definition of arms? [Archive]

Helenthereef

01-19-2013, 10:17 PM

I've been following some of the discussions on gun control, but not taking part as I don't come from, or live in, a generally armed society.

However, over a few beers, a question came up which I thought maybe someone on here might be able to answer.

As I understand it, you have the right to bear "arms"… are arms defined in the constitution? Do you have the right to bear incendiaries
, or nuclear or biological weapons?

Where are "arms" defined?

ShadowAceD

01-19-2013, 10:40 PM

Clearly, you have the right to mount two bear arms in your living room. That's all.

:-D

Fangthane

01-19-2013, 10:40 PM

Amendment II

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.
I'm not anti-gun, but it seems like you'd almost have to also look at what exactly defines a "well regulated militia". Is there a distinction between a "militia" and "the people"? If so, does the act of procuring a gun automatically amount to membership in said militia? The whole thing seems a bit ambiguous.

Dennis Hultman

01-20-2013, 12:21 AM

I'm not anti-gun, but it seems like you'd almost have to also look at what exactly defines a "well regulated militia". Is there a distinction between a "militia" and "the people"? If so, does the act of procuring a gun automatically amount to membership in said militia? The whole thing seems a bit ambiguous.

It's not ambiguous at all. I'm not going to bother with all the quotes from the founding fathers or anything else restated multiple times.

I will state this, after reading the drafts, original sources, available records of debates regarding the Bill Of Rights, there is no doubt.

This country won its freedom, drafted a Constitution and could not get the states to agree to ratify for four years because of their distrust of a all powerful government.

The States came up with hundreds of points and were able to define these very few.

The Bill Of Rights was added because the federalist couldn't ratify the Constitution. The tin foil hat people didn't trust a government that wouldn't spell it out. The federalist thought all of this was silly and mostly common sense. The people demanded these rights spelled out to protect INDIVIDUAL liberty.

They were written in a theme and as a whole.

So let's look at the FIRST

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Today all you hear about the First is it protects "Free Speech". That seems to be a given by all. Left, Right, doesn't matter. They all agree. First Amendment reaffirms the individual liberty of free speech.

How about the Third or Fourth?

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No one argues that these weren't about individual liberties. NO ONE.
These are individual liberties demanded by the people or they were not going to ratify this Constitution, period!

Next, Fifth and Sixth
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Again, Individual Liberty guaranteed to every person.

So far the anti-federalist, the States and a Federalist "Madison" came up with these first amendments out of the hundreds of concerns to address the liberty of the people.

Some would have you believe that every RIGHT but the second one on the list
?was about individual liberties. Why would that be? Why would they do that? They didn't!

Anyone, ... Anyone, who states The Second Amendment does not refer to individual liberty and the right to arms is ignorant or a liar trying to rewrite History.

The First Amendment wasn't freedom for religion if you belong to the church or a group of churches. It was freedom of religion for The INDIVIDUAL.

The freedom of speech wasn't just for representatives elected by the states or for people that belonged to certain groups. IT was freedom of speech for The INDIVIDUAL.

The Fourth didn't protect certain peoples houses or only State Houses and possessions. It was suppose to protect Every Single Persons Houses and Possessions. The Individual

Everyone agrees with this.

The Second didn't guarantee rights of arms to just the militia but to the people. The Individual just as every single other concern by those who would not ratify the Constitution without these INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

Just as you did not have to belong to a church for religious freedom or require you to belong to a group to have your freedom of speech you did not have to belong to anything to bear arms.

So, anyone who thinks that a group of people who would not sign our new Constitution without these protections for individual liberty, sat down with hundreds of concerns, agreed on ten, wrote them and decide to make the Second not apply to a individual but to a collective body is a revisionist.

E.Shell

01-20-2013, 12:57 AM

"Arms" have always been "weapons". To understand the specifics of "weapons" in our context, one has to think about the times when the Bill of Rights and Constitution were designed. At that time, "arms" were weapons of common use by both soldiers and civilians - muzzle loading handguns, rifles and shotguns.

The idea of guaranteeing absolutely no government infringement upon the keeping and bearing of arms was that designers of the Constitution understood the danger of a government being able to disarm its "subjects" (yes, "subjects", "citizens" have arms). History is full of such situations, and none lead to freedom and liberty for the masses.

The other important concept was that the population had the same (state of the art) weaponry as the military, in order that the armed citizens have the means to join in to help protect the country (militia), and in order that the armed citizenry resist attempts of the government to subjugate the citizens.

At the time this document was drafted, the biggest weapons were blackpowder cannon. Weapons have changed, the imperative has not.

Here are some notable quotes at the George Mason University website by the designers of the Constitution and its amendments that help put some of the question into context. :
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

While a good citizen should always have personal weaponry comparable to the troops in order to participate in the active defense of the country and to defend himself adequately against any credible threat, there is already a clear legal limit as to the amount of firepower the Average Joe can wield.

