Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!
Register

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

Buy more guns

Not for nothing, but wasn't he(Obama) originally a sponsor of the bill the first time in 2007?
 
Last edited:
Ryan R said:
Not for nothing, but wasn't he(Obama) originally a sponsor of the bill the first time in 2007?
Click to expand...


not that i know of. i may be wrong but to my knowledge, the bill has and always has had only one sponsor. granted thats based on about 30 minutes of internet searches, so if anyone can find legitimate reference to the contrary, i'll start believing the hype.
 
eddavidson9 said:
not that i know of. i may be wrong but to my knowledge, the bill has and always has had only one sponsor. granted thats based on about 30 minutes of internet searches, so if anyone can find legitimate reference to the contrary, i'll start believing the hype.
Click to expand...

Only one? It currently has two names on the bill I believe. 30 minutes of internet searches huh?:crap:
 
also from the link i previously posted...

"OpenCongress Summary
The Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act would establish a nationwide system for prohibiting unlicensed gun-ownership. If approved, the law would require gun owners to apply for five-year licenses to own firearms, and would give the U.S. Attorney General broad authority over the program. There are no co-sponsors to the bill, and there is very little chance it will be adopted. "(emphasis added)
 
eddavidson9 said:
i think you are mistaken.

Chicago Teen Kevin Jones Pleads Guilty To CTA Bus Shooting That Killed CPS Student Blair Holt - cbs2chicago.com
Click to expand...


I apologize and stand corrected. Good job on that. I thought it was the name of the authors of the bill (should have figured it out when I couldn't figure out who the heck Blair was.) It does however have the support of some of the more powerful democrats in the House and Senate.

BTW- I've been to the site several weeks ago and read a good portion of the bill word for word so I was aware of the site and no co-sponsors, etc. just never figured out the Blair Holt thing.

"Uh, I was just checking the specs on the rotary gerter, dah I'm retarded." -Tommy Boy
 
Last edited:
Well, just to add a different light to this conversation.....
I have been out in Oregon visiting family and friends, who are all very convinced that it isn't the guns that the government is after, but the ammo. I went out to the range today to finish sighting in my 30-06's new scope, and had a hell of a time finding any ammo for it. Ended up with 2 boxes of Remington Core-Lokt. Talked to the sales guy, and he said that people are buying up any ammo that comes in, and they can't even get any 7.62mm stuff to the shelves! The people out here are convinced that they won't be able to purchase any ammo soon......
BTW, did George Sodini legally own those three handgund he carried into the gym this morning and killed those 3 women? Yup, he did. More gun laws do absolutely nothing to stop gun crimes.
 
Ryan R said:
This is not just my opinion but comes from reading a majority of opinions from constititutional law experts.
Click to expand...

Can you direct us to a couple of these experts?



Do you understand what the meaning of "well regulated militia" was to any contemporary to the establishment of the Second Amendment?

I'll give you a hint, it was not a "gun club".

While you are looking it up, check out what the meaning of "BEAR ARMS" meant to the framers, also. You won't like that one either...
 
I think a lot of posts here put in valid points and clarifications. Here is what scares me about my interpretation of this Act.


Basically it calls for a Federal Firearms ID card for any individual who possess a "detachable magazine fed semiautomatic rifle" and/or any handgun, where that individuals state of residence does not "satisfy the requirements" of this act. So if you live in PA and own a detachable magazine fed semiautomatic rifle or any hand gun, the act will force you to apply for a "Federal" Firearms License. Now we jersey folk may say, so what we already had to do this for NJ. The difference is that to obtain a "Federal" Firearms ID you need to, amongst other things:

(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding--
(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;
(B) the safe handling of firearms;
(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;
(D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and
(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;

This Act does not state any details about this "written exam". It could be 200 questions to be completed in 30 mins for all we know.

For us Jersey people, if it is determined that the NJ Firearms Purchaser ID Card system doesn't "satisfy the requirements" of this act, you would be required to apply for this "Federal" Firearms ID as well.


To the extreme: If no states firearm registration system meets the requirments of this act and no one is approved for this Firearms ID, the US Federal Government has just effectively banned the possession of all assault style rifles and handguns, by American citizens.
 
I'm sorry, apparently you've misunderstood my previous response to your other query. I apologize and do not wish to be rude but I don't wish to engage back and forth with you and am not likely to accept your hints as gospel on the subject.

Any simple search of the subject will result in the ability to read the various opinions/interpretations from several of the country's leading experts on the subject-constitutional law professors, et al.

