Original Intent of Second Amendment

M

MountainGun44

New member
What are they trying to argue here? That the right to bear firearms by STATE GOVERNMENTS is important? Give me a break. Since when does the STATE GOVERNMENT (as opposed to the people) have to fear a tyrannical federal government. Government is government. Period. Do they really believe that the writers of the constitution would look at the power and reach of today's California government and would consider IT and not the people as the entity needing the ultimate protection of the 2nd amendment?

"California Firearms Division attorney Rieger commented on the path to
the Department of Justice's legal interpretations, "Since 1937 (sic),
the Second Amendment, as you all know, in the United States Supreme
Court case Miller, it's been interpreted to say, let's be fair, that
the right to keep and bear arms, is not personal, but instead lies
with the militias of the states."

"A United States Attorney at the
Emerson appellate court hearing in Louisiana, stated the official
position of the United States Government is that the Second Amendment
of the United States Constitution only applies to militias, and not to
the people of the United States as individuals. "

So the official position of our government is that at any time they may make it illegal for private citizens to own firearms.
 
Get use to that position; however, the US atty in Emerson didn't leave it as general as 'militia', he mentioned the National Guard - AND even that memberships doesn't mean you can own firearms - it is US position that only the National Guard can own firearms. IOW, they are ignoring completely the independent clause of the 2nd Amendment. They are not even trying to combine the clauses.

A section, 105, in the regs that govern the NG state Guard members can't take weapons home. Sound like an 'infringement to me'.

Miller ruling is no friend of gun owners, but isn't that bad if taken for what it was. (to long for me to regurgetate what has been explained to me about it)

madison46

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MountainGun44:
What are they trying to argue here? That the right to bear firearms by STATE GOVERNMENTS is important? Give me a break. Since when does the STATE GOVERNMENT (as opposed to the people) have to fear a tyrannical federal government. Government is government. Period. Do they really believe that the writers of the constitution would look at the power and reach of today's California government and would consider IT and not the people as the entity needing the ultimate protection of the 2nd amendment?

"California Firearms Division attorney Rieger commented on the path to
the Department of Justice's legal interpretations, "Since 1937 (sic),
the Second Amendment, as you all know, in the United States Supreme
Court case Miller, it's been interpreted to say, let's be fair, that
the right to keep and bear arms, is not personal, but instead lies
with the militias of the states."

"A United States Attorney at the
Emerson appellate court hearing in Louisiana, stated the official
position of the United States Government is that the Second Amendment
of the United States Constitution only applies to militias, and not to
the people of the United States as individuals. "

So the official position of our government is that at any time they may make it illegal for private citizens to own firearms.[/quote]
 
How is it that they stuck a collective right
in the middle of 10 individual rights?.
It wouldn't be logical to do this, their objective was to protect the individual citizen.

No doubt in my mind, it is and always will be an individual right.

If you believe it as being anything else, then you have already given into the
philosophy of a lie being told so many times it becomes the truth.

Waterdog
 
Well, if the president can question the definition of "is", what's going to stop anyone from redifining the Second Amendment when they don't like what it really says.

There are a few problems with the idea the Second ammendment is a "right of the militia". It says the right of the people, not the right of the militia, it also says a well regulated militia, not a well regulated people. But that doesn't matter, they will redefine it anyway. They keep insisting the militia is the National Guard. However, the militia is ultimately controlled by the federal government, not the states and no one ever talks about the UNORGANIZED MILITIA which consists of all able bodied citizens 17 to 45 years old who are not part of the organized militia. This isn't some made up right wing theory, it is in U.S. Code Title 10 section 311. Anyone who doesn't believe this can look it up. It is important to not that this section doesn't define the Second Ammendment (shouldn't be to hard to define it literary skills and cognitive activity is present) it simply defines what the militia is.

