The 2nd Amendment 'Was For When the British Were Coming'

originally posted by: monkeyluv
The Second is meant to justify the formation of regulated militias. It's not meant to defend the right to bear arms because that right is natural.

From the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8 regarding the powers delegated to Congress:

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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Congress already had the authority to form 'regulated militias' before the 2nd Amendment was ratified. If the 2nd Amendment pertains only to organized militias, then the 2nd Amendment would appear to be redundant.

I do agree with you that it is a 'natural right'. The 2nd Amendment is there as a protection of that natural right. The first half of it states the purpose, the reason the founders felt the need to protect that right of the individual citizens.

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: monkeyluv
The Second is meant to justify the formation of regulated militias. It's not meant to defend the right to bear arms because that right is natural.

From the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8 regarding the powers delegated to Congress:

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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Congress already had the authority to form 'regulated militias' before the 2nd Amendment was ratified. If the 2nd Amendment pertains only to organized militias, then the 2nd Amendment would appear to be redundant.

I do agree with you that it is a 'natural right'. The 2nd Amendment is there as a protection of that natural right. The first half of it states the purpose, the reason the founders felt the need to protect that right of the individual citizens.

The fact is that the Second refers to well-regulated militias in the first phrase. If it were only about protecting a natural right, then why is there a first phrase? Here's the reason:

Art 1 Sec. 8 refers to the formation of well-regulated militias but it doesn't explain the justification for doing so.

The Second justifies the formation of well-regulated militias. How? It uses the natural right to bear arms to defend oneself, loved ones, and property, to justify the need to bear arms to defend others, including strangers and properties that one does not own. In short, the natural right to bear arms was used to justify the enforcement of defending the country. Why was this needed? Because the Continental Army was small, militias were already present (including those used for slave patrols), and the country faced several threats: European invaders, Native Americans, slaves, and white rebels.

That's why what followed the Second were Militia Acts which enforced national service. From what I remember, the first three required all white male adults of a certain age range (and with few exceptions) to obtain firearms, etc., and receive training in militias to be regulated by the government. Militias were later used in events involving the Whiskey Rebellion and others.

One more point to consider: rights shall not be infringed, but they may be abridged. Thus, the right to bear arms is a natural one, but the government may regulate it following laws involving gun control or even a gun ban.

In addition, government may even use particular natural rights to enforce legal requirements. That was the case involving Art. 1 Sec. 8 (which calls for the formation of regulated militias), the Second (which justifies the formation of these militias by connecting them to the right to bear arms), and the Militia Acts (which implements what is given in the first and justified by the second).

Thus, both may take place. For example, the government may require registration of all firearms, and then require national service for particular groups of citizens.

a reply to: crazyewok

Yeah but KILL us all YOU would have to use a VIRIS.....oh damn.

I personally have them because I feel like it.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: chuck258
a reply to: crazyewok

Alright, I'll give you that one, that's pretty funny. And I'm a die hard American Patriot.

If you let the UK and Canadians burn down DC again it might sort some problems out for you guys

If I knew the extent of the damage would be relegated to
that eleven square mile tumor and seat of corrupt power,
I'd quit bein' a bad poet and maybe turn back into a smith.

Back to this corncrib: i have a serious halberd to stone off
with the sheriff around here, because he doesn't believe
any commoner body in my county is in sufficient danger
to need a CCP. Of course I haven't sufficiently vexed him
yet to be there. He IS a curmudgeon too...

a reply to: crazyewok

Right now having you Canucks burn down the white house sounds pretty good. Perhaps this time take out congress too and we can start over.

a reply to: VforVendettea

why should external forces waste our time and ammo?, you've got 88% of the population armed roughly so surely just turn up and kick em out with perhaps the return of the yard arm from naval history for the more corrupt ones and job done and with an annual get together where they get to see you all armed up and not happy to have yard arms not being swung from will keep them a lot straighter

a reply to: monkeyluv

I think we're arguing much the same point here. From the government's standpoint, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was indeed to ensure that the militias, the last line of defense, could be formed and would be armed in the case of emergency. They did this by protecting a right of the individual citizens to private arms ownership.

As for the question of abridgment or infringement, I think they're largely the same thing. However, the courts have indeed upheld that government has some limited authority to regulate private firearms ownership. Where that line is drawn is a bit in question, though.

the natural inborn right to self defense is a genetic predisposition.

the same with speech.

before several of the states would ratify the constitution they
demanded that the bill of rights be included as a
RESTRICTION placed on the power of the federal government.

the bill of rights is just a list of inalienable Creator imparted, God given rights.

abridgement is identical to infringement.

a reply to: signalfire

Washington DC are the foreigner occupation. We will never give up our guns.