Is the 2A absolute?

[hack89]

Of course not. There are very few aspects of gun ownership that cannot be regulated.

[gejohnston]

1. there are no absolutes

including that there are no absolutes.

[petronius]

2. Absolute? Like all of the BoR, no - regulation that touches on 2A is allowed

Entitled to a substantial degree of judicial and legislative deference? Like all of the BoR, yes...

[DonP]

3. The only people that actually say that are the gun control "fans" and Ted Nugent

Funny how they have more in common with him than we do?

It's just another of their favorite memes. Just like ... their are no laws regulating guns, or the old "Teddy Bear" lie.

I guess it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy to be able to pretend that anyone that supports the 2nd amendment is an reasonable ass hat and not have to look in the mirror to see one.

But they always seem so angry and get such pleasure out of feeling angry. They can't even applaud the major drop in violent crime without adding 15 caveats. Poor guys.

[Prophet 451]

80. "teddy bear lie"? n/t

[DonP]

91. The claim that; "Teddy Bears are more regulated than firearms"

A sympathetic appeal to people that know nothing about what regulations actually already exist to control firearm manufacturing and sales and the additional testing standards for both Federal and individual states, e.g. drop tests, melting point testing etc.

You hear it less and less now because more people have been informed about what current regulations actually are so it's become more of a punch line.

[Prophet 451]

92. Ah, thankyou for the information n/t

[DonP]

94. You're welcome

It's always been one of my favorite "tall tales" and I usually ask the person telling me, as if it's factual, have they ever actually bought a firearm, filled out a Form 4473, undergone a NICS background check etc. or do you know about the current laws controlling the manufacture, sale or transfer of firearms?

It almost always gets me a blank stare ... or outright hostility ... for ruining a perfectly good "Bumper Sticker" based ideology.

[NYC_SKP]

4. None of the amendments are absolute. Just another distraction to try when your team is losing.

None are absolute, but all are individual.

Having tried to tie guns to racism, to bigotry, and to a past that no longer applies, they would like now to try (or re-try) this business of suggesting that a militia is the key component, now missing in society, to the viability of 2A.

And, laughingly, they suggest that the existence of a National Guard displaces the need for a militia.

Do I really have to explain this? The Guard is indistinguishable from the US Armed Forces as civil liberties and autonomy are concerned, so lets not waste any time with that.

The militia is here, it's well-regulated, differently from state to state, over-regulated in many states and, perhaps, under-regulated in others.

The daily trash I get to read is really entertainment to me, and I like being on the winning side, the second amendment side.

[Boom Sound 416]

5. Great post

[SkatmanRoth]

7. +1

[Glenn Vardy]

10. They're NOT all individual.

......but all are individual.

The rights and powers given up to Congress were not given up by you PERSONALLY and they're not reserved/retained by you personally by the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Massachusetts Declaration of Rights:
IV.—The people of this Commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America, in Congress assembled.

They're NOT all individual.

[gejohnston]

11. you are correct about the 10th

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

I think the 9th does

[Glenn Vardy]

12. Retaining rights as a collective body

you are correct about the 10th...

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
I think the 9th does

At least we can agree that not all of the amendments protect individual rights.
Is "the people" in the provision I posted from the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights a reference to the people as a collective body or as individuals? It's clearly a reference to the people as a collective body and it SAYS that they retain rights not expressly delegated by them to the U.S. Congress.

[NYC_SKP]

13. True, the tenth amendment is a collective right, a states rights matter.

The ninth is a bit more open to interpretation as to whether it protects people as a group or individuals.

The two interpretations are not mutually exclusive.

But the second is most certainly an individual right.

[Glenn Vardy]

14. State security

True, the tenth amendment is a collective right, a states rights matter.

The ninth is a bit more open to interpretation as to whether it protects people as a group or individuals.

The two interpretations are not mutually exclusive.

But the second is most certainly an individual right.

I would say that no individual can claim that a right addressing State security is his/hers personally.

[NYC_SKP]

6. THIS has to be the most entertaining answer to one's own question that could possibly be.

Sometimes I think it's a blessing to be banned from that group.

Question posed by member:

Is the Second Amendment Absolute?

For a second, I thought the question was..."Is the Second Amendment Obsolete?" To which I answered a resounding "YESSS!"

~~and then this bit of brilliant insight:

Since we do have a standing Army, a Navy, an Air Force, a Marine Corps, the National Guard in every state, and many thousands of municipal police officers, I would say that yes, the Second Amendment has been obsolete for a while now. ]

[font size=6] Are You Fucking Kidding Me??? [/font size]

Note to author: The ARMY doesn't eliminate the need for the militia, what a backward-- no, backward is too kind, this is just inane and willful ignorance. Unbelievable.

[ileus]

8. It should be...then neither side could scare up supporters.

If not for the constant threat from the regressives we'd still see numbers and types of firearms sold before the clinton "ban".


Bonus #2 would be 22 on the shelves.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. That depends on what you mean by absolute...

...and how you define a right.

[jeepnstein]

15. So you're conceding the point...

that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a firearm suitable for militia service?

Sure there can and should be limits placed on who can exercise their right to keep and bear arms. I don't think anyone has ever argued against that. What limitations on the right do you envision?

[hack89]

16. Of course the 2A protects an individual right

that is right in line with the Democratic Party platform.

As a gun owner I support the right to keep and bear arms. I am satisfied with the status quo with the exception that I support universal background checks. I also have no major heartburn with limits on high capacity mags. I reject AWBs and gun registration.

[jeepnstein]

17. Opening NICS to individuals would be great.

And it really could be easy enough to do.

Magazine capacity limits? I support a law that limits magazine capacity to the same amounts as those issued to regular soldiers. That would be thirty rounds for an AR-15. I honestly couldn't tell you how many rounds a Beretta M9 holds because we aren't permitted to use them on duty so I never even give them a second look. I suppose you could just impose a limit of thirty across the board and call it a day.

[Prophet 451]

81. A Beretta M9 holds 15 rounds

I propose we limit magazines to 15 rounds for handguns and 30 for longarms.

[Glenn Vardy]

18. A well regulated militia, not guns for everyone.

So you're conceding the point that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a firearm suitable for militia service?

