2A Argument

[tadbart]

I've had a 2 year running argument with a colleague regarding the right to keep and bear arms. She's a liberal to the core. I... am not.

She keep referring back to the first line of the Second, discussing the formation of a militia, and the militia's RKBA. I think I may have struck on a new (to me) tack refuting her argument.

 

The First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments all have one common phrase- "The People."

1. The people have a right to freedom of assembly and protest.

4. The people have a right to be free from illegal search and seizure.

9. The people rights recognized by the Constitution are recognized for ALL people.

10. The people are free, but subject to the laws and enunciated rights in the Constitution , and as voted upon in their own state.

 

Most liberals will defend this venomously.

Why then, will they not defend the right of the same PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms?

 

 

In my estimation, the Second poorly discusses two separate points- the establishment of a militia, and the right of the populace to bear arms.

[gwalchmai]

What is the militia?

[RS_Rider]

 

[Dric902]

The militia does not have the RKBA

they have to be issued from an armory and return them after cleaning (extensively) upon return

 

people have argued the comma for years. 

.

[gwalchmai]

39 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

The militia does not have the RKBA

they have to be issued from an armory and return them after cleaning (extensively) upon return

 

people have argued the comma for years. 

.

The militia is the people. The National Guard are the ones who have armories.

[Dric902]

9 minutes ago, gwalchmai said:

The militia is the people. The National Guard are the ones who have armories.

That’s not the argument they make

they're wrong of course, but that’s their argument

 

.

[janice6]

4 hours ago, tadbart said:

I've had a 2 year running argument with a colleague regarding the right to keep and bear arms. She's a liberal to the core. I... am not.

She keep referring back to the first line of the Second, discussing the formation of a militia, and the militia's RKBA. I think I may have struck on a new (to me) tack refuting her argument.

 

The First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments all have one common phrase- "The People."

1. The people have a right to freedom of assembly and protest.

4. The people have a right to be free from illegal search and seizure.

9. The people rights recognized by the Constitution are recognized for ALL people.

10. The people are free, but subject to the laws and enunciated rights in the Constitution , and as voted upon in their own state.

 

Most liberals will defend this venomously.

Why then, will they not defend the right of the same PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms?

 

 

In my estimation, the Second poorly discusses two separate points- the establishment of a militia, and the right of the populace to bear arms.

In it's day, the grammar was very clear, that the militia and the individual people were two separate distinct conditions under which personal citizen's would bare arms.  

In order to form a militia of the people to change a government if necessary, these people all need to be individually armed to be an effective force of change against what they see as an oppressive government.

The Amendment reinforces the right of the people to form an armed fighting force on their own, comprised of individual armed citizens called a militia, independent of government authorization,  With the ability to change the government if it's necessary.

This amendment enforces the citizen's ability to be able to fight the government on equal military terms, as seen by the founders of our nation.

It states that the people are the might of this nation, and not the government. 

In modern times we have people that support our subjugation by a ruling class, much the same as some of the early settlers supported England's domination over us.

It is because of the possibility that these people wanting subjugation for us, that this 2nd Amendment was written.  There is no ambiguity when read in the context of the whole of the Constitution.  The ambiguity is falsely implied by those who want to be led, not by those who believe each and every one of us is leading. 

[G19Tony]

I used this the other day in a discussion about the 2nd. I said that the militia is made up of the people, separate from any organized military unit. It doesn't have to be an organized militia.

[Valmet]

I was told by a leftist ding-dong this past wknd that the 2nd Amendment was put in place so we could fight the Redcoats. 

[DWARREN123]

Some folks see the Right of the Second Amendment and some do not.

The ones who do not do not understand the reasons for our Constitution!

[janice6]

2 hours ago, Valmet said:

I was told by a leftist ding-dong this past wknd that the 2nd Amendment was put in place so we could fight the Redcoats. 

This is what happens when we don't make sure to learn the lessons our history present to us.  Schools are the first line of opposition to learning how to think, not what to think.

We then get comments that are opinions based on feelings and not on historical fact, by those with a personal desire to rule or to be ruled.