First, we have caliber limitations. Anything over .50 caliber (a bore size of .500"-.510") with rifling is considered by law a "destructive device". Destructive devices are subject to the NFA of 1934 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act), our very first infringement by our masters. This law created a "tax" that required background checks to pay and a national registration system to begin amassing the names of law abiding citizens. In order to have a firearm with a bore diameter of more than .50", one must submit to local background checks, approval by their local chief LEO, further investigation by the ATF & FBI, fingerprinting, photographing and a "tax:" of $200.00. It costs about $50.00 for the prints, pics and background check preliminary to paying this "tax". When you are approved (months later), you get an actual tax stamp, like that found on a bottle of liquor, that is worth 10 years of prison time if you lose it. Good luck. Luckily, shotguns are exempted...for now. No more rifled cannons without tax/registration.

Then, our rate of fire is heavily restricted, also as of 1934. Nothing is allowed that fires more than one shot per pull of the trigger, which is what defines a machine gun and true assault rifle. EVERYTHING out listed at "automatic" that one buys in the local gun shop cash & carry is actually SEMI-automatic, and only fires one shot per pull of the trigger. Machine guns are legal to have, but again quite restricted and require exactly the same procedure/expense/delay/tax stamp as a "destructive device". AR-15s are semi-automatic and only fire one shot per pull of the trigger, just like many handguns, shotguns and other rifles, yet are labeled "assault rifles" to imply full auto capability, hence extra deadliness. In short, if your semi-auto malfs and you get a burst, you're looking at 10 years in federal prison and $10k in fines, plus legal fees.

We also have (lack of) noise restrictions. To own a suppressor ("silencer") is also regulated as per the NFA 1934, and also requires the same tax stamp as full auto and destructive devices. In much of Europe, it is considered rather bad manners to shoot unsuppressed and create a disturbance. Here in the US, suppressors have been villianized and treated as if they are somehow evil. Silly, I think, yet I jumped through the hoops and got a suppressor for my .22 rifle so I can target practice and control pests quietly.

Then, there is actually a rule about how short it can be. A "sawed off shotgun" (or rifle) is again illegal since 1934 without the special tax stamp, although some variations may be registered as "AOW" (any other weapon) and the tax stamp is only $5.00 and muych depend on whether it started life out short, or got short later. Stupid stuff, especially when one considers the firepower available with modern handguns in much more compact packages.

If I want to shorten my .22 rifle barrel below 16" (to keep it from being 7 feet long with the suppressor installed) and install a suppressor, it takes TWO tax stamps; one for the short barreled rifle and one for the suppressor: $200.00 + $200.00 + TWO complete background checks...at the same time...Yeah, that takes a bite out of crime... Do it in the privacy of your own home without the background checks and taxes, go to jail for twenty years (10 years per offense).

Something to remember with this "tax" and registration scheme is that at the time this law was passed (1934) the amount of $200.00 was a staggering sum. These days $200.00 is just a quick stabbing pain, then gone. Back then, it was TWO MONTH'S salary. The average factory worker made 58 cents an hour (http://stats.bls.gov/opub/uscs/1934-36.pdf). The staggering amount of money to the Average Joe was considered to be a deterrent, rather than an actual legitimate fee of some sort. So, the .gov had its cake and enjoyed it too: They did not have Constitutional authority to outright "ban" guns (or even regulate them), but, they found a way to limit legal possession and regulate them so that no one could afford it.

There is also a limit on how you get it. As of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968), the .guv took an active hand in tracking and recording all firearms purchases, plus the government exercised a (sorta) legal opinion about who may and may not own a gun. In the wake of the JFK execution, the NRA supported this travesty. No longer could the Average Joe buy guns through the mail. Still can't. Can't buy guns off the internet - never could, gotta go through a dealer if they cross states line. Private sales, between two law abiding citizens, could still take place without government intrusion, but this has become limited in some ways since then. This registration system was not supposed to be a 'registration system', but only a temporary way to track sales and ensure bad guys didn't buy guns at the sport shop, which they didn't/don't anyway. These days, the Form 4473 (yellow form), originally destined for destruction after ten years, is immortal.

There is a limit on how you make or modify stuff. Up until 1986, when Prez Reagan (republican devil) signed the FOPA, which also made it illegal to make your own machine gun anymore. Used to be, you could jump through the hoops, pay your money, get your prints and pics taken like a criminal, stand in the corner for six months, then receive your blessed tax stamp as the official "OK" to drill the one hole required to make your semi-auto AR-15 a select fire (full auto) M-16, a true assault rifle.

In fact, the 1986 ban on machine guns meant that no machine gun made since 1986 can be transferred between law abiding citizens, which artificially drove the price of a Colt M16A1 from $750.00 in 1986 to its current value of nearly $20,000.00.

Explosives are heavily regulated, in that a federal and local explosives handlers permit is required to store or transport explosives, along with safe storage provisions and liability insurance. There are exceptions, such as the allowance to mix and use explosives on the farm for stump and rock removal, or like the binary exploding targets (Tannerite), but the exceptions call for mixing on the spot and immediate use, with no storage or transportation allowed.

I don't have any facts, but I would reckon nuclear devices would fall under explosives to and also require special licensing.