Sure there can and should be limits placed on who can exercise their right to keep and bear arms. I don't think anyone has ever argued against that. What limitations on the right do you envision?

The purpose of the Second Amendment wasn't to guarantee that all individuals had a right to own firearms suitable for militia service. The purpose was to assure the continuation OF the militia forces themselves. If eligible to serve, the individual would be called to serve on behalf of "the People".

[gejohnston]

19. do you have a cite for that?

like a SCOTUS decision or writings of the founders?

[Glenn Vardy]

21. Thomas Jefferson

"I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established. On receiving it I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus,*THE SUBSTITUTION OF MILITIA FOR A STANDING ARMY*, and an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union. He accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for these amendments, which were agreed to and ratified by the States AS THEY NOW STAND". - Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, June 19, 1802.

[Glenn Vardy]

22. More Jefferson

"The first charge is most false. No man in the U.S. I suppose, approved of every title in the constitution: no one, I believe approved more of it than I did: and more of it was certainly disproved by my accuser than by me, and of it's parts most vitally republican. Of this the few letters I wrote on the subject (not half a dozen I believe) will be a proof: & for my own satisfaction & justification, I must tax you with the reading of them when I return to where they are. You will there see that my objection to the constitution was that it wanted a bill of rights securing freedom of religion, freedom of the press, FREEDOM FROM STANDING ARMIES, trial by jury, & a constant Habeas corpus act. Colo Hamilton's was that it wanted a king and house of lords. The sense of America has approved my objection & added the bill of rights...."
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl100.php


"I will now add what I do not like. First the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, PROTECTION AGAINST STANDING ARMIES, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of Nations".

[petronius]

23. But in his drafts for the Virginia constitution, he said

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." It's difficult to square that with anything other than an individual-ownership view.

In contrast, opposition to a standing army in favor of a militia implies nothing about Jefferson's view on a collective versus individual RKBA...

[Glenn Vardy]

25. Own lands?

In contrast, opposition to a standing army in favor of a militia implies nothing about Jefferson's view on a collective versus individual RKBA...

The quotes I provided are about the Second Amendment. His descriptions of the Second Amendment look nothing like a right for individual freemen to use arms for private purposes on their own land.

[petronius]

26. The point is that if Jefferson believed individuals had the right to use (i.e. own,

keep, bear, employ) arms in their own lands, it seems unlikely that he viewed the RKBA as a collective right. Rather, it seems much more reasonable that he supported a militia made up of individuals with their own arms.

In other words, a 2A that protects an individual RKBA as an underlying requirement (and thus deserving of BoR protection) for the existence of the militia...

[Glenn Vardy]

31. Most reasonable

The point is that if Jefferson believed individuals had the right to use (i.e. own, keep, bear, employ) arms in their own lands,...

All you can truthfully say is that Jefferson WANTED a right for FREEMEN ONLY to USE arms ON THEIR OWN LAND. In this non-military context he didn't use the military phrase "bear Arms".

......it seems unlikely that he viewed the RKBA as a collective right....

In his State Bill of Rights "the people" had the right to keep and bear arms for "the common defence." Didn't he view this "RKBA" as a collective right? By the way, this was the ONLY existing provision that contained the word "keep".

.....Rather, it seems much more reasonable that he supported.... a 2A that protects an individual RKBA as an underlying requirement for the existence of the militia...

But the only reason you think that THAT'S more reasonable is because he once proposed a right for FREEMEN ONLY to USE arms on their OWN lands for his State Constitution. It would be more reasonable to look at the three letters in which he refers to the Second Amendment directly.

[petronius]

32. His comments and letters about standing armies shed no light on his

individual vs collective view of RKBA. It breaks down like this:

1) Jefferson was opposed to a standing army.
2) He preferred that a militia be relied upon instead.
3) the Second Amendment was instituted to ensure that the states would be able to form that militia.
4) The Second protected that ability by preserving the individual right of people to be armed (individual RKBA).

The relevance of Jefferson's other writing - such as I quoted - bears on whether he would support a collective view (keeping arms only connected with actively being in the militia, perhaps even stored in a militia warehouse, it's the militia that has the RKBA) or the individual view (every person entitled to keep their own arms). His draft of the VA Constitution strongly suggests the latter, and is incompatible with the former.

Put another way: if Jefferson wanted the right for citizens to be able to use arms on their own lands (which obviously would require having them), he can't also have supported the collective notion. Those are mutually exclusive positions, and he really only spoke to one of them as far as I know.

But perhaps we're using words differently: what is your definition of "collective right", and what exactly do you argue that the second (main) part of 2A refers to?

[Glenn Vardy]

35. It does shed light on the purpose of the 2nd Amendment

His comments and letters about standing armies.....

The letters were about the need for a bill of rights and what rights were agreed to and ratified by the States. It just so happens that when he refers to the Second Amendment he doesn't say it's about owning guns, he says it's "the substitution of militia for a standing army".

........shed no light on his individual vs collective view of RKBA .

It does shed light on his view of what the SECOND AMENDMENT was intended to protect. And whether he believed in it or not, his State Constitution protected a collective right of the people to keep and bear arms for the common defence.

And it's not right to label his proposal for a right for SOME individuals to "use" "arms" on their OWN LAND ONLY as an "individual RKBA" and claim he supports an "individual RKBA". There's no mention of bearing arms (__BA) in that proposal about the non-military use of arms.

[petronius]

36. The question is *how* 2A protects what it was intended to protect

I.e., through the protection of an individual right. And the right for people to 'use arms' (which must mean own, possess, have, store, carry, etc - which is RKBA), on their own lands, which Jefferson referred to, is clearly an individual thing.

As I laid out above: Jefferson wanted to preserve the militia, 2A is intended to do that, and the way 2A does it is to protect the right of the people to be armed. Jefferson's other writing clearly suggest that he viewed it as something that people exercise individually.

But maybe it's a semantic difference: can you specify what you are referring to as a collective versus an individual right? Because as I laid out above, there's nothing here to suggest that Jefferson subscribed to anything that is commonly thought of as a 'collective right' - quite the opposite, really...

[Glenn Vardy]

39. Reason for and purpose of

The question is *how* 2A protects what it was intended to protect

This is the concern that was constantly raised.