Thank you for the tips on conducting research, I do appreciate it.

Good day sir.

Future Fanatic said:
Can you direct us to a couple of these experts?



Do you understand what the meaning of "well regulated militia" was to any contemporary to the establishment of the Second Amendment?

I'll give you a hint, it was not a "gun club".

While you are looking it up, check out what the meaning of "BEAR ARMS" meant to the framers, also. You won't like that one either...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ryan R said:
I'm sorry, apparently you've misunderstood my previous response to your other query. I apologize and do not wish to be rude but I don't wish to engage back and forth with you and am not likely to accept your hints as gospel on the subject.

Any simple search of the subject will result in the ability to read the various opinions/interpretations from several of the country's leading experts on the subject-constitutional law professors, et al.

Thank you for the tips on conducting research, I do appreciate it.

Good day sir.
Click to expand...

I guess if I were you, I'd feel the same way.

As for the tips on research, et al. is used for a list of names.

Whether or not you'd like to go "back and forth" on the subject, if one SAYS that they want to side with The Constitution and the "original intent" of its authors, one should really make an effort to understand what their frame of reference was. Their understanding of "well regulated militia" and "bear arms" is a good starting point.
 
Future Fanatic said:
I guess if I were you, I'd feel the same way.

As for the tips on research, et al. is used for a list of names.

Whether or not you'd like to go "back and forth" on the subject, if one SAYS that they want to side with The Constitution and the "original intent" of its authors, one should really make an effort to understand what their frame of reference was. Their understanding of "well regulated militia" and "bear arms" is a good starting point.
Click to expand...



Call my crazy or an idiot if you like :) , but most of the sites and articles Im seeing are agreeing with Ryan R's interpretation of the second amendment. Given these could be conservative sites, but Im going off a google search. Based on your knowledge of the Framers, what you do think they meant by:

"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."

Based on my limited knowledge of the Framers and their stand point of self protection and hunting I would interpret this exactly how it reads. If it was intended for only "militia", being defined as an organized group of armed people, to keep and bear arms wouldn't it read that way?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of (those or these) people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Since a "militia" from my understanding could be assembled of anyone (within the age range), then the "militia" is referring to all American citizens aka The People.
 
Last edited:
Well, to the anonymous e-mailer, here ya have it. Please don’t make that mistake again, you worm.

When interpreting the Constitution, most people do so with 21st century sensibilities. This is NOT what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. Although the Constitution is often called a “living document” in that it can “change”, one must not suppose that change is absolute. It can and does change again (just look at the 18th and 21st Amendments. That said, the intention of the 2nd Amendment was vastly different than what is often thrown around as a given, and maybe seems a given anew with District of Columbia v. Heller.

Let me just say I love my guns and always want to keep them; I just don’t want to make arguments to keep them, that can be losers. To rely on “it’s my Constitutional right” might not cut it, given a change in society and a change in the Supreme Court.

Why would you say THAT Future Fanatic?

Well let’s go back 230 years or so.

Thirteen colonies are in the fight for their freedom. They are formulating a system of government that allows each State to govern the way it sees fit and at the same time designing a Federal system that provides a defense for those individual states through the protection by the other twelve.
The Federalists felt that a strong central government was needed while the Anti-Federalists felt that the individual states needed guarantees that would strengthen their individual state governments’ positions. More so than we do today, the people then, saw their thirteen colonies as individual “countries” that were uniting together as a Federation of states. Each state wanted to ensure they could run their own state the way their own citizens chose.

SO?

Well specifically to the question of the Second Amendment, we should go back to the Articles of Confederation, the “precursor” if you will, of the Constitution. There it was written:

“…every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”

So what is the definition of a “militia”?

Well, during the Revolution, the militias provided support to the Continental forces. They met threats and provided a quick response to them. They were the Minutemen. The real citizen soldier.

But after the Revolutionary war, the militias were not so responsive. It seems when one is not defending his home, family or community, he becomes a little less motivated. Also, During Shay’s Rebellion, The President found that the militia system had some flaws. The militia was ill equipped and Federal weapons would not be issued quickly to quell the uprising due to the fact that Congress would need to authorize it, etc.

SO President Washington signed the Militia Act of 1792. It made it official (what the definition of a well regulated militia was):

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

Their idea of a “well regulated militia” was quite clear. It was also the States’ obligation to regulate and raise a militia to meet the needs of defending the nation from threats.

