What does the second amendment mean?

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,236
287
near Seattle, Wa
The Second Amendment, and "well regulated militias" in particular, may have been all about slavery.

Clearly, federal authority was feared by a vocal slaveowner contingent.

At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:

"Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . .

"By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory."

George Mason expressed a similar fear:

"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution] . . . "

Henry then bluntly laid it out:

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery>
The SAF is suggesting that absolute gun rights were being granted or assumed around 1780, The claim is false, since we only had three cities, and each had voted for various practical gun restrictions, These gun restrictions included disabled guns in city residences, and laws against firing guns in cities, and shooting in taverns.

GunControlinColonialTimes_zps24627805.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
34,322
2,641
Melbourne
got that version of the second from here.

http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html

The Second Amendment Foundation maintains, "The Final (ratified) version had only one comma according to the Library of Congress and Government Printing Office."

This image, from the Library of Congress, also shows the ratified version with one comma.

And this page from the National Archives contains a three comma version.

So which version is the legal one?

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,236
287
near Seattle, Wa
got that version of the second from here.

http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html

The Second Amendment Foundation maintains, "The Final (ratified) version had only one comma according to the Library of Congress and Government Printing Office."

This image, from the Library of Congress, also shows the ratified version with one comma.

And this page from the National Archives contains a three comma version.

So which version is the legal one?
Nice research, Stranger.

meli, on 09 Jan 2016 - 5:46 PM, said:

So which version is the legal one?
Dunno, but based on credibility, we might pretty much discount anything the SAF presents.

Same for TR, IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gouvernail

Lottsa people don’t know I’m famous
37,650
5,222
Austin Texas
I believe Jocal mis understood what I intended to convey.

The amendment makes it clear:

1. The government may not infringe on the militia which is necessary for maintenance of a free state.'

2. The government may not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms

Neither may be infringed upon-:

Arms bearing or militia

Further clarification

It would be very easy to tie the right to bear arms to militia activities or indicate the people only had rights to bear arms if they were performing militia activities in fact the opposite was done

The third comma sets off the people's right as a separate clause .

Let me try again:

They wrote:

Teams, because We need teams, private weapon ownership and carrying, shall not be infringed.

They did not write :

Team, because we need teams, members can own and carry weapons without infringement.

The wording says nothing indicating the people are required or even assumed to be militia members.

The third comma specifically indicates the last phrase about infringement applies to

More than just the people's right to bear arms

The last phrase also applies to something else

Is it the second phrase??

Why would anybody write an Amendment banning infringement on "being necessary to the security of a free state."

What would it even mean?

You cannot ban necessary!!

It is nonsense to apply infringementbtestrictionsvto the second clause

But!! That third comma tells us there is something more about the application of the fourth phrase than simple application to the third phrase.

Keep looking!!

How about that first phrase?

Would somebody write an amendment preventing the new government from infringing on militias??

Damn tootin they would !!

So

Summarizing:

No infringing people's right to keep and bear arms

No infringing on well regulated militia

Separate restrictions clearly placed upon the government by men who understood their commas

 

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
34,322
2,641
Melbourne
got that version of the second from here.

http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html

The Second Amendment Foundation maintains, "The Final (ratified) version had only one comma according to the Library of Congress and Government Printing Office."

This image, from the Library of Congress, also shows the ratified version with one comma.

And this page from the National Archives contains a three comma version.

So which version is the legal one?
well Whichever version is the legal one, I can't see anything there about not having a national firearms register that's not infringing anyone's rights to bear arms is it?

 

By the lee

Super Anarchist
2,953
12
That there thing was written in 1791, so, it seems reasonable to me that it means flintlocks, brothers.

ie; " the right of the people to keep and bear flintlocks, shall not be infringed.”

Yeah, that sounds about right, and, given the knuckledragging mentality of most 2nd amendment freaks everthing else should be fair game, imo.

 

Regatta Dog

Super Anarchist
24,319
123
Yes, the situation is evolving, so the combination of solutions might be expected to evolve.

What works in one place might not work in another; what works now may not work ten years from now.

Yes, the courts and constitution have flexed before, and have been fine-tuned for the better as well.
Yes. The Constitution is evolving [sarcasm and fuck off]

Register your guns and register your speech.

Christ. As a non gun owner and pontificator of incredible political insights, why would you want to limit my freedom of speech?

Get a foothold controlling one right, and you have established precedence to control others.

Does anyone here besides me grasp the concept of "enumerated powers" Have you people ever read the Constitution?

Every President takes an oath to piece of paper. Not a land mass or a group of people. He subjugates himself to a document.

