Why have you failed?

[capego]

The meaning of the 2nd amendment is clear from both its plain textual meaning and the plethora of writing at the time that provides context:

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.

• a free State = not a tyranny
• A well regulated Militia, is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
• right of the people to keep and bear Arms there is no restriction on the types of arms here.

The guarantee of the right is, in part, intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerrilla warfare.

The amendment was constructed specifically avoiding making the right to bear arms being predicated on the establishment of a militia. And, let us consider what it means that the right is not predicated on militias. It means one or both of two things:

1. the founders thought predicating the right on militias would give government the tyrannical power of limiting the right through that predication.
2. there are other reasons besides a militia for the right.

From the writings of the founders, it is apparent that both of these things were the reasoning. The belief is that rights are given by God or Nature. And, specifically, the right to bear arms reflects the right to pose a threat to anyone/anything that would violate you. And, this presents the question of, "what arms are allowed under the right?"

At the time the amendment was written, there existed weapons which might be deemed un-useful in a militia (flails, brass knuckles) - and yet, they were not provided as exceptions to the right to bear arms.
At the time the amendment was written, concealment of weapons was also possible, and yet, no exception to the right to bear arms specifying against concealment was provided.
At the time the amendment was written, arms included canons, bomb shooting canons, and vessels that had such canons, and yet, these were not provided as exceptions to the right to bear arms.

If the founders' intent was to restrict the arms in type or manner, this would have been included in the amendment. If it was intended to predicate the right to bear arms on establishing a militia, then the amendment would be written as such.
​

In other words, the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms without exception to type or manner.

At best, tyranny advocates can argue that the founders did not envision nukes, and thus, it is required in considering nukes that we consider the spirit of the amendment. And, there are two spirits of the amendment:

1. power-in-people-numbers to allow a militia to fight a tyrannical government
2. the right to pose a threat to that which would violate you

And, nukes, arguably, are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon. But, tanks are.
​

Given that the meaning is clear, and given that the constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land:
1. why do I never see this full presentation of meaning from any gun groups or gun advocates?
2. why have gun groups and gun advocates failed to maintain this very plain right?

 

[Dad_Roman]

Well stated. Who wrote that?

 

[capego]

Well stated. Who wrote that?

I did, and if there are errors or better ways of stating the points, let me know, as I intend to use the content in a flyer.

 

[Dawico]

We can own tanks, our government just won't sell them to us.

I would omit that part and about the nukes. That part muddies the overall message. It reads like you are really pushing for tank ownership.

Plus it adds unnecessary length. Make it too long and people won't even start to read it.

 

[BillFairbanks]

I think that was the understanding of the 2nd Amendment until the Civil War. Then during reconstruction we started seeing more restrictive gun laws to prevent future insurrections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[busykngt]

Well written and would appear to me, to be well worth using in your pamphlet.

I would make two comments. First, concerning the entire first ten amendments (as adopted), known as the Bill of Rights, those who argue before a legal court, these are “individual rights” (as opposed to institutional rights), are making the same point as you have written.

And secondly, when you ask why gun groups or advocates haven’t made these arguments, I would say, most have. Maybe not to the degree YOU would like, but the reason for many of them existing is exactly to make this supporting argument of the Second Amendment. You may perceive the NRA is too flexible or willing to comprise but other gun groups are not. Things like GOA (Gun Owners of America) come to mind, SAF (Second Amendment Foundation), JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) and others come to mind.

 

[TheMailMan]

The ink was barely dry on the Bill of Rights before the encroachments began.

It's only been the past 20 years or so that people have adopted a strict reading of the Second.

I agree with you.

That's a couple helpful pictures I keep around to explain it.

 

[vmax]

OP

Download and print off Justice Scalia's Majority Opinion on Heller
Keep it handy and read it often

The 2nd was interpreted in this ruling opinion was established as being an individual right for the first time in American history .

He explains the 2nd by breaking it down into the prefatory and operative clauses.
You need to understand what that is to help fully understand the brilliance in it.

The limit is to what you can "bare" or carry.
Therefore like Dawico said , tanks, and any weapons that you cannot carry are not protected, but may be legal to own regardless.


Read the opinion learn it. Know it.

 

[TheMailMan]

The biggest problem is that the Left wants to expand Rights under the First but doesn't want the same expansion of the Second.

They love to say that only Arms existing at the time are covered by the Second, but refuse to say the same applies to the First.

 

[capego]

We can own tanks, our government just won't sell them to us.

I would omit that part and about the nukes. That part muddies the overall message. It reads like you are really pushing for tank ownership.

Plus it adds unnecessary length. Make it too long and people won't even start to read it.

I agree about my overemphasis on tanks. However, I have seen absolutely zero correct interpretation about what potential limit there is to the 2nd amendment and think it is useful to include the intent of it being a restriction based on people-power in the flyer. Liberals appeal to emotion, and I've often met such an appeal wherein the supposition of an unrestricted right to bear arms would allow citizens to have nukes, and that supposition used as a scare tactic against the 2nd amendment.

