we had this debate in another thread awhile back... I'm not going to re-teach everyone American history... you can do the research on your own.
I have done the research. According to James Madison, who, again, wrote much of the Constitution and, more than any other individual, was responsible for the framing of the Bill of Rights, you are wrong. You may not like it, but that is the fact. You can't change history by simply wishing hard enough.
The state governments only enter into the argument because Madison held that an armed citizenry (i.e. individual citizens with the right, individually, to own guns) would likely take the part of their local or state governments against the federal government if a situation were to arise where the feds were trying to grab absolute power. Nowhere does Madison discuss the states 'arming' those citizens. Doing so would be unnecessary as they would already be armed by way of the firearms that they (the citizens) would individually own. History - and the writings of the Founders, themselves - argues for an individual right to gun ownership in this country. Thomas Jefferson went beyond simple ownership to actually suggesting that his nephew carry a pistol with him whenever he went on walks. Now, if people weren't intended to, individually, own firearms then how could Jefferson expect that his nephew would, individually, own a pistol that he could carry with him, on his person, in public? Rather than being 'obvious' that the Founders never intended for individuals to have gun ownership rights, I would argue that such a right was so obvious a part of freedom and the right to self-protection that they never even considered that, for a free people, any more clarification than the Second Amendment would be needed. After all, had the rebellious Colonists waited on the government (against which they were rebelling) to arm them so that they could rebel, what do you think the outcome would be? Therefore, what you are attempting to 'teach' is not history. Instead, it is your desire to place your opinions and beliefs into the mouths (and pens) of the Founders. Luckily, there are those of us here who have 'done the research on their own' and see your mis-interpretation for what it is - a fallacy. Once again, Madison said, in The Federalist No. 46:
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.
Notice he did not say that the states had the advantage of being able to arm citizens, raise a militia, etc. What he said - what the guy who, more than any other individual, was responsible for framing the Bill of Rights said - was that Americans (not American states but Americans, as in each and every individual American) possess, over the people, not state governments or any other 'official' body, of almost every other nation, the advantage of being armed. Once again, just to make sure the point gets across, the people possess the advantage of being armed. The people. The citizenry, not government of any form, be it state, local, federal or whatever.
"we had this debate in another thread awhile back... I'm not going to re-teach everyone American history... you can do the research on your own."
Well Mr. Teacher(raises hand) why is it that it says in the 2nd Amendment its the right of the people in order to protect the state and shall not be infringed upon? I realize thats not the exact wording Mr. Teacher but thats it in a nutshell. Maybe we should spend more classtime on this so you can overwhelm us with your knowledege. (Bell rings)
__________________
1997 Ford Mustang GT... More than enough power to smoke any ricer. FORD= Fast On Race Day
1998 Chevy Monte Carlo LS... Still enough power to smoke any ricer.
I have done the research. According to James Madison, who, again, wrote much of the Constitution and, more than any other individual, was responsible for the framing of the Bill of Rights, you are wrong. You may not like it, but that is the fact. You can't change history by simply wishing hard enough.
Ok here's some history for you... and you are completely wrong in your interpretation of Federalist 46. Read what Madison put in Federalist 10 and then try and make sense of your argument. It doesn't work. The states were to be able to arm the citizenry to control and protect from the rising of factions which Madison believed were an inherent flaw of any democratic society. In The Federalist #46, James Madison, the principal author of the Bill of Rights, defines the militia as a military force "conducted by {state} governments". This state-run militia, he argued, would counterbalance the power of the federal army. Thus, the Second Amendment was written to ensure that every state would have the ability to maintain its own militia. It was not, as the gun lobby argues, intended to establish an unlimited, private right of gun ownership or possession. If the drafters of the Bill of Rights had intended to guarantee such an individual right, they could (and would) have done so.
The Supreme Court (which was created for the sole purpose of interpreting the Consititution) has had a long history of side with the founders in cases involving the 2nd Amendment:
U.S. v. Cruikshank-1876,The right to bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution" or by the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court says restricts the power of Congress--but not the states--to regulate firearms.
U.S. v. Miller-1939,A defining U.S. Supreme Court case. Miller stated that restrictions on a sawed-off shot gun violated a person's Second Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court considered a Second Amendment challenge to the prosecution of two individuals who transported a sawed-off shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act. The court held that the "obvious purpose" of the amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia, and that it "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." Because there was no evidence that possession or use of a sawed-off shotgun had any "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," the court found that the Second Amendment had not been violated. Subsequent cases have held that the modern equivalent of the "militia" is the National Guard. Miller has never been undermined.
Eckert v. City of Philadelphia-1973,6th Circuit Court, "it must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the U.S. Constitution."
Lewis v. U.S.-1980,states that the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have some reasonable relation to preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.
Quilici V. Village of Morton Grove-1982,In a nationally-watched case, a town in Illinois banned handguns. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment restricts federal authority in this area, not that of state and local governments, "We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment" and "The right is for the militia, not the right to keep handguns". The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in Quilici.
