I read the entire Constitution and Articles of Confederation. Some observations.

reply to post by ZeroReady


That's an opinion of the court in that particular case not a ruling.

Look up the definition of militia according to the founders and the definition at the time.

They meant CIVILIANS.

Originally posted by bjax9er
Now go read the federalist papers.

Now go read the federalist papers.

It's sounds even better the second time!

I can see this going for more than a few pages. Just want to get this in here and recommend it to everyone who reads the Federalist Papers: Don't neglect to read the Anti-Federalist Papers while you're at it.

The ANTI-Federalist Papers

The best known anti-federalist was Thomas Jefferson. These opponents of the new Constitution had many objections. Mainly they felt that the Constitution gave too many rights to the National government. Many of them were appeased with the Bill of Rights.

When those who sought ratification of the Constitution co-opted the name "Federalist," they forced onto their opponents the label "Anti-federalist." This made the Anti-federalists appear purely negative when they in fact stood for affirmative visions of government that were simply different from the framework advocated by the Constitution's defenders. Perhaps most misleading of all, the designation "Anti-federalist" applied to a group that generally supported a less centralized "federal" government in which the states would retain more power, while the term "Federalist" fell to those who advocated the more centralized national government that they believed the Constitution would guarantee. The Anti-federalists, like many of history's losers, have been misunderstood and underappreciated.

Much to be learned there....

Here you go all you constitutional scholars.

"A free people ought to be armed." - George Washington

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

www.buckeyefirearms.org...


Understand?

This one bears repeating.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson


"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson

Etc.

reply to post by lampsalot


Many of the free and sovereign states would not have ratified The Federal Constitution without The Bill of Rights having been added. So your "idea" of what the founders were thinking is of the mark.

The fact that many of the states have state constitutional amendments declaring the peoples/citizens right to bear/carry arms tells you what the people wanted in a government. The Federalist Papers also is a good insight to the founders mindset.

Did you happen to read the part in the constitution that "......Congress shall have exclusive legislation not exceeding ten miles square." Also the parts that were enumerated for the federal government to control, ie. forts, magazines,.... etc.

The constitution was a restraining order on the federal government. The Government did not give us rights, they are every freemans from birth. There are other right not mentioned that we retain also, Hint: ".. not enumerated..."
If you indeed red the whole thing you'd know what I am referring to. Think as a wolf and not a sheep and you may get more out of it.

General welfare:

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business.

Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.”

If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”

www.lawandliberty.org...



Unfortunately the founders wrote the constitution assuming people would use common sense, they didnt for see that the population would devolve instead of evolving.

Originally posted by ZeroReady
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment referring to a well-regulated militia.

Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm

- Sixth Court of Appeals ruled in 1971 (Stevens v. United States).

I think the National Guard is a pretty well regulated militia. But because our violent revolution was so recent, relatively, people here still cling to guns as a subconscious safety blanket. Personally I wish there were no more guns. Sick of them already.

get onto Obama then, he has well armed bodyguards and is in charge of the most fiendish weaponry known to man!

reply to post by Ex_CT2


That's why I pointed out that the founders were trying to restrict the government, not give it the power to grant rights.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Ex_CT2

 

That's why I pointed out that the founders were trying to restrict the government, not give it the power to grant rights.

Indeed. No rights were ever granted to us by dint of the Declaration of Independence, nor the Confederation, nor by the Constitution, nor by the Bill or Rights. The founders were merely saying that we HAVE these rights, and we TAKE these rights, and no one has any right to infringe upon them.

I'm merely pointing out that the Federalist Papers were written by those who preferred a stronger central federal government, and that the Anti-Federalist Papers were written by those who preferred stronger States' Rights. All of them should be read, as a set, by anyone wishing to gain greater context and understanding....

Originally posted by lampsalot
*The first sentence of the Constitution makes a framework for socialism. Quote: "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to Posterity..."

They were referencing the general welfare of the Union not program called "Welfare" or even the welfare of the individuals within the Union... Social welfare as a governmental concept was unheard of at the time and purely a private and/or religious enterprise.