My thought in regards to the flyer and dumbing down that flyer is that it should not be dumbed down. Those who can understand the entirety will do so, and they will potentially reference it as necessary in their explanation to those who do not understand entirely.

 

[oldag]

Perhaps another point worth making. The Second Amendment was not about hunting or sports, as some gun control advocates espouse. The Second Amendment, when you read the founding fathers' writings, was about the people being able to prevent/resist a government turned to tyranny. This was the primary purpose. Self defense (on a personal level) was secondary. Hunting, etc. was not even a consideration.

 

[busykngt]

The limit is to what you can "bare" or carry.

What about what your horse(s) can can haul.... like cannon carriages in the frontier Indian forts of the time like Harrod’s Fort or Boonesbourgh?

It wasn’t uncommon up until (through) the Civil War for wealthy individuals to pay for the casting/construction of cannon (as opposed to ‘public funds’ being used).

Therefore like Dawico said, any weapons that you cannot carry are not protected...

Funny, I didn’t get that out of Dawico’s post; but I’ll let him clarify...

 

[capego]

Well written and would appear to me, to be well worth using in your pamphlet.

I would make two comments. First, concerning the entire first ten amendments (as adopted), known as the Bill of Rights, those who argue before a legal court, these are “individual rights” (as opposed to institutional rights), are making the same point as you have written.

And secondly, when you ask why gun groups or advocates haven’t made these arguments, I would say, most have. Maybe not to the degree YOU would like, but the reason for many of them existing is exactly to make this supporting argument of the Second Amendment. You may perceive the NRA is too flexible or willing to comprise but other gun groups are not. Things like GOA (Gun Owners of America) come to mind, SAF (Second Amendment Foundation), JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) and others come to mind.

The constitution is a contract between the states towards the construction of a fictional semi-sovereign, the federal government, much like treaties between countries. None of us are parties to that contract. However, society is based on the idea of a social contract, and it has been long held that the merit of government is in government's duty to protect its citizens, and, the particular protections the US government is presenting are present in the US Constitution. And so, regardless of whether we are parties to that contract, the merit of the US government relies upon the protection of the rights presented as being protected.

As for your second paragraph. I have been exposed to gun advocates and gun advocate groups, including the GOA, for a very long time. What does it mean to the degree "YOU would like"? There is no degrees in 2+2=4 . If a "2+2=4 advocate" advocated "2+2= almost 4", I would consider this a failure. And, it is not only a matter of not maintaining "2+2=4" in the regulation through lobbying, it is a matter that these advocates do not even present "2+2=4". Just go to their websites and find it no where.

 

[capego]

OP

Download and print off Justice Scalia's Majority Opinion on Heller
Keep it handy and read it often

The 2nd was interpreted in this ruling opinion was established as being an individual right for the first time in American history .

He explains the 2nd by breaking it down into the prefatory and operative clauses.
You need to understand what that is to help fully understand the brilliance in it.

The limit is to what you can "bare" or carry.
Therefore like Dawico said , tanks, and any weapons that you cannot carry are not protected, but may be legal to own regardless.


Read the opinion learn it. Know it.

I've read the Heller decision and found it cowardly, but that of a well intended coward perhaps compromising to get the decision out. The understanding of the second amendment is simple, and that the supreme court needed to present the meaning behind the sentence structure is appalling:
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause
However, in this, we have a recognition of something most people fail to see. It specifies "a purpose", no "the purpose". And, the reason for this is the same reason I explained in my initial post for why the right is not predicated.

"The 2nd was interpreted in this ruling opinion was established as being an individual right for the first time in American history ."
You are wholly wrong about this. It was established at the establishment of the amendment. Since then, however, such as with the miller decision (see capego.icu for a paper on that), a government moving to tyranny has gradually intentionally misinterpreted it.

"You need to understand what that is to help fully understand the brilliance in it."
I don't think you understand my initial post if you are telling me I need to understanding something with the presumption I don't already.

"The limit is to what you can \"bare\" or carry."
Your misspelling of "bear" reflects your failure to understand the right and your apparent failure to read my OP. You can not carry a cannon.

 

[capego]

The biggest problem is that the Left wants to expand Rights under the First but doesn't want the same expansion of the Second.

They love to say that only Arms existing at the time are covered by the Second, but refuse to say the same applies to the First.

Are you intentionally misdirecting this topic or only foolishly doing so?

 

[vmax]

I've read the Heller decision and found it cowardly, but that of a well intended coward perhaps compromising to get the decision out. The understanding of the second amendment is simple, and that the supreme court needed to present the meaning behind the sentence structure is appalling:
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause
However, in this, we have a recognition of something most people fail to see. It specifies "a purpose", no "the purpose". And, the reason for this is the same reason I explained in my initial post for why the right is not predicated.