We also have to fight the people that knowingly present a conflicting definition of the Constitution simply for the purpose of promoting those who desire control and power over others. 

These are not leaders but tyrants.  Some people see an advantage for themselves in supporting rulers and tyrants.  These are the people that try to bring down the Republic and these are the enemies of freedom.

These people are the reason for the 2nd Amendment and all the rest of the Bill of Rights.

[minervadoe]

10 hours ago, tadbart said:

In my estimation, the Second poorly discusses two separate points- the establishment of a militia, and the right of the populace to bear arms.

A couple of liberal professors set out to find fodder for your workmates arguments.  Instead, they developed a scholarly work that supports the second amendment and interprets its intent in the context of the framers time period.  It is worth reading:

https://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

 

Quote

I, for one, have been persuaded that the term "militia" did not have the limited reference that Professor Cress and many modern legal analysts assign to it. There is strong evidence that "militia" refers to all of the people, or least all of those treated as full citizens of the community.  Consider, for example, the question asked by George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because of its lack of a Bill of Rights: "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."  Similarly, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves."

Quote

For Harrington, preservation of republican liberty requires independence, which rests primarily on possession of adequate property to make men free from coercion by employers or landlords. But widespread ownership of land is not sufficient. These independent yeoman would also bear arms. As Professor Morgan puts it, "[T]hese independent yeoman, armed and embodied in a militia, are also a popular government's best protection against its enemies, whether they be aggressive foreign monarchs or scheming demagogues within the nation itself.

Quote

Scholars of the First Amendment have made us aware of the importance of John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, whose Cato's Letters were central to the formation of the American notion of freedom of the press. That notion includes what Vincent Blasi would come to call the "checking value" of a free press, which stands as a sturdy exposer of governmental misdeeds. Consider the possibility, though, that the unlimited "checking value" in a republican polity is the ability of an armed populace, presumptively motivated by a shared commitment to the common good, to resist governmental tyranny. Indeed, one of Cato's letters refers to "the Exercise of despotick Power [as] the unrelenting War of an armed Tyrant upon his unarmed subjects..." "

and, much, much more ...

[NPTim]

Most of the people that oppose the 2nd, know themselves and how they would act if they had access to a gun (hint: poorly and with great violence) and therefore they assume everyone is like them. They never consider that most people have self control.

[Paul53]

There are sites that document the the various rewrites of each of The Bill of Rights before the final version. For 2A these previous editions remove any doubt that it was the general populace (CA didn't exist yet) that had RTKBA. Also, there is documentation from The Supremes (I think) that when interpreting the rights, they should be interpreted as in the time they were written. Hope this helps your argument. I like where you're going with "People."

[tous]

Consider that the past violations of the Second Amendment were all accomplished amidst public panic.

The National Firearms Act of 1934, which didn't ban machine guns and short-barrelled shotguns, but rather imposed an onerous tax on such firearms, and was enacted when the professional liars proposed that since criminals were illegally using firearms, they needed to take them away from everybody else that didn't commit crimes with them.

Then came the Gun Control Act of 1968 that placed the sales and transport of firearms under federal control, thus making interstate transfer of firearms illegal except through licensed dealers.  They killed Martin!  They killed Bobby!  They need to take the guns way from everyone that didn't do anything!

The rest of the efforts to keep firearms out of the hands of the innocent continues; look it up.

 

Y'all need to remember that you are not arguing with the hippie socialist gun grabbers, you are merely annoying them because, by God, they are far more moral and caring than you.

Mention that when they assert that the militia means the National Gaurd, that the modern National Guard was formed and placed under federal control in 1916.  Until then, state militias were just that.

But, facts cannot trump the feelings of the same folk that defend the murder of unborn children.

 

As I have oft mentioned, when you could order a 1917 Endfield by mail and have it delivered to your door, when elementary school lads commonly went hunting without adult supervision and when the local hardware store sold rifles and shotguns, there were no mass shootings and had there been, the shooter would have been killed on the spot by armed civilians.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2019 by tous

[janice6]

6 minutes ago, tous said:

Consider that the past violations of the Second Amendment were all accomplished amidst public panic.