Incendiaries, at least the hand held stuff, are not heavily regulated. If something explodes and creates fire, it's still an explosive, otherwise...its just an incendiary. As far as I know, one may legally buy a flamethrower and clear the sidewalk (I HATE f'n weeds) at will. "Signal" flares and launchers are available in several sizes, and any can create a nasty fire. No real use in regulating incendiary compounds, almost everything burns.... Anyone who can trace their genealogy in the interwebs can figure out stuff like hillbilly napalm and ghetto thermite.

As a side note, one can buy incendiary and tracer ammunition, but in calibers below 50, its more novelty and joke than an actual game changer.

As far as biologicals go, I have no idea the regulations involved, but here is a short article on it (http://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/research-policies/research-compliance/federal-regulation-of-biological-agents-in-research). I would probably limit my own biological warfare to baked beans and the occasional dutch oven.

E.Shell

01-20-2013, 12:58 AM

LOL Dennis, I see I'm not the only one that got started on this...

Fangthane

01-20-2013, 01:43 AM

I see. So, the whole argument is based on its application to The Individual being strongly contextually inferred, although not explicitly stated? And the questioning of that inference's validity is what defines a "revisionist"? Again, I'm not against gun ownership, but it seems that the implication vs. statement aspect, however small it may seem, could possibly leave it open to interpretation. Especially if it were somehow viewed as a stand-alone piece, and not as part of a themed whole.

WebSlave

01-20-2013, 02:04 AM

Generally speaking, I believe nuclear weapons are not considered as "arms" at all. They are political weapons of a national level in the sense that any legitimate use of such weapons normally requires the direct approval from the head of state to be used under ANY circumstances. There is no blank check prior approval that authorizes the use of nuclear weapons without the direct input and approval from the highest levels of government at the time of perceived need.

As for what weapons or arms a private individual could actually own, well tell me, what COULD a private individual own prior to 1934 without having to pay a contrived tax? What weapons or arms COULD a private individual own prior to the law implemented in 1968 that neutered that right?

What is different about one side of the dividing line before and after those above mentioned dates and the other side? Besides the fact that we had more freedom before than we did afterwards, of course.

And although extremely destructive devices were readily available prior to those dates, how commonly were they used in illegal activities? Excluding the legendary movie screen favorite of the "tommy gun", of course.

Heck, I remember seeing ads in magazines such as popular mechanics when I was a kid for things like Lahti 20mm anti-tank cannons. How many of them were used in a crime back then?

WebSlave

01-20-2013, 02:16 AM

AbsoluteApril

01-20-2013, 02:21 AM

I support the right for people to have 'arms', I also support limits on what firearms can be had as well as mandatory waiting periods/background checks.

Sorry if my post is all over the place :o

From Daily Show: Coming for Your Guns - President Obama issues executive orders aimed at controlling assault weapons (5:39min)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-17-2013/grand-theft-semi-auto---coming-for-your-guns
"first they came for our guns and I said nothing, because they really didn't"

from Colbert report: Obama's Gun Grab - King Gun Snatcher the Magnificent (2:52min)
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/422998/january-17-2013/obama-s-gun-grab

Wanted to share an interesting post my dad had made on another forum that may be relevant to the discussion:

Besides the fact that no one needs such weapons for any legitimate purpose, the idea that the Second Amendment was included so that citizens could "protect themselves from the government" is a recent twist on actual history and is incorrect. This idea stems from Madison's statements defending the Amendment to Congress in 1787 when he said that armed citizens are necessary to "defend the Republic" against foreign invaders or against "States who would oppose Federal power." So the real intent that has led to this modern misinterpretation was to defend the Federal Government against rogue factions in the various States - like resisting the Texas independence movement, for example. The other reason the Second Amendment (actually originally the Fourth, but the first two were shot down) was so that slave states like Virginia would vote for ratification, as it protected the rights of their slave-capture posses to remain armed even if abolitionist factions in their States tried to disarm them. It protected the rights of slave catchers to ride around toting weapons.

WebSlave

01-20-2013, 03:15 AM

I support the right for people to have 'arms', I also support limits on what firearms can be had as well as mandatory waiting periods/background checks.

So tell me, how would you define the term "infringe"?

[QUOTE=AbsoluteApril;1563878]Sorry if my post is all over the place :o

From Daily Show: Coming for Your Guns - President Obama issues executive orders aimed at controlling assault weapons (5:39min)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-17-2013/grand-theft-semi-auto---coming-for-your-guns
"first they came for our guns and I said nothing, because they really didn't"

from Colbert report: Obama's Gun Grab - King Gun Snatcher the Magnificent (2:52min)
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/422998/january-17-2013/obama-s-gun-grab

Wanted to share an interesting post my dad had made on another forum that may be relevant to the discussion:

[QUOTE]Besides the fact that no one needs such weapons for any legitimate purpose, the idea that the Second Amendment was included so that citizens could "protect themselves from the government" is a recent twist on actual history and is incorrect. This idea stems from Madison's statements defending the Amendment to Congress in 1787 when he said that armed citizens are necessary to "defend the Republic" against foreign invaders or against "States who would oppose Federal power." So the real intent that has led to this modern misinterpretation was to defend the Federal Government against rogue factions in the various States - like resisting the Texas independence movement, for example. The other reason the Second Amendment (actually originally the Fourth, but the first two were shot down) was so that slave states like Virginia would vote for ratification, as it protected the rights of their slave-capture posses to remain armed even if abolitionist factions in their States tried to disarm them. It protected the rights of slave catchers to ride around toting weapons.