If one is familiar with:
1. The Militia Act of 1792 : (As discussed earlier)
Link: Militia Act of 1792 - Wikisource
2. The Insurrection Act of 1807(allowing the President to use state Militias thusly):
“Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.”
3. The Militia Act of 1862: Allowing states to enroll (or draft) African Americans into state militias to support the North in the Civil War,

then one should have an understanding of what the drafters of the Constitution had in mind as the meaning of a well regulated militia. But these documents move the militias away from “local” control, and more toward Federal control.

One BIG problem as I see it is that the Federal government (starting with the Militia Act of 1792, signed by none other than the “Father of our Nation”) began to take control of the state militias by instituting regulations upon them. The Militia Act of 1903 gave FEDERAL status to the STATE militias. It made mandatory, military training, but more importantly FUNDED this. It made the state militias, the NATIONAL GUARD. It also delineated the PRESIDENT as the one who chose the person to oversee the National Guard.
Now of course, the governor of each state is the “commander” of his state’s Guard units, BUT, thanks to the National Defense Act of 1916, the President can “call up” units, for “Federal” service.
SO WHAT?
The Framers wanted a “well regulated militia”. Each state was to identify who were to be in the militia and train them. Each militia man was to provide a weapon and the supplies needed to “bear arms” (wage war(but I won’t even touch that one here)) with the “enemy” of the government (domestic or foreign). When militias were called and the results were less than spectacular, the Federal government began supplying the militias with weapons and supplies (as well as paying them). Ultimately, the Federal government took control of these “state” militias). One could argue that since the “well regulated militia” is now the National Guard, the quaint idea of the minute man supplying his own weapon is now supplanted. When the people LET the Federal government wrest control of the “state militias” away from the states, gave the President and Congress control over them and ceased requiring citizens to supply their OWN weapons to defend the nation, they made it easier for a Supreme Court to question citizens need to own their own weapons.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote the following just 50 or so years after the Constitution was constructed. Although he proposes that an armed citizenry is important to protect “against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers” he also acknowledges “that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline”. He wrote:

“The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.”

Yeah, read that again.

If THIS Supreme Court Justice understands that the 2nd amendment’s purpose is to provide FOR a militia, what is to say that present and/or future justices will not also come to that conclusion, given that there is a well regulated militia in the National Guard and that people who own guns DO NOT fit the definition of what the framers had in mind in terms of being members of a militia. Could there not be a “21st Amendment” for the 2nd Amendment?

How many of you gun owners show up for your militia training every month with one of YOUR weapons?

Again, I love my guns, but I do not want to stake my ownership of them based upon someone chanting that it’s what the framers of the Constitution wanted. IN FACT, instead of fighting to keep the government OUT of our gun safes, we should be demanding that our state governments ENFORCE that each citizen own weapons to fulfill our CONSTITUTIONAL obligations to BE the Militia. That’s what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned… isn't it?
 
There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-3>[4]</SUP> One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-4>[5]</SUP>
<TABLE class=cquote style="MARGIN: auto; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 35px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left" vAlign=top width=20>“</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; PADDING-TOP: 4px" vAlign=top>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.</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 36px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: right" vAlign=bottom width=20>”</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-5>[6]</SUP>
<TABLE class=cquote style="MARGIN: auto; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 35px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left" vAlign=top width=20>“</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; PADDING-TOP: 4px" vAlign=top>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.</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 36px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: right" vAlign=bottom width=20>”</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.
Background


English history and common law

The concept of a universal militia originated in England.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-6>[7]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-7>[8]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-8>[9]</SUP> The requirement that subjects keep and bear arms for military duty<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-9>[10]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Uviller_10-0>[11]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Pepper2005_11-0>[12]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Wills1995_12-0>[13]</SUP> dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II, in the Assize of Arms, obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense. King Henry III required certain subjects between the ages of fifteen and fifty (including non-land owning subjects) to bear arms. The reason for such a requirement was that in the absence of a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and assist in the suppression of riots.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Levy1999_13-0>[14]</SUP>
In response to complaints that local people were reluctant to take up arms to enforce justice for strangers, The Statute of Winchester of 1285 (13 Edw. I) declared that each district or hundred would be held responsible for unsolved crimes. Each man was to keep arms to take part in the hue and cry when necessary.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-14>[15]</SUP>
Following the Protestant overthrow of the Catholic King James II, the Protestant controlled Parliament obliged the newly installed Protestant monarchs William and Mary to enact the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which granted Protestants a series of liberties including the right to arms for self defense: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-15>[16]</SUP> For instance, in 1780 after some riots, the recorder of London - the city attorney - was asked if the right to arms protected armed groups, he wrote: "The right of his majesty's Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own defense, and to use them for lawful purposes, is most clear and undeniable."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-16>[17]</SUP> At least one historian describes this as the first instance when the customary duty to bear arms transitioned into a right.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-isbn0-674-89307-7_17-0>[18]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-DeConde13_18-0>[19]</SUP> Other historians describe this as an example of the traditional restricting of weapons access for one class of people over another, in this case the Protestant victors over the vanquished Catholics.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-DeConde13_18-1>[19]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-isbn0-8018-2430-3_19-0>[20]</SUP> Additionally, this reflected the popular dread of a standing army and the preference instead for a select militia. These values would have a long life both in England and America.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-DeConde13_18-2>[19]</SUP>
Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England describes the right to arms in England during the eighteenth century:
The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-20>[21]</SUP>

