Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Why does this seem to be missing from most of the discussions about the Second Amendment

Don't forget Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution, which is something that need needs to be mentioned in relation to the Second Amendment. This provision gives Congress the power to arm the militia.

That was really what the Second Amendment refers to.

No conversation about the Second Amendment should neglect that this is part of the Constitution:
(Congress has the power} To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Most of the quotations that are taken out of context refer to this part of the Constitution and the concern that congress would fail to arm the militia in preference for the federal army.

It's really annoying me that the Second Amendment is not only misquoted and taken out f historical context, but it is taken out of Constitutional Context:
The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
I'm sick of people pretending that the first part of the Second Amendment is irrelevant to the Second.

And even sicker of people who would make any part of it irrelevant.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is tied to the well regulated militia which is necessary for the security of the free state.

It must be read as a whole, not a part.

14 comments:

  1. This is why, as a gun owner, I reject the BS of gun loons and pro gun advocates. Just yesterday on this site I said the 2nd amendment has been bastardized to mean something it does not; and a reading of the statements of the founding fathers on the 2nd amendment shows that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What the gun-rights fanatics don't like to admit is that you are more representative of gun owners than they are.

      Delete
    2. That's a huge and unfounded assumption. Citation please?

      Delete
    3. You want a citation that you live in fear much more than I do? Do you want a citation that I don't spew the kind of anger, hate, racism, and fear that your leader Nugent does?

      Delete
    4. I don't need an opinion from a hate monger. I am waiting for a citation from Mike as to his comment.

      Delete
    5. You demand a citation for an opinion? What's wrong with you?

      Delete
    6. You didn't say "in my opinion", your statement was structured as if it were a statement of fact. That is why I asked for a citation of your statement.

      Nothing wrong with me, I just wanted to know if I missed something that would be held as fact. Instead I get post a avoiding the question. Whats wrong with you?

      Delete
    7. Hate monger? And you were complaining about name calling and treatment on this site. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
      Hate and fear is the kind that have to carry a gun everywher they go, like you.

      Delete
    8. "What the gun-rights fanatics don't like to admit is that you are more representative of gun owners than they are."

      Obvious opinion, no citation possible.

      "The rate of gun ownership is higher in Louisiana than it is in New Jersey."

      Statement of fact, citation possible.

      Get the difference?

      Delete
    9. There is no difference in either statement.

      In my opinion, the difference exists only in your own mind.
      The difference exists only in your own mind.
      See the difference?

      Delete
    10. How about, "I prefer the Glock 19 to the 1911?" Would you demand a citation for that.

      Delete
    11. You are indicating that you have a preference in guns. You did not give a opinion as to why.

      Get your sentence structure right so you can be understood better.

      Now, how about that citation for the first comment you left as a statement of fact. A real answer instead of deflection.

      Delete
    12. OMG GC is spewing his delusional BS again.

      Delete
    13. Is that the cowardly lion calling himself Anonymous?

      "What the gun-rights fanatics don't like to admit is that you are more representative of gun owners than they are."

      That is not a statement of fact but an opinion. As an English professor you should see the difference.

      Delete