“By the next paragraph, Congress is to have the power 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... For this extraordinary provision, by which the militia, the only defence and protection which the STATE can have for the security of THEIR RIGHTS against arbitrary encroachments of the general government, is taken entirely out of the power of their respective States, and placed under the power of Congress... the proposed system, taking away from the STATES the RIGHT of organizing, arming and disciplining of the militia, the first attempt made by a State to put the militia in a situation to counteract the arbitrary measures of the general government, would be construed into an act of rebellion, or treason; and Congress would instantly march their troops into the State". - Luther Martin.

If Congress try to destroy the State militia forces by failing to keep them armed, organized and disciplined, the States may keep them armed, organized and disciplined without it being misconstrued as an act of rebellion because "a well regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State".

[Glenn Vardy]

40. Joseph Story identifies the reason for and purpose of the Second Amendment

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

§ 1201."..Suppose, then, that congress should refuse to provide for arming or organizing them, the result would be, that the states would be utterly without the means of defence...."

§ 1202. It is difficult fully to comprehend the influence of such objections, urged with much apparent sincerity and earnestness at such an eventful period. The answers then given seem to have been in their structure and reasoning satisfactory and conclusive. But the amendments proposed to the constitution (some of which have been since adopted) show, that the objections were extensively felt, and sedulously cherished. The power of congress over the militia (it was urged) was limited, and concurrent with that of the states.. If congress did not choose to arm, organize, or discipline the militia, there would be an inherent RIGHT in the states to do it. All, that the constitution intended, was, to give a power to congress to ensure uniformity, and thereby efficiency. But, if congress refused, or neglected to perform the duty, the states had a perfect concurrent RIGHT, and might act upon it to the utmost extent of sovereignty."

[petronius]

41. Are we abandoning Jefferson, then? You brought him in, remember,

but you've yet to demonstrate how his disdain for a standing army supports a collective rights interpretation...

[Glenn Vardy]

42. The military context

Are we abandoning Jefferson, then? You brought him in, remember, but you've yet to demonstrate how his disdain for a standing army supports a collective rights interpretation...

The letters show that the Second Amendment isn't about owning guns for private use, it has a military context,. The alternative to a standing army is a well regulated militia. In short, it's a militia amendment, not a guns amendment.


The other stuff I posted was to show what the concern was, and it wasn't that the Constitution didn't put the power to regulate the private use of arms beyond every State in the U.S. whether they liked it or not.

[gejohnston]

43. straw man

Constitution didn't put the power to regulate the private use of arms beyond every State in the U.S. whether they liked it or not.

Since the states have been regulating guns, in various degrees, since the founding, and federal regulations date back to the 1920s, no one is questioning the ability to regulate. The issue is the degree of regulation.
Assuming that it does refer only to a militia vs a standing army, it does not negate the individual right.
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/6498.htm
http://daviddorer.com/the-law-that-killed-gun-control-protects-abortion-rights/

[Glenn Vardy]

44. Hold your horses...

Assuming that it does refer only to a militia vs a standing army, it does not negate the individual right.

What individual right? You talk as though it's a given that it protects an individual right to own guns, even though Jefferson doesn't mention guns in the letters, and expect something else to be said in the letters to negate this individual right. From the letters, we can only take it as a given that it's about military matters.

[gejohnston]

45. he wasn't there remember?

The only thing you proved that Jefferson is spinning in his grave at the thought of Empire and MIC we have today. You have not shown any evidence that it did does not also protect an individual right. If it did not also protect the individual right, which the 9A also does, (read previous links) otherwise it would have said "the right of the states to maintain militias shall not be infringed.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/72lund.pdf

What individual right? You talk as though it's a given that it protects an individual right to own guns

That has been the view of people who more knowledgeable on this issue than either of us. The collective rights theory did not exist until the mid 20th century. Even Alan Dershowitz, who supports repeal of the 2A, recognizes that it is an individual right:
"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

[Glenn Vardy]

46. The onus is on you

You have not shown any evidence that it did does not also protect an individual right.

Jefferson's letters make no mention of an individual right to own guns. I don't need to find Jefferson quotes about the Second Amendment where he specifically says that it's "NOT" intended to protect a personal right to own guns for private purposes.

[gejohnston]

48. actually you do

because that is the point you are trying to make. Jefferson's primary concern was no standing army and other individual rights, which he shared with other anti federalists. I also doubt you have a full collection of his letters or any other of his writings. As the previously provided links say, it would be protected under the 9th Amendment. While the majority in Heller said it was an individual right under the 2A, the minority said as much under the 9A.

[Glenn Vardy]

70. The onus IS on you.

actually you do because that is the point you are trying to make.

Actually, it's you who's trying to make the point that he was talking about a personal right to own guns. I've made the point that he considered it a militia amendment.

You could claim that he considered the Second Amendment protected a right to wear tight trousers. Would you expect me to have to provide letters in which he says that it's NOT about wearing tight trousers? Three times he spoke about the Second Amendment, three times he didn't mention a right to own guns or to wear tight trousers. It's about neither.

[gejohnston]

71. actually I did

I proved that it is an individual right regardless of a few cherry picked quotes by Jefferson. As another poster pointed out, you did not make the connection. The irrelevant and out of context Texas murder trial did nothing for your cause.

[Glenn Vardy]

78. You proved WHAT??????

I proved that it is an individual right....

Errr..... you've done no such thing.

.....regardless of a few cherry picked quotes by Jefferson.

The quotes I posted were Jefferson's comments on the Second Amendment. If we want to know what Jefferson thought the purpose of the Second Amendment was, the quotes I posted are the most relevant.

The irrelevant and out of context Texas murder trial did nothing for your cause.

Why was it "out of context"? Because they said that the Second Amendment only addresses State security and the citizen gets his personal right from the State?

[gejohnston]

85. because it was was an argument

used in a murder trial, which has nothing to do with the constitution. It actually means nothing outside of that trial. You don't know which lawyer said it or why. In short, it is out of context and irrelevant.

No, you posted were Jefferson's comments about standing armies. He did not say that the 2A limited to a military, nor did it say he had a complete understanding of the amendment. He simply got news that the amendments included individual rights that he and other anti federalists wanted. Like you were told before, you didn't make the connection.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

89. Who are the militia?

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." - James Madison; Federalist #46

Half a million was about the number of non-slave males in the US over 17. The idea was that all of the people had the right to own a personal firearm. The notion that slaves and women weren't full and equal "people" has been overcome since then.