​
The right of some English subjects to possess arms was recognized under English common law; however many English subjects were not permitted by law to possess arms.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-isbn0-674-89307-7_17-1>[18]</SUP> Regarding these constraints, St. George Tucker wrote in 1803:
In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-21>[22]</SUP>

​
Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution


In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-papers.ssrn.com_22-0>[23]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-23>[24]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-isbn0-300-08901-5_24-0>[25]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-isbn0-19-514786-3pg23_25-0>[26]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-isbn1-57607-347-5pg155_26-0>[27]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-isbn0-253-21040-2_27-0>[28]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-28>[29]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-urlVPC_-_May_98_Press_Release_29-0>[30]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-isbn1-56584-699-0_30-0>[31]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-isbn0-8223-3017-2pg189_31-0>[32]</SUP>
  • deterring undemocratic government;
  • repelling invasion;
  • suppressing insurrection;
  • facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
  • participating in law enforcement;
  • slave control in Southern slave states.
It is a matter of some dispute which of these considerations they thought were most important, which of these considerations they were most alarmed about, and the extent to which each of these considerations ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment. Additionally, Dave Kopel has challenged the claim that the Second Amendment was adopted entirely for the preservation of slavery in the southern states, while acknowledging this unattractive aspect of the southern militia.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-32>[33]</SUP>

Ideals that helped to inspire the Second Amendment in part are symbolized by the minutemen.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Cornell_33-0>[34]</SUP>


During the 1760s pre-revolutionary period, the established colonial militia was comprised of colonists, which included a number who were loyal to British imperial rule. As defiance and opposition to the British rule developed, a distrust of these Loyalists in the militia became widespread among the colonists, known as Patriots, who favored independence from British rule. As a result, these Patriots established independent colonial legislatures to create their own militias which excluded the Loyalists and then sought out to stock up independent armories for their militias. In response to this arms build up, the British Parliament established an embargo on firearms, parts and ammunition on the American colonies.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-isbn1-55553-486-4pg27_34-0>[35]</SUP>
British and Loyalist efforts to disarm the colonial Patriot militia armories in the early phases of the American Revolution, resulted in the Patriot colonists protesting by citing the Declaration of Rights, Blackstone's summary of the Declaration of Rights, their own militia laws and common law rights to self-defense.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-HalbrookHardy_35-0>[36]</SUP> While British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent coordinated action by the Patriot militia, some have argued that there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-HalbrookHardy_35-1>[36]</SUP>
The right of the colonists to arms and rebellion against oppression was asserted, for example, in a pre-revolutionary newspaper editorial in 1769 Boston objecting to the British army suppression of colonial opposition to the Townshend Acts:
Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-HalbrookHardy_35-2>[36]</SUP>

​
The Continental Forces which won the American Revolution consisted of both the standing Continental Army, created by the Continental Congress, together with state and militia units. In opposition, the British forces consisted of a mixture of the standing British Army, Loyalist Militia and Hessian mercenaries. Following the Revolution, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation. An unworkable division of power between Congress and the states caused military weakness, and the standing army was reduced to as few as 80 men.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-isbn0-472-03370-0pg91-92_36-0>[37]</SUP> There was no effective federal military response to an armed uprising in western Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellion.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-37>[38]</SUP> Subsequently, the Philadelphia Convention proposed in 1787 to grant Congress exclusive power to raise and support a standing army and navy of unlimited size.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-isbn1-4051-1674-9pg398_38-0>[39]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-isbn1-85109-669-8_39-0>[40]</SUP> Anti-federalists objected to the shift of power from the states to the federal government, but as adoption of the Constitution became more and more likely, they shifted their strategy to establishing a bill of rights that would put some limits on federal power.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-isbn0-8223-3017-2pg79_40-0>[41]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Evil_41-0>[42]</SUP>
Modern scholars Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan have stated that James Madison "did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-42>[43]</SUP> In contrast, historian Jack Rakove suggests that Madison's intention in framing the Second Amendment was to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that the militias would not be disarmed.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-43>[44]</SUP>
One aspect of the gun control debate is the conflict between gun control laws and the alleged right to rebel against unjust governments. Some believe that the framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the states and the nation,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Millis_44-0>[45]</SUP> as Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788:
f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Fed29_45-0>[46]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Millis_44-1>[45]</SUP>

