A Complete Sentence: The Second Amendment

[Handlebar]

You are absolutely correct. But where did you get that "idea". No one here says the state NG in any way negates 2A rights.

"Any federally funded "State" National Guard defeats the 2A lingo" post #31
Unless I misinterpreted Sytes comment, if so my apologies

 

[Straight Arrow]

"Any federally funded "State" National Guard defeats the 2A lingo" post #31
Unless I misinterpreted Sytes comment, if so my apologies

I don't think Sytes is saying that, but that is why I requested an explanation.

 

[Sytes]

Please explain.

SA, in my most humble of opinions... As we frequently express and specific to your inquery related to:

Any federally funded "State" National Guard defeats the 2A lingo.

Madison, lead involved in the creation of the specific writing of our Second Amendment and instrumental in the prevailing Federalist Papers:

Research Guides: Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History: Federalist Nos. 41-50

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pen name "Publius." This guide compiles Library of Congress digital materials, external websites, and a print bibliography.

guides.loc.gov

Specifically, section "Federalist No. 46: The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared"

"Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people. On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them."

If, and again, in my humble opinion (as we are all sharing), the "National Guard" funded and material supported by the Federal Government - As Congress may call upon the National Guards, These are not consistent with the intent behind, "...militia , necessary to the security of a free State".

 

[406dn]

It is what it is.

One argument for the 2nd Amendment is that it safeguards all of our rights, yada, yada. But there are other free societies that do not have a similar provision in their governing documents. I guess time will tell if they can endure. It does not seem certain to me that we are on a very good path regarding our self governance, presently.

The trend for a while is that we have more guns in fewer hands. Only about a quarter of Americans own a firearm. Most who do own firearms own quite a few. I'm a piker compared to some gun owners, I have 7 firearms in the house. If over the coming decades, the percentage of people owning firearms continues to fall, to say 10-15 %, and the gun caused violence continues to grow, something will give. I don't that happens for a few more decades. I could be wrong. Since I'm coming 72, no one will be able to call me on it.

 

[Salmonchaser]

SA, in my most humble of opinions... As we frequently express and specific to your inquery related to:


Madison, lead involved in the creation of the specific writing of our Second Amendment and instrumental in the prevailing Federalist Papers:

Research Guides: Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History: Federalist Nos. 41-50

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pen name "Publius." This guide compiles Library of Congress digital materials, external websites, and a print bibliography.

guides.loc.gov

Specifically, section "Federalist No. 46: The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared"



If, and again, in my humble opinion (as we are all sharing), the "National Guard" funded and material supported by the Federal Government - As Congress may call upon the National Guards, These are not consistent with the intent behind, "...militia , necessary to the security of a free State".

Thank you for posting, the reason the courts have generally sided with us is not the specific language of the second, or the first for that matter, is what is written in the papers which were the argument for and against the amendment. I absolutely refuse to discuss the topic with people who haven't read and comprehend the arguments there in.

 

[OriginalOscar]

The entire sentence of the second amendment reads, 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.

When people quote the Second Amendment it usually sounds like, “Shall not be infringed”. How should, “A well regulated militia,” and ”,being necessary to the security of a free State,” be interpreted?

Here is my interpretation. Constitution of the United State of America contains the Bill of Rights with first 10 Amendments the founders established as foundation for America. Bill of Rights - 2nd Amendment reads bla, bla, bla.

Founders where brilliant with Separation of Powers, Checks & Balances spelled out in the Constitution. The term "being necessary to the security of a free State". I say "State" means citizen; not government, nor officials; elected or appointed. Citizens are the Militia due our citizenship and the Powers instilled by Bill of Rights and Constitution. Bearing Arms ensure power is retained by citizens!

While we are on subject; I would encourage citizens get active with Convention of States which is working to invoke Article V - Constitutional Convention. States could address issues; balanced budget, term limits, campaign finance reform.

 

[Doublecluck]

If there is any question what it means, I would invite you to look at the text of 44 states regarding it in their own constitutions. Also note the dates those texts were adopted and amended. Individual, person and the clear intent seems pretty clear from the beginning.