The scope of your discussion is well focused in that you assert Jefferson often spoke to the need for and efficacy of a militia. It's very true. The context of your discussion with others in this thread would lead any reader to believe that assertions aimed at arguing that the purpose of the 2A was LIMITED to militia support essentially requires that one accept that the 2A excludes any protection of an individual right.

Today, we read SCOTUS decisions, legal opinions and various popular statements from our contemporaries to well known writers back across the ages agreeing that personal arms for self-defense is a right. I call your attention to the canon of textual interpretation known as 'In pari materia' or upon the same matter or subject When a statute is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes on the same subject matter. The Bill of Rights is plainly about protecting rights of the individual. Much of the Constitution acts as a means of limiting government and focusing its aims and controls.

Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Jefferson quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment"

Augustine of Hippo: "Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."

What is it you fear about arms for self-defense?

[Glenn Vardy]

97. Able bodied males of a specified age

Half a million was about the number of non-slave males in the US over 17. The idea was that all of the people had the right to own a personal firearm. The notion that slaves and women weren't full and equal "people" has been overcome since then.

The whole number of souls, according to Madison, was four times the number "able to bear arms." THAT means "eligible to render military service". If not, he thought that only a quarter of the population were able to pick up a gun.

Madison isn't talking about armed individuals acting alone. He's talking about a well regulated militia "officered by men chosen from among themselves (See Art1, Sec8.), fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments".

The context of your discussion with others in this thread would lead any reader to believe that assertions aimed at arguing that the purpose of the 2A was LIMITED to militia support essentially requires that one accept that the 2A excludes any protection of an individual right.

Yes.

Today, we read SCOTUS decisions......

.........that completely ignored and distorted PREVIOUS SCotUS decisions. For example; Two of them said that the Second Amendment is only a guard against the U.S. Congress. Where in Scalia's decision does he say that State and local laws are not written by the U.S. Congress so don't violate the Second Amendment?

......well known writers back across the ages agreeing that personal arms for self-defense is a right

If you want to know what the purpose of the Second Amendment is, the opinions of those writers on self defence aren't as important as is made out. The text of the Second Amendment and it's drafting history shows that it's about State security. Gun rights for private purposes was a matter left to each individual state.

As for the Cesare Beccaria quote that Jefferson put in his book on law, it sheds no light on the purpose of the Second Amendment.

What is it you fear about arms for self-defense?

You're trying to imply that buying guns for self defence means you're brave, and not buying guns means you're scared.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

101. Thanks for your reply

One quarter of the population is what is left after half the population being female and another quarter being made up of the young, the old and the slaves. Everyone else was intended to be armed. Everyone that was respected as a full adult. They were not expected to be armed only when rendering militia service. During the war the value of individuals with marksmanship skills was made plain. There is only so much to be gained from isolated or short term experience with a rifle and/or pistol.

In spite of antagonistic feelings regarding an army, the Constitution specifically provides for one not only a militia.

To rephrase the 2A: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed because a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State.

You cannot have a useful and efficacious militia if its members are not armed and skilled. The 2A acknowledges the individual RKBA and reinforces the necessity for it as a foundation for any militia.

Are not the other RIGHTS listed in the BoR individual?

I am not implying that buying a gun means you're brave. I'm asking what issues, concerns and fears you are suggesting that would devolve from an individual RKBA. To oppose an idea without a reason is illogical.

[Glenn Vardy]

106. Thanks back

The whole number of souls, according to Madison, was four times the number "able to bear arms." THAT means "eligible to render military service". If not, he thought that only a quarter of the population were able to pick up a gun.

Madison isn't talking about armed individuals acting alone. He's talking about a well regulated militia "officered by men chosen from among themselves (See Art1, Sec8.), fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments".

One quarter of the population is what is left after half the population being female and another quarter being made up of the young, the old and the slaves.

What do you think Madison meant when he said that THAT quarter of the population was "able to bear arms"?

Are not the other RIGHTS listed in the BoR individual?

Only free speech, freedom of religion and trial by jury. See posts #10 and #74

I'm asking what issues, concerns and fears you are suggesting that would devolve from an individual RKBA. To oppose an idea without a reason is illogical.

Whether I support or oppose the idea of an individual right to own and carry guns has no bearing on what the Second Amendment was INTENDED to protect.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

115. ~~~

I'm completely puzzled by how anything in the 4A can be thought of as a collective right.

Whether I support or oppose the idea of an individual right to own and carry guns has no bearing on what the Second Amendment was INTENDED to protect.

Did I say that it did?

The group SOP is not limited to only discussing the 2A.
Do you have a problem with that?

[Glenn Vardy]

116. Collective capacity

I'm completely puzzled by how anything in the 4A can be thought of as a collective right.

If you don't belong to the collective body of "the people" you don't have the right to be free from searches, to assemble to petition the Government for redress of grievances or retain any rights and powers.

Rights differ in their application. Just because a person belonging to "the people" may be free from searches doesn't mean that he/she personally retains rights and powers that "the people" didn't delegate to the Congress. Likewise, he/she cannot claim that the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of the State is his/hers personally. If eligible, the individual would be called to serve on behalf of "the people". The Framers used the same terms to mean the same thing in the U.S. Constitution as they meant in their State Constitutions. They ALWAYS used "the people" to describe them in their collective and political capacity.


What do you think Madison meant when he said that THAT quarter of the population was "able to bear arms"?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

122. re: "If you don't belong to the collective body of "the people"..."

If you don't belong to the collective body of "the people" you don't have the right to be free from searches...

In other words a 'person', (someone that belongs to the collective body of "the people&quot has the right to protection from unreasonable and unwarranted searches. Is that the idea?

[Glenn Vardy]

124. Yes, the people consists of persons

If you don't belong to the collective body of "the people" you don't have the right to be free from searches...
-----------------------------------

In other words a 'person', (someone that belongs to the collective body of "the people&quot has the right to protection from unreasonable and unwarranted searches. Is that the idea?

