Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:17 am


Email

Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me Shield NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar


Forum rules


Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.



Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
 Just want to debate... 2A 
Author Message
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Oly
Joined: Thu Oct 4, 2012
Posts: 1197
Since we all got a little tease about debating over 2A stuff and then were left hanging, maybe a new one would be fun.

There is a lot that could be debated about 2A, and, we're better advocates if we understand all sides of the debate. With that, lets start out with an easy one.

Are ‘the people’ as described in 2A the same as ‘the people’ described in 1A, 4A, 9
A, or 10A? Is this a limited class, or does this include everyone within the jurisdiction? Has that changed since 1791?


Thu Sep 08, 2022 8:43 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Bonney Lake
Joined: Sun Oct 7, 2012
Posts: 2250
Real Name: David L.
What is there to debate?

The Heller decision in the Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment applied to the individual, protecting the individuals right to keep and bear arms, not a class of people.

_________________
If you're not a Sentinel of Liberty, you're a stepping stone to Tyrany...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.” - Jerry Garcia


Thu Sep 08, 2022 9:21 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Oly
Joined: Thu Oct 4, 2012
Posts: 1197
When I listen to those that would like to curtail this right, I see lots that is up for debate. I think ignoring it with an attitude that we won with Heller and the debate is closed won't actually get very far. And, it didn't, as proved by Chicago and Bruen. Roe was 'settled law' for fifty years and we see how that turned out. These debates will go on forever.

Defining 'the people' is important as well. Obviously, 'the people' meant something different (especially thru a 2a lens) in 1791 than it does today. Saint Thomas did a good analysis of this in Bruen.


Thu Sep 08, 2022 9:43 am
Profile
User avatar

Location: tri-cities
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021
Posts: 284
Stokes wrote:
When I listen to those that would like to curtail this right, I see lots that is up for debate. I think ignoring it with an attitude that we won with Heller and the debate is closed won't actually get very far. And, it didn't, as proved by Chicago and Bruen. Roe was 'settled law' for fifty years and we see how that turned out. These debates will go on forever.

Defining 'the people' is important as well. Obviously, 'the people' meant something different (especially thru a 2a lens) in 1791 than it does today. Saint Thomas did a good analysis of this in Bruen.


In the founding father's era, 'people' was white aristocrat MALEs and not women, people of colour, Native Americans -- period.
This perception did not change after Civil War...

https://www.facinghistory.org/resource- ... ted-states

Also interesting reading...
https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content ... tution.pdf

Heller hasn't done a bloody thing

_________________
as we enter the debacles of 2021, er 2022, please remember:

Critical thinking involves analysis, evaluation, inference [gathering credible/relevant/logical evidence], and of course reaching a viable and reasonable conclusion while improving one's own thinking regarding the information you have heard, read, as well as you might have witnessed.

Further, please remember Churchill's commentary: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

as a nation we will overcome the travesty[ies] currently going on within our nation...


Fri Sep 09, 2022 4:34 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Oly
Joined: Thu Oct 4, 2012
Posts: 1197
Cuz, thanks for posting those. Those are the exact points RKBA proponents need to think about. That is why there is still debate.

Along those lines, we should think about how the 2A ‘shall not be infringed’ differs from the 1A ‘make no law…prohibiting…abridging’? Or 4A ‘shall not be violated’. Or 7A ‘right….preserved’.

Infringed isn't the same as prohibit, nor abridge, nor not violate. People love to believe that the 2A is clear on it's plain reading, all while ignoring (or being ignorant of) these other issues.


As an aside to your comments, I do think that the Reconstruction Era amendments obviously didn't change society's perception, but they certainly changed the legal meaning.


Sat Sep 10, 2022 1:56 pm
Profile
User avatar

Location: tri-cities
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021
Posts: 284
Stokes wrote:
Cuz, thanks for posting those. Those are the exact points RKBA proponents need to think about. That is why there is still debate.

Along those lines, we should think about how the 2A ‘shall not be infringed’ differs from the 1A ‘make no law…prohibiting…abridging’? Or 4A ‘shall not be violated’. Or 7A ‘right….preserved’.

Infringed isn't the same as prohibit, nor abridge, nor not violate. People love to believe that the 2A is clear on it's plain reading, all while ignoring (or being ignorant of) these other issues.


As an aside to your comments, I do think that the Reconstruction Era amendments obviously didn't change society's perception, but they certainly changed the legal meaning.


So stokes, you made comment regarding 'legal' meaning with any type of specificity of that meaning...

