So, here we are. @Noone was complaining because I kept going off topic in the other thread. So let's see your arguments here. As the OP shows, the CONTEXT in which the 2nd A was passed was one in which the founders wanted to ensure that the militias (which were NOT composed by "the entire populace") would not be neglected by the states. And there was distrust that the standing army that we had could defend us from the threats they feared at the time. The founding fathers never gave the government any right to set speed limits,. And yet... Anyway. Let's not get ahead of ourselves and hear what context you are referring to.
Maybe because vehicles are not mentioned in the Constitution? And jumping threads preserves context, how?
It does not matter how many times you repeat this falsehood, it remains a falsehood. You may now return to fishing from your slow-moving boat.
Ah! That is explained on the OP of this thread. And I have explained it in this and other threads countless times. Here it goes again. References are in the OP. The purpose of the 2nd A was to ensure that the states would not neglect the militias. They didn't trust that a standing army would be able to defend us. And some states were already neglecting them. As for owning firearms, that was not a controversial issue. People could own firearms, just like they could own a horse, or a hat or... pants. It was just private property like any other. Including a reference to it in the 2nd A was briefly CONSIDERED. But was ridiculed by some like Noah Webster. So it WASN'T included. Other than that, there were NO discussions about "owning firearms" during the discussions. It was all about the militia. Scalia claimed that the conditional clause (which he calls "prefatory clause") was not relevant. But it was basically the ONLY thing discussed during the debates in Congress. This is all in the OP. Nothing new....
wtf? how can the right of the people to keep and bear arms have any relevance to STATES neglecting the militia when it is a matter of black letter law that the second amendment ONLY APPLIES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. the second has absolutely no relevance to what STATES do completely wrong Golem-try again
So you're saying that if it's NOT motioned in the constitution, it's fair game. See? @Turtledude Another one who disagrees with you! If you can't convince your own side, why do you expect to convince anybody else?
WHAT? You didn't even know THAT? Amazing! What do they teach you in law school? Anyway.... if that is wrong, NOW is your chance to show off the "historians" you were talking to us about that opined different. Don't forget to include quotes, links and references.... YES! The main point of contention by the federalists was how to preserve the militias. Just about EVERY debate in Congress leading to passing the 2nd A revolved around the militias and their concern about them being neglected by the states. Especially by lack of funding.
Nope, didn't say that at all. You tried a nonsensical reply I pointed it out. @Turtledude Another one who disagrees with you! Comment without proof - also, as fare as I know TD didn't give you permission to speak for him. . Seriously? You're gonna use a playground tactic as rebuttal?
it's probably more effective than citing leftwing linguists who cannot establish that the founders were ignoring an individual right. The argument is that since an alleged majority of the times "keep and bear" meant military uses of privately owned firearms -that means keep and bear couldn't possibly implicate the alleged minority of times it referred to private usage of privately owned firearms it's an incredibly weak argument and not only is speculative-it is essentially faith based since the entire context of the time the BoR was written was one where the founders supported free men being armed.
I think they fail to understand that back in those days firearms were as much a part of the household as brooms, dishes, furniture, etc. And having recently experienced weapon grabbing by the Brits they wanted to ensure the government they were creating wouldn't have that power. I think the first part was a subtle hint from the founders that maybe states MIGHT WANT to establish militias; It wasn't meant as a tool to denial firearms ownership, as some of our LW friends suggest.
you are correct, the entire environment in which the bill of rights was created is almost ironclad proof that the founders intended all free citizens be free to arm themselves as they saw fit. No one has been able to even hint that the second intended any government power to disarm private citizens
That's what we were discussing. Which demonstrates that you don't care what is being discussed. You just automatically support anybody you "perceive" is on your side. Which might be laudable in some scenarios, but lame in a political debate. Next time you might want to make sure you understand what is being discussed before weighing in. Because in that context, that IS what you said.
the context of the second amendment is this-the Brits tried to seize the patriots' guns. The federal government created by the patriots was not given any power to do so. Game set match
Any state that neglects their militias is violating the right of the people within their jurisdiction to keep and bear arms. I am flabbergasted that you are asking ME this. What do they teach in law school? Do they just have you memorize thousands of laws, but to pay no attention to the historical context to understand their purpose?
that's absolute nonsense-the entire purpose of the second amendment was a NEGATIVE RESTRICTION on the federal government. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH controlling the states.
The brits???? Do you understand that the Bill of Rights passed in 1791? The Treaty of Paris in which the British recognized the independence and sovereignty of the United States was signed in 1783! It's worse than I thought! I'm not a historian, but this is stuff you learn in... Middle School (Junior High School, in my time)
It has EVERYTHING to do with the states. The document I referenced on the OP explains this in much detail. But if you didn't even know that the United States was an independent nation in 1791... nothing I tell you about history is going to make any difference. THIS is the thread to discuss the historical contex.t The OP describes it and provides my main source. YOU deny history and provide NO sources. No wonder you prefer to discuss these things in the threads where it's off topic.
Sounds great! Hey! If you're looking for a job I'll vote for you for Supreme Court Justice. Great perks! Free cruises, free private jets... Though you might lose them if you go on saying too loud that the 2nd A doesn't apply to the states.
The states were independent nations. "His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States"
The 2nd amendment was added to the constitution to limit the power of the US government. It was not added to have any effect on the states. "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added"
so it is your view that the purpose of the second amendment was not a negative restriction on the federal government but some sort of command to the states?