I doubt that above quote is accurate in it's interpretation of the Second Amendment. As pointed out in Dennis's post, the US Constitution and subsequent amendments were created with the intention of protecting THE PEOPLE and the states from the new federal government that was being created. It seems HIGHLY unlikely that the Second Amendment was created completely isolated and directly opposed to the intent of the other amendments by being designed to protect the federal government from the states (and thereby THE PEOPLE of those states) that were creating this new federal entity.

Dennis Hultman

01-20-2013, 04:55 AM

The other reason the Second Amendment (actually originally the Fourth, but the first two were shot down) was so that slave states like Virginia would vote for ratification, as it protected the rights of their slave-capture posses to remain armed even if abolitionist factions in their States tried to disarm them. It protected the rights of slave catchers to ride around toting weapons.

To go one point further than what Rich mentioned. Why choose this as "the other reason" as if it was the solid fact and no other. States were also concerned about a standing federal army and the rights of the state militia.

The fact is many brought forth varying concerns. Not just slave states. Even the ACLU and other groups not fond of individual gun rights claim today or put out papers that the second was to halt concerns by the states of the above and does not apply to individuals..

You see the anti-federalist are the ones that demanded the Bill Of Rights.

While Madison was a Virginian himself and a slave owner and he used the Virginia Declaration of Rights in his drafting it had nothing to do with slaves.

That whole point is construed and not factual from a original source. I would ask show me the original source and confirmation. You can't do it because it is only conjecture and interpretation.

This is Virginia's Declaration of Rights 1776

inherent rights of men, including the right to rebel against "inadequate" government.

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the Representatives of the good people of VIRGINIA, assembled in full and free Convention; which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of Government.

I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

II. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

III. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

IV. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge be hereditary.

V. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

VI. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.

VII That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

VIII That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgement of his peers.

IX That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

X That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

XI That in controversies respecting property and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.

XII That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

XIV That the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

XV That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Adopted unanimously June 12, 1776 Virginia Convention of Delegates drafted by Mr. George Mason

Bill of Rights 1689

The Bill of Rights laid out certain basic rights for (at the time) all Englishmen. The Act set out that there should be:

no royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.
no taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of the parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes
freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution
no standing army may be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of parliament.[7]
no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law (simultaneously restoring rights previously taken from Protestants by James II)
no royal interference in the election of members of parliament
the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament
"grants and promises of fines or forfeitures" before conviction are void
no excessive bail or "cruel and unusual" punishments may be imposed

So two separate drafting items used in Our Bill Of Rights both contained

Right to Arms and to affirm individual liberty.

But ours doesn't mean that. The second is to protect the Feds and the dirty slave owners. I guess if you want to demonize people...

I'm sure bias doesn't have anything to do wit it
Besides the fact that no one needs such weapons for any legitimate purpose

Another statement not fact, stated as fact but just personal opinion.

Dennis Hultman

01-20-2013, 12:01 PM

Danny Glover made a big stink about this a couple of days ago. Here is the only other person I can find that previously brought this up as of late

That theory that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to put down slave rebellions was recently resurrected by bestselling author and radio host Thom Hartmann, who said Virginia wouldn’t ratify the Constitution without a guarantee that it would have some way to keep slaves in check.

It is that, A theory. Nothing more. I watched a piece done by Hartman on statements made my Patrick Henry and others and why he came to that conclusion. It was extremely biased by his partisan positions on everything. It was also filled with conjecture and theory as to how that amendment came to light and the precise wording.

Of course now it's being stated as fact that Mr. Glover says it is so at Texas A&M. It went hand in hand with his statements that we are nothing more than a big racist society today.

AbsoluteApril

01-20-2013, 12:15 PM

everyone's expressing opinions. :yesnod:

I doubt that above quote is accurate in it's interpretation of the Second Amendment. As pointed out in Dennis's post, the US Constitution and subsequent amendments were created with the intention of protecting THE PEOPLE and the states from the new federal government that was being created. It seems HIGHLY unlikely that the Second Amendment was created completely isolated and directly opposed to the intent of the other amendments by being designed to protect the federal government from the states (and thereby THE PEOPLE of those states) that were creating this new federal entity.

My dad replied - "It's not to protect the people from the government, it's about creating the government from the people. Read what James Madison said. The 2nd amendment intent is to specifically protect federal sovereignty*."

Take into consideration the motivations of those that created this are vastly different from the current state of affairs.

The slave issue was simply brought up to try to point out political motivations are no different than they are now.