Yes. But "the people" is still a collective body which, obviously, consists of individual persons. But as I've already said, it doesn't include ALL persons. And all persons DO have a right to freedom of speech, religion and trial by jury. I explained how rights differ in their application and you don't seem to find any fault in my argument.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

125. So which persons are not people

If the "people" have a collective right to protection from unreasonable search, how does that apply to individuals?

[Glenn Vardy]

126. The People

So which persons are not people

In the sense that you're using the word? All persons are people. But for you to ask that question you must have deliberately ignored everything I said in my last two or three posts.

It's not just "people" it's "the people". The first is used to refer to an unspecified number of persons, the second refers to one collective body. Consider this: 'The People vs. Joe Criminal'. This wouldn't be a bunch of individuals putting Joe Criminal on trial, it's the people as a single collective body. No individual can demand to be the Judge or on the Jury, this is all organized by the people in their collective and political capacity. Likewise, no individual can claim the right to own and carry guns for private purposes. The individual would be called to serve in the militia on behalf of "the people" the same way he'd be called to serve on a jury on behalf of the people.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

127. A suggestion

Perhaps the combination of your subtlety and my mental density is causing a problem. Please explain and give an example of a class of persons excluded from the protection of the 4A.

Sorry, I'm just not seeing what you mean.

[Glenn Vardy]

47. State security

.....it would have said "the right of the states to maintain militias shall not be infringed".

What would it have said if it was protecting a fundamental right to own a gun for self defence? Would it have begun with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

[gejohnston]

49. no

because in all cases the "people" refer to individuals. The dependent clause explains a reason, but not the only reason. The militia act required people to buy their own guns and equipment for such duty, the State did not issue weapons.

What would it have said if it was protecting a fundamental right to own a gun for self defence?

Given classical liberal (some times confused with modern libertarian) thought, that would be a given. Self defense is a natural right that transcends governments. If it sounds like Locke, that is because his and other "libertarian" writers greatly influenced people like Jefferson, Paine, etc.
Even if the 2A didn't, the 9A does as explained before.

[Glenn Vardy]

54. "the people" = individuals?

......in all cases the "people" refer to individuals.

We've already discussed this. Go to post #10

[gejohnston]

55. you made an incoherent reference

in post 10. Simply saying "we discussed that" doesn't mean what you said made any logical sense or proved anything.
The People refers to individual rights, unless you are saying that you as an individual right to be secure in your papers and effects. The State refers to rights retained by the individual states.

[Glenn Vardy]

59. Just click on 'reply'.

Simply saying "we discussed that" doesn't mean what you said made any logical sense or proved anything.

I proved that "the people" is a collective body which retains rights and powers. If I was wrong, you would have been able to click on 'reply' to put me right.

[gejohnston]

60. no

in classical liberalism individual sovereignty is paramount. the "people" refers to individuals, not a collective. The "state" refers to state governments.

[Glenn Vardy]

66. Reposted stuff for gejohnston

the "people" refers to individuals

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss6.html

IV.--The people of this Commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America, in Congress assembled.
----------------------------

That's a sole and exclusive right for one collective body. That body retains/reserves rights and powers that weren't delegated by them to the U.S. Congress in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

----------------------------------
The collective rights:

V.--All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.

VII.--Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; Therefore the people alone have an incontestible, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety,
prosperity and happiness require it.

VIII.--In order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors, the people have a right, at such periods and in such manner as they shall establish by their frame of government, to cause their public officers to return to private life; and to fill up vacant places by certain and regular elections and appointments.

XVII.--The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as in time of peace armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

XIX.--The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good; give instructions to their representatives; and to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.

[gejohnston]

67. which has what to do with the

federal constitution? It anything it verifies what I said. Basically it says the State exists with the permission of the People, the people being defined as a large group of individuals.

[Glenn Vardy]

68. Address this

which has what to do with the federal constitution?

I did refer to amendments 9 and 10 of the U.S. BoR. You've failed to address my point again even though you made me repost it all from post #10.

[gejohnston]

72. The Texas constitution has

has nothing to do with the federal constitution. The California constitution doesn't have a right to bear arms. It still has nothing to do with the federal constitution.

You've failed to address my point again even though you made me repost it all from post #10.

You didn't make a point, or at least one that makes any sense. At most it showed that you have no idea how the US federal system, including the courts, actually work. That is also why you play word games which may be relevant in the UK, but has no relevance in the US.
The 9th amendment is simply the catch all that protects the individual rights not enumerated, like the right to privacy. I'm guessing you didn't bother to read any of the provided links?
The 10th amendment is the foundation of our federal system. Basically the individual states deal with everything else that isn't specific irresponsibility of the federal government. For example:
Pot is legal, under state law, in Colorado and Washington. It is still illegal under federal law. Why don't the cops close down the shops? Because local police, state level and below, can not (for the most part) enforce federal law. Only the DEA can close them down. A federal agent does not enforce state laws.

[Glenn Vardy]

69. "Sole" and "exclusive".

It anything it verifies what I said. Basically it says the State exists with the permission of the People, the people being defined as a large group of individuals.

Obviously, "the people" consists of individuals. But millions of individuals can't, as individuals, all have the "sole" and "exclusive" right of governing themselves as a State. It's the right for one collective body.


IV.--The people of this Commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America, in Congress assembled.

[gejohnston]

73. and?

Obviously, "the people" consists of individuals. But millions of individuals can't, as individuals, all have the "sole" and "exclusive" right of governing themselves as a State. It's the right for one collective body.

Which addresses nothing other than playing pointless word games.
to borrow from the 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

People is plural for individuals, each individual is protected from unreasonable search and seizure. It does not refer to only a collective body. Describing the "people" as a collective is as alien in the US as the Crown.

[Glenn Vardy]

74. "People" is not being used in the plural.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
-
People is plural for individuals, each individual is protected from unreasonable search and seizure. It does not refer to only a collective body. Describing the "people" as a collective is as alien in the US as the Crown.

"People" is NOT being used as plural for individuals in the Bill of Rights. "The people" is ALWAYS used to identify a collective body. A foreigner is an individual, but he/she has no right to be free from searches or to assemble to petition the Government for redress of grievances because he/she doesn't belong to the body of "the people".

Rights differ in their application. Just because an citizen belonging to "the people" may assemble to petition the Government doesn't mean he must retain powers, personally. Likewise, he can't claim that the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of the State is his, personally. If eligible (able-bodied males of a specified age) he will be called to serve on behalf of the body that holds the right, "the People".