Tough to have any kind of 'debate' without a clarification of terms to debate...

BTW, LAW define...someone should tell the USSC that to assure it is the "LAW" of the land understood across this great country by all citizens!

_________________
as we enter the debacles of 2021, er 2022, please remember:

Critical thinking involves analysis, evaluation, inference [gathering credible/relevant/logical evidence], and of course reaching a viable and reasonable conclusion while improving one's own thinking regarding the information you have heard, read, as well as you might have witnessed.

Further, please remember Churchill's commentary: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

as a nation we will overcome the travesty[ies] currently going on within our nation...


Sun Sep 11, 2022 7:52 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Oly
Joined: Thu Oct 4, 2012
Posts: 1197
The 'people' mentioned in the pre-Civil War Constitutional framework was solidified in the Reconstruction Era amendments to include more inhabitants of our country. The immunities and privileges now extended to more than just white, land owning males. By this time, women still didn't have universal suffrage, but that was because of state restrictions and not because limitations in the federal constitution. So, legally, the class of individuals that constituted the people with these immunities and privileges expanded.

I think it was very easy to make the case that the original 'People' of the federal constitution did include everyone, even if in practice it wasn't followed. The adoption of the 14A, and the incorporation of those rules against the states gave legal recognition to those other classes.

I disagree that for it to be law it needs to be understood by all citizens. And, even moreso, if you were to argue that it need to be universally accepted. A very general definition of 'law' would be 'rules the government can enforce'.


Sun Sep 11, 2022 8:58 am
Profile
User avatar

Location: tri-cities
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021
Posts: 284
Stokes wrote:
The 'people' mentioned in the pre-Civil War Constitutional framework was solidified in the Reconstruction Era amendments to include more inhabitants of our country. The immunities and privileges now extended to more than just white, land owning males. By this time, women still didn't have universal suffrage, but that was because of state restrictions and not because limitations in the federal constitution. So, legally, the class of individuals that constituted the people with these immunities and privileges expanded.

I think it was very easy to make the case that the original 'People' of the federal constitution did include everyone, even if in practice it wasn't followed. The adoption of the 14A, and the incorporation of those rules against the states gave legal recognition to those other classes.

I disagree that for it to be law it needs to be understood by all citizens. And, even moreso, if you were to argue that it need to be universally accepted. A very general definition of 'law' would be 'rules the government can enforce'.


again to quantify the premise, quote:

The Constitution was remarkable, but deeply flawed. For one thing, it did not include a specific declaration - or bill - of individual rights. It specified what the government could do but did not say what it could not do. For another, it did not apply to everyone. The "consent of the governed" meant propertied white men only.

So, the Constitution's framers heeded Thomas Jefferson who argued: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

The American Bill of Rights, inspired by Jefferson and drafted by James Madison, was adopted, and in 1791 the Constitution's first ten amendments became the law of the land.

Democracy and liberty are often thought to be the same thing, but they are not.

Democracy means that people ought to be able to vote for public officials in fair elections, and make most political decisions by majority rule.

Liberty, on the other hand, means that even in a democracy, individuals have rights that no majority should be able to take away. unquote
https://www.aclu.org/other/bill-rights-brief-history

The ratification of the 14th was specifically aimed towards those people of colour who were previously enslaved and yet excluded the Native American society until 1924 when President Coolidge signed into law the Indian Citizenship Act!

Back to the interpretation of the 2A...[w/o NRA-ILA bias]
Many historians agree that the primary reason for passing the Second Amendment in 1791 was to prevent the need for the United States to have a professional standing army. At the time it was passed, it seems it was not intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense.

It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an individual rights theory w/heller and later w/chicago rulings.

_________________
as we enter the debacles of 2021, er 2022, please remember:

Critical thinking involves analysis, evaluation, inference [gathering credible/relevant/logical evidence], and of course reaching a viable and reasonable conclusion while improving one's own thinking regarding the information you have heard, read, as well as you might have witnessed.

Further, please remember Churchill's commentary: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

as a nation we will overcome the travesty[ies] currently going on within our nation...


Mon Sep 12, 2022 5:22 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Everett,WA
Joined: Thu Dec 8, 2011
Posts: 84
Quote:
Back to the interpretation of the 2A...[w/o NRA-ILA bias]
Many historians agree that the primary reason for passing the Second Amendment in 1791 was to prevent the need for the United States to have a professional standing army. At the time it was passed, it seems it was not intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense.


That really doesn't make sense contextually. The country was recently formed via a bloody revolution in which the (effectively) peasants of the nation utilized their personal firearms to oust an occupational force. That occupational force being the arm of the British Government.

