Comprehending the 2nd Amendment

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: elysiumfire

The 2nd doesn't grant anything. It merely enumerates a pre-exisiting right ( the right to defense of life and self ). The 2nd acts as a negative authority on the federal government and says "You can't infringe upon this right."

You can infringe on any rights you want.

If you read the constitution from the beginning, you'll see the main objective consists of "6" goals, laid out in the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Let's break out these "6" goals to see what is really being said;

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect

Union, establish Justice,

insure domestic

Tranquility, provide for the common defence,

promote the general

Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty

to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish

this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now we list these "6" goals in the exact order that they appear in the text;

1..Union

2..Justice

3..Tranquility

4..defence

5..Welfare

6..Liberty

These "6" goals form a hierarchy, with the most important goal being mentioned first, and the least important goal mentioned last.

These 6 goals come from a set of "natural law" principles, that sets up the order, which we won't go into here, becuase the discussion would take too long to get to the points.

But, basically, in order to keep to the constitution, the government just has to follow the principles in exact order they appear there.

So, for example, the government can take away your "LIBERTY", if they determine that is necessary for the people's "WELFARE". That's how the government can arrest you and put you in jail, if they think you're a threat to the community.

The government can then sacrifice your "WELFARE", if they think that is necessary for the "DEFENCE" of the nation. That's how the government can send it's citizens to their deaths fighting wars, even though the battlefield is bad for their health and contravenes their right to welfare as promised in the Constitution.

The government will sacrifice the "DEFENCE", if they think it's necessary to keep "TRANQUILITY", since the domestic peace is paramount, and more important than fighting wars. Thats why people can protest in the streets when there are wars, and riot and create civil disturbance at home, to stop the government from practicing warfare with other nations. It's the people's right to decide whether the government will engage any foreign powers.

The government will sacrifice "TRANQUILITY", for the sake of "JUSTICE", so that even if the people rise up and protest the conviction of some popular figure, that justice will still be done.

The government will sacrifice "JUSTICE", for the sake of the "UNION", so that, if necessary, even innocent people will be arrested and imprisoned, if they determine that this is necessary to keep the states united, and to prevent the nation from splitting up into fragments like the former Soviet Union did. This is what gives the NSA the right to spy on every single innocent American citizen, to collect the necessary data to enable the government to anticipate and prevent any threats to the Union of these United States.

So, what we have here is "a ladder" of goals and objectives, laid out in the preamble of the constitution, that determines the "order in which your rights can be violated."

Although the constitution grants various rights to the people, it is obvious that these rights cannot always be "simultaneously" enjoyed, and the preamble sets out the exact order the "violations" are to take effect, when there's a paradox due to the presence of conflicting objectives.

So, to get back to the topic at hand: if the government determines that "the right to bear arms" conflicts with the peoples "WELFARE", they can remove those arms from the people, unless the nation itself is at war, when the "DEFENCE" of the nation takes precedence.

So, there you have it.

Unless the nation is at war, or being invaded by a foreign power, the government can remove all your personal weapons.

For the peoples "WELFARE".

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: elysiumfire



When the 2nd amendment was written, gunfire was at around 3 rounds per MINUTE. Not second. Interesting fact. It was created in 1791, for God sake. Times have changed.

So because the 1st Amendment doesn't mention the internet, we can't apply free speech on-line.

The concept of ‘keeping arms’ is to store them, whereas the concept to bear arms is to carry them, not on an individual basis, but on a group basis…as a militia. The use of the word ‘people’ rather than the word ‘persons’, maintains the non-individuated plurality throughout the whole statement. Why is the statement pluralised?

a reply to: elysiumfire

It should be understood that a 'militia' is a group of armed private civilian citizens, in uniform, and declared, specifically the private citizen. Not a soldier, nor a military regiment. Before the Declaration, the 'Red Coats' were the Army of our nation, which, at that time was a colony of England. The militia was differentiated because it was a group of private citizens within in the realm. It must be uniformed so as to not be a spy, or a mob.

Make no mistake... The men that chose syntax and sentence, in the Declaration of Independence, to state "..it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.". The private citizen, Declared.

When the 2nd amendment was written, gunfire was at around 3 rounds per MINUTE.

Not true.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: elysiumfire



When the 2nd amendment was written, gunfire was at around 3 rounds per MINUTE. Not second. Interesting fact. It was created in 1791, for God sake. Times have changed.

But the underlying purpose has not. You can't reasonably defend your home and property with a musket.