​
Some scholars have said that it is wrong to read a right of armed insurrection in the Second Amendment because it is clear that the founding fathers sought to place trust in the power of the ordered liberty of democratic government versus the anarchy of insurrectionists.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-CarlBogus_law_or_guns_46-0>[47]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-47>[48]</SUP> Other scholars, such as Glenn Reynolds, contend that the framers did believe in an individual right to armed insurrection. The latter scholars cite examples, such as the Declaration of Independence (describing in 1776 “the Right of the People to … institute new Government”) and the New Hampshire Constitution (stating in 1784 that “nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind”).<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-48>[49]</SUP>
There was an ongoing debate in the 1780s about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny (as described by Anti-Federalists); or the risk of mob rule of "the people" (as described by the Federalists) related to the ongoing revolution in France.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-49>[50]</SUP> A widespread fear, during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-50>[51]</SUP> prohibiting citizens from arming themselves<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-HalbrookHardy_35-3>[36]</SUP> or the federal government prohibiting the southern tradition of using their state militia for slave control.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-isbn1-56584-699-0_30-1>[31]</SUP>

Drafting and adoption

The prefatory clause of the Second Amendment is a shortened version of language found in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights. That part of the Declaration was largely the work of George Mason. Similar language appears in many Revolutionary Era state constitutions. This Declaration states:
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-isbn1-58477-369-3_51-0>[52]</SUP>
​

​
Federalists such as James Madison initially argued that a federal Bill of Rights was unnecessary, asserting that the federal government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome a militia.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-fed46_52-0>[53]</SUP> Similarly, Federalist Noah Webster argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-53>[54]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-54>[55]</SUP> However, Madison would later become a leading advocate for the federal Bill of Rights.

Activity during state conventions to ratify the Constitution

One of the main opposition points of contention was the Constitution's omission of a bill of rights.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-55>[56]</SUP> This objection was raised frequently at the state conventions that were called to ratify the Constitution.
At the Pennsylvania ratification convention, the majority would not allow proposed amendments or a bill of rights to be appended to their Ratification of the Constitution in December of 1787. The Pennsylvania Minority therefore published a statement that included a defense of the right to bear arms:
7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals...."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-56>[57]</SUP>
​

​
In Virginia, anti-federalist Patrick Henry said during the opening debates of the Virginia Ratification Convention that arms are required to secure rights and freedoms from those who would take them away.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-57>[58]</SUP> He also questioned how the people could resist a tyrant if their arms had been taken from them.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-58>[59]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-59>[60]</SUP>
Also at the Virginia ratification convention, George Mason showed his distrust of Congress and the possibility that it would not fund the arming for the militia as an excuse for the creation of a standing army, which could later to be used as an instrument of tyranny by Congress.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-60>[61]</SUP>
Five of the state ratification conventions for the U.S. Constitution made explicit requests or demands for the protection of rights to keep and bear arms. Four of these states also clearly defined that a well-regulated militia consists of "the body of the people trained to arms" or "the body of the people capable of bearing arms". These four states - New Hampshire, New York, Virginia and Rhode Island - attached proposed bills of rights to their approvals of the Constitution. New Hampshire further demanded that "Congress shall never disarm any citizen except such as are or have been in actual rebellion."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Blodgett_61-0>[62]</SUP> The fifth, North Carolina, refused to ratify the Constitution and submitted a bill of unalienable rights of the people that must be protected before they would sign.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-62>[63]</SUP> North Carolina ratified the Constitution on November 21, 1789, after the Congress approved the Bill of Rights and submitted it to the states for ratification.

