The right to bear Arms? Not necefsarily.
- Thread starter Rob Larrikin
- Start date
No you didn't cover a thing you denied incontrovertible fact and called it a day.
No, the meaning is crystal clear which is why you can't provide any other right "of the people," which is not an individual right.
The Constitution was written in the context of preventing the government from becoming tyrannical just like the monarchy they had just gained their independence from.
I read the OP, the first comma is irrelevant, because that is not what was ratified by the individual states. The 2nd comma is what was important:
"The Amendment's prefatory clause announced a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms,"
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Furthermore; neither version says the "right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," in both versions that right is specifically reserved to "the people," as is the case of all of the inalienable rights found within the amendments, all of which are individual rights. Without an armed populace how is a militia made up of that populace supposed to form? It can't, which is why your argument is laughable.
No, it was understood that centralized governments have a tendency to slip into despotism just as in England prior to the glorious revolution when the Catholic King James the 2nd attempted to disarm the Protestants:
Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment . D.C. v Heller
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Or just as how King George the 3rd began gun confiscations against the colonies between 1774 and 1775:
The American Revolution against British Gun Control
By David B. Kopel*
Administrative and Regulatory Law News (American Bar Association). Vol. 37, no. 4, Summer 2012. More by Kopel on the right to arms in the Founding Era.
This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.
Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: "That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles." A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html
The 2nd amendment didn't create a new right it was merely a restoration and guarantee of an ancient existing right.
No they're not you're a liar who has no idea what they're talking about, those are not unattributed quotes the primary sources for those quotes are listed and readily available:
Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffcons.asp
George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/george-mason-speech/
Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
https://thefederalistpapers.org/fou...om-a-federal-farmer-number-18-january-25-1788
Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents...ers/speech-of-patrick-henry-(june-5-1788).php
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s27.html
Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/emerson.html
]
They were born in the Common Wealth which America was a part of prior to the revolution,
They were born in the Common Wealth which America was a part of prior to the revolution,
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Intelligence. Knowledge. History. Detective work.
Speculating is ‘the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence’.
There’s tons of evidence about how the Founders would react if they saw gangs of blacks and Hispanics going around with MP7s or AR15s, shooting each other on the streets of American cities, and buying such weapons without any problem. Read their letters, their books, their constitutional papers. They made it very clear what they believe in. If you think they’d say, “Nah, that’s okay – nothing wrong with that at all,” you obviously know nothing about them.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
“Here is the amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
“Regarding commas found in the eight different versions of the Second Amendment returned as ratified from various state legislatures, there was at least one of each with zero, one, two, and three commas. The original sources of the Second Amendment's clauses, the leading Mason Triad clauses in the original state declarations of rights, came in two versions - 'well regulated militia as natural defense' and 'right of the people to bear arms for defense'. This simple historical fact makes it evident that the Second Amendment has a fundamentally two clause structure. The fact that the Second Amendment was based upon these two different descriptions of a defensively effective armed civil population made the two clause structure obvious to the Founders no matter how many commas (or caps) a copyist might have added or deleted within its language.
Jefferson's Official Imprint
As a final observation on these interesting Second Amendment variations, Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State in the Washington Administration prepared an official printing of the amendments. This is the version that he authenticated as being the amendments proposed by Congress, ratified by the state legislatures, and made part of the Constitution under the ratification procedure set forth in Article V. Jefferson's official imprint of the Second Amendment has one middle comma with only the leading word, "A", of the sentence capitalized.
http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com.au/2009/02/commas-and-original-version-of-second.html
Lying dipshit your bullshit source is including tge draft versions with the single ratified version, only one version was ratified by the states.
One version was passed by the Congress, and a slightly different version was ratified. This is the amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State:[34]
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.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=220
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/html/GPO-CONAN-1992-10-3.htm
https://fee.org/articles/reading-the-second-amendment/
The only comma that matters was the 2nd one:
"The Amendment's prefatory clause announced a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms,"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffcons.asp
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou
rebel
what country is like that? it was ours at one time, until the statists took back over. LEARN YOUR FUCKING HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
wrong, watson. Arms meant EVERY weapon a man could own.
Ok, and your own source shows that there were many versions. It was not a matter of anything being copied incorrectly nor is there anything about an injured wrist.
The whole thing is pointless anyway. It's a right of the individual. That was the clear intent of the entire bill of rights.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Wrong Sherlock. Arms comes from Armaments, and individual Homer Simpsons don't own those. Militia do.
In other words, you're guessing.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
You don't think the Founders wanted us to know what was in their minds? Wasn't that the very reason they wrote the constitution?
Are you saying we're supposed to accept your translation, sock?
Why don't you have the guts to reply by your actual account instead of hiding behind a sock account?
You're guessing while hiding behind a sock account.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Then your translation carries as much weight a shit in a nigger's back yard.
Refer to my previous post as to what your experience is worth. In case you miss it, shit in a nigger's back yard is worth more than your experience.