[gejohnston]

82. the people are made up of individuals

Rights differ in their application. Just because an citizen belonging to "the people" may assemble to petition the Government doesn't mean he must retain powers, personally. Likewise, he can't claim that the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of the State is his, personally. If eligible (able-bodied males of a specified age) he will be called to serve on behalf of the body that holds the right, "the People".

Either way, in Heller all nine justices said it is an individual right. The majority adopted what is called the "standard model", which is what I have been arguing. The other four looked at what is known as the "narrow individual right".
You are arguing what is known as the "collective rights theory". It was rejected by all nine.
No. It is used as a plural for individuals.

A foreigner is an individual, but he/she has no right to be free from searches or to assemble to petition the Government for redress of grievances because he/she doesn't belong to the body of "the people".

Actually, he or she does have those rights. Those rights exist for anyone standing on US soil, which is why Bush put Camp Xray in Cuba.

[Glenn Vardy]

50. "Theory"?

The collective rights theory did not exist until the mid 20th century.

Collective rights are not a "theory", they exist.
As for the collective right interpretation being a new thing, you're wrong. I'm only posting this court ruling to prove that the collective rights interpretation isn't new.



"The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the amendments: "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." O. & W. Dig. 7. The clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said to violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state." O. & W. Dig. 14.

The object of the clause first cited (2nd Amendment), has reference to the perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed. The clause cited in our bill of rights (Texas), has the same broad object in relation to the government, and IN ADDITION THERETO, secures a personal right to the citizen". Cockrum v. State, 24 Texas 394 (1859):

[gejohnston]

53. I don't think you have the context right

the collective rights theory is that the right only applies to military weapons issued to the members by the State, ie like the national guard. That has nothing to do with this case.
This case was a murder trial where a Bowie knife was used. Under Texas law at the time, a homicide that normally would be manslaughter was bumped up to second degree murder if a Bowie knife or dagger was used.
BTW, who said the quotes you mention?
Also from that case:
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

[Glenn Vardy]

57. In addition thereto...

Also from that case:
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

That's the State provision. The point of the post was to show that this court said that the Second Amendment doesn't protect a right for individual citizens. They BOTH deal with State security, but the Texas BoR ------> "in addition thereto, secures a PERSONAL right to the citizen".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the amendments: "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." O. & W. Dig. 7. The clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said to violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state." O. & W. Dig. 14.

The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed. The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen. The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government

[gejohnston]

58. and?

A state constitution doesn't have anything to do with the federal constitution. At that time, the federal constitution didn't have anything to do with the states either. Meaning, states could establish a state religion and ban free speech if they wanted.

You still haven't proven anything, or any valid point.

[Glenn Vardy]

64. Proven

You still haven't proven anything, or any valid point.

You said that the collective rights "theory" didn't start until the middle of the 20th century. I've proven you wrong with a 19th century court case which said that the State and U.S. Bill of Rights BOTH deal with the security of the State, but the STATE BoR "in addition" to State security secures a personal right to the citizen. In other words, the Second Amendment doesn't secure a personal right, that comes from the people of the State.

[gejohnston]

65. no you didn't

as I explained before, the collective right theory is military weapons issued by the government like the national guard, and only the national guard.
the people are individuals, not the "from the people of the state". In the US there is the people, meaning individuals as a whole and the State. There is no people of the State. The founders were in many respects libertarians, ie classical liberals. The State does not give anything, nature or god gives rights.
None of the court cases you mentioned had nothing to do with the central issue. Some lawyer's

[Glenn Vardy]

76. My collective "theory".

.....the collective right theory is military weapons.....

You're trying to TELL me what my "theory" is so that you can argue against that "theory" rather than my actual belief.

The Second Amendment has as much to do with the type of boots a militiaman will wear as it does about the weapons he'll end up carrying. It ensures that the States can keep their militia forces armed, organized and disciplined in the event that Congress tries to destroy the militia through neglect in order to build a standing army on their ruins. It's what the history says.

[gejohnston]

77. no

that isn't what history says at all. You are reading a very selected parts. You are arguing what is known as the collective rights theory. Since you don't actually understand the concept, why bother?

[Glenn Vardy]

83. The gun-industry's so-called "standard model".

You are arguing what is known as the collective rights theory.

It's the paid gun-industry hacks who have labelled it a "theory". The same hacks who have labelled the gun-rights interpretation as "the standard model" even though most historians and courts thought otherwise. The purpose of the Second Amendment was the most settled in constitutional law until Scalia got hold of it.

[gejohnston]

87. no it wasn't

It was largely ignored and was never settled. The only historian I can think of who might agree with you was busted for academic fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America#Emory_investigation_and_resignation
I'm guessing you got your selected quotes from Brady hacks, who are paid by corporate foundations.

[Glenn Vardy]

86. Read this "very selected part" of history.

Where is there the slightest hint that they're discussing the so-called "standard model" which is a right to own guns (and to pick them up too) for self defence unconnected to service in a well regulated militia.




----------------------------------------------
Amendment II


Document 6

House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1 49--52, 766--67

[17 Aug.]

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

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. 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 to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.

Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of bearing arms.

Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."

Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.

Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.

Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.

I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.

The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,

Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.

Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.

Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.

Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.

[20 Aug.]

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms

[gejohnston]

88. They are discussing militia vs standing army

but that doesn't change the fact that self defense is a natural and human right, and by extension, owning the best means for doing so is also said right. It also doesn't change the fact that it is covered under the ninth amendment.
Is that the complete record? I'm guessing not.

[Glenn Vardy]

95. That's the point.

They are discussing militia vs standing army......

True, but they're discussing the Second Amendment. Just like Jefferson was commenting on the Second Amendment in the letters I posted and it's ALL about the militia not "carrying guns" for private purposes.

but that doesn't change the fact that self defense is a natural and human right......

Again, true. But that doesn't change the fact that States also have a right to defend themselves and this amendment deals with "the security of a free State". Owning guns for private purposes was a matter left to each individual State.

........and by extension, owning the best means for doing so is also said right.

What do you mean by "is also said"?