That argument is ignoring what the 2nd amendment was intended to insure.

a reply to: elysiumfire

We British must take some responsibility for this ludicrous 2nd Amendment.

After all, it was basically taken from The English Bill Of Rights, which allowed citizens to own and keep firearms.

Those British who went to colonises America had the right to keep firearms and took them with them.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: elysiumfire

We British must take some responsibility for this ludicrous 2nd Amendment.

After all, it was basically taken from The English Bill Of Rights, which allowed citizens to own and keep firearms.

Those British who went to colonises America had the right to keep firearms and took them with them.

But right in the beginning of the U.S. Constitution it makes it clear that it's

not "individual defense" but "common defence"

that gives people their rights to these arms.

That is, these arms are for the defense of the states, and the defense of the union, not personal defense.

a reply to: elysiumfire
Just because you cowered and laid down and allowed your country to take your guns which left you defenseless, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea for us here in the USA. Love it when some of you Brits think you know what's best for me and my country.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Even if I agreed, which I don't, I don't see how you could have one, without the other. The whole point was not to have the Federal government in total control of the countries, and therefore the citizens arms.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: elysiumfire

We British must take some responsibility for this ludicrous 2nd Amendment.

After all, it was basically taken from The English Bill Of Rights, which allowed citizens to own and keep firearms.

Those British who went to colonises America had the right to keep firearms and took them with them.

But right in the beginning of the U.S. Constitution it makes it clear that it's

not "individual defense" but "common defence"

that gives people their rights to these arms.

That is, these arms are for the defense of the states, and the defense of the union, not personal defense.

Let me give some background on the English Bill Of Rights and the right to bear arms.

Only Protestants where allowed to bear and keep arms. This was a direct result of The English Civil War, when King Charles I raised a Catholic Army. This paragraph will explain it better.

The Bill of Rights 1689 allowed Protestant citizens of England to "have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law" and restricted the ability of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants' right to bear arms "when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law" and established that Parliament, not the Crown, could regulate the right to bear arms

en.wikipedia.org...

In brief, the right for Protestants to bear arms was not to protect the individual from each other, but from The Crown and any possibility of another Catholic Army being raised by The Crown.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States...the colonists got sick of British rule it took guns to win and make the constitution we have today.

History has shown us time and time again that when the population is disarmed that the Government presiding over them takes complete control and tyranny reigns free.

a reply to: SatansPride

I understand that and am pro 2nd i was just simply suggesting the reason(s) those that rely on that interpretation for debate would never want to see it's reality.

I would never agree to take away the rights of law abiding citizens for those who are not. The government's modern purpose is to make us as reliant on them as possible so it plays right in there hand. Peace and civility can't exist in a forced structure.

a reply to: smurfy

It always was the individual right of the people. Look at the two clauses separately.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

A dependent clause cannot stand alone as a sentence. An independent clause can. Look at the two clauses and tell me which one makes more sense by itself.

It's clear that a well regulated Militia is dependent upon the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: elysiumfire



When the 2nd amendment was written, gunfire was at around 3 rounds per MINUTE. Not second. Interesting fact. It was created in 1791, for God sake. Times have changed.

Can you point out where rounds per minute is discussed in the Constitution, or have you just assumed that the constitution was written with no thought about which arms could ever be kept and used?

What would be the point of the people being armed if they had to carry around guns from the 1700's? That would offer them no protection at all from a tyrannical govt armed to the teeth.

a reply to: AMPTAH

But, We the People appears before all of that, to remind the goverment of who is in charge. Power comes from the people and is lent to the government. All the restrictions are on the government.

Can you cite any court cases or jurisprudence where your "6 goals" in their particular order have been used to decide anything?

I suggest to read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights as well. It tends to shed a little more light on the thoughts of the Founding Fathers regarding the Bill of Rights itself.

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

"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: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

Bold emphasis mine.

A declaratory clause doesn't grant anything. It is telling you that a right exists. It is just listing it.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
The United States 2nd Amendment to the Constitution states…”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.” This is the Thomas Jefferson authenticated ratified version by all the states at that time.

How is the statement to be read and understood, and more importantly, does it refer to an individual right to own a gun for one’s own self-defence?

Let’s be clear here, we are dealing with a ratified clause enshrined in the Constitution. It is irrelevant what commentaries followed, or what interpretation came by voices seeking to usurp the amendment’s intended meaning by which it should be understood.

Clearly, one’s first comprehension of the whole statement can only be understood to disclude the individual right to own a gun for one’s own self-defence, one’s own self-defence is neither discussed nor enshrined in the Constitution. The statement is one of plurality, not of individuality.

The statement is about the security and defence of the state, by persons living in the state, contributing and participating the arms they keep in their home to the state’s defence against a threat to the state as part of a well-regulated militia. The right of the people (this is plural, not singular) to ‘keep’ arms in their home is entirely for the state’s defence against another state or states. One such clear example of this was the American Civil War, where Southern states fought against Northern states…and lost.

The irony is that in the modern world, the 2nd amendment needs to be amended in order to ratify a right for the arms people are allowed to keep in their home to bear them for their own individual self-defence, because no such right exists in the Constitution.

The concept of ‘keeping arms’ is to store them, whereas the concept to bear arms is to carry them, not on an individual basis, but on a group basis…as a militia. The use of the word ‘people’ rather than the word ‘persons’, maintains the non-individuated plurality throughout the whole statement. Why is the statement pluralised?

Simply because the threat to the state does not only come from another state or group of states, it also comes from within the state. For the defence of a state’s social and communal stability, it was necessary to curtail the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms, so that disgruntled communities living within the state cannot lawfully attack the state. It is a lawful expectation of the people living in the state to duty-bind the state to defend them, which is why police forces and the home guard were created.

Individuals do have a right to defend themselves, in so much and in proportion to the threat upon them in circumstances where neither the police nor the Home Guard are able to be summoned to their defence. However, this aspect of individual self-defence has been skewed all out of proportion, and now requires a strong legislative grip to be brought to bear on the issue.

Perhaps, it would good to be reminded that random and instantaneous vigilantism is not good for the community. The reason being is that innocents can suffer under it, non-involved people can become involved by getting caught in the crossfire and/or gun fire exchange, potentially increasing the likelihood of deaths and casualties. This in itself nullifies the twisted logic of ‘carry and conceal’. It also places the police and Home Guard in very peculiar and threatening positions. They will have no idea who is concealing and carrying, nor if they are a good guy or a bad guy.

As things stand, the Constitution is not a haven for an individual’s right to bear arms for their own self-interest and self-preservation.

You forgot to include something in your interpretation here... you need to convince us that the fact the Preamble started with

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Your interpretation needs a shift of power and meaning, AWAY from what was articulated in the very first part of document... the The United States of America IS THE PEOPLE. "We" are not subservient to government. Government is subservient to us. Just because DC is infested with whores and charlatans, who think they have power over us... doesn't give them that power.

Our Declaration of Independence is also very clear on this point. Government is a tool for the people and answers to THEM. It is to be discarded if it becomes tyrannical or fails to serve the people, and replaced with one that will.

On that point, "the framers" were very clear... arms in the hands of the people, were to insure they could subjugate a government that failed to "go peacefully" when the people seek to discard it.

Nice try though

a reply to: kurthall

The internet wasn't conceived of either, does that mean free speech doesn't apply to it??

a reply to: dasman888

Very well stated.

I think a lot of ppl take their liberty for granted. They fail to grasp the genius of the drafters of our Constitution. They think it is outdated, and should be used only as a reference document, or worse, a punchline. They think being a proud American is a bad thing. A racist thing.

It saddens me.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: elysiumfire


Weaponry for personal protection was considered to go without saying.. the states regulated individuals. The Fed regulates the states.

I'm cherry picking here but this statement is wrong in that the original constitution delegated very few responsibilities to the federal government. As originally written the states wheeled collective power over the federal government before the 16th and 17th amendments were inserted. These 2 amendments neutered the states authority over the federal government and the fed has continually usurped states authorities and has now become omnipotent. This association that now exists was never intended by the original founders. I was conceived and contrived by the moneyed power brokers in 1913. In essence, these 2 amendments usurped the original constitution.

If George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Tom Jefferson, or Ben Franklin came back from the dead, and said " Yes the public of the United States has the right to bear Arms, and to store them in their homes to keep them safe" , you would swear at him, curse him and call him a G. Damn liar!

Some of you people are funny. Especially when you throw tantrums like you did as a lad.

Americans do not bow to anyone, unlike the English bowing to a German queen. Whats up with that bloodline, and that worship nonsense anyway?

Governments get out of hand. Americans need to be armed so this government doesn't get out of hand. If it did , none of you would be safe anywhere. You owes a word of gratitude to American gun owners, weather you are a subject, slave, or free man