In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Security of a free state....
Highball
Member Posts: 15,755
"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."
The reference to `state' in the above statement...is this a clear warning to STATES to not meddle in the Second Amendment, also ?
Generally recognized by sane people as a bar to federal government control of weapons, the reference to `state' above surely cannot apply to that government, also...for the Bill of Rights was mainly directed towards limiting federal government.
Am I missing a point..that the Founders referred to the Union as a 'state' ?
The reference to `state' in the above statement...is this a clear warning to STATES to not meddle in the Second Amendment, also ?
Generally recognized by sane people as a bar to federal government control of weapons, the reference to `state' above surely cannot apply to that government, also...for the Bill of Rights was mainly directed towards limiting federal government.
Am I missing a point..that the Founders referred to the Union as a 'state' ?
Comments
"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."
The second as distributed to the individual states, and ratified by them:
"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."
Notice the difference in capitalization, as well as punctuation.
I personally believe it was meant to apply to both federal, as well as state governments.
Another reason it is the singular most important amendment we have,.....and backs up ALL others.
Take the differences I pointed out for what it is worth, but I see a difference myself in what was ratified finally by the states.
More emphasis on "people", and less on "militia" IMHO.
State remains capital letters.
Salzo..whom most of you do not know from these forums..has made a rather persuasive case that the Second does not apply to the various states. He has troubled himself to make an intensive research of the COnstitution.
I read what he had to say, and it was rather disturbing....to say the least.
Whatever the case...upon reconstruction, it WILL be made perfectly clear that ALL levels of government will keep their slimy hands OFF Liberties Teeth.
I merely throw this thought out to invite comments.
I am aware of salzo, but not much more.
I would be interested in reading what you did.
I mention stuff like this to harden our defenses againt the termites that infest this great country...information is a powerful weapon.
This is off the top of my head on what they taught us at the New Mexico Law Enforcement Academy 20+ years ago.
A state may, under constitutional law, make laws more restrictive but not more lenient than federal law. If so that would mean that under this a state could not ban the ownership of arms. Could it be they included State the second amendment to limit the states power to ban them? As written that would mean that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms and only repeal of the second amendment could take these rights away. Without this a state could ban arms to form a tyrannical state and be covered by the constitutional law.
Just a thought and I too throw this out for opinion.
Lance
As for me, the way I read it in both the US 2nd Amendment and my state's amendment is that I have the absolute right, albeit I'm not allowed to exercise that right, to own a full auto weapon and an RPG if I so see fit because they would be appropriate for the overthrow of a tyranical government. Naturally, since I have a family to support and don't relish spending my life in a state or federal maximum security prison, I own neither and strictly obey all gun laws but that still doesn't make it right.
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Constitution.html#art10
"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."
The reference to `state' in the above statement...is this a clear warning to STATES to not meddle in the Second Amendment, also ?
Generally recognized by sane people as a bar to federal government control of weapons, the reference to `state' above surely cannot apply to that government, also...for the Bill of Rights was mainly directed towards limiting federal government.
Am I missing a point..that the Founders referred to the Union as a 'state' ?
I have always read it as talking about individual states. Here is some anecdotal back up:
First, per the well known Civil War historian, Shelby Foote, before the Civil War a US citizen would be likely to say the "United States are..." and after the war up to today, we say the United States is...
Second, if you remember, Robert E lee left the US Army to join the Army of Northern Virginia. He considered VA his country.
At the time of the founding of the Union the states were the primary governmental entities and federalism was very weak. Militias were only state entities as far as I know at the time.
I fall into the camp that the 2nd is a limitation on the Federal power to regulate the states.
Matchshot ;
The Bill of Rights dealt mainly with the Rights of individuals..not the state.
I just cannot think that they Founders intended states to abolish or restrict firearms any more then the federal government.
So, I think my belief is credible and legitimate.
Even if it refers to the type definition in Number 5, I still think it was meant "generally" as to " the whole" and not anything specific to an individual state (such as Rhode Island, etc...)
If it is not the former, why not capitalize it, or use the plural?
I just cannot think that they Founders intended states to abolish or restrict firearms any more then the federal government.
I agree. The founders must be rolling in their graves seeing how the people of this country crave chains. But back then, the people recognized the importance of protecting their rights. The concern was that the general (federal) government would get into the "rights" business- which was business that was left to the people, and to the states.
We have to completely forget about how rights, and the protections of those rights, and who protects those rights is handled today, and consider how it was handled at the beginning.
