YOU need to read the Federalist Papers which were the discussion and rationale for EVERY part of the Constitution. They were convinced that they were looking after our best interests, and that we should NOT be allowed to argue amongst ourselves (states) as this would undermine the unity of our nation and our government.

I say again...... never in history has a government set itself up for insurrection. The one time that it was tried in this country, the UNION forces were amassed, increased and equipped with all due dispatch to put down the states that thought they had a right to seccede from the union.

Brothers killed brothers. Americans killed their own. To preserve the Union and the Government of the UNITED states.

BTW, DUDE!! YOU are way OFF! If you think I am, prove it.

 

An insurrection is the need for a militia, which is why the National Guard does not fit the forefathers definition of militia.

 

WTF??? I can't even make sense out of THAT statement. But, if you'll remember, the National Guard turned out, at the Governors command, at Kent State to "put down" a minor protest that the stupid governor thought met the definition of an insurrection. People... UNARMED people... were killed.

 

I believe the forefathers realized there would be a time that the US government would need to be overthrown, that is why they called for a well armed militia. If the president takes control of the National Guard at such a time, it is not a militia for the citizens of the US is it?

 

The forefathers NEVER imagined or planned for such a thing. Read the Federalist Papers. They were convinced they were acting in our best interests. The U.S. Government is a "representation" of the people or "citizenry." Any rebellion or insurrection by a state or a group of people against the government, is considered to be against the "citizenry" of the union. If, in the case of a rebellion, the President co-opts the State Militias (Guard units) to protect the Union, he is doing so with the purpose of securing the representative government of the citizenry. In other words, it is expected that the faithful citizens of each state, being represented in Washington by their elected representatives, would be under attack by the unfaithful population. The States are protected by the Federal government, and are sworn to protect the union that protects them all.

The Guard units ARE the militia for each state. If ONE state's Guard units rebel, they will face the defenses of the other states' units as well as Federal troops. If ALL the state militias rebel at once, they will face the defenses of the Federal troops. If the Federal troops join them in the rebellion, it is called a Coup d'Etat. (a military takeover of the State or Union.)

 

Well... it's been awhile since I got that deep into English Composition, but the first part is a phrase, and the second part is a dependant clause. Because there IS a comma (and not a period,) the second part does NOT stand alone as a sentence. It is a dependant clause (which requires a subject and a verb.) I forget the proper name for the phrase before it, but it is something like the "introductory phrase" or the "modifying phrase." In essense... it is the REASON for the clause that follows it.

Look at it THIS way: The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed... why? BECAUSE a well regulated militia "is" necessary to the security of a free state.

However: A well regulated militia "is" necessary to the security of a free state.... why? Because the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed???? That doesn't make sense.

There is no "purpose" to the latter clause if it does not justify the former "phrase."

No matter how much you'd like it to be the other way around, the forefathers established the right to bear arms FOR THE PURPOSE of establishing a WELL REGULATED militia for each state. NOT A BAND OF TRUCKERS with guns in their homes.... a REGULATED militia. Under the command and control of the Governor of the state.

The forefathers were not "looking" for a reason to give the right to bear arms to the citizens... they were looking for armed citizens to serve in the REGULATED militia for each state. (without them having to pay for the arms.)

At the same time.... they were NOT looking for a fight from the citizens by taking away their guns.... and they're not looking for one now. But, times and the "militias" have changed.

The difference is, that the constitution is satisfied by the establishment of the National Guard, and the ammendment will protect THEIR rights to be armed before it will protect yours.

I guess I don't blame you guys for being suspicious, and wanting to keep your arms, because I have outlined the case for why the government COULD attempt to "relieve" you of them. My only intention was to dispel the myth that you have a 2nd Ammendment RIGHT to have them, and explain why the government has the right to impose laws and restrictions on the types of guns they DO allow you to have.

Fozzy wants to compare them to collecting cars. Fine.... you must REGISTER those cars and pay property taxes on them. Same thing with the guns. And just as SOME cars are not "street legal," some guns are not legal either.

Now... I believe I've said all I can about this subject. I can pretty much guarantee that what I've said would hold up in Federal court if push ever comes to shove. You can believe me or not. I'm tired.... and I'm going to bed. :lol:

Someone grab an Uzi and stand guard! :lol:

 

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

This is a complete sentence. It does not need the first part to stand on its own.

 

Read the ammendment. the "T" in "this" is NOT capitalized. It is therefore NOT a complete sentence. It is preceded by a comma and a phrase. It is therefore a dependant clause. It is NOT and was never intended to BE a sentence standing alone. It is PART of a complete sentence that starts with the reason for its existence.

