Re: A well regulated militia or any individual

"Scout" <me4guns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7x5Ej.7322$%Y2.2916@xxxxxxxxxxx

"Chad" <cbstun@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:47e05fdf$0$4437$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Scout" <me4guns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:PTXDj.2734$CO3.2642@xxxxxxxxxxx

"Chad" <cbstun@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:47e0473c$0$24086$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9A649FD8CB51Cjyanikkuanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Magus <nope@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:vkyDj.19859$rC6.19204@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Chad wrote:
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:L_6dnT-w-40pDkPanZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Chad wrote:
I can't see how the words "a well regulated militia" can possibly
be imagined to mean every individual.

You see the dependent clause as being the primary part of the
statement. The rest of us see "the right to keep and bear arms
shall
not be infringed" as the main part of the amendment. All the
dependent clause does is list a reason.... it is not necessarily
the
ONLY reason.



OK I think I can see your first point.

On what basis do you assert the need for a well regulated militia is
not intended to be the ONLY reason they believed the right to bear
arms should not be infringed though?

If it is the one and only justification intended, the right to carry
for self defense starts to look a bit shakey maybe?



Why are the words "well regulated militia" included in the Second
Amendment? Those words give ONE of the reasons why the right of the
People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Those words also
show WHAT type of arms should be specifically protected; the type
necessary to a "well regulated militia".

"Why would the framers only include that ONE [Militia] reason for
protecting the right to keep and bear arms?" you ask. The
Constitution
is a document setting up the framework for the Federal Government--a
government of limited and enumerated powers. The Federal government
isn't granted any power [Article 1, section 8] to interfere with the
everyday concerns or uses of Arms by the citizens of the States--such
as hunting, target shooting, self-defense, etc. The only area of
concern for the Federal Government in regards to arms is military
uses--and thus the "militia" reference.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is protected so that
there is a pool of already armed citizens that may be called upon to
"execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel
Invasions" [those are the only uses of the militia the Constitution
authorizes Congress].


When one looks at the Declaration of Independence and reads "that
whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,it is the
Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it and institute new Government"...

Then the real reason for the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the
Constitution becomes clear.

I don't see that as being a "Clear" reason... maybe implied as you
suggest, but still arguable.

On the contrary, for a free society to retain control over their
government they must, by necessity, posses the means by which their will
can be enforced upon such a government even if that requires the force
of arms. To deny the people that power is to deny them the fundamental
means to impose ultimate control over the government established.
Something that the Founding Fathers had just finished observing in close
and bloody detail. The attempts by their government to disarm the people
to insure their ability to control them despite popular unrest, the lack
of suitable arms to prosecute their actions against that government, and
the problems shown of attempting to obtain arms during the process of
acting against such a government, all point to a need to insure that
people retain the ability to keep and bear arms without any need for
government approval, regulation, restriction, or other such
infringements.


At this point we are still talking about society or the people as a
group, or at least could be from a gun control point of view.

Sorry, but society or the people as a group, have no rights other than
those of the individuals within the society or the group. If the
individuals have no right to do so, then neither can society or a group of
people.



You guys have just about worn me down on this point. Especially now that it
appears DC have given up on the premise as well.


Gun regulation in itself does not have to negate the communities ability
to "rebel" against an injust government.

It certainly does by reducing the ability of the individual to do so, thus
having an impact on the communities ability to do so.


Obviously I would say it's a matter of degree. A reasonable impact would not
negate the people's ability to bear arms.

So tell me, why do you think the Founding Fathers would consider it a
good idea to allow people outside of the militia to be disarmed,
particularly when the federal government had the power to declare the
extent, or event the existence of, the militia.

What point is protecting the arms of the militia when the federal
government can disarm them simply by setting it up so that there is NO
militia, or a extremely small militia?



I have to agree there, an obvious catch 22.

Which is why the federal government is to protect the right of the PEOPLE
to keep and bear arms. Not just the miliita.


I think I have come around to agreeing with this point of view, in a way.

I am not so sure the FFs intended to confer every gun ownership right to
every person, but possibly simple wanted to protect the right and ability of
the people to assemble a militia if needed. Which I agree does imply the
need for widespread gun ownership. What I also am starting to think is that
it also implies that other uses are not worthy of such absolute protection
as is the militia reason.

Apparently submissions were debated to include a right to self defence in
the 2nd but were specifically rejected (from yesterdays USSC arguments). I
think this is also some evidence that the intent was to limit the scope of
these gun rights to some extent.

I guess the best argument I could mount is that fear of over control
should not mean we have to give up all control.

We haven't. You can still regulate how guns are used, misused, abused or
otherwise engaged in activities which directly harm, threaten or presents
a significant threat of harm to innocent people.


You sound like we almost agree here, so i must have got the wrong impression
from your previous posts. This is what I have been thinking your position
is;

We cant limit the type of guns
We cant ask people to register guns
We cant ask people to report who they dispose of guns to
We cant ask people to lock up guns as it stops them defending themselves
We cant ask people to prove they are proficent in using a gun

I don't think much serious regulation can occur without most of those rules
in place.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: If Obama Supports The Second Amendment....
    ... Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the ... politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. ... "But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. ... disallow the militia to provide arms for themselves should both the federal ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A well regulated militia or any individual
    ... The rest of us see "the right to keep and bear arms ... not intended to be the ONLY reason they believed the right to bear ... Why are the words "well regulated militia" included in the Second ... government of limited and enumerated powers. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A well regulated militia or any individual
    ... The rest of us see "the right to keep and bear arms ... Why are the words "well regulated militia" included in the Second ... government of limited and enumerated powers. ... met and the gun control laws of DC fail to meet any of those standards. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A well regulated militia or any individual
    ... The rest of us see "the right to keep and bear arms ... Why are the words "well regulated militia" included in the Second ... government of limited and enumerated powers. ... Gun regulation in itself does not have to negate the communities ability ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Scare of the day...
    ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, ... Since when were individual gun owners part of any militia? ... necessarily regulated by or even working for the government, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)