State Constitutional Right to Bear Arms - Gun Control - ProCon.org

45 US states include the right to bear arms in the state constitutions, some for self-defense and the defense of the state. The oldest of the provisions date to 1776 in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia (though all three have since been revised, the right remains in place). Iowa was the...

gun-control.procon.org

 

[MTLabrador]

How many of us are willing to “stand your ground” in a state that provides that statute, against a government entity coming to infringe on your constitutional rights? You better believe they’ll be in Kevlar and armed to the T

I don’t think that’s what stand your ground means…

 

[Flatbrimmer]

I don’t think that’s what stand your ground means…

Don’t start picking at me please. If I come in your house and say gimme whatcha got, can you stand your ground?

 

[MTLabrador]

Don’t start picking at me please. If I come in your house and say gimme whatcha got, can you stand your ground?

That’s a completely different situation than what you described.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

That’s a completely different situation than what you described.

How

 

[Straight Arrow]

If, and again, in my humble opinion (as we are all sharing), the "National Guard" funded and material supported by the Federal Government - As Congress may call upon the National Guards, These are not consistent with the intent behind, "...militia , necessary to the security of a free State".

I think your logical opinion does center on "funded and supported" by DOD, which as one single factor defines it for you and excludes the National Guard as a "militia", thus "defeating" the intent of 2A. However, it ignores the authority of the state governor, elected by the people and responsible for the "security of a free State", and charging the state's National Guard (comprised of voluntary citizen military men and women) with the mission. Furthermore, it seems to imply that a true, valid, and actual citizen militia is one not receiving any funding or support from DOD. Following that logical train of reasoning, then the Freemen hunkered down near Jordan, Montana, the Oath Keepers, and the Proud Boys, all citizens considering themselves "militia" and none of whom has received DOD support, would fit your definition of a citizen militia not "defeating" meaning of 2A.

Forgive my obvious personal bias, but after over twenty-five years serving the State of Montana as a citizen soldier in the Montana Army National Guard, and having studied the issues related to the intent and definition of "militia", as well as the implications of posse comitatus, I continue to believe that the only formally accepted, valid militia in Montana is the Montana National Guard and stands in complete concert with the meaning and intent of "militia, necessary to the security of a free State".

 

[Hunter4Life78]

I kinda read everything. I think what everyone is saying is we need shotguns and cannons.

What's really important to remember in all of this 2A talk is the guy that told us that all we needed were shotguns bears a striki resemblance to a well known t.v celebrity that has entertained many for generations. For fear of copyright infringement or trademark violations I will not mention the name of said character but it rhymes with FELMER DUDD.
Ibreally only wanted to get something in before this get locked. I shall now leave you to your thoughts.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Thank you for posting, the reason the courts have generally sided with us is not the specific language of the second, or the first for that matter, is what is written in the papers which were the argument for and against the amendment. I absolutely refuse to discuss the topic with people who haven't read and comprehend the arguments there in.

… we do have the ability to change laws, some folks are textualists like you some folks are constructionists, but either way I think everyone needs to concede the fact that if laws don’t meet the needs of society there will be a push to change them.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I get the sentiment but take my word that it is the best judicial system the world has seen, warts and all.

View attachment 262399

Do you think by and large Justices stick to their interpretation? How textualist was Scalia, when convenient or always?

 

[Salmonchaser]

There is so much information available that actually contains foot notes and peer reviews or links to case law that people don't bother to read. If you want to make a good argument it pays to understand the full context of the subject, don't cherry pick. Educate yourself, don't take the NRA or BLM word for it, have a solid understanding of the subject. Please.

 

[Sytes]

I continue to believe that the only formally accepted, valid militia in Montana is the Montana National Guard and stands in complete concert with the meaning and intent of "militia, necessary to the security of a free State".

SA, I appreciate the civil discussion on a topic that typically raises hackles that devolve into trench keyboard arguments. Not to read, rather to be read. I felt my response needed more time than was available during limited time at work. Enjoying my first day off with coffee and computer.

There's an affection for our foundation. The process debated by "Representatives" of the several States, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist positions as they, (our Founding Fathers) postulated their thoughts that formed a more perfect Union. Many references within the Pennsylvanian and Virginian Conventions, etc. I admired many aspects of both sides of the fundamental foundation debates.
Yes, I agree with your position based on the prevailing Federalist opinions at the time, namely Hamilton regarding the creation of State designated Officers for a State "National Guard" with Presidential (limited) and Congressional (expansive) control. That said, I agree with the Anti-Federalist opinions more-so than Hamilton's position regarding State "Militia" and the Federal tentacles within.
While the Federalists fought for a more powerful Federal government over the States and the creation of our Constitution, the Anti-Federalist were the dominate party for the creation of our Bill of Rights. Within, both sides came to create the most valuable rights for citizens, again, the greatest in the world.