[gejohnston]

96. that said, I seriously doubt that is the complete transcript

of the meeting on that amendment even though it may be all your source provided.

[Glenn Vardy]

98. Is intended to secure....

I seriously doubt that is the complete transcript of the meeting on that amendment even though it may be all your source provided.

I provided everything that has been recorded.

The first speaker in the debate said:
Mr. Gerry. "This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government;......"

This is referring to the U.S. Congress abusing it's powers over the State militia forces as set out in Article 1, Section 8.


He DIDN'T say that it was intended to "secure a natural right to own a gun for self defence". But I suppose that bit was in the part that there is no record of, right?

[gejohnston]

99. he didn't say it didn't either

can you cite the source?

[Glenn Vardy]

100. Your logic

he didn't say it didn't either

You said the same thing about the Jefferson letters. With your logic, it could mean whatever anyone wants it to mean unless someone in the debate says that it doesn't mean that.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html

[gejohnston]

103. it isn't the complete transcript

the 2A was a week long debate, which Jefferson did not attend. What you have is a Cliff Notes version.
In 1975 the American Bar Association formed a committee to study the issue they came to the conclusion that:
“It is doubtful the founding fathers had any intent in mind with regard to the meaning of this amendment.”

Laurence Tribe, one of President Obama's law professors, wrote the textbook American Constitutional Law. His third edition, published in 1999, has ten pages on the 2A concluding that it is an individual right.

[Glenn Vardy]

109. The Framers said....

In 1975 the American Bar Association formed a committee to...............
Laurence Tribe, one of President Obama's law professors, wrote.................

Why not discuss what the FRAMERS of the Second Amendment said in the debate over it's wording?

[gejohnston]

110. we did

you lost even with your pointless word games aside.

[gejohnston]

24. Jefferson was opposed to a standing army

as in active duty force. Your quotes have nothing to do with individual gun ownership and doesn't prove anything. The Militia Act of 1792 mandated members to buy their own equipment and gun.
More Jefferson:

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

[Glenn Vardy]

27. "...nothing to do with individual gun ownership..."

Your quotes have nothing to do with individual gun ownership.....

They're not MY quotes, they're Jefferson's. But you're right; the quotes "have nothing to do with individual gun ownership" even though his comments were ABOUT the Second Amendment.

[gejohnston]

28. his comments were about

a standing army. He was under the false impression that there would be no standing army. As the first note said, he was in Europe at the time. BTW, can you cite the source of that quote?
Constitutional theorist George Tucker published the first commentary about the 2A in Blackstone's Commentaries:

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. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game : a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

That was within the life time of Jefferson et al.

[Glenn Vardy]

29. His comments weren't about guns

his comments were about a standing army

Before the Bill of Rights Jefferson wrote to Madison saying he didn't like the omission of a bill of rights providing for "protection against standing armies".

After the Bill of Rights in the letter to Priestley he says that he wrote to Madison urging the want of provision for "the substitution of militia for a standing army" and THAT amendment, he says, was agreed to and ratified by the States.

Funny ways of urging the want of a provision for the right to own a gun unconnected to a militia

[gejohnston]

30. where is the citation?

Funny ways of urging the want of a provision for the right to own a gun unconnected to a militia

It was a compromise so that conservatives like George Mason to support it. Although Mason was a gun collector and hunting buddies with Washington, conservatives like Mason of that era were leery of the rabble voting or having guns. That is equally true of the economic and political elites today. That why gun control groups, in the US and elsewhere, are top down astro turf operations funded by corporate foundations like the Joyce Foundation, and billionaires like Bloomberg who can hire a former Monsanto PR executive to be the face of MDA.

[Glenn Vardy]

33. What compromise?

I said:
"Before the Bill of Rights Jefferson wrote to Madison saying he didn't like the omission of a bill of rights providing for "protection against standing armies". After the Bill of Rights in the letter to Priestley he says that he wrote to Madison urging the want of provision for "the substitution of militia for a standing army" and THAT amendment, he says, was agreed to and ratified by the States. Funny ways of urging the want of a provision for the right to own a gun unconnected to a militia".

It was a compromise so that conservatives like George Mason to support it.

What was a compromise?

[gejohnston]

34. you didn't read closely

the first draft introduced by James Madison:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

[Glenn Vardy]

37. This doesn't help you.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

This doesn't help your interpretation.

Why is the "people" used when securing the right but not when excusing the individual?
Or
Why is no "person" used when excusing the individual but not all "persons" when securing the right?

The words "in person" at the end shows that the right is collective but certain individuals wouldn't be compelled to participate "in person".

The next reworded version said:
"...compelled to bear arms..."

That means the same as
"...compelled to render military service.."

[gejohnston]

38. the rest of the BoR, the "people" refers to individual

rights. References to the states, as in the tenth amendment, refers to the states. It does not say the "right of the states to maintain militias shall not be infringed" it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As pointed out by another poster, you failed to make the connection of no standing army=collective right. The collective rights theory did not exist until the mid 20th century. Heller was hardly the first gun ban to be overturned via 2A. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn_v._Georgia

[Glenn Vardy]

75. The original draft

I made some observations about the wording of Madison's original draft, but you didn't address ANYTHING I said in your reply.

[gejohnston]

79. the people still refer to individuals

and not the State. You also didn't address that private ownership of guns is also protected by the ninth and 14th.

[Glenn Vardy]

104. Unanswered questions

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Why is the "people" used when securing the right but not when excusing the individual?
Or
Why is no "person" used when excusing the individual but not all "persons" when securing the right?

The words "in person" at the end shows that the right is collective but certain individuals wouldn't be compelled to participate "in person".

The next reworded version said:
"...compelled to bear arms..."

That means the same as
"...compelled to render military service.."

[gejohnston]

105. ask them, I wasn't there

neither were you. Projecting what you think it means, or should mean, has nothing to do with what it means, assuming it actually means anything.

[Glenn Vardy]

108. We weren't there?

ask them, I wasn't there neither were you. Projecting what you think it means, or should mean, has nothing to do with what it means, assuming it actually means anything.

It was you who first posted the original draft. Now that I've shown it supports a collective right interpretation you want to dismiss it because none of us were there.

[gejohnston]

112. actually it doesn't

the people is plural for individuals, your silly word games are irrelevant.

