If
the militia part of the Second Amendment is not important why did the
founders say it was necessary for the security of the free state? Why
even say it in the first place if it isn't important to the Second Amendment?
Why not say something like " The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned" if it is about private arms?
Remember said that "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to
be without effect"–5 U.S. 137 (1803). Saying that either clause is unimportant removes from the meaning of the Second Amendment's actual protection.
Laci, you pratting fool. All you just did was restate the amendment in modern language and syntax.
ReplyDeleteYou keep claiming that the purpose of the amendment is to protect the rights of the Militia to have guns, and trying to limit that to the organized militia rather than the common citizenry. However, if the text were so limited, then it would be guaranteeing the rights of a government body to have arms for the service of the government. This would be like saying that because the government needs to collect taxes, tax collectors shall be authorized to collect taxes. That is, it would be a waste of verbiage.
It would also be a waste of words and parchment since the militia was already discussed by other parts of the constitution that set the rules for it's relationship with the Federal and State governments.
Here, we have a statement saying, "Because the militia is necessary to defend the security of a free state, the right of the People [you know--the folks the militia drew upon and expected to bring their own weapons] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Given the history of the time--what militias were, how they were called up, how they were supposed to provide their own weapons, etc., this is the only interpretation that makes sense.
I'm sure you'll point out that there were militia groups that were only a small portion of the citizenry who drilled and organized when not needed. However, these were but organized units pursuing the whole "well regulated" ideal. Everyone else was called upon and lobbied to join or give aid during the war, and militia units were composed of common citizens bringing their own arms.
This was merely a continuation of the system which had existed over in jolly old England, in one form or another, for over a thousand years. Free men had weapons and were subject to be called up to defend against invaders.
Laci, we keep explaining this to you, but the only time you come around for the discussion is when you shout insults and fling poo. But I'll try again.
ReplyDeleteThe militia is the reason that the Founders felt the amendment to be necessary to write in the first place. I don't see anyone in the period doubting whether good citizens had the right to arms. That was a given. But to clarify the situation and to emphasize who is the source of power in this country, the amendment is given to name the people as the cause of a secure state. The militia is made up of all free citizens--now understood to include minorities and women, in addition to white men. The fact that militia is used in the first clause and people in the second makes those two terms identical for purposes of the right being enumerated. The creation of the National Guard and our standing army and other such forces is in addition to the militia of the people.
Aye yi yi! (slapping my palm to my forehead)
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Laci,
ReplyDeleteThe Framers wrote the Second Amendment in a popular style of the day. There is an identical construction in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 -- specifically Section 14, Article 3:
"Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
This article has a prefatory clause and an operative clause just like the Second Amendment. The prefatory clauseis:
"Religion, morality, and knowledge,
being necessary to good government
and the happiness of mankind,"
And the operative clauseis:
"schools and the means of education
shall forever be encouraged."
Do this mean that schools must onlyteach for the purpose of good government and the happiness of mankind? And does it mean that schools must onlyteach religion, morality, and knowledge -- and onlyin the context of good government and the happiness of mankind?
Nicely said, sir. Now we'll see if Pooch gives up his asinine form of interpretation, or if he becomes an advocate of religion in schools.
DeleteOf course, the other option is that he's already done his hit and run and won't look back at this thread. Instead, he'll just continue making Jade and Dog Gone -esque hit and run pieces, paying no attention to how his logic gets shredded every time.
Laci asked, "If the militia part of the Second Amendment is not important why did the founders say it was necessary for the security of the free state?"
ReplyDeleteThe militia part of the Second Amendment announces the purpose of that enumerated right -- to maintain a free state. Of course the next question is, "free from what?" Free from tyranny. And history demonstrates that everything from abusive spouses, aggressive neighbors, petty criminals, gangs, organized crime, invading nations and even corrupt governments have enacted tyranny upon good citizens. The good citizens of our nation thus must have arms to defend themselves from any and all entities who seek to tyrannize them.
It would be interesting to argue that the Second Amendment also subtly codifies the right of the people to form militias and train -- something that the State of California criminalized in the last 30 or so years!
However you slice it, when the state tells people that they cannot have firearms and they cannot form militias, the good citizens are no longer secure nor free.
We had over 1 million violent crimes reported to police departments in the U.S. in 2010. And tens of thousands of illegal immigrants breached our borders. Clearly police departments have not managed to secure the country.
ReplyDeleteSince police departments have not secured me or my family, I am doing it myself. And I have decided that the best tools to do that are a dog, locks on my doors, and firearms.
I am not a criminal. I am an armed citizen who brings security to my home, my family, and my community. That is the very purpose and function of the militia.
Question: if the militia part of the second amendment is important, how on earth is it constitutional to ban weapons for being styled like military weapons (let alone actual military weapons)?
ReplyDeleteThe "militia" part is important, Laci. So is the "people" part. It is really funny to hear you say "why didn't the framers just say..." when we have asked you that dozens of times and you can't seem to address. So why didn't the framers just say "the right if the militia to keep and bear arms..."? Why didn't they make militia the subject of the right? Why???
The militia is stronger when the body of people knows and is profienct in firearms. By codifying the right as belonging to the people for non-militia purposes (hunting, self-defense, sport, hobby, even just plain "fun of it"), we establish and preserve the "gun culture". In times of need, the militia will be stronger, well-regulated, because of the gun culture. That is why they said "people".
Look at it this way: we have better lifeguards because water sports like surfing are fun. The talent pool is larger and more skilled leading to well-regulated lifeguards.