We have all heard that "no right is absolute". The phrase is all too often used to curtail our freedoms, but the reality is, your rights have always been restricted in some degree. And the entity that is responsible for decided how much, how little, or what rights we can enjoy in society, is the people. The founders intended that the people via local government, state government, any government EXCEPT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, would decide what rights could be enjoyed, limited, or outright banned.
Lets say, I wanted to open a topless bar in my yard. I want to get a bar in my garage, bring go go dancers, sell pornographic material, and have it opened 24 hours a day. Certainly, I have rights as property owner, and I was born with the right to have a topless bar in my front yard. But that right can be limited, and the people of my community, have the authority to decide exactly how far my property rights should be protected.
The founders would have no problem with the idea that my township or state would prohibit me from using my property, and exercising my rights in such a manner. They would not argue that it was a violation of my first amendment, 5th amendment, or any rights considered via ninth amendment. What they would have a problem with, is the FEDERAL government banning me from exercising those rights, because the federal government has no authority to get into the rights business-
Similarly if a school district decided that they wanted to start every school day with a prayer,the founders would not argue that this was a violation of the first amendment, because the first amendment bans the FEDERAL government from mandating prayer. Of course, today such activity would be considered a violation of the first amendment, but what the constitution means today, has absolutely nothing to do with the constitution that was written 200+ years ago. 200 years ago, prayer in school was normal, and some states had churches, and required religion in state jobs and functions. The reality is, that the constitution as written by the founders was usurped by Lincoln and the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment is often cited as the amendment that binds the BOR against the states-but it does no such thing. The 14th amendment merely gives the federal governent the power to decide how much or how little rights can be enjoyed. The idea that the 14th amendment binds the states to the BOR is just a judicial "theory" that "some" have developed. It really is up to the government decide what the 14th amendment protects, and the federal government really has no interest in protecting ANY rights that are dangerous to the government. We can certainly exercise our right to pornography, abortion, lap dancing,sodomy, gay marriage, etc, because exercising those rights does not hurt the government. But the right to bear arms?? Keep dreaming, there aint no way the federal government is going to make sure that right is not infringed.
The reality is, that the founders and intentions is COMPLETELY irrelevant when discussing the constitution, because the founders constitution died with Lincoln. Not only are their intentions irrelevant, their CONSTITUTION is also irrelevant.
We have a new constitution, and that constitution says whatever the Federal government wants it to say.
I would much prefer a constitution like we had at the inception, where the feds stay out of rights all together, and the local governments decide what kind of restrictions are necessary. While there would certainly be occasions that I did not agree with the majority, I would AT LEAST have some say in the manner. And the people most close to me (geographically, culturally), would make these decisions that affect my life and my well being. The people of IDAHO can consider via local government how much gun control is necessary, as can the people of New Jersey can decide how much gun control they need. If the people of New Jersey want to wear tight shackles, then let them. The founders might think the people of Jersey are pretty stupid for enacting such laws, but there would be no constitutional violation. it is their right to decide these matters, no matter how stupid they are. The problem is when Frank Lautenberg has a say in restricting the gun rights of the people of Idaho. Nobody from New Jersey should have ANY business or authority or influence deciding what guns the people of Idaho should be allowed to have-which is the system we have today.
Biggest problem today is the people want the federal government to "protect" our rights from the states, via federal law, supreme court, etc. That is not the solution. The feds have no interest in such matters. The solution is to tell the feds mind their business, let the states decide, and for the people of the individual states to protect THEMSELVES from state infringement, via elections, protect, whatever.
quote:I fall into the camp that the 2nd is a limitation on the Federal power to regulate the states.
Matchshot ;
The Bill of Rights dealt mainly with the Rights of individuals..not the state.
I just cannot think that they Founders intended states to abolish or restrict firearms any more then the federal government.
HB I would like to think you were right but, if so, why do many states have the RKBA written into their state constitutions?
I believe, that the Founders saw the omnipotent Federal powers as a threat as the Crown was a threat to them. With Federalism, as Salzo talks about, everything changed after the Civil War.
I will say, I am hardly a constitutional scholar, I just play one on Television. I do understand, however, what the term "Shall not infringe" means.
"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."
The reference to `state' in the above statement...is this a clear warning to STATES to not meddle in the Second Amendment, also ?
Generally recognized by sane people as a bar to federal government control of weapons, the reference to `state' above surely cannot apply to that government, also...for the Bill of Rights was mainly directed towards limiting federal government.
Am I missing a point..that the Founders referred to the Union as a 'state' ?
They were using the word "state" to refer to a "condition.". To be sure you remained in the "state" of being free you must be armed.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
"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."
The reference to `state' in the above statement...is this a clear warning to STATES to not meddle in the Second Amendment, also ?
