Senate Website Gets Second Amendment Wrong ?

page: 1
9

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Perhaps a bit of a stretch, but a wee bit misleading just the same.

Almost like somebody doesn't quite 'agree' with the 2nd and the Supreme Court rulings.

Hmmm.

Selective assumptive deductions ?

unWritten Subliminal messaging ?

Who are they trying to convince ?



A Senate.gov web page covering the Constitution gets the scope of the Second Amendment wrong, telling readers that it is not clear whether the amendment protects an individual right or a collective right.

Here is what the Senate's web page on the Constitution says about the Second Amendment:

"Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated."

This is simply not true on at least two levels.

some of the other 'Explanations' are 'assumptive' as well ...



Amendment III (1791)

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

"This virtually obsolete provision was in response to anger over the British military practice of quartering soldiers in colonists' homes."


Hmmm...


the Senate's web page on the Constitution - 2nd Amendment


Senate Website Gets Second Amendment Wrong

?
or
?




posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Typical government wisdom. Armies shall have guns but we're not sure about arming soldiers. It's way past time to take away their pens and send them home to find real jobs like everyone else. End Congressional pensions too! (one term get paid for life? c'mon!)



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I'm not sure why there's ever been any debate. It makes no logical sense that it would protect a collective right, given that the government already had the right to raise armies and provide for the common defense through Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Furthermore, one only has to read the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 to see that those called to service were actually expected to provide their own firearms, ammunition and other assorted equipment, which is kind of hard to do if you aren't allowed to own them.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Does the military provide weapons and other assorted items, now? Is the validity of such a term still required? Or simply wanted?

as I read it, and I'm no authority, I read it as two distinct things. A regulated militia is required to ensure the security of the state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, AND it shall not be infringed - the militia.

Either way, it is a different time and the reasons for people wanting to own and keep firearms is entirely different to the reasosn for, yet continually justified by, this amendment.

No one is taking their personal weapons to the middle east, and if someone were told "You. Get your bushmaster and put on some fatigues. You're going to afghanistan!" I bet you a billion squirrels they'd say "Sod off, you can pay me to do it and provide me with a gun and uniform." ...

However, it is, after all, none of my concern. Just 2 cents of ignorance as supplied by the inane ramblings of this petty little freak.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Many seem to have forgotten why the constitution was written.
It was not written to protect the goverment from....
The populace, revolt or religion.

It was written to protect THE PEOPLE from....
The government, tyranny and a state run church or religion.

When one is reading the constitution, if this is kept in mind, it is very easy to interpret and understand.
Quad



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


I'm simply pointing out that if one wants to know the original intent of 2A, there are supporting official documents and laws from the time period that make it rather clear that it was intended to protect an individual right.

As for the 'militia' argument...meh. Not only has the Supreme Court ruled that a person's 2nd Amendment rights are unconnected to militia service, it doesn't actually matter. Under US law, a man who can be called to military service through the draft is considered to be militia. Essentially, you're in a militia from the time you register for selective service until you hit age 45. After age 45 (and for all women as well), one would presumably be granted the same rights as those of draft age due to the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Again, though, even that doesn't matter. 2A is a protection of a right. Take it away, and you still have a private right to firearms ownership in this country until further laws are passed that prohibit it. That's not going to happen anytime soon.
edit on 27-9-2013 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Is anyone truly surprised that the Govt is doing everything that it can to miss-represent such things.

Not surprised at all.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Holder needs to change perception and if you repeat a lie long enough it'll become true. The more mouths repeating it the faster it'll become true. So we have mouths on TV, textbooks in schools, documentation on .gov sites....

Seems they want the lie to become true in record time.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
The Second refers to regulating militias, as stated clearly. It is not about the individual right to bear arms, which is intrinsic and requires no government approval.

Keep in mind, though, that individual rights are not inviolable, which is why, for example, prison inmates are not allowed to possess firearms.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 

if I may : www.law.cornell.edu... from the link


AMENDMENT II

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.

lets take it one line of if need be by word at a time :

A well regulated militia:

made up of the people

being necessary to the security of a free state:

the right to defend the state , again by People,
now this next and last line should be as plain as the nose on your face:

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

This means:
no law shall be made to take away your right to defend your self, to buy, own or have in, or keep in, on/ in your home or person{self},... a firearm. of any make or caliber no questions asked.

as to another poster this means a prison inmate upon release has the right to own and possess , it was law and the right till that law was changed. in the late 1800's early 1900's.

Here in Utah it is still on the books, does this mean I am for a person being released from prison has the right to go and buy a firearm.
If it was to be by law of the land... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"... yes

but then there are lots of arguments to made for and against person(s) of jail and prison as to why they should and should not have the right , .. better left for another thread.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


the word regulated meant well disciplined and trained, not legal oversight.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by monkeyluv
 


read the preamble to the bill of rights.


Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
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 ensure the
beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the
following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when
ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several
States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution


www.purpleheart.org...


adask.wordpress.com...
edit on 27-9-2013 by spirited75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   

xuenchen

Here is what the Senate's web page on the Constitution says about the Second Amendment:

"Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated."

This is simply not true on at least two levels.

some of the other 'Explanations' are 'assumptive' as well ...



Amendment III (1791)

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

"This virtually obsolete provision was in response to anger over the British military practice of quartering soldiers in colonists' homes."


Hmmm...



Your right.. the Supreme Court already settled those very questions - so why are they skirting the facts? IMO they are doing it to purposefully mislead people so they can maintain control through illegal means.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   
The government needed militias because the Continental Army was small. Proof that the Second Amendment refers to regulation of militias can be seen in the two Militia Acts which followed, one section of the Constitution that referred to the same, and the use of militias for slave patrols, to quell the Whiskey Rebellion and Western Confederacies.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 02:05 AM
link   
The government needed militias because the Continental Army was small, and the government wanted more military power to control slaves, fellow whites, foreign invaders, and Native Americans. That is why one needs to acknowledge connections between the Second Amendment in terms of regulating militias and the two Militia Acts which followed, not to mention one section of the Constitution that clarifies that regulation and events such as the use of militias as slave patrols, the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Western Confederacy.

A third Militia Act made the regulation permanent, a fourth required African American males to participate, and a fifth led to the formation of the National Guard.





new topics
top topics
 
9

log in

join