Conflict and compromise in Congress

Anti-Federalists supported a proposal to amend the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights to provide further constraints on the new government, while opponents felt that by listing only certain rights, other unlisted rights would fail to be protected. Amidst this debate, a compromise was reached, and James Madison drafted what ultimately became the United States Bill of Rights, which was proposed to the Congress on June 8, 1789.
Madison proposed nine amendments. The fourth included not only a right to keep and bear arms, but also other rights such as a right to due process. The portion that would become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor of the House of Representatives during the first session of the First Congress, was:
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.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-aoc-p451_66-0>[67]</SUP>
​

​
The Bill of Rights introduced by Madison on June 8 was not intended to be added at the end of the Constitution. Instead, the Bill of Rights was to be inserted into the existing Constitution. The sentence that became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4, which list individual rights, instead of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16, which specify the Congress's power over the state militias.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-aoc-p451_66-1>[67]</SUP> Debate in the House on the remainder of June 8 focused again on whether a Bill of Rights was appropriate, and the matter was held for a later time. On July 21, Madison raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-67>[68]</SUP> and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. No official records were kept of the committee's proceedings, but the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-68>[69]</SUP> On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-69>[70]</SUP>
​

​
The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17 and August 20.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-70>[71]</SUP> These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
​

​
The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-71>[72]</SUP>
​

​
By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-72>[73]</SUP>
On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:
A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-73>[74]</SUP>
​

​
The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "For the common defence" next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-74>[75]</SUP> The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
​


​
The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":
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.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-75>[76]</SUP>

​
This version was transmitted to the states for ratification.
On December 15, 1791, the Virginia General Assembly ratified the Bill of Rights, thereby achieving the ratification of three-fourths of the states needed to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

So after reading this the amendment was written to allow for the common people to bear arms for self defense.
 
Last edited:
Because it creates ambiguity so all states are satisfied that their concerns are met. Like most bills in government cover your ass with ambiguity.
 
Kilgour Farms said:
Because it creates ambiguity so all states are satisfied that their concerns are met. Like most bills in government cover your ass with ambiguity.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, many gun rights advocates want to divorce the second half of the sentence from the first half. Why? Because the first half means they have obligations. They want to own their guns but want everyone to conveniently forget about the "well regulated militia" part. As structured(the sentence) the first part IS THE REASON for the second part.

The writers of the amendment knew exactly what the meaning was. There is no ambiguity.

"Because we need to have militias, the people need weapons to perform this duty and the government will not take away the ability of the people to perform their duty."
 
According to you, we should not have the right to own guns since a miltia is a state regulated organization.

Who protects us from the state?

Indiviguals, by the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
 
Last edited:
Kilgour Farms said:
According to you, we should not have the right to own guns since a miltia is a state regulated organization.

Who protects us from the state?

Indiviguals, by the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...
Nobody with a gun or belonging to a militia was protecting us from the state when they decided illegal wiretaps were a good idea......and covering them up was a better idea.
:)
 
Kilgour Farms said:
According to you, we should not have the right to own guns since a miltia is a state regulated organization.

Who protects us from the state?

Indiviguals, by the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

No, according to the Constitution, the need for a well regulated militia dictates that the people need to "keep arms". I believe that the thought was that if the people kept arms, well, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said it better than I could:

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers..."

The point is that yes, "the people" have a right to keep arms to perform the duty of protecting the nation by being part of a well regulated militia. But the framers envisioned these "people" taking their "arms" home with them. This would ensure that any "ruler" would know exactly what he might be up against if he were to rule badly(and of course, he would not).

It took me all of five minutes of thinking to understand WHY many gun advocates want to deny the existence of the "well regulated Militia" part of the 2nd Amendment. To acknowledge it would mean that there were no specific guarantee or "right" to use guns for any other purpose, such as hunting or collecting(which have become American traditions).
 
Last edited:
Despite the efforts of Senator Isakson(R-GA) to place a "hold" on the nomination in a 63-35 Senate vote, cloture was achieved yesterday in Cass Sunstein's nomination as head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Sunstein is perhaps the most outspoken animal rights, ant-hunting/angling, anti-Second Amendment individuals to gain nomination to a high government position. One of the most disappointing aspects of the vote is that 42% of the Yes votes (22 senators) came from members of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus- senators that claim to be pro-sportsmen. Totally disgraceful. Sad to say that all of the senators from NJ, NY, & PA voted yes for this man who has publicly stated that he believes animals should have the right to sue people and that under his watch recreational hunting could be banned.

I read thru all the votes and I don't believe a single Democrat Senator voted against this animal rights/ anti-sportsmen extremist.

Despicable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top