Furthermore, the opinions of the framers are not unknown to us.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

With this in mind, the take on the 2nd amendment not being for the individual to be armed for self defense seems to be reaching for a conclusion that wasn't made. Obviously, the intent was for the individual to be armed in order to defend his rights, his land, and his very existence. I would like to see these historians trying to separate personal ownership from lawful use in self defense.

_________________
Libertas non nihilo acquiritur


Thu Sep 29, 2022 7:43 pm
Profile
User avatar

Location: tri-cities
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021
Posts: 284
shewter wrote:
Quote:
Back to the interpretation of the 2A...[w/o NRA-ILA bias]
Many historians agree that the primary reason for passing the Second Amendment in 1791 was to prevent the need for the United States to have a professional standing army. At the time it was passed, it seems it was not intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense.


That really doesn't make sense contextually. The country was recently formed via a bloody revolution in which the (effectively) peasants of the nation utilized their personal firearms to oust an occupational force. That occupational force being the arm of the British Government.

Furthermore, the opinions of the framers are not unknown to us.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

With this in mind, the take on the 2nd amendment not being for the individual to be armed for self defense seems to be reaching for a conclusion that wasn't made. Obviously, the intent was for the individual to be armed in order to defend his rights, his land, and his very existence. I would like to see these historians trying to separate personal ownership from lawful use in self defense.


So why did you pick Jefferson's first draft to quote and not the second or third, e.g., quote:
First Draft: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."[1]
Second Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]."[2]
Third Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]" [3]

Moot point since "the sentence does not appear in the Virginia Constitution as adopted." unquote.
https://www.monticello.org/research-edu ... -use-arms/

[Sidebar: to quantify/qualify terms - let's define the colonial period's term of "freeman" shall we, quote:
-During the American colonial period, a freeman was a person who was not a slave. The term originated in 12th-century Europe.

-"Freedom" was earned after an allotted time, or after the person demanding "payment" was satisfied. This was known as indentured servitude, and was not originally intended as a stigma or embarrassment for the person involved; many of the sons and daughters of the wealthy and famous of the time found themselves forced into such temporary servitude, Gary Nash reporting that "many of the servants were actually nephews, nieces, cousins and children of friends of emigrating Englishmen, who paid their passage in return for their labor once in America."

-An indentured servant would sign a contract agreeing to serve for a specific number of years, typically five or seven. Many immigrants to the colonies came as indentured servants, with someone else paying their passage to the Colonies in return for a promise of service. At the end of his service, according to the contract, the indentured servant usually would be granted a sum of money, a new suit of clothes, land, or perhaps passage back to England. An indentured servant was not the same as an apprentice or a child who was "placed out."

-Once a man was made a freeman and was no longer considered a common, he could become a member of the church (and would usually do so) and he could own land. The amount of land that he was able to own was sometimes determined by how many members there were in his family. As a freeman, he became a member of the governing body, which met in annual or semiannual meetings (town meetings) to make and enforce laws and pass judgment in civil and criminal matters. As the colonies grew, these meetings became impractical and a representative bicameral system was developed.]

Terribly sorry to inform you shewter you completely misquoted the VA's Congressional delegate Lee's quote in the 1788 edition of the Federal Farmer as his original text stated, quote:
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." unquote.
https://www.madisonbrigade.com/rh_lee.htm

Further shewter, you really should verify your quotes...your Patrick Henry quote is a verifiable horribly botched quote in a horrific 2015 book by Dana Loesch who attempts to demonstrate that the Founding Father's view of the Second Amendment matches her own, but in doing so she misquotes, and often takes out of context, the Founder's true words.

Here is what Henry actually stated, quote:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? So that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, Every one Who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. unquote

[sidebar: The NRA has blown this up into a poster-sized blurb embossed with Patrick Henry's image."]
https://www.mediamatters.org/dana-loesc ... ng-fathers

Per Patrick Henry historian & scholar, quote:
"Henry was actually talking about ensuring that members of the militia were adequately armed, not the general public. Furthermore, the Henry quotation uses ellipses to join together two ideas that Henry expressed days apart. Henry spoke about guarding “the public liberty” on June 5, 1788 at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. His comments about arms, which appear distorted in Loesch's book, occurred on June 14 at the same convention.
https://www.mediamatters.org/dana-loesc ... ng-fathers

Finally, to address your comment about my 2A closure, allow me to quote Madison, quote:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. unquote
https://www.mediamatters.org/dana-loesc ... ng-fathers

_________________
as we enter the debacles of 2021, er 2022, please remember:

Critical thinking involves analysis, evaluation, inference [gathering credible/relevant/logical evidence], and of course reaching a viable and reasonable conclusion while improving one's own thinking regarding the information you have heard, read, as well as you might have witnessed.