Legal theorists have broken down the 2nd Amendment into 3 theories. The courts decided with the theory of an individuals right to own and possess firearms. Under your theory the state would have to have a militia for it to be legal to own firearms and you say the National Guard would be considered that, but umm there are plenty of people that arent in the National Guard and arent in Militia and legally own weapons but under your theory that is not legal, because as you stated they must be in a state run militia or National Guard as you stated. So the Courts have decided you are wrong my friend if it wasnt so then we wouldnt have the right to own firearms anywhere.
__________________
1997 Ford Mustang GT... More than enough power to smoke any ricer. FORD= Fast On Race Day
1998 Chevy Monte Carlo LS... Still enough power to smoke any ricer.
Legal theorists have broken down the 2nd Amendment into 3 theories. The courts decided with the theory of an individuals right to own and possess firearms. Under your theory the state would have to have a militia for it to be legal to own firearms and you say the National Guard would be considered that, but umm there are plenty of people that arent in the National Guard and arent in Militia and legally own weapons but under your theory that is not legal, because as you stated they must be in a state run militia or National Guard as you stated. So the Courts have decided you are wrong my friend if it wasnt so then we wouldnt have the right to own firearms anywhere.
I never said that. You clearly are having difficulty comprehending the English language right now.
Ok here's some history for you... and you are completely wrong in your interpretation of Federalist 46. Read what Madison put in Federalist 10 and then try and make sense of your argument. It doesn't work. The states were to be able to arm the citizenry to control and protect from the rising of factions which Madison believed were an inherent flaw of any democratic society. In The Federalist #46, James Madison, the principal author of the Bill of Rights, defines the militia as a military force "conducted by {state} governments". This state-run militia, he argued, would counterbalance the power of the federal army. Thus, the Second Amendment was written to ensure that every state would have the ability to maintain its own militia. It was not, as the gun lobby argues, intended to establish an unlimited, private right of gun ownership or possession. If the drafters of the Bill of Rights had intended to guarantee such an individual right, they could (and would) have done so.
I don't know what Federalist No. 46 you are reading, but the one I read states:
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. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
Now, if you read that passage, you will notice that Madison refers to the people's ability - American citizen's ability - to defend against tyranny because the people are trusted to own arms. That was the first and main point of this passage, although Madison is not sure that simply having arms would be enough to defend against tyranny. This is evidenced by his saying, before ever referring to state or local governments, "And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes." This aid alone - referring not to state governments, local governments or a National Guard but the simple 'aid' of owning arms. As far as state and local governments go, his mention of them is secondary to the ability to be armed. The role of such local governments, then, is not to arm the people, as you have stated, but rather to help provide cohesiveness and direction for an already armed body of citizens - the militia. This is evidenced by the fact that he says that having local governments, chosen by themselves, is an additional advantage. So, if the presence of those governments is an additional advantage, a basic command of the English language would imply that there must, first, be a primary advantage. As the only 'advantage' he has referred to in this paragraph, to that point, is the ability to be armed, we must (as people with at least a basic command of the English language) come to the obvious conclusion that the ability of the American people to be armed is that primary advantage, quite apart from (and, in fact, considered prerequisite to) the additional advantage of having local governments chosen by themselves. Therefore, once again, Madison was, without even the slightest shadow of a doubt, referring to an individual right to own arms as a primary advantage that the American people had over the people of most of the nations of Europe at the time.
The secondary advantage - the advantage of having local governments chosen by themselves (notice that, in this passage, he says 'local governments', not 'state governments'. Further, notice that he speaks not of those local governments raising or maintaining a force of any kind. Rather, when the militia (being, in this case, a common uprising of the people) is formed, the purpose of the local governments is to then choose officers from among that body of citizens (militia) and to help provide direction for the national will and force. Again, notice that he does not say that if the states or local governments possess the ability to raise a force of it's people. Rather, he says that the people possess the advantage of having local governments, etc. The emphasis, then, is on the people, their rights and advantages. Nowhere, in any way, does this even remotely imply that the states have a right to form a militia. Rather, it says that the people have the ability to form a militia of themselves and that local governments have the responsibility of aiding that militia by helping provide focus for its actions.
As for the Federalist No. 10, once again, I don't understand how you could possibly get that the Bill of Rights - or any part of it - refers to anything other than individual rights. Of course, Madison originally discounted the need for a Bill of Rights, at all. Upon further reflection, discussions with his friend Jefferson and (indeed) as part of a campaign promise, he seems to have changed his mind. In the Federalist No. 10, he is talking mostly about the advantages of a Republic (representative government) over a true Democracy (government administered directly by the citizenry.) He does, however, "...yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens?" Once again, then, even within a Republic (which Madison felt had at least some advantage over a Democracy as far as resisting factions) he acknowledges the need for a way to protect, "The rights of single persons..." Not the rights of states or local governments, not only the rights of the minority to not be exploited by the majority but the "rights of single persons."
Okay, so now let us return to the verbage of the Second Amendment, itself:
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.