Generally recognized by sane people as a bar to federal government control of weapons, the reference to `state' above surely cannot apply to that government, also...for the Bill of Rights was mainly directed towards limiting federal government.
Am I missing a point..that the Founders referred to the Union as a 'state' ?
They were using the word "state" to refer to a "condition.". To be sure you remained in the "state" of being free you must be armed.
Peeeeuuuuuuu!
You is bout as wrong as wrong can be. But you are used to that for sure.
It is for certain what "shall not be infringed" means, but it happens daily.
Let 'em keep infringin'. You can only poke that dog so long before he bites...
Much information is contained in it.
WHEN HAS THE CONSTITUTION EVER STOPPED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM CRUSHING ANYONE OR ANYTHING ! If the matter is of concern to the Feds they will get what they want legally or illegally. . Please I hate when people think the constitution means anything ! To the street police or fed when they work U over as U scream your constitutional rights ! Remember they will just work U over more for screaming for your rights. Maybe get the phonebook out for some special beatings or tazer U to U poop yourself.
AND to top it off , U will be screaming capital "a" or lower case "a" in ARMS as they beat your skull into the pavement. CHRIST ! Not a party pooper armchair generals , but I've lived in Chicagoland for many a year , and screaming for Your rights will get U a wap across the face, and maybe some missing teeth thats it.
Then why do you bother even coming to this board? If everything is so hopeless as you reiterate over and over again, why bother even living?
We are witnessing a transformation of Americans, once a proud and pioneering people eager to fight back in hard times and ride out the storm. Now far too many stand meekly in the twilight of independence, waiting for a bailout and watching their liberty disappear. Worse, we have the Casandras who scream at the top of their lungs that all is lost, dispiriting the unsure and emboldening the evil.
Melkor, I am not sure what you stand against but I am pretty sure you stand for fear, capitulation and captivity. Please tell me where I am wrong.
Melkor, I am not sure what you stand against but I am pretty sure you stand for fear, capitulation and captivity. Please tell me where I am wrong.
You forgot "running away". The 3 things you posted, and the one addition I provided is what he has posted over and over and over. It is pointless to respond to him.
Having said this, states such as my own state of NH have their own constitution in which the RKBA is codified as well. In fact, in the NH constitution, that right is even more clearly stated than the 2nd amendment! So, at least here, NH could not violate the 2nd due to its own constitution. I do believe that all 50 states have RKBA protections, some much stronger than others.
Unfortunately, his reaction to the takeover by the elites is to crawl into a bottle, or a woman ..as he has posted often.
My reaction is to insist that Americans prepare themselves for hard times...supplies, guns, cartridges ..the necessities of life.
There is ABSOLUTELY no hope of beating these utterly corrupted disciples of the Devil through any political, societal pressures, or conventional means.
Thus the importance of the Second Amendment.
My reaction is to insist that Americans prepare themselves for hard times...supplies, guns, cartridges ..the necessities of life.
There is ABSOLUTELY no hope of beating these utterly corrupted disciples of the Devil through any political, societal pressures, or conventional means.
Thus the importance of the Second Amendment.
+100,000,000
Things have gone way too far to be reversed by peaceful measures alone.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
My reaction is to insist that Americans prepare themselves for hard times...supplies, guns, cartridges ..the necessities of life.
There is ABSOLUTELY no hope of beating these utterly corrupted disciples of the Devil through any political, societal pressures, or conventional means.
Thus the importance of the Second Amendment.
+100,000,000
Things have gone way too far to be reversed by peaceful measures alone.
Agreed!
[/quote]
I was starting to write as Highball wrote his post. Melkor, I agree that it is a matter of the $ and, primarily, control and power. From my reading here, most people on this board understand what the problem is. This is gun board and the folks here know guns and understand their rights beginning with the 2A. Gun rights through the 2nd Amendment were placed squarely in the Bill of Rights because the lust for power and control is as old as man. That lust for power and its pursuit will trample all of the other rights we prize.
I am optimistic despite all the signs around us. Our forefathers fought and, ultimately vanquished, a vastly superior force fielded by one of the most powerful empires of the time. Determined and righteous men and women can also bring about change despite being outnumbered and out gunned. Difficult times bring out the best and...the worst in men.
Just hang on, we are on our way!