[Glenn Vardy]

113. Round and round we go

people is plural for individuals

Then when excusing individuals, why didn't they say "but people who are scrupulous of bearing arms shall not...etc"? When they were referring to individuals they used more suitable terms than the people.

[gejohnston]

114. so?

You are left with playing silly word games over trivial word usage? Bye.

[ManiacJoe]

117. That is simple to explain.

Then when excusing individuals, why didn't they say "but people who are scrupulous of bearing arms shall not...etc"? When they were referring to individuals they used more suitable terms than the people.

The mass public is a large number of individuals and gets referred to in the plural. The exceptions, always considered in the individual case, get referred to in the singular.

Your personal style of writing may differ from theirs.

[Glenn Vardy]

118. I back up my assertions with examples

The mass public is a large number of individuals and gets referred to in the plural. The exceptions, always considered in the individual case, get referred to in the singular.

They're just assertions without anything to back them up. Why didn't they refer to each and every individual singularly when securing the right?

------------------------------

Sketches of American Policy By Noah Webster.
"This association of all the individuals of a community is called the body politic or State... The members, spoken of COLLECTIVELLY, are called PEOPLE, spoken of SEVERALLY, they may be called CITIZENS."


Bouviers Law Dictionary:
BODY POLITIC: " ..As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take COLLECTIVELY the name, of PEOPLE, or nation; and INDIVIDUALLY they are CITIZENS..."
------------------------------------

XVII.--The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as in time of peace armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

X.--Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary:...

[ManiacJoe]

119. If you don't like my suggested answer to your question,

feel free to offer your own answer. Your guess would be just as valid or invalid as mine.

[Glenn Vardy]

120. Joe, my own answer

Joe, my own answer is that the right is secured to "the people" in their collective and political capacity, but certain individuals would not be forced to "render military service" ("bear Arms&quot in person.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html

The words "in person" at the end shows that the right is collective but certain individuals wouldn't be compelled to participate "in person".

The next reworded version said:
"...compelled to bear arms..."

That means the same as
"...compelled to render military service.."

It's NOT about all individual "people" carrying guns.

[ManiacJoe]

121. Unfortunately for you, your belief has been shown to be wrong many times...

... by folks more knowledgeable than me.

Many folks do not like it, but there is only one correct interpretation of the Amendment. Just like there is only one correct interpretation of the First Amendment. What is debatable are the limits and conditions that are allowed under the Amendment.

[Glenn Vardy]

123. Knowledgeable folks?????

your belief has been shown to be wrong many times by folks more knowledgeable than me.

You're smart enough to know that everything I've said in this thread is fact. These "knowledgeable" folks you speak of would rather look at an Englishman's COMMENTS on English law over a hundred years before the founding rather than what was said BY the Founders and Framers during the ratification debates and adoption of the BoR for the purpose of the Second Amendment. They're more dishonest than knowledgeable. Unfortunately for you, the majority of historians are honest and agree that the Second Amendment wasn't intended to ensure that all individuals in the U.S. had the right to own and pick up guns for private purposes.

[hack89]

20. "I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms." Barack Obama

The Democratic Party platform says the same thing.

[Adrahil]

90. Based on what?

WE are "the people" and although "a well-regulated militia" is given as the RESAN for the right, the right itself is JUST that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In 1787, that meant the right of the PEOPLE, meaning both individuals and groups of individuals to own the weapons of war... small arms (muskets, rifles, pistols, melee weapons), and even artillery (yes, individual people DID own artillery).

What that means today is open to debate, but that's what it meant back then. Individuals owned their own weapons. Towns and municipalities owned substantial armories (read about Lexington and Concord) and it was common for individual merchants to arm their ships, and even for individuals own small warships armed as men-of-war to act as privateers (the 18th-19th century equivalents of Blackwater).

[Glenn Vardy]

102. THE reason

although "a well-regulated militia" is given as the REASON for the right, the right itself is JUST that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's ALL protecting "the reason" given.
"A well regulated Militia, BEING necessary to the security of a free State, (something protecting a well regulated militia must go here)"

[Adrahil]

107. I don't agree. But there's the crux of the problem, yes?

Not all militias existed at all times. but it's damned hard to form one, when needed, with a people who lack the necessary arms.

[Glenn Vardy]

111. Uniformity

I don't agree. But there's the crux of the problem, yes? Not all militias existed at all times. but it's damned hard to form one, when needed, with a people who lack the necessary arms.

The Founders intention was NOT to let groups of individuals form their own militia forces outside of the law. They wanted uniformity.

"I believe any gentleman, who possesses military experience, will inform you that men without a uniformity of arms, accoutrements, and discipline, are no more than a mob in a camp; that, in the field, instead of assisting, they interfere with one another." - James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention.

"The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 3:475 (1787-1788).

[Deep13]

51. It's irrelevant unless we are taking about state security.

The existence of the National Guard and the regular military makes it an anachronism, like the 3rd Amendment.

[hack89]

52. I suggest you check the Democratic Party platform first

The part where it says the 2A protects an individual right.

[Deep13]

61. Yes, many folks miss the 18th c., but it is good for good. nt

[hack89]

63. I am very happy with the 21st c

A golden age for gun rights.

[sarisataka]

56. Engblom v Carey 1982

hardly ancient history.

If that is too old, last year a man in Nevada filed a suit based on the Third Amendment when police forcibly commandeered his house. It appears the case has not yet been decided.
https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm

Rights do not have expiration dates...

[Deep13]

62. The takings or the due processes clauses might be applicable too.

The historic background of the 3rd Am. was the fact that the crown was requiring private persons to put up soldiers in their homes en masse. Now the Army feeds and houses soldiers. While I oppose allowing the police to commandeer a private residence, I'm not sure if a cop--who is not a soldier and did not exist as a profession in the 18th c.--really counts as a "Soldier" for 3rd Am. purposes.

[sarisataka]

84. Whether or not a LEO can be considered a soldier

is the question the court would have to decide. In the past they have said no, but as the police set up an observation post and helped themselves to the homeowner's food there is a good argument for 'quartering'.

It could be interesting if the case actually advances through the system and have effects in other areas in the 3A interpretation covers police. Likely it will settle before it goes that far.

[sked14]

93. Henderson, NV.

I'm closely following this case.