It's a long read, I know...

[Cozmolyne]

Daily Kos: The Second Amendment Has Nothing to Do with Gun Ownership

Yes, I'm aware of the sentence structure chart. Yes, I'm aware of the quotes but it's not good enough. I need a scholar to come and refute EVERY. SINGLE. POINT. made in this article.

 

[Cozmolyne]

This part in particular worries me. This is the initial amendment Madison proposed:

The 13 conventions that had ratified the Constitution had proposed countless amendments - Virginia alone had proposed 40, so James Madison was given the task of weeding them out, whittling them down to a mere twelve. These twelve amendments were duly debated in the First Congress - they would become the ten Bill of Rights, with the eleventh proposed amendment not adopted until 1992. The actual amendment that Madison proposed to the First Congress read:

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.​

In regard to the Second Amendment, not a single Congressman or Senator is recorded as saying that it would establish an individual's right to possess a weapon. While ambassador to Great Britain, John Adams, in 1787, had authored A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States, in which he wrote that a general availability of arms would "demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man - it is a dissolution of government." In the First Congress, no one contradicted the Vice President's words. Rather, most of the debate surrounding the Second Amendment centered on Madison's conscientious objector provision, a provision that makes sense only if it is understood that the amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain militias and not any individual right to possess firearms. Congressman Eldridge Gerry (later Vice President to President Madison) spoke out against Madison's conscientious objector language, because he feared that it would result in Congress, and not the state legislatures, defining what a concienscious objector is, and thereby introduce a slippery slope that would ultimately abolish the states' authority over their own militias. Although both the House and the Senate passed versions of the amendment with the conscientious objector language, this language was stripped out to satisfy the concerns of Gerry and others raising this objection.

 

[AcidFlashGordon]

Rather interesting:

In regard to the Second Amendment, not a single Congressman or Senator is recorded as saying that it would establish an individual's right to possess a weapon.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."


So I guess, in their eyes, the people means something other than individuals....as in the preamble, "We the People of the United States of America" doesn't mean the individuals in America.

As for no single Congressman or Senator commenting on the wording.....read the first line of my signature.

Then, on an added note, they've referenced the 9th Circus Court, which has the dubious honor of having more of its decisions overturned in higher court than any other court in the country.

 

[Flewda]

We the people must really mean We the politicians. I think I've just cracked the case!

 

[Army 1911]

What the Articles of Confederation say is irrelevant because it was replace by the Constitution.

 

[AcidFlashGordon]

We the people must really mean We the politicians. I think I've just cracked the case!

^^^^^
Bingo!

 

[London]

The Constitution isn't about what Americans are allowed to do. It's about what the Government isn't.

 

[scap99]

The Constitution isn't about what Americans are allowed to do. It's about what the Government isn't.

This is the most important part of the whole document.
It is a limiter on what the government can meddle with.
This was not taught to me in public school. I had to learn it on my own after high school. I am thankful I worked with very conservative older journeymen during my apprenticeship. It could have been much worse had I worked for some radical lefties....

 

[zembonez]

The Constitution isn't about what Americans are allowed to do. It's about what the Government isn't.

That was true before the government started running the people instead of the other way around.

 

[lalonguecarabine]

That was true before the people started letting the government run their lives instead of the other way around.

FIFY.

 

[SR_JM]

They still have to get around that whole "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

If they really thought that the majority of the nation supported their position, they would call for a repeal to the 2nd amendment to change the wording. They don't, because they don't. So you get this article here, which is a failure to communicate. Some men just can't be reached.

Congress does have the ability and authority (except for that whole "inalienable" thing) to repeal the amendment to say: 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms is to be regulated by the government' or something like that. THAT IS WHAT THE ANTIS SHOULD BE ARGUING FOR!!!!! A repeal, not an interpretation. Problem solved, problem staying solved.

The attempt to argue semantics and lower court rulings that were overturned is a like Mexico saying that Texas was stolen. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't but the result is the same and you will have to do something drastic to change that.

The wording of the 2A is undeniable. Courts can try to interpret its meaning but when put to the test they will lose. Only someone so ideologically determined to undermine the text of the Bill of Rights for their own agenda can read it differently. They will rue the day that the 2A is subverted anymore than it already has been. It will be the day that precedence is set FINALLY for the dismantling of the freedoms of this country. It is really all in the balance right now. If we lose this, everyone loses and they don't even care. Sad days friends.... Sad days.

Elections have consequences and words have meanings. "The people", "inalienable", "support and defend", "keep and bear arms", "the Constitution of the United States of America", "shall not be unfringed". All of these words have meanings and are what our lives our built on.

One side supports our way of life, the other seeks to destroy it.


And if all else fails for the author, they can come to my house to ask.

 

[recoveringyankee]

They still have to get around that whole "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

No they don't. All they need to do is get enough people to not enforce it. It's already happend to the 1st and 4th. What exactly is a "free speach zone" anyway, and how many warrents are really needed by the TSA and within 100 miles, or is it 200, of an international border by ICE?

 

[AcidFlashGordon]

They still have to get around that whole "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

If they really thought that the majority of the nation supported their position, they would call for a repeal to the 2nd amendment to change the wording. They don't, because they don't. So you get this article here, which is a failure to communicate. Some men just can't be reached.

Pretty much like the "virtual president" video where he DARES Congress to submit the 28th Amendment to allow them to dick around with the 2nd Amendment.

We, as individuals and voters, have to stand behind those elected representatives that are looking out for US not their political party line. You can add me to the line forming behind Senator Cruz.

 

[zembonez]

FIFY.

Much better!