Lance
Problem is after fighting a War against England we got our first loans from the same CENTRAL BANKERS that were owned by the same families that still rule us. We fought for our independence to get loans from the oppressors of our Enemy who then tried 3 times to oppressed us. Lincoln was shot for his GREENBACKS , and Kennedy for opposing and making executive orders against the FED, Of which Johnson reversed as the first thing he did in office. In 1913 with the formation of the FED, we lost our nation, and the Internationalist WON , not the battle they won the WAR ! Now Obama is taking over Openly were the progressives left off, he is going to nationalize anything he can ! Don't get me Wrong olde Bushy made sure the 700 Billion was milked with no oversite first ! Pathetic.
Silly, the constitution is of no consequence to the Power brokers of the world , they get what they want , they finance both sides and win either way ! They own both the Republican and Democratic Party. They Own the Media, even Disney ! they own Your access to the Internet, they own your ability to travel from country to country , they Own your Credit Score. The own your Credit Cards , They own your Banks, They own most of your Politicians, They own your children when they attend there schools. They own the ADL , the ACLU, the Bar Association, the AMA, your mortgauge. They own your freedom , and your liberty ! They OWN U ! U are a consumer unit ! U have pretend rights and pretend nationalities. I woke up 30 years ago, and it's been interesting watching them take over.
Thats why I enjoy sissy boat drinks my newest being an incredible rum drink called "Lady of the Sea" a Jimmy Buffet drink ! and my horndog sexy girlfriend. For fighting the powers that be is silly, no hemlock for me , I'd rather have a hug and a chilly rum boat drink. [;)]
Don't get me wrong U armchair Generals get off your bumms and do something , I'll give U a ride on the boat some free grub and a boat drink, maybe a handful of 45 and 308. I'll even fly the Jolly Roger if U have a Barrett 50 cal Semi auto to mount up on deck, and give me a Parrot and a sword. But sorry still going to take most days off to enjoy what life and freedom we have left [8D]
I tried, See ya
"What the Second Amendment says
Chuck Klein
Does the Second Amendment and/or the Ninth Amendment acknowledge an unconditional right to keep and bear arms? The answer is both yes and no.
The controversy of the Second Amendment exists because, erroneously, some have insisted that the right to keep and bear arms is a state (as in Ohio, Texas, Florida) right and not an individual right. However, it is clear that the first clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means a free America.
The word "state" means nation/country, such as "the state of Israel" or "the Arab states" or "Secretary of State." In other words, the nation can best form a well-regulated militia (army/navy) if its militia (originally, men between the ages of 18 and 45) are free to keep and bear arms.
In addition, upon examining the Ninth Amendment (the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people), it is obvious the framers intended to recognize certain natural rights such as the right to life.
Of course, if one has this right but is denied the means (use of arms) to defend and protect this life, then this right has been disparaged.
At the time of the Constitution's inception the framers, all "men" in a "man's world," clearly gave little thought to anyone other than the man as the defender of family, property or country.
Whereas in 18th Century England, only the aristocratic (the ruling class) were empowered to defend honor and country. This concept of all men being full "citizens" and having the right and obligation to serve and protect was unique to America.
A citizen, circa 1785, was considered to be any white American male over the age of 21 and not a felon. The idea of civilian gun controls was unconscionable. It was also inconceivable that a Thomas Jefferson or a James Madison would refuse to take a musket away from a drunk, a child or someone conspicuously deranged. Had one been able to ask these learned, most-sacred document-framers of the conflict of such a restrictive action, they most likely would have replied with words to the effect that the drunk or mental incompetent were, at least, temporarily not citizens. A child was, of course, not a man and a felon had forsaken his citizenship.
With the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 19th Amendments, all of-age Americans were recognized as full, ruling-class citizens. Arms possession was, and still is, the signature of being a citizen -- not a subject to some monarchy and most assuredly not mentally inept, a child, a felon or a substance abuser.
So, yes, and until such time as the Constitution is amended, keeping and bearing arms is an intrinsic and absolute right for all citizens.
While on the other hand, noncitizens do not have an absolute right to a firearm - however temporary that condition might be. The American ruling class (also known as voters), if it so desires, can change the definition of citizen or establish any restrictions it wants on guns -- but only by amending the Constitution."
Chuck Klein is a plaintiff in a lawsuit to overturn Ohio's law against carrying concealed weapons. He is a private investigator and author of eight books. He describes himself as a staunch supporter of Constitutional correctness as opposed to political correctness.
Anybody ever read this article? I am posting only because of the reference in red below to the definition of state according to this fellow.
"What the Second Amendment says
Chuck Klein
Does the Second Amendment and/or the Ninth Amendment acknowledge an unconditional right to keep and bear arms? The answer is both yes and no.
The controversy of the Second Amendment exists because, erroneously, some have insisted that the right to keep and bear arms is a state (as in Ohio, Texas, Florida) right and not an individual right. However, it is clear that the first clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means a free America.