The National Firearms Act of 1934, which didn't ban machine guns and short-barrelled shotguns, but rather imposed an onerous tax on such firearms, and was enacted when the professional liars proposed that since criminals were illegally using firearms, they needed to take them away from every else that didn't commit crimes with them.

Then came the Gun Control Act of 1968 that placed the sales and transport of firearms under federal control, thus making interstate transfer of firearms illegal except through licensed dealers.  They killed Martin!  They killed Bobby!  They need to take the guns way from everyone that didn't do anything!

The rest of the efforts to keep firearms out of the hands of the innocent continues; look it up.

 

Y'all need to remember that you are not arguing with the hippie socialist gun grabbers, you are merely annoying them because, by God, they are far more moral and caring than you.

Mention that when they assert that the militia means the National Gaurd, that the modern National Guard was formed and placed under federal control in 1916.  Until then, state militias were just that.

But, facts cannot trump the feelings of the same folk that defend the murder of unborn children.

 

As I have oft mentioned, when you could order a 1917 Endfield by mail and have it delivered to your door, when elementary school lads commonly went hunting without adult supervision and when the local hardware store sold rifles and shotguns, there were no mass shootings and had there been, the shooter would have been killed on the spot by armed civilians.

 

 

It's impossible to have a logical argument/debate with people that are driven by emotion.  They simply ignore facts, and want to control others to quell their own fears of life.

[Paul53]

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/how_to_defend_the_second_amendment.html

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/

The Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile.

The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.

Edited September 8, 2019 by Paul53

[janice6]

6 minutes ago, Paul53 said:

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/how_to_defend_the_second_amendment.html

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/

The Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile.

The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.

Present day England is a good example of how the government would control the people if the people had no power of their own.  We read of people being sent to prison for killing a criminal to save their own lives. 

Government there places lives of people doing horrendous violence on others, on the same level as their innocent victims.  People that kill performing illegal acts, have lost their right as citizens, and deserve the same fate as their victims.

[tous]

4 minutes ago, janice6 said:

Present day England is a good example of how the government would control the people if the people had no power of their own. 

Let's have a vote on whether to leave the EU!

What the ruling elite didn't mention was that, if they won, fine.  If they lost, they would simply ignore the public.

California learned from England.

 

NB we should invite Boris to come live in Texas.

He seems like our sort of galoot.  

[janice6]

England should rise up and take a very close look at who actually is running that country.  With Brexit, it's obvious it isn't the people.

[tous]

If a hippie socialist gets selected as president, the US will be joining the EU soon.

China will be overjoyed, yet perplexed at the stupidity.

Those of us that live here have gotten over being perplexed by the politician's stupidity a long time ago.

Edited September 8, 2019 by tous

[janice6]

I have noticed that a good many people place criminals, lawyers, and  politicians, in the same category.  I'm not sure that they are wrong.

[Cubdriver]

It always amuses me how antis will twist themselves into knots insisting that yes, of course 'the people' in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th means the people, but that somehow, when the founders wrote 'the people' in the second, they actually meant 'the government'.  I guess maybe spell check got them, and they didn't properly proofread before they hit 'print' on the BOR.

-Pat

[janice6]

People see what they want to see.  Not what is there.  Every time someone wants to debate the context of the second Amendment it's good to determine their agenda.  It makes their argument much clearer.

[Cubdriver]

Another one I like is that the founders couldn't possibly have foreseen the development of semi and fully automatic weapons, so the second doesn't cover them.  But of course the first covers radio, television and the interwebs, despite the fact that said weapons were developed while electricity was still a laboratory curiosity and we were decades away from electronic communication.  And some of the same people who say the founders couldn't have foreseen things more advanced than muzzle loading muskets will also say that the second was written for the national guard, which, IIRC, came to be some time after WWI.  So they were really prescient on the one hand but totally oblivious on the other.  Quite the mix, those guys who founded our country.

-Pat