GUN The 2nd Amendment refers to the National Guard

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by PorscheRacer, Jun 9, 2006.

  1. PorscheRacer

    PorscheRacer You see this? It means not welcome

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2001
    Messages:
    16,887
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
     
  2. sprite

    sprite Active Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    MI, USA
    Something tells me this bit of wisdom tricked down from the main board.
     
  3. eWRXshun

    eWRXshun hai

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    16,666
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    LSU
    yay for well regulated militia.
     
  4. kellyclan

    kellyclan She only loves you when she's drunk.

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    18,944
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 1st, 4th, and 10th amendments refer to the National Guard too, since apparently, "the People" really means "the National Guard".
     
  5. Dsking85

    Dsking85 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    13,443
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    ECU
    how the fuck could anyone think it means the national guard. the second amendment was not directed towards government controlled organizations:ugh2: :ugh2: :ugh2: that defeats the whole purpose
     
  6. Alphaeus

    Alphaeus New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    12,101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    The right to to the most effective means for self defense (firearms) comes more arguably from the due process clause (substantive due process) than from the 2nd Amendment. However, based on the Framers' beliefs regarding firearms, I'm sure they intended it to mean individual ownership. "Original Intent" interpretation of the Constitution usually isn't the most useful method to use when arguing about this stuff nowadays, though.

    That said, I don't think that I disagree that the 2nd Amendment provides for our gun rights, because I believe that. It's just easier to use a substantive due process approach to argue self-defense-related issues.
     
  7. Artyboy

    Artyboy Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    12,692
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Somewhere in CO
    That's a load of shit. The 2nd amendment is there to protect our right to bare arms. It was put there to insure that we have a means to defend ourselves against our own government if it becomes too opressive. It's not there to insure that we have a means of self defense. It's not there to insure that we have a means to provide ourselves with food via hunting. It's there to make sure that the government has something to fear if it decides to start taking away our other rights.
     
  8. kellyclan

    kellyclan She only loves you when she's drunk.

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    18,944
    Likes Received:
    0

    It's simple grammar. The militia statement is an explaination, not a modifer. Everywhere else in the document, the phrase "the People" means all citizens. Why would it be different for a single amendment when it's worded the same?
     
  9. Sssnake

    Sssnake meh

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    3,469
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Biggest Little City in the World
    It was written as a legal document.

    A term is defined and used identically throughout the entire document. If another definition is needed, another word or term is used. "The People" is used multiple times throughout the document to mean the Individual Citizens IN ALL INSTANCES. It cannot be argued that it means a militia in the 2nd amendment unless you are willing to admit that it means a militia in ALL other parts.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2006
  10. Sssnake

    Sssnake meh

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    3,469
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Biggest Little City in the World
    SO if your argument is that "THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd amendment means a militia, then you MUST argue as well that citizens DO NOT have other rights as laid out in the amendments or even the constitution itself. Shall we review?

    We start right off with the term. No need to even bother here as it's self evident.




    That means that the militia only has the right to peacefully assemble and have freedom of speech?



    That means only a militia has the right to be secure, individuals have no right to a freedom of illegal search and seizure?



    Then I guess your view of "The People" means we all have no rights?


    Ditto?



    Pretty obvious there. Wouldn't you say? Or do you want to argue it more?

    So by all legal arguments, the definition of "THE PEOPLE" has been laid out repeatedly. It means one thing and one thing only throughout the entire document, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment.

     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2006
  11. Sssnake

    Sssnake meh

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    3,469
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Biggest Little City in the World
    wrote that in an argument with an anti gun person, so it's directed at him and others in that thread. :)
     
  12. hitnrun99

    hitnrun99 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sssnake, that's the best summary I've ever seen. :cool:
     
  13. F.O.D.

    F.O.D. Guest

    ...but there's a comma there :squint::noes:
     
  14. Aviator

    Aviator Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    ATX
    I've always wondered...what the hell was the point of putting in the "well-regulated militia" part anyway? I can see how people could argue that the right of the people to bear arms is intended ONLY while part of a "well-regulated militia" which would have to be a little more than just a group of citizens with guns.
     
  15. Soybomb

    Soybomb New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    Messages:
    9,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Illinois
    Here's what started the 2nd amendment in the 1st sessions of the first congress:
    "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."
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227
     
  16. kellyclan

    kellyclan She only loves you when she's drunk.

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    18,944
    Likes Received:
    0

    They're explaining that it does not refer to hunters or even personal protection but is included to protect the ability of the people to raise a citizen army independant of government control. The first part of the sentence is an explaination for their reasoning. The second part is the actual protected right.

    "Regulate" also means orderly and well-functioning, which is what I personally believe is meant by the word in Amd2, in addition to or perhaps even rather than regulated as in following a set of laws.
     
  17. Alphaeus

    Alphaeus New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    12,101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    I'm not saying it's different. I believe in the same meaning of the 2nd Amendment as you. I'm just saying "original intent" and "pure textual" interpretations are usually futile when arguing with a liberal, no matter how truthful and correct those interpretations may be. A substantive due process argument is just more useful when trying to convice a lefty, even though the 2nd Amendment is clear as crystal to us.
     
  18. Artyboy

    Artyboy Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    12,692
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Somewhere in CO
    What really pisses me off is that all we have to do is break out a BOOK of quotes from our forefathers. After reading several of them I don't see how any reasonable person could possibly misunderstand the original intention of the text. I understand when some pussy liberal sitting in his college class won't give up and just keeps arguing but when law makers and judges try to skew the law with their "interpretation" it really really pisses me off.
     
  19. kellyclan

    kellyclan She only loves you when she's drunk.

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    18,944
    Likes Received:
    0


    I know. But I've found any argument is futile. I just say "Then get it changed."

    Then they too know futility. :bigthumb:
     

Share This Page