How California will likely ban guns, even though it will be illegal.

[CharlieMurphy]

So, CARB will ban guns because they emit lead?

Stole my line. My first thought after reading the OP.

 

[CharlieMurphy]

Often misinterpreted by reading with modern context, "A well regulated militia" is taken as proof by progressives that the founders intended regulations to be placed upon arms. Further more they also try and limit the coverage of the term "militia" to the national guard in the respective states.

There are several problems with this interpretation, especially considering that the national guard was a creation of the 20th century. "Well regulated" as defined in the founders day was to have something in "properly functioning order". Then you would have to ignore the second part of the second amendment where it specifically describes "the right of the people". This verbiage is only used in one other amendment, the first, and I don't think there is any doubting that the first amendment is an individual right.

Yet another discrepancy you would have to ignore is that the first 10 amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, was a list of limitations placed upon the federal govt and a listing of personal liberties. The states would not ratify the constitution without the BOR being added in as a safeguard against tyrannical govt. To infer that the second amendment spells out a limitation of rights of the people ignores the entire intent of the BOR.

I know you and most others here already are well versed in this interpretation but maybe it can help others when they are approached with ignorant arguments that try and take down the second amendment as an individual right. We all encounter those people at family gatherings or in other everyday life and it is good to have the argument already played out in advance.

If I were to re-write the second it would read something like this,

A well armed citizenry, necessary to maintain the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms of common military utility shall not be infringed upon.


Really no changing the intent of the original but certainly eliminating any doubt for those whom struggle with reading comprehension.

Another point that is overlooked is that at the time any working age man was considered to be part of the militia.

The stronger argument for gun control is for state imposed gun control since the Bill of Rights places limitation on the federal government. I don't think that makes it right or legal but depending on the state it's the better argument.

The only way would be to amend the Bill of Rights but since they know they can't they will just try and twist it or ignore it. It is a progressive fluid document after all(sarc).

 

[dennishoddy]

Another point that is overlooked is that at the time any working age man was considered to be part of the militia.

The stronger argument for gun control is for state imposed gun control since the Bill of Rights places limitation on the federal government.

They still are? The draft is over of course, but don't kids still have to register? My kids did, but that was a few years back.

 

[CharlieMurphy]

They still are? The draft is over of course, but don't kids still have to register? My kids did, but that was a few years back.

Selective service? I dunno if it's considered milita or not. Tell the, everyone in Selevtive Service has absolute rights to all firearms, they'd love that.

 

[farmerbyron]

The stronger argument for gun control is for state imposed gun control since the Bill of Rights places limitation on the federal government. I don't think that makes it right or legal but depending on the state it's the better argument.

The only way would be to amend the Bill of Rights but since they know they can't they will just try and twist it or ignore it. It is a progressive fluid document after all(sarc).

But to accept that premise (second amendment only applied to Feds), you would also have to concede that state governments could ignore first, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. with impunity. However, states are bound by the constitution as well. That's why the ninth and tenth amendments are in there.


Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Clearly establishes that there are even rights not enumerated that are reserved to the people. So there should be no doubt about the enumerated rights of the people being protected from both federal and state governments.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Pretty self explanatory.

 

[KOPBET]

The Second had nothing to do with arming a militia.

"A standing army is necessary for the security of a free State; we must have one. Therefore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms to protect themselves from tyranny by virtue of that army, shall not be infringed."

 

[CharlieMurphy]

But to accept that premise (second amendment only applied to Feds), you would also have to concede that state governments could ignore first, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. with impunity. However, states are bound by the constitution as well. That's why the ninth and tenth amendments are in there.


Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Clearly establishes that there are even rights not enumerated that are reserved to the people. So there should be no doubt about the enumerated rights of the people being protected from both federal and state governments.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Pretty self explanatory.

I don't disagree. My point is that the Constitution is a document designed to limit the power of the federal government. Thats why states have their own individual Constitutions. I believe the Bill of Rights apply no matter where you are, just pointing out if I was wanting gun control that is the argument I would use.

 

[Gideon]

It's important to remember that a good number of the Framers were opposed to the Bill of Rights because they were concerned (we now know rightly concerned) about the negative pregnant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_pregnant

The Bill of Rights did little more than allow certain forces to create confusion in future generations that allows tyrants to materialize loopholes in our rights.

 

[Dave70968]

A well armed citizenry, necessary to maintain the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms of common military utility shall not be infringed upon.


Really no changing the intent of the original but certainly eliminating any doubt for those whom struggle with reading comprehension.

Ironically, your revised version would protect an M-4, or even Ma Deuce, but leave muzzleloaders open to restriction. At the end of the day, the reality is that it's nigh unto impossible to craft language to restrict those who would deliberately misconstrue it, no matter how hard you try.

But to accept that premise (second amendment only applied to Feds), you would also have to concede that state governments could ignore first, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. with impunity. However, states are bound by the constitution as well. That's why the ninth and tenth amendments are in there.


Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Clearly establishes that there are even rights not enumerated that are reserved to the people. So there should be no doubt about the enumerated rights of the people being protected from both federal and state governments.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Pretty self explanatory.

More importantly, the Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[farmerbyron]

Ironically, your revised version would protect an M-4, or even Ma Deuce, but leave muzzleloaders open to restriction. At the end of the day, the reality is that it's nigh unto impossible to craft language to restrict those who would deliberately misconstrue it, no matter how hard you try.:

Let's try again.

Let the people have all the weapons.