Further, please remember Churchill's commentary: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

as a nation we will overcome the travesty[ies] currently going on within our nation...


Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:21 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Everett,WA
Joined: Thu Dec 8, 2011
Posts: 84
curiouscuz wrote:
shewter wrote:
Quote:
Back to the interpretation of the 2A...[w/o NRA-ILA bias]
Many historians agree that the primary reason for passing the Second Amendment in 1791 was to prevent the need for the United States to have a professional standing army. At the time it was passed, it seems it was not intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense.


That really doesn't make sense contextually. The country was recently formed via a bloody revolution in which the (effectively) peasants of the nation utilized their personal firearms to oust an occupational force. That occupational force being the arm of the British Government.

Furthermore, the opinions of the framers are not unknown to us.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

With this in mind, the take on the 2nd amendment not being for the individual to be armed for self defense seems to be reaching for a conclusion that wasn't made. Obviously, the intent was for the individual to be armed in order to defend his rights, his land, and his very existence. I would like to see these historians trying to separate personal ownership from lawful use in self defense.


So why did you pick Jefferson's first draft to quote and not the second or third, e.g., quote:
First Draft: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."[1]
Second Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]."[2]
Third Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]" [3]


Admittedly, the quote's incarnation wasn't deliberately chosen over any others as they don't really change the sentiment.

Quote:
Moot point since "the sentence does not appear in the Virginia Constitution as adopted." unquote.
https://www.monticello.org/research-edu ... -use-arms/


Not a moot point. The framers' view on civilian armament is fundamental to the right to keep and bear arms. The importance of understanding their frame (hah) of mind when discussing what would be codified can't be understated. Especially when the go-to arguments tend to fall into categories of "they never could have predicted the advancement in personal armament" (They owned warships, cannons etc.) or "it was intended to give the states the right to form militias" <-- probably the most important reason for discussing their view on personal ownership.

Quote:
[Sidebar: to quantify/qualify terms - let's define the colonial period's term of "freeman" shall we, quote:
-During the American colonial period, a freeman was a person who was not a slave. The term originated in 12th-century Europe.


Yessir.

Quote:
-"Freedom" was earned after an allotted time, or after the person demanding "payment" was satisfied. This was known as indentured servitude, and was not originally intended as a stigma or embarrassment for the person involved; many of the sons and daughters of the wealthy and famous of the time found themselves forced into such temporary servitude, Gary Nash reporting that "many of the servants were actually nephews, nieces, cousins and children of friends of emigrating Englishmen, who paid their passage in return for their labor once in America."

-An indentured servant would sign a contract agreeing to serve for a specific number of years, typically five or seven. Many immigrants to the colonies came as indentured servants, with someone else paying their passage to the Colonies in return for a promise of service. At the end of his service, according to the contract, the indentured servant usually would be granted a sum of money, a new suit of clothes, land, or perhaps passage back to England. An indentured servant was not the same as an apprentice or a child who was "placed out."

-Once a man was made a freeman and was no longer considered a common, he could become a member of the church (and would usually do so) and he could own land. The amount of land that he was able to own was sometimes determined by how many members there were in his family. As a freeman, he became a member of the governing body, which met in annual or semiannual meetings (town meetings) to make and enforce laws and pass judgment in civil and criminal matters. As the colonies grew, these meetings became impractical and a representative bicameral system was developed.]


Seems that loose interpretation would lend itself to being true to the current law. Which is to say that those incarcerated or indentured to the state would be disallowed the use and ownership of arms until they satisfy their debt.

Quote:
Terribly sorry to inform you shewter you completely misquoted the VA's Congressional delegate Lee's quote in the 1788 edition of the Federal Farmer as his original text stated, quote:
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." unquote.
https://www.madisonbrigade.com/rh_lee.htm


No need to be sorry. Thank you for providing the rest of the quote. It doesn't exactly change the context, though.

Quote:
Further shewter, you really should verify your quotes...your Patrick Henry quote is a verifiable horribly botched quote in a horrific 2015 book by Dana Loesch who attempts to demonstrate that the Founding Father's view of the Second Amendment matches her own, but in doing so she misquotes, and often takes out of context, the Founder's true words.