"The 2nd was interpreted in this ruling opinion was established as being an individual right for the first time in American history ."
You are wholly wrong about this.

The context of my sentence and thought was regarding SCOTUS
I stand by my statement.
Heller was the first time the 2nd was interpreted/ruled as an individual right.

Not argument on the intent of the writing , just the decision

As to bear or bare, that's my fault for posting without my readers on and not catching spell check

You are implying that I agree with the ruling 100% when all I did was spell out a few details of the majority opinion

If you want zero limits on the 2nd thats fine.
You will also have to take zero limits on the 1st.
That means a perv could stand outside your house on the street naked , jerking off in front of your daughter's bedroom window.
With no laws limiting free speech this is what we could have in society.

You evidently think you are smarter that Scalia. Fine with me.

I think at very best you and me will never be friends and I'll leave it at that.
Good day to you sir

 

[Ole Cowboy]

The biggest problem is that the Left wants to expand Rights under the First but doesn't want the same expansion of the Second.

They love to say that only Arms existing at the time are covered by the Second, but refuse to say the same applies to the First.

2 things come into play:

I will address that which I is in bold: I love that argument because what it does is support bearing of arms and since it does not state any arms individually then we can only take it as it implies and what was the state of bearing arms at the time this was written.

Standing armies of that time were extremely small and the govt depended upon the 'militia' which is a military force raised from the civilian population and it was expected that this militia would bear their own arms as the govt did not have laid in place the tools of war. Instead the people showed with their own tools and the govt let contracts to manufacture tools of war from clothing to rifles. The best study of this is the state of our military at the onset of WWII.

The second part is is arms themselves. The guns that were privately owned were no different that the few guns the govt owned. Since the framers did not specify any weapon but rather stated to 'bear arms' meaning ALL arms. The weapons of that era were and are not different than the weapons of today.

Let's pinpoint it for the benefit of the left: Long weapon of the day would prob be the 1776 Brown Bess as issued by the govt. And as we travel back in time apply what they had then to what we have now and place a label on it in modern terms then the 1776 Brown Bess was the Assault Weapon of the time. When farmer John showed up with his long rifle it immediately became an Assault weapon also, just not marked US.

Further and at least thru WWII soldiers were encouraged to take the govt issued weapon back home and many did so, it how I got my fathers 1911.

My father went in the Army in 1934 and was on active duty when WWII broke out, the day after Pearl Harbor he left for war in the Pacific. The Army Air Corp did not have enough long arms to go around as they were all being diverted to the Infantry, so my dad along with all the others that left immediately after Pearl was give a mop handle, he did however have his 1911 which had been issued to him when he was in the Horse Cavalry.

Therefore if the left wants to make the argument based upon weapons of that era the I am fine with that because ALL weapons of the era in the thinking of the framers and the govt were in fact Assault Weapons of the era and since the govt no longer issues the 1776 Brown Bess and instead issues an M4, then my AR 10/15 plus any other weapon I own meets the standard today just like it did in 1776.

 

[BRD@66]

..... Make it too long and people won't even start to read it.

^this

 

[busykngt]

capego, I agree with the first part of your reply concerning the general purpose and intent of the Constitution in matters concerning things like inter-state commerce, International relationships (treaties), et. al.

But with the introduction of the first twelve Amendments (only ten, of which, were adopted) - known collectively as the Bill Of Rights - the emphasis changed completely to the protection and maintenance of God-given “individual rights”. In fact, several states made it be known, that unless measures were taken to assure “individuals” of protection from a tyrannical government, those states would withdraw their support of the Constitution that had already been voted on and passed (thus, the need for “amendments”).

Concerning the second point, while your absolutism may be laudable, it is not how the Supreme Court of the United States - who’s task it is, to determine compliance with Constitutional issues - works. The Constitution isn’t a math equation. And the SCOTUS determined quite some time ago, the First Amendment doesn’t include the protection of someone yelling, “Fire” in a crowded theater.

That’s another way of saying, the SCOTUS has long since, determined there just and correct “limits” that can be placed on the BORs. Just exactly where those limits are (or should be) is what keeps this from being equatable to a math formula. Antonin Scalia wrote in his majority opinion in Heller, it was correct and proper for there to be certain limitations and/or restrictions placed on the Second Amendment. To paraphrase vmax, read it, learn it, know it.

 

[vmax]

What about what your horse(s) can can haul.... like cannon carriages in the frontier Indian forts of the time like Harrod’s Fort or Boonesbourgh?

It wasn’t uncommon up until (through) the Civil War for wealthy individuals to pay for the casting/construction of cannon (as opposed to ‘public funds’ being used).

Funny, I didn’t get that out of Dawico’s post; but I’ll let him clarify...

No argument from me!
I was just starting what was spelled out in Heller.