2nd Amendment ---- and other superfluous provisions

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
But if there's no well-regulated militia--its duties today being done by the police, the military, the national guard, etc.--what need for the weapon?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the definition of a militia as seen by the drafters? Who are the powerful one's who get to decide that there should or should not be a militia, or is that even legal? Also, who decides which citizens go into the militia?

[betgo]

The Bill of Rights was intended to protect the people and the states from a possibly tyranical federal government. Presumably, the "right to keep and bear arms" was insurance that people could protect themselves from the government.

Obviously, part of the purpose of the militia was to defend the country in time of war, as well as protect against outlaws, Indians, and possible slave rebellions. However, it seems strange to say that you no longer have a "right to keep and bear arms" because they government is protecting you.

It seems like the wording of this ammendment was deliberately ambiguous. However, it seems to protect some rights to gun ownership.

In Singapore and Malaysia, there is a death penalty for the possession of any firearm or amunition. Now the main purpose of this is to prevent rebellions against the government.

I am not a hunter and I don't think we need to arm ourselves to protect ourselves from the government currently, but I do think there is a reason that provision is in the Bill of Rights.

[Angeleyes]

Yes, the 2nd amendment is so simple, it is there to ensure that we the people have the ability to change or overthrow the the government if the need should arrise. Jefferson made this clear in the Declaration of Independence also.

[JasonK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if there's no well-regulated militia--its duties today being done by the police, the military, the national guard, etc.--what need for the weapon?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the definition of a militia as seen by the drafters? Who are the powerful one's who get to decide that there should or should not be a militia, or is that even legal? Also, who decides which citizens go into the militia?

[/ QUOTE ]

Militia: In U.S. history, "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" (1777).

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the 2nd amendment is so simple, it is there to ensure that we the people have the ability to change or overthrow the the government if the need should arrise. Jefferson made this clear in the Declaration of Independence also.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they wanted to encourage rebellion. They had just thrown off British imperial rule. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was a very weak central government. The Bill of Rights was intended to answer fears about the new federal government. If the people had access to arms and military training, it served as a check on the federal government. There was a limit to what it could get away with doing.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if there's no well-regulated militia--its duties today being done by the police, the military, the national guard, etc.--what need for the weapon?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the definition of a militia as seen by the drafters? Who are the powerful one's who get to decide that there should or should not be a militia, or is that even legal? Also, who decides which citizens go into the militia?

[/ QUOTE ]

Militia: In U.S. history, "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" (1777).

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

[/ QUOTE ]

So in that case, every American Citizen is the militia and you cannot take away their gun rights without getting rid of the American Citizen in the process.

[nef]

[ QUOTE ]
According to historian Saul Cornell:

A profound change in the nature of American gun culture occurred in the early decades of the new [19th] century. Americans began sporting weapons designed primarily for personal self-defense. The expanding economy of the new century made a staggering array of these personal weapons readily available to consumers. In addition to pistols, there was a gruesome assortment of edged weapons, which were more reliable and hence more deadly than handguns. Sword canes, small daggers such as the dirk, or the fearsome knife that came to define the rough-and-tumble world of frontier life, the bowie knife rounded out the options available to those who wished to arm themselves with a dependable edged weapon. While many citizens outfitted themselves with these weapons, others recoiled at their countrymen's penchant for traveling armed and demanded that their legislatures take strong measures to regulate, and in some cases prohibit, this practice. The enactment of these early gun control statutes prompted a backlash that produced the first systematic defense of an individual right to bear arms in self-defense.

Kentucky passed the first law designed to curb the practice of carrying concealed weapons in 1813. Violation of the statues was punishable by a hefty fine of one hundred dollars. That same year, Louisiana passed an even more comprehensive act banning concealed weapons. Indiana adopted a ban on concelaed weapons in 1820. Said New York's Governor De Witt Clinton: "Our present criminal code does not sufficiently provide against the consequences which may result from carrying secret arms and weapons." In the ensuing decades, Georgia, Virginia, Alabama, and Ohio enacted laws against concealed weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of Saul Cornell's grant money comes from the most anti-gun foundation in Chicago. They give millions to gun control advocacy groups.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/20..._foundatio.php

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Note that when Thomas Jefferson wanted to insure an individual right to possess personal weapons in Virgina (a proposal that was rejected), he wrote the proposed law as:

"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms."

The "right to bear arms" was known to refer to militia activity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well in all honesty there are ex-criminals/insane people that I wouldn't want to give guns. You can't draw the conclusions you are drawing just because this was rejected. I would have problems with Jefferson's absolutist phrasing and I'm very pro individual rights. There were similar rejections on the opposite end of the spectrum. "for the common good" was one phrase that was strongly voted down when drafting the 2A. If the 2A was solely for the collective militia why was that phrase so strongly shot down?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

Kentucky passed the first law designed to curb the practice of carrying concealed weapons in 1813. Violation of the statues was punishable by a hefty fine of one hundred dollars. That same year, Louisiana passed an even more comprehensive act banning concealed weapons. Indiana adopted a ban on concelaed weapons in 1820. Said New York's Governor De Witt Clinton: "Our present criminal code does not sufficiently provide against the consequences which may result from carrying secret arms and weapons." In the ensuing decades, Georgia, Virginia, Alabama, and Ohio enacted laws against concealed weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a difference between banning concealed "assassin" weapons and open carry. Bans on concealed carry are not necessarily indicative of an anti-self-defense-rights movement. And "bans" on concealed carry may not actually be "bans" at all. Lots of states have banned certain guns but if you are willing to pay a simple tax you can still buy them.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of Saul Cornell's grant money comes from the most anti-gun foundation in Chicago. They give millions to gun control advocacy groups.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/20..._foundatio.php

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhhh the infamous joyce foundation. This is not surprising at all. In fact I would fully expect this from anyone that uses Kentucky or Indiana as proof of an anti-self-defense movement.