*"Federal sovereignty" is the extension of authority by a federation or group of governments, where the prerogatives of the group supercede those of the individual member states. One example under the US Constitution is the supremacy of Federal courts in decisions over laws, rights, and interstate commerce. Another would be the issuance of the national currency

there is Bias in this essay (esp the title) but the research behind it seems sound: http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

I do not wish to continue to speak for my dad as I feel he knows a lot more about this subject that I do and I do not want anything 'lost in translation'.

Dennis Hultman

01-20-2013, 05:42 PM

Its interesting to look at each state Constitution as well. I didn't vet this. It was compiled by someone else. But let's us simply look at the free states at the time and what their own individual state constitutions stated. If anything most states have simply strengthened their stance. So all the states came together with their own state constitutions such as

Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, art. I, § 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Alaska: 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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Art. I, § 19 (first sentence enacted 1959, second sentence added 1994).

[Individual right explicitly protected; provision enacted in 1994, when the individual right to bear arms was generally understood as aimed at protecting self-defense.]

Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. Art. II, § 5 (enacted 1868, art. I, § 5).
1836: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. II, § 21.

[Self-defense right protected, Arkansas Game and Fish Com'n v. Murders, 327 Ark. 426 (1997); Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557 (1878).]

California: No provision.

Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987).

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
(c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.
(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun. Art. I, § 8 (sections (b)-(d) added in 1990).
1838: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, § 21.
1865: Clause omitted.
1868: "The people shall have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State." Art. I, § 22.
1885: "The right of the people to bear arms in defence of themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne." Art. I, § 20.
1968: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law." Art. I, § 8.

[Self-defense right protected, Alexander v. State, 450 So.2d 1212 (Fla. App. 1984).]

Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. Art. I, § 1, ¶ VIII (enacted 1877, art. I, § XXII).
1865: "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." Art. I, § 4.
1868: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but the general assembly shall have power to prescribe by law the manner in which arms may be borne." Art. I, § 14.

[Self-defense right protected, McCoy v. State, 157 Ga. 767 (1924).]

Hawaii: 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. Art. I, § 17 (enacted 1959).

[No decision about whether self-defense right right is protected.]

Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1978).
1889: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law." Art. I, § 11.

[Self-defense right protected, In re Brickey, 70 P. 609 (Idaho 1902).]

Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1970).

[Self-defense right protected, Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266, 273 (Ill. 1984).]

Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Art. I, § 32 (enacted 1851, art. I, § 32).
1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.

[Self-defense right protected, Kellogg v. City of Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685, 694 (Ind. 1990).]

Iowa: No provision.

Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Bill of Rights, § 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, § 4).

[Interpreted as collective right only, City of Salina v. Blaksley, 83 P. 619 (Kan. 1905), adhered to by City of Junction City v. Lee, 532 P.2d 1292 (Kan. 1975). But see City of Junction City v. Mevis, 601 P.2d 1145, 1151 (Kan. 1979) (striking down a gun control law, challenged by an individual citizen, on the grounds that it was “unconstitutionally overbroad,” and thus implicitly concluding that the right to bear arms did indeed belong to individual citizens).]

Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ...
Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. § 1 (enacted 1891).
1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.
1799: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. X, § 23.
1850: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms." Art. XIII, § 25.

Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1974).
1879: "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 abridged. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed." Art. 3.

[Self-defense right protected, State v. Chaisson, 457 So.2d 1257, 1259 (La. App. 1984).]

Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. Art. I, § 16 (enacted 1987, after a collective-rights interpretation of the original provision).
1819: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned." Art. I, § 16.

[Self-defense right protected, State v. Brown, 571 A.2d 816 (Me. 1990).]

Maryland: No provision.

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).

[Interpreted as collective right only, Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976).]

Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1963).
1835: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 13.
1850: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." Art. XVIII, § 7.

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Minnesota: No provision.

Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, § 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, § 12).
1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.
1832: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the State." Art. I, § 23.
1868: "All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence." Art. I, § 15.

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).
1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.
1865: Same as above, but with "the lawful authority of the State" instead of "the State." Art. I, § 8.
1875: "That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons." Art. II, § 17.

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Art. II, § 12 (enacted 1889).

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1988).

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. Art. I, § 11(1) (enacted 1982).

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. Pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982).

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

New Jersey: No provision.

New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. Art. II, § 6 (first sentence enacted in 1971, second sentence added 1986).
1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." Art. II, § 6.

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

New York: No provision.

North Carolina: 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. Art. 1, § 30 (enacted 1971).
1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Bill of Rights, § XVII.
1868: "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; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Art. I, § 24.
1875: Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."

[Self-defense right protected, State v. Kerner. 107 S.E. 222, 225 (N.C. 1921).]

North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1984).

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 4 (enacted 1851).
1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.

[Self-defense right protected, Arnold v. Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d 163, 169 (Ohio 1993).]

Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1907).

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.] Art. I, § 27 (enacted 1857, art. I, § 28).

[Self-defense right protected, State v. Hirsch, 114 P.3d 1104, 1110 (Ore. 2005).]

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

[Self-defense right protected, Sayres v. Commonwealth, 88 Pa. 291 (1879).]

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1842).