 

LB 15

Cunt
We covered all this in the 'Folding Prop spews his way across Bass Strait thread'. But listen to Tom 'the minute man' Ray on this subject. He can read the minds of the original authors.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,543
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
...
48pgs Hardy vs. Cornell, A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origin of Gun Control in America

David T. Hardy, A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origin of Gun Control in America, 15 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1237 (2007),

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol15/ iss4/6
This author, David Hardy floated the original theory of Individual Rights for guns, according to himself, from AZ in 1974....
That's technically true, but only because it was not until 1978 that he invented his time machine, went back to the 1850's, and caused Justice Taney to embrace his ideas.

I read it on the internet.

Do Black People Have Equal Gun Rights?

Until around 1970, the aims of America’s firearms restrictionists and the aims of America’s racists were practically inextricable. In both the colonial and immediate post-Revolutionary periods, the first laws regulating gun ownership were aimed squarely at blacks and Native Americans. In both the Massachusetts and Plymouth colonies, it was illegal for the colonists to sell guns to natives, while Virginia and Tennessee banned gun ownership by free blacks.

In the antebellum period, the chief justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, wrote a grave warning into the heart of the execrable Dred Scott decision. If blacks were permitted to become citizens, Taney cautioned, they, like whites, would have full liberty to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

White Southerners would eventually be forced to accept blacks as their fellow citizens. But old habits died hard. After the Civil War, many Southern states enacted Black Codes to prohibit ownership of guns by blacks. The measures served their purpose. In her remarkable 1892 disquisition on the evils of lynching, the writer Ida B. Wells noted that “the only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense.” Wells offered some blunt advice: “a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”


At the height of the civil rights movement, black freedom fighters took Wells’s counsel seriously. Although he was denied a concealed-carry permit, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had what his adviser Glenn E. Smiley described as a veritable “arsenal” at home.

Far from being a digression from the principle of nonviolence, this willingness to defend oneself was heir to a long, proud tradition. Considering in 1850 what he believed to be the best response to the Fugitive Slave Act, Frederick Douglass proposed: “a good revolver.”
Former Chief Justice Taney sure had an interesting view of gun rights.

At least he had the good sense to realize that you can't just let black people keep and bear arms wherever they go as if they were white or something.

 

John Drake

Banned
12,078
0
Portmeirion
All as you need to understand the intent of The Founders is to view it based on the period in which it was written and why the United States was founded in the first place. It was all born out of The Revolutionary War, a reaction or response to the overwhelming power and autonomy of King George and The British Throne. That revolt, which would not have succeeded if the crown had been successful in disarming the revolutionaries, gave birth to the necessity of The Right to Bear Arms. The architects of this grand experiment in democracy understood this to be true and if for some reason we found ourselves with another king, so to speak, that We The People had the ability to once again revolt against the all powerful elites that would move to suppress the masses and thus control them and keep their grip on power. Thus The Second Amendment insures the people of the United States both the means, A Well Regulated Militia and the tools in the form of armament, to rise up and overthrow entrenched power. It is the very essence of the power resting in the hands of the citizenry.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

bgytr

Super Anarchist
4,900
552
All as you need to understand the intent of The Founders is to view it based on the period in which it was written and why the United States was founded in the first place. It was all born out of The Revolutionary War, a reaction or response to the overwhelming power and autonomy of King George and The British Throne. That revolt, which would not have succeeded if the crown had been successful in disarming the revolutionaries, gave birth to the necessity of The Right to Bear Arms. The architects of this grand experiment in democracy understood this to be true and if for some reason we found ourselves with another king, so to speak, that We The People had the ability to once again revolt against the all powerful elites that would move to suppress the masses and thus control them and keep their grip on power. Thus The Second Amendment insures the people of the United States both the means, A Well Regulated Militia and the tools in the form of armament, to rise up and overthrow entrenched power. It is the very essence of the power resting in the hands of the citizenry.
Authoritarian govts prefer unarmed peasants.

 

Spatial Ed

Super Anarchist
39,509
96
Exactly. Be prepared to fire on authority. They will be easy to identify. They will be in uniform.

 

Hard On The Wind

Super Anarchist
7,533
363
GMT-8
All as you need to understand the intent of The Founders is to view it based on the period in which it was written and why the United States was founded in the first place. It was all born out of The Revolutionary War, a reaction or response to the overwhelming power and autonomy of King George and The British Throne. That revolt, which would not have succeeded if the crown had been successful in disarming the revolutionaries, gave birth to the necessity of The Right to Bear Arms. The architects of this grand experiment in democracy understood this to be true and if for some reason we found ourselves with another king, so to speak, that We The People had the ability to once again revolt against the all powerful elites that would move to suppress the masses and thus control them and keep their grip on power. Thus The Second Amendment insures the people of the United States both the means, A Well Regulated Militia and the tools in the form of armament, to rise up and overthrow entrenched power. It is the very essence of the power resting in the hands of the citizenry.
If they wanted to keep the power in the hands of the citizenry why did they create a republic rather than a democracy?

 

nannygovtsucks

Super Anarchist
15,365
4
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"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."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

 
Last edited by a moderator:

nannygovtsucks

Super Anarchist
15,365
4
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

 
Top