The origins of the "Right to Bear Arms"

[1evitavresnoc]

Originally Posted by chibaba

Now, please explain which parts are lies.

I did not say they were lies, I said they were the opinions of liars, I mean lawyers, and left of center politicians.

[1evitavresnoc]

Originally Posted by chibaba

Regardless of how you feel about the so called right to bear arms, the facts are the facts; the amendment was partly racially motivated to suppress slave revolts in the south.

The "so called right to bear arms" huh? Are you as flippant with the 13th,14th and 15th amendments? As you're not answering my question on the 1st Amendment I see you do hold that one near and dear. Did you ever think that the liars, I mean lawyers, did not bring the "racism" argument before the SCOTUS because it had no basis for today? Or are you and your like minded friends just looking for more smoke and mirrors as an argument?

P.S. When I say liars, I am referring to the people that many others call lawyers.

[chibaba]

Originally Posted by 1evitavresnoc

The "so called right to bear arms" huh? Are you as flippant with the 13th,14th and 15th amendments? As you're not answering my question on the 1st Amendment I see you do hold that one near and dear. Did you ever think that the liars, I mean lawyers, did not bring the "racism" argument before the SCOTUS because it had no basis for today? Or are you and your like minded friends just looking for more smoke and mirrors as an argument?

P.S. When I say liars, I am referring to the people that many others call lawyers.

You have to look at why the bill of rights (which includes the first amendment) was written. It was written at a time the colonies felt they were being oppressed by England which ran the economy and the colonies wanted full control of it. Those who spoke out against England were punished in the ways the Bill of Rights prohibits. And of course, in order to get the constitution ratified, caveats were added and compromises were made to ensure everyone was happy. Maintaining and controlling the southern slave economy and letting the religious practice whatever it is they practice are some examples of caveats and compromises made. But make no mistake; the revolution and everything after it was about gaining and keeping control of the economy and eliminating the middle man.

Read the amendment, it allows a well organized militia (which did not exist at during that time) the right to bear arms. Which means in case there was an attack, the people could organize into a militia with arms already in hand, to secure their freedom. We now have an organize militia (National Guard) with plenty of arms.

The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments have nothing to do with this topic (although the 14 and 15 amendments have been since hijacked since ratification).

With a district that is majority black with an extremely high number of gun related crimes against blacks and a white person suing the district, race should have been brought into the arguments.

[1evitavresnoc]

I did and do read the Constitution at least once a week and your explanation is the same given by countless left of center politicians and liars, I mean lawyers. The National Guard is under the authority of the state. What would prevent some despotic person from using the National Guard as a means to carry out his/her agenda to round up the citizens of the land? It is the people that have the ability to keep arms on their person & in their possession and to bear those arms to secure their freedom from such an attack.

[chibaba]

Originally Posted by 1evitavresnoc

I did and do read the Constitution at least once a week and your explanation is the same given by countless left of center politicians and liars, I mean lawyers. The National Guard is under the authority of the state. What would prevent some despotic person from using the National Guard as a means to carry out his/her agenda to round up the citizens of the land? It is the people that have the ability to keep arms on their person & in their possession and to bear those arms to secure their freedom from such an attack.

If that was the case, then the 2nd amendment would have been written to reflect that intention. However, the phrases “well organized militia” and “being necessary to the security of a free State” was intentionally placed in the wording.

The second amendment should have stated “ It is the right of the people to bear arms in case some lunatic decides to gain control of a well organized militia, which is controlled by the state, to secure the freedom of the state”. lol

You say you read the constitution weekly, do you know the complete history of the constitution? Do you why it was set up the way it is? And just because people’s interpretation is different, they are lairs?

[Kargenac]

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is pretty darn clear.

Also, Thomas Jefferson made his views clear -

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson, 1803.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

[chibaba]

Originally Posted by Kargenac

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is pretty darn clear.

Also, Thomas Jefferson made his views clear -

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson, 1803.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

Jefferson also said there should be a revolution every twenty years to change government. I guess that fell off the curb.

And what about the “well organized militia necessary to secure freedom” part of the amendment?

[chibaba]

Originally Posted by chibaba

I came across this article in Mother Jones magazine (3/20/08) about the origins of the second amendment and the current case about gun control in DC the Supreme Court is reviewing.

Here is an excerpt:

Dozens of interest groups, from the Pink Pistols to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, have filed amicus briefs, offering their take on the Second Amendment. But during oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy and his conservative brethren seemed to fully embrace the gun lobby's favorite romantic myth that the founders, inspired by the image of the musket in the hands of a minuteman, wrote the Second Amendment to give Americans the right to take up arms to fight government tyranny. But what the founders really had in mind, according to some constitutional-law scholars, was the musket in the hands of a slave owner. That is, these scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it.

Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.

This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.

None of this figured into Tuesday's arguments at the Supreme Court. Instead, a majority of the justices, especially Kennedy, seemed to buy the story that the founders were inordinately concerned with the ability of early settlers to use guns to fend off wild animals and Indians, not rebellious slaves. (Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick counts pivotal swing-voter Kennedy making no fewer than four mentions of a mythical "remote settler," who Kennedy suggested would have needed a gun to "defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears, and grizzlies.")

Whitewashing the Second Amendment

Your thoughts on the Supreme Court decision after reading this article………

[1evitavresnoc]

Originally Posted by chibaba

Your thoughts on the Supreme Court decision after reading this article………

My thoughts on the SCOTUS decision are exactly as I stated in my previous posts. I stated that the DC handgun ban would be ruled unconstitutional, left of center politicians & liars, I mean lawyers, would be outraged and the US Constitution would be reaffirmed in its original intent. In the decision, the justices did say that certain regulations on the 2nd Amendment were in fact valid, i.e. convicted felons lose their gun rights, those deemed mentally incapacitated should not have firearms. I gave no thought to the Mother Jones article as it pertains to this decision.

[chibaba]

Originally Posted by 1evitavresnoc

My thoughts on the SCOTUS decision are exactly as I stated in my previous posts. I stated that the DC handgun ban would be ruled unconstitutional, left of center politicians & liars, I mean lawyers, would be outraged and the US Constitution would be reaffirmed in its original intent. In the decision, the justices did say that certain regulations on the 2nd Amendment were in fact valid, i.e. convicted felons lose their gun rights, those deemed mentally incapacitated should not have firearms. I gave no thought to the Mother Jones article as it pertains to this decision.

The original intent and historical circumstances of the amendment seems to have no bearing on the decision. The article was meant to give a historical perspective of the amendment. And it is amazing how people pick and chose certain words and omits others in that amendment.