re: This gun control meme came across my FaceBook news feed

quote:

---

Thats kind of how I saw it. The rest of the constitution spells out what the Fed can/can't do. The BOR and amendments spell out what the fed/state can't do & what the state can do. My very limited understanding at least.

---

Including both is a big difference. Not what he said. He said just states.

Burger wasn't all that conservative

You're really really wrong.

Not until the 14th and incorporation and then it was piecemeal. The Second is very recent.

Vegas, I appreciate the solid and compelling evidence you quoted, but I have a few issues with interpreting the second amendment the way you do:

1) No other amendment of the original ten speaks of the States having rights. Nowhere, moreover, are rights recognized for government, but denied to the people.

2) You are in the untenable position of arguing that while the Framers used the term “the people" to mean individuals in the First (the right to assemble), Fourth (the right to be secure in persons, houses, papers, and effects), Ninth (unenumerated rights), and Tenth (reserved powers) Amendments, they suddenly used the same term to mean “the States” in the Second. That makes no sense.

3) If the Framers meant to say that the States have a right to organize militias or that only people who are members of the militia have a right to guns, why would they say, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? The Framers were intelligent men with a good grasp of the language. As we can see from the Tenth Amendment, they were capable of saying “States” when they meant States and “people” when they meant people. They could have said, “The right of the States to organize and arm militias shall not be infringed,” though that would have contradicted Article I, Section 8, which delegated that power to the Congress.

4) James Madison’s original draft reversed the order of the amendment: “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.” Perhaps this version makes Madison’s thought more clear. His sentence implies that the way to achieve the well-armed and well-regulated militia that is necessary to the security of a free state is to recognize the right of people to own guns. In other words, without the individual freedom to own and carry arms, there can be no militia. As to the term “well regulated,” it does not refer to government regulation.

quote:

---

1) No other amendment of the original ten speaks of the States having rights. Nowhere, moreover, are rights recognized for government, but denied to the people.

---

I'm sorry, I know you're trying but your argument is nonsensical. 1st, the 10th speaks if States having rights, the 2nd does not. The "Free State" means free country not an individual state. If you're correct then your "right" given to the state is worthless because the Constitution gives power over the state Militia to the Congress and President.

We had no standing armies. State Militias were all we had. The 2d merely ensured that the Militias would be armed when called up by Congress.

quote:

---

2) You are in the untenable position of arguing that while the Framers used the term “the people" to mean individuals in the First (the right to assemble), Fourth (the right to be secure in persons, houses, papers, and effects), Ninth (unenumerated rights), and Tenth (reserved powers) Amendments, they suddenly used the same term to mean “the States” in the Second. That makes no sense.

---

With all respect, what you just wrote makes no sense. I can't respond.

3. I'm in my phone and too much to copy.

You're picking and choosing parts of the 2nd.

quote:

---

why would they say, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”?

---

that's not what they said. You're conveniently taking out the most important part of the sentence, the qualifier. And you did so for a reason. It defeats your point.

You're also putting words in my argument and attacking them. That's called a strawman argument . I never said the founders believed only people in the militia have a right to bear arms. Never.

The 2nd, like all of the Bill of Rights, applies to the federal govt. It doesn't restrict the states. And the second certainly doesn't take gun rights away from citizens. It protects the Militias. The same Militias it refers to in the original Constitution which gives power to the pres and congress over them.

4. No. Nothing in your argument helps your argument.

The fact is, this was a very poorly written amendment. This was the original passed by Congress:
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.

Now, if the second amendment really applies to the citizens not in the militia, why mention the militia?

Also, notice Militia is capitalized. So are the other instances in the Constitution which gives power to Congress and the President to call up and lead.

They're not talking about militias that joe bob and his buddies have. They're talking about THE Militias of the states.

You can't ignore the rest of the references to the Militia and seize upon the second as having a different meaning.

Don't study the Constitution and the founders from emails and Glenn Beck. Ask yourself, and this is important..... If the founders contemplated future insurrection as a good thing and wanted to ensure the people had guns to carry them out, why would they give power to Congress and the President to quash insurrections via state Militias?

The Founders explicitly gave power to the President to head Militias in order to quash insurrection. They did not want insurrection.

And no amount of silly Uncorroborated and out of context quotes will change the very language of the Constitution.

The first phrase of the amendment does not necessarily limit or even give a main purpose for the clause. In speaking of "a well regulated Militia," the Amendment merely states a reason for recognizing the people's right to be armed, not necessarily a purpose for and limitation on that right.


And it appears I did, in fact, read your post incorrectly. It's just that so many on the left use the 'state militia" argument.

Also Bengal, I think it is important that the amendment states "a" militia rather than "the" militia. This separates the militia from the state (national government).

quote:

---

I never said the founders believed only people in the militia have a right to bear arms. Never.

---

I studied legal history under the late great Judge Rubin of 5th Circuit. And I don't know what Politico article you're referring to. Stevens wrote his dissent in Heller. He's recently written a book, I think, expounding on his Heller dissent. I say I think bc I recall reading his wapo oped. Read his dissent. He backs up what he says. Stevens was a Ford appointee btw. Burger a Nixon appointee.

Let me use the common sense approach again. The Founders never contemplated that Congress could restrict gun use of private citizens. The constitution doesn't give Congress the power to write laws restricting gun ownership except thru the Commerce Clause. That was well over a century before the SCOTUS expanded the commerce clause such that Congress would even have that power. So if Congress didn't have the power to restrict gun ownership, then why should the founders ensure that the could not?

But what they did give Congress the power to do was

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..."

They have the power to arm the Militia. And the second amendment tells them they cannot disarm them.

It's really that simple.

No founder, none, thought The Constitution granted Congress the power to take arms away from citizens. So why restrict a power they didn't have in the first place?

That power wasn't recognized until the expansion of the CC.

And now I'm repeating myself and I have to get back to packing.

Why would the founding fathers include an amendment that applied to the rights of the government?