No one ever mentions the State Constitutions concerning the RKBA's. Many are even clearer and the word "militia" isn't even mentioned. Some of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States are those of some states and cities (e.g. New York, D.C. CA, etc.). Most states have addition gun laws making most states more restrictive than the federal government in some ways. Most states have special laws for handgun purchase or ownership. They own laws are blatent violations of their own constitutions. I don't hear much about it though.
What are they trying to argue here? That the right to bear firearms by STATE GOVERNMENTS is important? Give me a break. Since when does the STATE GOVERNMENT (as opposed to the people) have to fear a tyrannical federal government. Government is government. Period. Do they really believe that the writers of the constitution would look at the power and reach of today's California government and would consider IT and not the people as the entity needing the ultimate protection of the 2nd amendment?

"California Firearms Division attorney Rieger commented on the path to
the Department of Justice's legal interpretations, "Since 1937 (sic),
the Second Amendment, as you all know, in the United States Supreme
Court case Miller, it's been interpreted to say, let's be fair, that
the right to keep and bear arms, is not personal, but instead lies
with the militias of the states."

"A United States Attorney at the
Emerson appellate court hearing in Louisiana, stated the official
position of the United States Government is that the Second Amendment
of the United States Constitution only applies to militias, and not to
the people of the United States as individuals. "

So the official position of our government is that at any time they may make it illegal for private citizens to own firearms.[/QUOTE]
 
It is interesting how lies and propaganda work... Here we can see that they have people arguing about something that needs no explanation. We need to turn this back on them and just plan tell them the honest truth... That they are liers. We need to start insisting that these judges are impeached for violation of thier oaths of office. We need to start insisting that those prosocutors who espouse this garbage are fired. There is no doubt my friends that they are lying and they know it. Unitl we uphold the truth, no one will.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to restrain the federal government, which many feared had been made too powerful in the new constitution. The old Articles of Confederation had created a very weak government, and the new constitution was designed to make the central government stronger. Maybe it went too far.

The idea that a power would be given to the states in the middle of all those restraints on the federal government is a mark of an agenda, not of someone trying to understand the constitution.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Waterdog:
How is it that they stuck a collective right
in the middle of 10 individual rights?.
It wouldn't be logical to do this, their objective was to protect the individual citizen.

Waterdog[/quote]

Great point. Another thing that is not debated enough is the meaning of "Well Regulated" The leftists insist that it means controlled by the government, while patriots know it means what the Founding Fathers intended it to communicate.

According to The American Heritage Dictionary:

Regulate = To adjust for accurate and proper functioning.

Translation...It refers to efficiency and effectiveness. The concept was that citizens drill once or twice a year to maintain fighting readiness.

And here's a quote from Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into
execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course
of a year."

As you can see, he equated regulation with assembly, training, and discipline. Not government control.


------------------
NRA/GOA/SAF/USMC

Oregon residents please support the Oregon Firearms Federation, our only "No compromise" gun lobby. http://www.oregonfirearms.org

[This message has been edited by Longshot (edited July 16, 2000).]
 
I'm personally glad they are taking that position. It's so ridiculous and unprovable that they will eventually lose. I'm only afraid that the Supreme Court will be too cowardly to roll back gun control that they will come up with a compromise that still guts our rights.
 
Personally, I think we need to retake the concept of the militia. It isn't the National Guard or a bunch of guys running around in camo, playing wargames.

IMHO, the militia consists of any American citizen who, in time of need, acts without thought of personal gain to help his fellow Americans. It can be a guy who helps cut up a downed tree after a storm, someone who stops in the middle of the night to help a stranded motorist or a person who uses his gun to stop a mugging. The vast majority of American citizens are willing to help when needed and will come to the aid of their neighbors or their nation should the need arise.

Removing our ability to defend ourselves is just another step on the road to destroying the American spirit and turning Americans from Citizens into Subjects.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>IMHO, the militia consists of any American citizen who, in time of need, acts without thought of personal gain to help his fellow Americans. It can be a guy who helps cut up a downed tree after a storm, someone who stops in the middle of the night to help a stranded motorist or a person who uses his gun to stop a mugging. The vast majority of American citizens are willing to help when needed and will come to the aid of their neighbors or their nation should the need arise.[/quote]

So the militia is really the "thousand points of light"? I like it! :D

pax

"Never do anything you wouldn't be caught dead doing." -- Nelson Rockefeller
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top