[Self-defense right protected, Mosby v. Devine, 851 A.2d 1031, 1043 (R.I. 2004).]

South Carolina: 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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. Art. 1, § 20 (enacted 1895).
1868: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. As, in times of peace . . . ." Art. I, § 28.

[Right treated as an individual right, apparently aimed at least partly at self-defense, State v. Johnson, 16 S.C. 187 (1881);

South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. Art. VI, § 24 (enacted 1889).

[Self-defense right protected, Conaty v. Solem, 422 N.W.2d 102, 104 (S.D. 1988).]

Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1870).
1796: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. XI, § 26.
1834: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, § 26.

[Self-defense right protected, State v. Foutch, 34 S.W. 1, 1 (Tenn. 1896).]

Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).
1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power." Declaration of Rights, cl. 14.
1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State." Art. I, § 13.
1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." Art. I, § 13.

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1984).
1896: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law."

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

[Self-defense right protected, State v. Rosenthal, 55 A. 610 (Vt. 1903).]

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Art. I, § 13 (enacted 1776 without explicit right to keep and bear arms; "therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" added in 1971).

Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. Art. III, § 22 (enacted 1986).

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art. I, § 25 (enacted 1998).

[Self-defense right protected, State v. Fisher, 714 N.W.2d 495 (Wisc. 2006).]

Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).

[Self-defense right protected, State v. McAdams, 714 P.2d 1236, 1238 (Wyo. 1986).]

There are a few states that offer no protection in their on State Constitutions. There are many in the original 13 that did.

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Rhode Island; May 29, 1790

Ratification of the Constitution, by the Convention of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations

We the Delegates of the People of the State of Rhode-Island, and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of this State, do declare and make known

In That there are certain natural rights, of which men when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting Property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

2d That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from the People; that magistrates therefore are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable to them.

3d That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:- That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply, that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said constitution, but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

4th That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and not by force or violence, and therefore all men, have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favoured, or established by law in preference to others.

5th That the legislative, executive and judiciary powers of government, should be separate and distinct, and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the publick burthens, they should at fixed periods be reduced to a private station, return into the mass of the people, and the vacancies be supplied by certain and regular elections, in which all, or any part of the former members, to be eligible or ineligible, as the rules of the constitution of government and the laws shall direct.

6th That elections of representatives in legislature ought to be free and frequent, and all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to the community ought to have the right of suffrage, and no aid, charge tax or fee can be set, rated or levied upon the people, without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor can they be bound by any law, to which they have not in like manner assented for the publick good.

7th That all power of suspending laws or the execution of laws, by any authority without the consent of the representatives of the people in the legislature, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.

8th That in all capital and criminal prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence and be allowed counsel in his favour, and to a fair and speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; (except in the government of the land and naval forces) nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself.

9th That no freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned or disseised of his freehold, liberties, privileges, or franchises, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property but by the trial by jury, or by the law of the land.

10th That every freeman restrained of his liberty, is intitled to a remedy, to enquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the same if unlawful, and that such remedy ought not to be denied or delayed.

11th That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man the antient trial by jury, as bath been exercised by us and our ancestors, from the time whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary, is one of the greatest securities to the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolate.

12th That every freeman ought to obtain right and justice, freely and without sale, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, and that all establishments or regulations contravening these rights, are oppressive and unjust.

13th That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.

14th That every person has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seisures of his person, his papers or his property, and therefore that all warrants to search suspected places or seise any person, his papers or his property, without information upon oath, or affirmation, of sufficient cause, are grievous and oppressive, and that all general warrants for such in which the place or person suspected, are not particularly designated,) are dangerous, and ought not to be granted.

15th That the people have a right peaceably to assemble together, to consult for their common good, or to instruct their representatives; and that every person has a right to petition or apply to the legislature for redress of grievances.

16th That the people have a right to freedom of speech and of writing, and publishing their sentiments, that freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated.

17th That the people have a right to keep and bear arms, that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection; that standing armies in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, and in time of war, only by the civil magistrate, in such manner as the law directs.

18th That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent, to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Art. I, § 13 (enacted 1776 without explicit right to keep and bear arms; "therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" added in 1971).

It's interesting to go down that list and see what states disagree with that inherit right or make no provision for it today.

There are only five States, 5 and most come as no surprise.

California: No provision.
New York: No provision.
New Jersey: No provision.
Maryland: No provision.
Minnesota: No provision.
Iowa: No provision.

So where are the States today on this concept? If we go by the States that were suppose to appoint Senators to the Legislative Branch to allow representation on state interests and state sovereignty and represent the state in Congress, and elect representatives of the people of each state to the house, there is a overwhelming support by the people to keep and bear arms and self defense.

Now we have simply become a nation of parties with diminished power of the states. The right to bear arms and self defense still has a majority by representation in congress and the people.

As much as California and New York think they have the people that support restrictions and redefining, they simply don't with the whole of this country.