Notice, again, that it says 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'. It does not say, 'the right of the state to arm its citizens.' This is because (as I have shown with specific examples from Madison's Federalist No. 46) the impetus for the militia comes from the people, not the state. Local government is there to help guide and focus the efforts of the militia, and regulation for the militia comes from the fact that officers are to be chosen, from among the militia (i.e. from among the armed citizenry) to coordinate between the local governments and the militia (the armed citizenry), but nowhere does the Second Amendment nor Madison in The Federalist No. 46 say anything about a militia being anything like what is now known as The National Guard. The National Guard is a formal, standing military force. The militia referred to here is a citizen's militia - a fighting force made up of the whole of the people. It is doubtful that a state or local government (especially at the time that the Bill of Rights was written) would possess the means to arm the whole of its citizenry. Therefore, the only guarantee that arms would be at hand should the need for a citizen's militia arise is if individual citizens already possessed such arms - hence, the Second Amendment and it's guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms so that each and every member of the citizenry could be armed and ready to join the militia and fight for their common cause - the cause of liberty - if the need should arise.
He is speaking of the people assembled in state militias defending against the potential tyranny of powerful central government. Look, you are wrong. This is really pointless for both of us right now. I know I am right, and you seem to think that you are right as well. So whatever.... we will obviously vote for two different people in November and those votes will cancel each other out so in actuality our opinions do not matter. This is just stupid... I'm out.
He is speaking of the people assembled in state militias defending against the potential tyranny of powerful central government.
Nope. He is speaking of the whole of the people and their ability, due to their right to keep and bear arms, to form a militia of themselves. Nowhere does he say anything about the militia being a 'state' militia. Instead, as I said before, he posits that guidance from local governments would be of great assistance to those popular militias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gphasagt
Look, you are wrong. This is really pointless for both of us right now. I know I am right, and you seem to think that you are right as well. So whatever.... we will obviously vote for two different people in November and those votes will cancel each other out so in actuality our opinions do not matter. This is just stupid... I'm out.
Oh, great argument - "Look, you are wrong because I say you are wrong and since I say I'm right and you're wrong then you must be wrong, right?" When you cannot present facts to back your argument, fall back on simply insisting you are right and I am wrong and that the whole thing is stupid, anyway. Okay, I can play that game, too. You see, actually, it is you who are wrong. I know I am right - as exemplified by my annoying habit of presenting facts, direct quotes and the like to refute your erroneous opinion. Of course, you seem to think that you are right and it is obvious that no amount of fact will sway that opinion. Therefore, upon this topic, we must simply agree to disagree.
For the record, however, our votes will not directly 'cancel each other out' in the manner that I think you mean. If your assumption is that I will not vote for Obama, you would be correct. However, if you assume that I will vote for McCain, you would be wrong, again. While I am not a Democrat, I have never voted anything other than Democratic in a presidential election (yep, I voted for that scourge of Republican's everywhere - Bill Clinton - not once, but twice and, while I wish I had my vote for that conman Al Gore back, I even chose John Kerry as the lesser of two evils.) I would be open to voting for the right Republican (and have done so in state and local elections), but John McCain certainly does not have what it takes to get me to vote for the official Republican presidential candidate for the first time in - well - ever. In fact, it deeply saddens me that Obama inspires so little faith in me that I cannot, in good conscience, vote for him, either. I had hopes for him, at first, but now believe that an Obama presidency would be just as bad, in it's own way, as a McCain presidency. I'll be voting come November, but it won't be for one of the 'big two'.
Of course, I did not, necessarily, vote for those Democrats because of their stance on gun control but, rather, in spite of it. However, I believe that their stance on the issue would prove to be much more 'moderate' than Obama's. Furthermore, unlike Obama, there were other aspects of those candidates which for me, at the time, outweighed their stance on the one issue.
I had hopes for him, at first, but now believe that an Obama presidency would be just as bad, in it's own way, as a McCain presidency.
Even though I am voting Obama in Nov. I am with you in that an Obama presidency will be equally as awful as a McCain presidency (still better than Bush). A president should have Executive experience either as a governor or VP. Quite remarkable that we have 2 senators running against each other. I'm just voting for Obama because Kucinich didn't get the nod jk... but really Ron Paul was cool too; too bad Richardson or Edwards isn't heading the Democratic ticket...
If you say something enough it will eventually become true.
The founding father were anti gun.
The people are really the state.
The holocaust never happened.
Hitler, Stalin, Moosealini, what about all the good things they did?
Revisionism can even change the constitution.
__________________
So , let me get this straight…..your Honda has 1.6 liters, whereas my bottle of Mountain Dew has 2?
Change…..it’s what is left after taxes.
- Shaken....Not Stirred 2003 Mach I Auto Torch Red - Sold
-1988 Ford Mustang GT Convertible, 331 Trick Flow Stroker with a Tremec 3550....oh yea and a 1.6 liter V-TECH motor to work the convertible top.
- 1966 Inline 6……..the pile of parts car!
jk... but really Ron Paul was cool too; too bad Richardson or Edwards isn't heading the Democratic ticket...
