Is Gun Ownership a Right?

[stanc]

Sorry Stan, my wife has exclusive rights for putting blame me.

In that case, I guess I am going to have to take the blame. :eek:

My apologies to all for the screw-up and resulting confusion.

[keystone183]

I agree. And in rereading this thread, I see that I did kinda make that assertion in post #54. :o

I really do not know why I wrote what I did in that post. Is it okay if I blame it on montana?

KINDA???!?!?!!?!?!:p

[stanc]

KINDA???!?!?!!?!?!:p

Yeah. "Kinda," as in "not exactly." I did not make an explicit assertion that the RKBA was limited to militia members.
I asked this question: "Why would the militia even be mentioned if the RKBA is independent of militia membership?"

[BjornF16]

...The idea of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state is very clear. And i agree that it is indeed why Madison included it!

Ummm...Madison didn't submit what became the 2A in the form it exists as adopted...it was re-arranged by committee.

Here is the text as submitted by Madison on June 8, 1789:

“The 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.”

- Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America, Charlene Bangs Bickford ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), vol. 4, at 9-10.



So I would say that Madison, in fact, MEANT the right of the people to keep and bear arms was not dependent upon being in the militia (which is also supported by the writings of the day), but rather the militia draws from the population who are very familiar with the use of arms.

[stanc]

So I would say that Madison, in fact, MEANT the right of the people to keep and bear arms was not dependent upon being in the militia...

Concur.

...but rather the militia draws from the population who are very familiar with the use of arms.

Not exactly.

The militia draws from a small subset of the population (in the 18th century, able-bodied, white males 18-45 years old), who may or may not be familiar with the use of firearms, and most of whom are likely not the least bit familiar with the military use of arms.

[BjornF16]

Not exactly.

The militia draws from a small subset of the population (in the 18th century, able-bodied, white males 18-45 years old), who may or may not be familiar with the use of firearms, and most of whom are likely not the least bit familiar with the military use of arms.

The 2A does NOT say: "The right of militia members to keep and bear arms..."; it does, however, say: "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms..."

The militia is but a small subset of the PEOPLE...

Furthermore, the Founding Generation fully understood that the federal government was granted NO power to regulate arms by the Constitution, and therefore the ability to regulate arms was reserved to the states. The same could really be said about the entire Bill of Rights (just read the Federalists Papers for arguments supporting this position).

The reference to the militia in what became the 2A was not a recognition of federal authority to regulate arms (as stated above, the Feds were NOT given the specific power to regulate arms), but rather the chief political reason guaranteeing against government infringement (but not necessarily the only reason).

So why did the committee reverse the order of Madison's original submission for what became the 2A?....it reads better (but does not change the meaning).

[stanc]

The militia is but a small subset of the PEOPLE...

Quite true. That's precisely what I told montana, who (erroneously) insisted that the militia is ALL of the people.

Furthermore, the Founding Generation fully understood that the federal government was granted NO power to regulate arms by the Constitution...

Unfortunately, Supreme Court rulings say the federal government CAN regulate arms.

The reference to the militia in what became the 2A was...the chief political reason guaranteeing against government infringement...

That's pretty close to what I said a few pages back.

[stanc]

I do often wonder why the FF's decided that only one single amendment needed an explanatory preface....

I'm going to take another shot at this.

If what BjornF16 said in post #109 is true, putting the militia clause at the beginning of the sentence was not meant to be explanatory, but simply to make the amendment "read better."

Note that Madison's original version did not have an explanatory preface:

The 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.

Instead of rearranging the order of the two clauses, what they really should've done was delete the militia clause from the sentence (as they did with the "conscientious objector" clause).

[tull66]

I don't much care what the Founding Fathers believed. More important is what people today believe. And even more important is what they do.

If you don’t care what the founders believed, you have no business living under the US Constitution. It is the supreme law of theses United States. The US Constitution went into effect 1789 and one needs to consider the states constitutions at that time as they preceded the US Constitution. For example, I am from PA and as of 1776 our preamble reads “WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
Declaration of rights #13 reads:
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense 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.
You will find most states and commonwealths read similarly. To think that ANY state would accept less than that from a union of states, or come up with some other form of treasonous thought is ludicrous. Feel free to read all state constitutions.

[stanc]

If you don’t care what the founders believed, you have no business living under the US Constitution. It is the supreme law of theses United States.

Under the Constitution, the Founders denied women the right to vote.
Under the Constitution, many of the Founders -- including such notables as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson -- practiced slavery, denying the majority of the black population any rights at all.

The US Constitution went into effect 1789 and one needs to consider the states constitutions at that time as they preceded the US Constitution. For example, I am from PA and as of 1776 our preamble reads “WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
Declaration of rights #13 reads:
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense 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.
You will find most states and commonwealths read similarly. To think that ANY state would accept less than that from a union of states, or come up with some other form of treasonous thought is ludicrous. Feel free to read all state constitutions.

1. Most of the State constitutions which pre-dated the Second Amendment did not affirm the people had a right to bear arms to defend themselves. They only said that people had the right to bear arms for defense of the State.

North Carolina (1776) "...the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State..."
Pennsylvania (1776) "...the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state..."
Virginia (1776) "...a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state..."
Vermont (1777) "...the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State..."
Massachusetts (1780) "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

2. Insofar as thinking that "ANY state would accept less than that from a union of states" is ludicrous, note that every State (including Pennsylvania) accepted both the creation of a large standing army, and the demise of the original State militia system established by the Founders.

[montana]

Under the Constitution, the Founders denied women the right to vote.
Under the Constitution, many of the Founders -- including such notables as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson -- practiced slavery, denying the majority of the black population any rights at all.

Yup, and they were surrounded by "nations" native peoples who also practice slavery, denied women rights and some even practice cannibalism and horrendous torture upon other native peoples as well as white and blacks. Most black slaves were sold into captivity by other black Africans to the Arab slave traders. The Arab muslims in Africa had a million white slaves going so far as raiding the Coast of England and other European nations for white slaves, until the Americans put a stop to it. It was a harsh time Stan, so what is your point? Out of that hell hole of a time came the idea of freedom which became the United States, a nation that has evolved into a Constitutional Republic where every ones rights are protected including the minority. Yes, like people themselves, nations are not perfect but I would like you to find a better nation throughout history or today. The one great freedom we all have today, "in the US" is we can leave it if we don't like it here.

[Keef]

"Yup, and they were surrounded by "nations" native peoples who also practice slavery, denied women rights and some even practice cannibalism and horrendous torture upon other native peoples as well as white and blacks."

Are we talking about American Indians here? Most of the bad stuff Indians did to each other was because of being pushed out of historical homelands and into each others way. If you read the books written by the very first trappers and outdoorsmen to encounter them, iot paints a very different picture. Peaceful, plenty of leisure time and virtually no crime. On average they worked 3 hrs a day.

Funny Quote from Cheif "Two Eagles", don't know if its real, I was not there.

The official continued, “Considering all these events, in your opinion, where did the white man go wrong?”
The Chief stared at the government official then replied,
“When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women did all the work. Medicine man free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing; all night having sex.”
Then the chief leaned back and smiled, “Only white man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.”


As far the the Second amendment, its a right until the supreme court tells us its not....9 men to rule them all.

Hopefully a superior alien race never shows up and says, "well they are already killing each other, lets just do em a favor and exterminate them"

[NugginFutz]

"Yup, and they were surrounded by "nations" native peoples who also practice slavery, denied women rights and some even practice cannibalism and horrendous torture upon other native peoples as well as white and blacks."

Are we talking about American Indians here? Most of the bad stuff Indians did to each other was because of being pushed out of historical homelands and into each others way. ...

Not at all - he's talking about European and African history. That should have been plain, if you'd read:

...Most black slaves were sold into captivity by other black Africans to the Arab slave traders. The Arab muslims in Africa had a million white slaves going so far as raiding the Coast of England and other European nations for white slaves, until the Americans put a stop to it...

...Funny Quote from Cheif "Two Eagles", don't know if its real, I was not there...

I doubt anyone was. Like most internet era attributions. Easy enough to debunk.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/quest...-this-joke

From that linked article...

Q: Did two eagles tell this joke?

A: No, this joke/quote has no relationship to Chief Robert "Two Eagles" Green of the Patawomeck tribe.
The actual Chief Robert "Two Eagles" Green is much younger than 90 years old and does not speak in broken English.
He is Robert Parrish Green who graduated from James Monroe high school, Fredericksburg, Virginia, class of 1965 (additional source). He received a B.A. in history and political science from University of Richmond in 1969. (The Free Lance-Star 9 June 1969, page 2)
He still lives in Fredericksburg, VA.

[Keef]

Not at all - he's talking about European and African history. That should have been plain, if you'd read:

I am sorry and apologize. I thought the "they" in his first sentence was referring to the founding fathers, not the African's selling African's to Arabs mentioned in the second sentence.

[bj139]

I read it and I also misunderstood it in the same way. Probably there are others.

[NugginFutz]

I am sorry and apologize. I thought the "they" in his first sentence was referring to the founding fathers, not the African's selling African's to Arabs mentioned in the second sentence.

I read it and I also misunderstood it in the same way. Probably there are others.

Upon a re-read, I can now see why you both thought as much. Perhaps it is I who owes the apology.

[stanc]

Yup, and they were surrounded by "nations" native peoples who also practice slavery, denied women rights and some even practice cannibalism and horrendous torture upon other native peoples as well as white and blacks. Most black slaves were sold into captivity by other black Africans to the Arab slave traders. The Arab muslims in Africa had a million white slaves...

Uh huh. Did any of those other nations self-righteously proclaim to the world that "ALL men" were endowed with unalienable rights to life and liberty?

...going so far as raiding the Coast of England and other European nations for white slaves, until the Americans put a stop to it.

While continuing to keep black slaves. Isn't that called hypocrisy?

It was a harsh time Stan, so what is your point?

Tull66 said, "If you don’t care what the founders believed, you have no business living under the US Constitution."

I was just noting that some things the Founders believed are reprehensible, and not to be admired or condoned.

Out of that hell hole of a time came the idea of freedom which became the United States, a nation that has evolved into a Constitutional Republic where every ones rights are protected including the minority.

The United States was established as a constitutional republic where white males had full rights, white females had fewer rights, and most blacks had no rights.

The United States evolved into a country where everyone has full and equal rights, primarily as a result of the determined efforts of liberals and social activists.

[LR1955]

Thread locked.

This thread has nothing to do with slavery, race, or leftists.

LR55