JColt

01-22-2013, 08:06 AM

interesting read

http://thegrio.com/2013/01/11/nra-was-pro-gun-control-when-it-came-to-black-panthers/

Helenthereef

01-22-2013, 07:17 PM

Well, that was a lot more information than I'd bargained for! Thanks to everyone for such well thought out and detailed discussions. It's certainly not a simple situation.

I have another simplistic question, and I'll apologise in advance if it's a stupid one...

What I do seem to get from many of the quotations is that the original concept of bearing arms was to form a militia so that there did NOT HAVE TO BE A STANDING ARMY IN TIMES OF PEACE.

So - could that be read to mean that either a large portion of the standing army could be disbanded because there are plenty of armed citizens, or that the citizenry does not need to be armed because there currently is a large standing army?

JColt

01-26-2013, 02:15 PM

So - could that be read to mean that either a large portion of the standing army could be disbanded because there are plenty of armed citizens, or that the citizenry does not need to be armed because there currently is a large standing army?

Hehe, Almost like asking Chicken or the egg. :shrug01:

Dennis Hultman

02-05-2013, 11:50 AM

vcjKuV1TOkE

Metachrosis

02-05-2013, 12:21 PM

take note of the exclusion regarding the American Indians racial arms oppression

Helenthereef

02-05-2013, 01:48 PM

vcjKuV1TOkE

I'm currently viewing on a tablet that doesn't' want to open this for me, any chance you can make a short precise? If not, I'll try to see it in a couple of days.

Metachrosis

02-05-2013, 03:45 PM

Pretty close here

http://www.naturalnews.com/038789_Danny_Glover_gun_control_ignorance.html

Helenthereef

02-05-2013, 08:50 PM

Thanks for that, it's certainly an interesting slant.

I'm not trying to promote any agenda here - I'm a non-American and want to educate myself a bit on the argument, which I am fast coming to understand is a vastly complex one.

When the issue hits global headlines, the argument we hear is often that you do not need semi-automatic weapons to hunt deer, and so I had the impression that most of the gun owner arguments were based on the rights to go hunting. The other is that everyone has a right to defend their home and family.

Now I'm seeing that the second amendment may be more about protecting SOCIETY (not even so much individual households) against threats, which may, or may not, be a malicious government, slave uprisings, and presumably, more recently, terrorist attack.

"That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

In which case the second amendment seems to state that the right to bear arms is linked to being involved in an organised militia, as an alternative to doing military service - or is this a separate point?

Dennis Hultman

02-05-2013, 08:59 PM

In which case the second amendment seems to state that the right to bear arms is linked to being involved in an organised militia, as an alternative to doing military service.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038789_Danny_Glover_gun_control_ignorance.html#ixz z2K4xnxM4t

It's not. This is the 2nd

Amendment II

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.

And the supreme court as reaffirmed it (District of Columbia v. Heller). Not that it needed it.

Dennis Hultman

02-05-2013, 09:08 PM

"As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives."

___________________________________

"As passed by the Congress:

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."

Helenthereef

02-05-2013, 09:08 PM

Dennis Hultman

02-05-2013, 09:49 PM

TUA4fpDv1jk

Dennis Hultman

02-05-2013, 09:52 PM

I teared up in the middle of this one. As a father, I can't, I wouldn't want to imagine

wk-PC4Ro4J4

Metachrosis

02-05-2013, 10:11 PM

Red Coats :yesnod: Governmental entities throwing their weight around
attempting unjust (tyrannical)control.
Currently the governing heads are attempting such without following due process,aka: infringe

What then IS the relationship?

Dennis Hultman

02-05-2013, 10:43 PM

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

OK, so separate points, thanks.

Not to carry this on to the point of futility, but it seems to me that the two parts are related in some way;the right to bear arms with the necessity of having a militia? What then IS the relationship?

I don't know? Ask the men that were there.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., reissued 1967)

"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to
infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or
to prevent "the people" of the United States who are peaceable citizens
from keeping their own arms..."

- Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government."

Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

Same types quotes can be found many times over. Find me one that advocates taking any arms from the people or that it isn't a natural right for self defense. On the contrary it is stated by the founders of this country over and over again. From the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and until their later years.

"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

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
- Richard Henry Lee

"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

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison

So do the talking heads, wordsmithing and definition changing times alter these words?

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison

Who wrote the Bill of Rights? Hmm, look at those quotes and tell me it isn't the peoples right or that it was simply about slavery.

Dennis Hultman

02-05-2013, 10:55 PM

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the
other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the
plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.
The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of
arms, for all the world would be alike; but since some will not, others
dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the
world deprived the use of them..."

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation
that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the
difference between having our arms in possession and under our
direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our
defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they
be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own
hands?"

[B]
"... the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and
bear their private arms."

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people
always possess arms..."

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I
advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives
boldness, enterprise, and independence Games played with the ball, and
others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no
character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion
of your walk."

"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.... 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." (The Federalist, No. 46)

WebSlave

02-06-2013, 12:20 AM

OK, so separate points, thanks.

Not to carry this on to the point of futility, but it seems to me that the two parts are related in some way;the right to bear arms with the necessity of having a militia? What then IS the relationship?