The word "state" means nation/country, such as "the state of Israel" or "the Arab states" or "Secretary of State." In other words, the nation can best form a well-regulated militia (army/navy) if its militia (originally, men between the ages of 18 and 45) are free to keep and bear arms.
In addition, upon examining the Ninth Amendment (the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people), it is obvious the framers intended to recognize certain natural rights such as the right to life.
Of course, if one has this right but is denied the means (use of arms) to defend and protect this life, then this right has been disparaged.
At the time of the Constitution's inception the framers, all "men" in a "man's world," clearly gave little thought to anyone other than the man as the defender of family, property or country.
Whereas in 18th Century England, only the aristocratic (the ruling class) were empowered to defend honor and country. This concept of all men being full "citizens" and having the right and obligation to serve and protect was unique to America.
A citizen, circa 1785, was considered to be any white American male over the age of 21 and not a felon. The idea of civilian gun controls was unconscionable. It was also inconceivable that a Thomas Jefferson or a James Madison would refuse to take a musket away from a drunk, a child or someone conspicuously deranged. Had one been able to ask these learned, most-sacred document-framers of the conflict of such a restrictive action, they most likely would have replied with words to the effect that the drunk or mental incompetent were, at least, temporarily not citizens. A child was, of course, not a man and a felon had forsaken his citizenship.
With the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 19th Amendments, all of-age Americans were recognized as full, ruling-class citizens. Arms possession was, and still is, the signature of being a citizen -- not a subject to some monarchy and most assuredly not mentally inept, a child, a felon or a substance abuser.
So, yes, and until such time as the Constitution is amended, keeping and bearing arms is an intrinsic and absolute right for all citizens.
While on the other hand, noncitizens do not have an absolute right to a firearm - however temporary that condition might be. The American ruling class (also known as voters), if it so desires, can change the definition of citizen or establish any restrictions it wants on guns -- but only by amending the Constitution."
Chuck Klein is a plaintiff in a lawsuit to overturn Ohio's law against carrying concealed weapons. He is a private investigator and author of eight books. He describes himself as a staunch supporter of Constitutional correctness as opposed to political correctness.
There are more holes in this "analysis' than a hunk of swiss cheese.
Like, for example, if you capitalize Militia (as above), it might be nice to remember that the founders made certain to capitalize "People" in the same context.
I would personally think that People are at least as important, if not moreso, than an unidentified militia to be formed at a future date in American history.
And I am perfectly willing to go to war with those anxious to change the clear meaning of the Second...no metter WHERE a comma or capitialization is.
I tend to emphasize the word 'Militia' to help people understand that THEY are the 'Militia of America'..or they are a government official or are not an American...plain and simple.
"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."
The reference to `state' in the above statement...is this a clear warning to STATES to not meddle in the Second Amendment, also ?
Generally recognized by sane people as a bar to federal government control of weapons, the reference to `state' above surely cannot apply to that government, also...for the Bill of Rights was mainly directed towards limiting federal government.
Am I missing a point..that the Founders referred to the Union as a 'state' ?
The Bill Of Rights is reference to 'individual' rights. It applies to ALL levels of government. If a city, county, or state 'violates' your 'individual rights' the Federal Dept. of Justice SHOULD intervene in your behalf. And they do, UNLESS this violation is a violation of your RTKABA's!!!![:(!]
This is what really pisses me off about this entire situation!! [:(!]
I really wish you people would stop taking quotes of the 2nd Amendment out of context. It must be considered in it entirety.[V]
It is equal to the sum of ALL it's parts!
It is equal to the sum of ALL it's parts!
And YOU...supporter of gun laws..think to lecture ME about the meaning of the Second ?
Fancy that.[xx(]
quote:I really wish you people would stop taking quotes of the 2nd Amendment out of context. It must be considered in it entirety.
It is equal to the sum of ALL it's parts!
And YOU...supporter of gun laws..think to lecture ME about the meaning of the Second ?
Fancy that.[xx(]
You have a lot to learn. Even if you refuse to admit it.
As they say "ignorance is bliss"![;)]
And I do not apologize for not believing in lawlessness, as you do!
And I do not apologize for not believing in lawlessness, as you do!
Unbelievable.
Honest citizens maintain their God given rights provided by our Constitution.
The "lawless" as you put it, are jailed or put to death.
Where is the problem,.....other than how things are run now?
Where is the problem,.....other than how things are run now?
The problem, Mark, is that he's a JBT and a liar. I am appalled that nobody sees it.