Here is what Henry actually stated, quote:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? So that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, Every one Who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. unquote

[sidebar: The NRA has blown this up into a poster-sized blurb embossed with Patrick Henry's image."]
https://www.mediamatters.org/dana-loesc ... ng-fathers

Per Patrick Henry historian & scholar, quote:
"Henry was actually talking about ensuring that members of the militia were adequately armed, not the general public. Furthermore, the Henry quotation uses ellipses to join together two ideas that Henry expressed days apart. Henry spoke about guarding “the public liberty” on June 5, 1788 at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. His comments about arms, which appear distorted in Loesch's book, occurred on June 14 at the same convention.
https://www.mediamatters.org/dana-loesc ... ng-fathers


I must be missing something. The actual quote from Patrick Henry, like the full quote from Richard Henry Lee, doesn't appear to change the sentiment.

Quote:
Finally, to address your comment about my 2A closure, allow me to quote Madison, quote:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. unquote
https://www.mediamatters.org/dana-loesc ... ng-fathers


Forgive me. I don't think you're answering the question, nor did I expect that of you. It is the historians you were citing that I'd like to hear from.

To address the quote, though. "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,"
and "the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed" existing in the same statement suggest that there is a differentiation between the peoples' armament and the "militia". Unless of course, you're making the point, by proxy, that what is being uniquely suggested is that the United States is to have local armies whereas the Europeans had only central? That wouldn't exactly make sense even for the time period as private armies and security forces existed well before, and well after the 1700s in Europe.

_________________
Libertas non nihilo acquiritur


Sun Oct 23, 2022 5:17 pm
Profile
User avatar

Location: Tacoma
Joined: Sun May 26, 2019
Posts: 158
Real Name: George Kelley Jr.
The 2nd Amendment becomes moot if gun owners don't vote. Democrats will pack the courts with liberal activist judges to interpret the 2nd Amendment RTKBA out of existence.

You forfeit the game when your team don't show up to play.


Mon Nov 21, 2022 7:03 am
Profile
User avatar

Location: Bothell
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016
Posts: 48
Real Name: Michael
shewter wrote:

Not a moot point. The framers' view on civilian armament is fundamental to the right to keep and bear arms. The importance of understanding their frame (hah) of mind when discussing what would be codified can't be understated. Especially when the go-to arguments tend to fall into categories of "they never could have predicted the advancement in personal armament" (They owned warships, cannons etc.) or "it was intended to give the states the right to form militias" <-- probably the most important reason for discussing their view on personal ownership.


I'll chime in with this:

It was years ago when I read something online that was supposedly from a "militia handbook" from the 1700s. Militia members were to bring some basic supplies when reporting for duty, some of which included a firearm and some ammo.

IF this is accurate (I don't know where I could find - or if it really exists - a milita handbook/instructions/regulations), then it's clear what the "well-regulated militia" entails. The people (however defined) must first possess arms before duty calls. Service to a militia is irrelevant to the possessing of arms.

Phrased other ways - They directed the people to come ready to fight with their own guns. They assumed people already possessed arms as a natural course of existence.

Analogy to other contexts: A racecar team requires drivers to come to the team with their own racecar. A quarterback comes to a football team with his own equipment, jerseys, and balls and isn't provided by the team. A teacher has to bring their own chalkboards/dry erase boards and desks.

It makes sense, as occupations back in those days (and some today), the "Seller" had their own tools. A doctor had their "tools" when they came on house calls. With science advancement, it's not financially possible for a doctor to carry around an MRI or CT machine. But how many docs don't have some sort of medical kit at home that's a bit more than a 1st aid kit?

Maybe I'm not fully awake yet.


Mon Nov 21, 2022 7:41 am
Profile
User avatar

Location: Snohomish Co
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018
Posts: 1359
We need to look at context of weapon bans in other parts of the world to understand how important and who these rights are granted to, when you look at laws like this in scotland you can see that there WAS a push at disarming certain persecuted groups many of which immigrated to the new world to escape it and others were arrested and sent there too. YES THEY WERE COMMING FOR YOUR MUSKETS!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarming_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Proscription_1746

There is a lot of other stuff wrapped up into these laws other than gun bans too. The english were trying to wipe out highland culture thru things like banning kilts and plaid.


Sat Nov 26, 2022 10:18 am
Profile
User avatar

Location: Clarkston
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2022
Posts: 61
Real Name: Mike
I am done debating or explaining I am ready for the war to start.


Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:21 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 15 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum



Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
[ Time : 0.908s | 17 Queries | GZIP : Off ]