Yes, in a way they are related, but bear in mind that the phrase eventually used in the Bill of Rights as the second line item was condensed from much larger statements involving BOTH a state militia and the right of individuals to bear arms. And in seeking brevity, points that meant something to the people of that time, have changed their meaning to the people of today. In short, "militia" and "every able-bodied American", pretty much meant the same thing, and not the "national guard" sort of GOVERNMENT controlled organization that some people wish to believe it refers to today. And "well regulated" was meant to say "the people" who practiced and were experienced with their arms so that they would be effective in their use. "Regulation" pretty much meant being able to control your weapon effectively enough to be able to hit your target. Not in the context of today implying that "the people" should be regulated in the manner of a body of people under the command and control of the very government that the Second Amendment was penned to try to protect us from. In effect, the states wanted BOTH a militia AND all able bodied Americans to be able to protect them from the fearsome powers they were granting the federal government, and they tried to cover them both in one amendment for expediency's sake in order to get ratification from all the states.

There is an interesting description of this struggle with the ratification of the Bill of Rights concerning the Second Amendment here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

And certainly "the people" being used in the phrasing of the Second Amendment means nothing different than that same term used in any other of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, where it is obviously intented to portray an INDIVIDUAL right rather than a collective one subject to any sort of controls that converts a "right", to a government controlled "privilege".

The Second Amendment had nothing at all to do about hunting or shooting Indians as some people will claim. To even think that such things were high on the list of concerns to the people creating the federal government after their bloody war with Great Britain is completely ludicrous to the extreme. These people were deathly afraid they were creating the fire underneath the frying pan that they had just jumped out of.

The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 because the "colonies" had had enough of merry old England and wanted to dance to their own drummer. Of course, that took place while the war of independence was already swelling into motion, and which ended in 1783. After the smoke cleared, apparently the colonies were afraid that the necessary government they needed to create would become just another monster of their own creation when the US Constitution was signed in 1787. So they set about creating further restraints on the federal government that became known as the document called the Bill of Rights that was signed in 1789.

As to the purpose of the Bill of Rights:

In September 1789, the first Congress of the United States approved 12 amendments to the U.S. Constitution and sent them to the states for ratification. The amendments were designed to protect the basic rights of U.S. citizens, guaranteeing the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and exercise of religion; the right to fair legal procedure and to bear arms; and that powers not delegated to the federal government would be reserved for the states and the people.

Source: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/bill-of-rights-is-finally-ratified

Obviously not all of the 12 amendments offered were ratified by all of the states, which left just the 10 that comprise that which we now know as the Bill of Rights.

Some people mistakenly believe that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created to grant "the people" privileges that were under the purview and control of the federal government, but in truth, it is the exact opposite. The US Constitution was penned to itemize and detail EXACTLY which powers the new federal government was to have at it's disposal, to try to LIMIT the powers of this entity. The subsequent Bill of Rights was penned because the states FEARED this entity enough that they felt that the Constitution did not go far enough in being specific about the rights retained and belonging to the states and the people, that they wanted IN WRITING what basic undeniable and unalienable rights "the people" and the states had, that were NOT under the control of this new governing agency.

Of course, now more than 200 years later, we can see obviously that those documents did not go far enough to try to restrain the beast being created. And it becomes more and more obvious every day that the Second Amendment was their only hope of giving a means to "the people" to be able to truly be masters of their own fate, and have the ABILITY to say an emphatic NO to laws and regulations that a rogue federal government may try to perpetrate upon them to take away THEIR freedom in it's pursuit of more and more power over their lives. Why there are not more seismic tremors throughout the mid-atlantic region where our forefathers have to be spinning in their graves is beyond me.

Once freedom is gone in the USA, I believe the game is over for the entire world. Where else can people escape to in order to get the freedom that the settlers to this country originally came for? How can anyone escape a "New World Order" that wishes to have power over all of "the people" no matter where they live? What other country has the power to restore OUR freedom if OUR government becomes the "domestic enemy" that takes them away from us? And how long will THEIR freedom in THEIR countries survive after our fall? Do you really think an all powerful "new world order" is going to allow anyone to be exempt from their demands?

I guess if you make the prison walls far enough apart, and distract the people effectively from making any real effort to try to find and scale those walls, I suppose most people will never even know that they are in a prison.

Metachrosis

02-06-2013, 12:54 AM

Bravo Y'all !!
Great posting, warm fuzzy stuff of true Patriot beliefs

Helenthereef

02-23-2013, 02:34 PM

I`ve been out of email contact for a couple of weeks, but I`d like to thank you all for such detailed responses. I can certainly see that this is not nearly the simplistic situation I had imagined.
Many of us outside the U$ have had this presented to us as a hunting rights issue, and the logic of that did not add up.
While I personally remain someone who would rather not live in an armed society, I have very much appreciated the thought and time put into your explanations, and it`s given us a lot of material for discussion over here.
One of the things I can see is that, desirability or otherwise of having an armed population notwithstanding, once you HAVE created such a society, it is certainly extremely difficult to change that. You have shown me why people take this as such an incursion on their general rights.
Thanks for all responses.