by the nature of the other articles protecting such personal rights as free speech and privacy. Whatever other consequences devolve from the 2A, it acts as a protection for personal rights. It may have helped secure the ability of the People to participate in a militia. It may have enabled hunters to hunt. The essential nature of a right is as an attribute of a person. The nature of people doesn't change due to the evolution of their government. It is stated in the Declaration that "--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it". The evolution and continued development of our government is a basic strength. Providing for government to adapt to and better serve the People is a strength. The People will always have an individual RKBA.

Most basically the People have a right to life and have a right to protect themselves.
Have a great day.

[COLGATE4]

2. What possible relevance to your assertion does

the Bielski quote have? It don't see the relevance of reporting that an anti-Nazi Jewish partisan (who with his brothers organized a refuge for Beylorussian Jews in the forest and saved at least 1500 Jewish lives) gave his wife a revolver when both of them were hiding from the Nazis and were prepared to commit suicide rather than be taken alive.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. The right...

...to life and one's own self defense is built into most living things. An innate survival instinct is among the strongest of all drives. The quote from Assaela about the pistol given by her father to her mother illustrates a that survival instinct.

Perhaps this quote from Churchill fits:
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

[COLGATE4]

14. I fail to see how giving a loved one a pistol

to kill themselves rather than be captured alive illustrates a 'survival instinct'. In fact, I fail to see how your reasoning connects with the point you're trying to prove.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. Freedom is the exercise of choice

Having choices is freedom. Liberatin', idn'it?

[COLGATE4]

16. Once again, no response to the

question I raised. Crickets...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. The question you raised:

"What possible relevance to your assertion does the Bielski quote have? It don't see the relevance of reporting that an anti-Nazi Jewish partisan (who with his brothers organized a refuge for Beylorussian Jews in the forest and saved at least 1500 Jewish lives) gave his wife a revolver when both of them were hiding from the Nazis and were prepared to commit suicide rather than be taken alive."

Your response here seems to ignore the part of the quote which says, "...or to die fighting." What's up with that?

A quote from Tuvia Bielski, Assaela's uncle: "I'd rather save one old Jewish woman," he said, "than kill ten Nazis." There are situations where being armed gives you a choice you wouldn't otherwise have.

The 2A secures for those who would prepare for such choices by being armed, the right make the choice.

The prospect of captivity and slavery is so distasteful that some folks would prefer death. IMHO, denying that choice to those folks is disrespectful and undignified. In the opinions of some folks, there are fates worse than death.

[COLGATE4]

21. Well, when the Nazi invasion hits the U.S. I'm glad

that the 2A gives you the right to be armed. Until that time, I don't see any reason for it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. IMHO...

...your failing to discern a reason has not much bearing on the enforcement and reality of the Bill of Rights. The 2A nor any other law "gives" rights to anyone. Neither does the law cause murder to be evil.

[COLGATE4]

23. more word salad...

'Bye.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. You want to arm people AFTER an invasion?

Wouldn't being well-armed prior to such an event be more effective and perhaps even carry a deterrent effect?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. Perhaps, in this case...

Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)

...the fact of 800 pound armed gorilla keeps foreign and domestic attitudes where they belong. The idea that the 2A would only become effective during an occupation is elephant in the room thinking.

[jimmy the one]

19. pizza amendment

disc: The 2A names a right of the people. Like the other rights named in the BoR, the RKBA is a right of the people.

Yeah, it's a right to belong to a well reg'd militia, just like the british 1689 bill of rights granted their subjects - an individual right to belong to a militia for self defense, common self defense.
It was as much a clever way for FF & british leaders to conflate 'duty' with 'right' & make it sound better.

beevul: A well regulated sauce, being necessary to the security of a proper pizza, the right of the people to keep and bear ingredients, shall not be infringed.
Applying the same interpretational methodology as you use in reading amendment 2, the above fictional amendments "primary purpose" would be to secure the existence of sauce - which...again, is 100 percent completely incorrect in the most self evidently obvious way.

what a logic fallacy manipulation from beevul;.... it's obviously an 'amendment' concerning properly making a pizza. The right to keep & bear your pizza ingredients is indeed solely for use in making the pizza sauce, under the amendment's terms.
Under your pizza amendment, ingredients are NOT allowed for sniffing or tasting or smoking to get high (nutmeg perhaps), or putting dry spices in bags & popping them to make sneeze bombs in a room, nor are the ingredients allowed by the amendment for concocting anything else which is not for the pizza.
.. if the ingredients could be used for other things such as making bread, spaghetti, sandwiches, it would not have included the qualifying term 'a proper pizza' -- it might've said 'for the security of proper types of food'.
.. thus your pizza analogy boomerangs, since the amendment's right to keep & possess pizza ingredients is solely for use in making pizza, just as the right to keep & possess arms is solely for use in maintaining a well regulated militia.
.. You can't propose & enact an amendment & then contend it's also applicable for extraneous uses - altho scalia & beevul have few qualms about it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. conclusion...

...pizza goes well with salad

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. Apparently we don't have a right to pizza we have a duty to pizza

So everyone should be required to own an AR-15. That was my take-away, at least.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. IMHO...

...some really need a serving.

[jimmy the one]

28. unicorns are a myth

nuclear unicorn: Apparently we don't have a right to pizza we have a duty to pizza... So everyone should be required to own an AR-15. That was my take-away, at least.

I agree beevul came up with a ridiculous comparative 'amendment' with the pizza thing, surprised you're taking it seriously, for it's a ridiculous & stupid assumption you make that I was equating the frivolous pizza amendment with the bill of rights 2nd amendment - an official document not the quirky imaginings of some pro gun enthusiast.

what beevul wrote: A well regulated sauce, being necessary to the security of a proper pizza, the right of the people to keep and bear ingredients, shall not be infringed.

Again, beevul's pizza amendment bears out the militia interpretation, since ingredients are protected only (or primarily) for making pizza sauce, not for other purposes - within reason.
.. Myths come to mind - a unicorn is a myth dontcha know? ergo a nuclear unicorn would be a bigger myth reeeally stretching the imagination. And the 2ndA individual rkba is one of the biggest myths of all.

beevul non sequitur: Nobody thinks the primary purpose of amendment 2 is "securing the existence of well-regulated State Militias", other than a tiny handful of "collective rights interpretation" folks.

More from the 2nd amendment mythology; I wouldn't contend that approx 60 million americans who adhere to the militia or militia centric interpretation of 2ndA, a 'tiny handful', would anybody? It's the minority view for sure, because the 2ndA generally isn't well understood, & the gun lobby has done wonders (albeit malicious ones) by twisting about the true meaning of the 'zwitter verfassung-zusatz' (2nd amendment in german, literally 2nd constitution addition).

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. If you insist on this silliness, fine, I'll play.

Militias aren't a myth. So in order for people to be eligible for service in a militia their individual right to arms shall not be infringed.

Some may contend that militias are not currently an aspect of American defense policy but no subsequent amendment to the constitution has superseded the 2A so it remains in effect. It should also be noted that just because militias are not currently central to US defense policy doesn't mean they a precluded for all time forevermore.

Some may then argue that the law forming of the National Guard supersedes the militias but that is merely a law all laws must conform to the Constitution and no law can abrogate any part of the Constitution. Since the 2A remains in effect without subsequent amendment so too the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It should also be noted that militias aren't always meant to be in service to the government but a guard against the government. And believe you me, from some of the nastiness coming from the anti-rights faction it is good that they be discouraged from acting on their darker impulses.

I eagerly await your next off-topic word salad --




OK, not really.