Originally posted by lampsalot
I would disagree because the Constitution's purpose is to define the responsibilities of the government.

Indeed - if what you are saying about "the general welfare" clause were correct then there would have been specified in the document an enumerated power to levy taxes for the purpose of administering this safety net among the 18 (would have been 19 then) things the Federal Government was given the authority to do. I look at those 18 things all the time there is no mention of the provision to take money from one citizen and to give it to another to make sure they are comfortable, fed, clothed or given health care. It is simply not there.

They were very specific in those 18 enumerated duties and powers –

I do not think they meant to include the "for the general welfare" clause as it has been abused in the past and present to basically allow the government to do anything they want as long as they think it is good for the nation.

Nor did they mean it in terms of "welfare" in its modern social safety net usage as the term was not used in that manner at the time. Welfare as a social safety net is a fairly modern usage – I think from the time of the New Deal. (I could be wrong on the time period.)

Originally posted by ZeroReady
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment referring to a well-regulated militia.

Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm

- Sixth Court of Appeals ruled in 1971 (Stevens v. United States).

I think the National Guard is a pretty well regulated militia. But because our violent revolution was so recent, relatively, people here still cling to guns as a subconscious safety blanket. Personally I wish there were no more guns. Sick of them already.

District of Columbia v. Heller

The people "Are" the Militia, you don't have to join a Militia or be in the National Guard to be in a Militia. Its not about clinging to guns like you say it is, or for hunting purposes its to defend and/or fight back against a Tyrannical Government.

Originally posted by newcovenant
If you'll read the Constitution and not the pamphlets the NRA is handing you, you'll see that he is right and perhaps not be so fast to support gun runners.

The only gunrunners I know of work for the US government. Think of the shrewd team of government operators, E Holder + BHO, who personally oversaw the illegal gun-scam known as "Fast+Furious," who probably learned their lessons from another well know gunrunner, Oliver North, of Iran Contra fame - a crafty government operator indeed, who is still in operation by the wa, as a gunrunning front man for the CIA.

Having read the constitution several times and the different supreme court cases it can be boiled down to the following.

The Op states that we should not have firearms for all, using the constitution to justify the statement, to use the second admendment as proof and reference to such, that the purpose of for such is to have a well regulated militia, nor should the citizens be able to have any firearm that they want.

The problem with the argument in itself is that at the time of the writing of this constitution, the US did not have a standing army, as it does now, rather it was up to the individual states to provide the man power for such. And that the citizens of the new country ultimately hunted and that they should be able to at a moments notice show up with firearm in hand and be prepared to fight as directed.

Back in those days the country was divided on if it should have a military or not, some said yes we should have a standing army and navy and others thought that we did not need such.

The main problem with the entire argument is the argument itself, that if the main purpose of the militia is to defend the country, but said militia would be coming from the very citizens that it was to protect. With that in mind, if you were to take away or deny firearms from the citizens, nor allow them access or the ability to make that decision it starts down the road to tyranny, the very thing that the framers and founders did not want to see.

There has to be a happy medium to which there can be met to allow for people to have firearms while at the same time keep the people safe. Banning something does not work, nor would it, as every attempt to legislate human behavior by saying no you can not do something has met with failure. 2 times in history this has come to mind and the first is in the consitution, that being prohibition. And that was a diseaster in itself, leading to more crime and problems. The other, which was not so widely known, is the New York law that banned women from smoking, funny how that got over turned in the process as well. Even the so called war on drugs is turning out to be a logestics nightmare, and is all but lost.

Funny how when it is something that the federal government says its banned, the more people balk at the very idea and ultimately do everything they can to do such in the first place.

If you limit what a person can do, and they are bound and determined to do it, there is nothing a person can do to stop them, especially when it comes to firearms, until after the fact. Further more, if the reason for a well regulated militia would indicated that people should have firearms, would you not want them to have access to and know how to use the very weapons that they other side is going to use?

Originally posted by ZeroReady
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment referring to a well-regulated militia.

Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm

- Sixth Court of Appeals ruled in 1971 (Stevens v. United States).