If the first part were reworded into a complete sentence, and the second part was capitalized, I might agree with you. But they WEREN'T. The authors of the Bill of Rights KNEW what they were doing and what they were saying.

You cannot rewrite the Bill of Rights. You cannot change the English language. Only WOT and that Scottish dude can do that! :lol:

Nite!

 

Maybe the government should allow anyone to own any type of gun ever built, including full-auto's. However, they should outlaw bullets. :lol: :lol:

I'm j/k there. I'm from West Virginia. I shot my first gun when I was 5 years old. I was given my first gun when I was 10. I also decided, under my own free will, to sell all my guns when I turned 18. It was a personal decision to no longer hunt, hence the need to not keep guns.

But that was a personal decision. I have nothing against people owning guns. However, I've never seen the need for anyone to own an M-16.

It's in the 2nd amendment that people have the right to keep and bear arms. Keep in mind that at the time, an 'arm' of the times could first ONE bullet at a time, and had to be manually reloaded. Everyone keeps saying that no where in the 2nd amendment does it say that it doesn't mention assault weapons. Guess why. Come on, take a guess. It's because it isn't in there.

I see absolutely no reason for anyone to own assault weapons. A semi-auto shotgun or rifle (with a built in magazine), sure. Full auto or a semi-auto that can hold 40 rounds, no.

If you're worried about not having enough rounds, keep more weapons ready to go.

Just my 2c.

 

"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."

If you are going to make this discussion purely on the issue of what the 2nd Amendment means then there are some things you must take into consideration to understand it properly.

First, there is this myth that the modern day militia is now the National Guard.

The first debunk to this myth is to go into the law books of each and every state. When you do you will find that almost every state has a specific law defining the militia. In most states it is defined as an able bodied man usually somewhere between the ages of 16 and 60. In most states you will find nothing in law that declares the National Guard is the militia.

In fact, the militia of the United States is defined under federal law to include all able-bodied males of age and some other males and females (10 U.S.C., ss311; 32 U.S.C., ss313) with the Guard established as only its "organized" element. Otherwise for more than 400 years the term "militia" has meant the people, with privately owned weapons, lead by officers chosen by themselves.

Most states quit organizing their own militia groups for different reasons. Some because the modern day National Guard did take over many roles that a militia would play. In the south, after the civil war, most militia's were discouraged because of a fear of re-igniting hostilities. For whatever reason that the states quit using militia's it did not change the law or take away their rights to organize if they felt necessary.

Here is another myth about the National Guard being the defacto militia. The governors of the respective states do not control the National Guard. Ok, now I'll bet you think this is crazy right? Well it is true (Supreme Court, Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 1990 for starters). The respective National Guards are "Federal" soldiers on loan to the states when the federal government does not have a need for them. In any time of crisis the President can call up the National Guard and a state Governor can do nothing about it.

One example of how the Federal government actually controls the National Guard is in the recent base closings by the Pentagon where several Army & Air National Guard basis were set to close. Several Governors, including the notorious anti-gun Governor Ed Rendell of PA, sued the Federal Government over the closing of National Guard bases saying that as National Guard installations the governors had final control over what happens since the National Guard is the defacto militia. Guess what.....THEY LOST! The courts came back with a decision that the National Guard is not the state's militia and thereby its standing and resources are under control of the Federal Government.

All this to say that the National Guard is not the "militia" as referenced in the 2nd Amendment nor based on current modern legal decisions can it ever be considered as such. And surely this is not what our forefathers envisioned when they wrote the term "militia" in the 2nd Amendment. Our forefathers were deathly afraid of a centralized government taking control and denying us our basic rights they fought so hard for. So this Amendment was a specific check against that fear.

Second myth is that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right.

Now if you are going to analyze the 2nd Amendment the term you must define is "the people." According to the US Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) the court observed that the term "the people" has the same meaning in the Second Amendment as it does in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth. "The people," the Court said, refers to all persons in our national community.

You can make the argument all day long about what types of firearms individuals should be allowed to own. Even the Supreme Court has made a couple of decisions that say certain firearms can't be owned by individuals. See U.S. v. Miller 1939, where a sawed off shotgun was declared illegal for individuals because it was not a suitable weapon to use in the militia. We also have laws that say an individual can not own fully automatic weapons without special permits and requirements. But if you were to go by the specific letter of the law, written by the framers of the Constitution then it is specific. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right and should not be infringed and that would include handguns and assault weapons.

You may not like it, but that is the way it is written and there is a way to change it without all this fuss. A Constitutional Amendment could be drawn up for consideration to clarify the 2nd Amendment and settle the decision once and for all.