@Salmonchaser , while I agree with your sentiment, I believe your comment omits the value many hold for the debates of the time and how those debates lead to modern SCOTUS and citizen opinions, whether in support of or dissenting views.
As with SCOTUS, unless unanimous (rare) there are most always dissenting SCOTUS Judge opinions for the express intent of the Judicial conclusion. Because a "solid understanding" implies it is by the prevailing/majority opinion, does not mean all must agree. This is where my opinion, based on an understanding (solid is a subjective opinion of personal and perceived, other's research, IMO), I'm of the Anti-Federalist opinion regarding this topic and I find it solid research, from my perspective.
As mentioned, I fully appreciate your sentiment as internet forums and news publications of "Opinion Pieces" often run on rambled emotions mixed with half baked truths - akin to political trench spin for the sheep who follow.

Subject of, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." and my general dissenting opinion of our Federal Government having ultimate powers over our State National Guard.

Philadelphia Convention 1778

Mr. LENOIR. Mr. Chairman, I conceive that I shall not be out of order to make some observations on this last part of the system, and take some retrospective view of some other parts of it. I think it not proper for our adoption, as I consider that it endangers our liberties...
When we consider the great powers of Congress, there is great cause of alarm. They can disarm the militia. If they were armed, they would be a resource against great oppressions. The laws of a great empire are difficult to be executed. If the laws of the Union were oppressive, they could not carry them into effect, if the people were possessed of proper means of defence.

Anti-Federalist #28

It is asserted by the most respectable writers upon government, that a well regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of the country, have ever been considered as the bulwark of a free people. Tyrants have never placed any confidence on a militia composed of freemen. Experience has taught them that a standing body of regular forces, whenever they can be completely introduced, are always efficacious in enforcing their edicts, however arbitrary; and slaves by profession themselves, are "nothing loth" to break down the barriers of freedom with a gout. No, my fellow citizens, this plainly shows they do not mean to depend upon the citizens of the States alone to enforce their powers. They mean to lean upon something more substantial and summary. They have left the appointment of officers in the breasts of the several States; but this appears to me an insult rather than a privilege, for what avails this right if they at their pleasure may arm or disarm all or any part of the freemen of the United States, so that when their army is sufficiently numerous, they may put it out of the power of the freemen militia of America to assert and defend their liberties, however they might be encroached upon by Congress. Does any, after reading this provision for a regular standing army, suppose that they intended to apply to the militia in all cases, and to pay particular attention to making them the bulwark of this continent? And would they not be equal to such an undertaking? Are they not abundantly able to give security and stability to your government as long as it is free? Are they not the only proper persons to do it? Are they not the most respectable body of yeomanry in that character upon earth? Have they not been engaged in some of the most brilliant actions in America, and more than once decided the fate of princes? In short, do they not preclude the necessity of any standing army whatsoever, unless in case of invasion? And in that case it would be time enough to raise them, for no free government under heaven, with a well disciplined militia, was ever yet subdued by mercenary troops.

Anyhow, Great to hold civil discussions, whether regurgitated or not. Doubt this will be the last 2A debate and it certainly isn't the first.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Great to hold civil discussions, whether regurgitated or not. Doubt this will be the last 2A debate and it certainly isn't the first.

Yes, for certain and for true. God Bless America ... and the First Amendment!

 

[Salmonchaser]

Thank you, I find my point may not have been well demonstrated. I simply wish people to read, learn and understand what it took to write the second amendment and the rest of the bill of rights. My hope is people will read all of the related arguments. I'm imagining a force that can actually refer to antiFederalist 28 in sane discussions. Imagine the influence a thousand or a hundred thousand supporters would have if their position was as well demonstrated as yours.

 

[Gr8bawana]

The entire sentence of the second amendment reads, 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.

When people quote the Second Amendment it usually sounds like, “Shall not be infringed”. How should, “A well regulated militia,” and ”,being necessary to the security of a free State,” be interpreted?

You can sure tell it's the off-season.