I think the National Guard is a pretty well regulated militia. But because our violent revolution was so recent, relatively, people here still cling to guns as a subconscious safety blanket. Personally I wish there were no more guns. Sick of them already.

It does say "state" and "people". Now if one were to go behind the constitution and read the federalist papers they would see what this is all about. State means state and people means people. Considering the the rights in that section are personal rights and citizen rights....to speech, assembly ect ect....then it only follows, besides other proofs, that the second amendment is a personal right to keep and detached from any power of the state to regulate. The only condition on assembly was that it be peaceful. On arms the right was not to be infringed but the assembly of armed men could be regulated or held to answer.

In fact in one section, pointing to Europe, Madison narrows the example down to cities and regions i.e. had they been armed they may have been able to discourage the occasional rise of strong men there. He goes on to point out how the citizens of Europe had been disarmed over the years.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note key words here.

Shall make no law
or prohibit free exercise
or abridge free speech

Cant prohibit, cant abridge.....and in the case of the 2nd...cant infringe.

In the case of the 2nd amendment the term "well regulated" is not a confrintation to the peoples right to keep and bear but is placed there to discourge mobs. That seems to be the only part of the 2nd that can be regulated.....the formation of the assembled military unit or the behavior of ad hoc local milita groups. But the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia.....

Here we see the depth of responsibility put on the bearer of arms....that his or her actions durring a time of bearing arms in a state of war or "public danger" can be delt with buy military courts and held without indictment by a grand jury. But we also see here that Milita service is seperated from regular land and naval forces in type and yet its disposition can be brought into account by military leaders officaly appointed by the state ect.

Yours

reply to post by Logarock


Logarock.........Excellent post - thank you - you are restoring my faith in ATS as a place of teaching and learning...........which is as is ought to be, but alas ofttimes is not.

Originally posted by Golf66


Indeed - if what you are saying about "the general welfare" clause were correct then there would have been specified in the document an enumerated power to levy taxes for the purpose of administering this safety net among the 18 (would have been 19 then) things the Federal Government was given the authority to do. I look at those 18 things all the time there is no mention of the provision to take money from one citizen and to give it to another to make sure they are comfortable, fed, clothed or given health care. It is simply not there.

They were very specific in those 18 enumerated duties and powers –

I do not think they meant to include the "for the general welfare" clause as it has been abused in the past and present to basically allow the government to do anything they want as long as they think it is good for the nation.

Nor did they mean it in terms of "welfare" in its modern social safety net usage as the term was not used in that manner at the time. Welfare as a social safety net is a fairly modern usage – I think from the time of the New Deal. (I could be wrong on the time period.)

What is mind blowing is that these very same points you make here were used against the open ended wording contained therein at the time. And believe it or not it was our dear frined James Madison who beat back this argument, that the wording allowed the fed to raised money for anything and in this context of "general welfare" by impugning the character of the men that protested against it!

Madisons fear was that some would seek to starve the fed of funds if the terms were tightned up. Madison was certainly the federalist here! Seems now these men that protested had more forsight than Madison on how to use the tax tool to regulated runnaway federal power.

reply to post by POXUSA


Thaks POX. This sort of threads are few and far between. However I do like to get into the good second amendment food fight threads as well. Shame on me.

reply to post by neo96


Again, where does it say the people have a Constitutional right to "outgun" their government?
It doesn't. You are reading into it things that simply aren't there.

Originally posted by POXUSA

Originally posted by newcovenant
If you'll read the Constitution and not the pamphlets the NRA is handing you, you'll see that he is right and perhaps not be so fast to support gun runners.

The only gunrunners I know of work for the US government. Think of the shrewd team of government operators, E Holder + BHO, who personally oversaw the illegal gun-scam known as "Fast+Furious," who probably learned their lessons from another well know gunrunner, Oliver North, of Iran Contra fame - a crafty government operator indeed, who is still in operation by the wa, as a gunrunning front man for the CIA.

edit on 26-3-2013 by POXUSA because: txt

Yeah, well maybe you live a sheltered life.

reply to post by newcovenant


Maybe you should read the founders words and not what you believe they meant.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson