bearing arms historically

[dairygirl4u2c]

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/48302

This link shows what it means to bear arms historically.  I've posted this several times but its ignored. Pretty much the only time the phrase is not referring to a militia is when there is accompanying verbiage indicating that. If this link is true then the first and second part of the second amendment applies to militias and holistically is more consistant and relevant. That means the feds can't infringe on state militia rights but doesn't limit state regulation of guns. 

How does one get around this argument w out resorting to a living constitution theory that says words can change meaning over time? How can self declared originalists get around it?

[cooterhein]

They get around it by gerrymandering their definition of "originalist" so that this type of interpretation can be found within it.

[little2add]

The Orlando massacre took place in a gun free zone by a registered gun owner.  Gun control did not help or prevent the tragedy from happening.   

[Socrates]

The intent of the founding fathers (including the framers of the Constitution) was to have an entire citizenry fully armed and capable of defending itself against an army - which, of course, is antithetical to to the entire modern concept of "gun control."

The founders were wary of a standing army, which could potentially be used by a tyrannical government to oppress the civilian population, just as the British army was used against the American colonists.  The militias were to be created and governed by the free people of the states, and would consist of every citizen capable of fighting.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

And, the Second Amendment says the people have the right to keep and bear arms.  This right is not conditional on militia membership or anything else - there's no "if" in there.  The existence of the "well-regulated militia" is dependent on the right of the people to bear arms, not the other way around.

Laying aside the quibbling over military connotations of the phrase "bear arms," the second amendment also guarantees the right to keep arms.  Historically, people keeping arms has never meant just keeping them locked away in a safe, only to use them if called for military duty.  Guns were owned by most early Americans, and used regularly for hunting and home defense.  Thomas Jefferson strongly recommended that every farm house have a gun.

And in the other thread, I already went over the whole issue of incorporation of the Bill of Rights - if liberals want to do away with the incorporation doctrine with regard to state and local gun laws, they need to be consistent, and do away with it all together (not something most of them would be fond of).

But this entire debate just seems to be endlessly repeating.

 

[White Knight]

Gun Control Laws go against common sense, they are meant to make it harder for criminals to obtain illegal weapons, however if you know criminals' they dont obey laws they find ways around the laws, so therefore all gun control laws do is make it harder for Law Abiding Citizens to obtain "Legal Guns" Legally.

Our Founding Fathers just fought one or two wars from a tyrannical government or monarchy, they knew that the 2nd Amendment was uncompromising as a legitimate right, so people wouldn't fall under another oppressive government.

The Second Amendment is one of the most clear rights in the Constitution of the United States. Liberals want to play word games with it and rearrange comma's, periods, and other language issues to make it sound more complicated than it truly is, Truth is its More clear and obvious than the First Amendment, which has technical issues and double standards, very often in our modern day culture. The Second Amendment is more clear than  the first.

Orlando was a mess, Colorado was a disaster, the California shooting back in December was outrageous.

But for all the shootings we have had in this country, they dont compare to explosive devices which are more harmful at a larger radius than any kind of shooting, Bombs kill more people than  guns.

Oklahoma City Bombing 1995  168 people dead including children
World Trade Center Bombing  in 2001 2,800 people dead as a result as planes being used as bombs
Boston Bombing April 15th, 2013 12 people dead. 253 injured from the explosion.

Look at most shooting rampages they usually dont take nearly as many people as a explosive bombing site incident do.

Gun Free Zones are just a target for criminals to do actions with no opposition from law abiding citizens, until the Police arrive.

When you uphold Conceal Carry Laws and Open Carry Laws, you have a more reasonable chance of people being able to neutralize a situation if it comes down to it, Now logically does it happen ever time? Well no, No statistic is 100% perfectly accurate all the time but its still more reasonable than the alternative.

Abandon Gun free Zones and you will see criminals very much more cautious about where they strike next. Instead of labeling yourselves a target, why not remove the advantage of the criminal element to take away his ability to do massive harm to citizens of the state, county, and country?

God Bless     

[dairygirl4u2c]

I guess its possible to view it as socretes said he did the best job describing it. I still disagree tho. At least someone directly responded to it

Its like it said "a person has a right to a gun for the militia" and conservatives would just focus on the part saying u have a right to a gun. Maybe it ain't that blatant but its close

[dairygirl4u2c]

A conservative would have to emphasize the word keep and to them it'd say" a person has a right to a gun and to be in the militia". But I'd say keep goes w bear arms which means militia. And reading the amendment holistically emphasizing the first clause instead of ignoring it like conservatives do keep should go w bear arms to be militia oriented

[dairygirl4u2c]

You can't argue the amendment is clear. Clear enough to my position I'd contend but its still ambiguous

[dairygirl4u2c]

A person can't really argue a right to a gun because of a right to bear arms. They'd have to argue it as a right to keep arms  

[White Knight]

On 7/2/2016 at 11:54 AM, dairygirl4u2c said:

You can't argue the amendment is clear. Clear enough to my position I'd contend but its still ambiguous

It is clearer than the First, You look at the end of the amendment "Shall Not Be Infringed"  as far as I know the other 25 amendments do not contain these words.

Yes it requires interpretation but it is definitely not as vague or compromising as the First amendment regarding our modern day problems of Freedom of Press,(What can we report vs. what can't we report?) Freedom of Speech (Example What is Good Speech and Bad Speech and how do you take it seriously?); Freedom of Religion (how do you decide what is officially a religion and what is a cult, what happens when this religion opposes civil governance of its people?) on and on.

The Second amendment states for certain it shall not be "taken away" by the government. This is the most important amendment to keep the people who are in charge of the government from loosing all their other rights.  Namely the People of the United States. Our Government is for the people, of the people, and by the people. We are in charge, we decide by our vote to kick out or to put in, and if the government gets too powerful the people have the right to take up arms and restore order.

Battle of Athens, Tennessee  1946 A.D. 
is an example of what veterans do to career/corrupt politicians who try to rig the system the voting system, Fresh from fighting WWII in Europe and even Japan they took up their arms and restored civic order to their local town. voting out the incumbent power

Battle of Athens, Tennessee 1946


Battle of Athens 1946 Footage


This is a rant. but I thought I'd fill up my gravy bucket and pitch on the fire.  

[Winchester]

Since "living constitution" is an asinine concept that ignores entirely the purpose of having a constitution, one really need not deal with it any more than just pat morons on the head and say "bless your heart".

 

Bless your heart.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Is it more likely that the amendment is clear and decades of the most learned men in the country on the court got it wrong or that maybe it isn't as clear as some would suggest