2nd Amendment Arguements

[Article 4]

Many people want to argue the 2nd amendment whether for or against without knowing from where it truly came. Some background

On March 4th in 1789, the US Congress met for the very first time under the terms of the recently ratified US Constitution. A document had been drafted by the first sitting United States Congress in New York, then signed by John Adams, the Vice President of the United States. In that document our founding fathers set forth the resolutions which would become what we know today as the first 12 amendments to the constitution of the United States, ratified in 1791.
We know it to be true then, well before the amendments were ratified, that the god given guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will always be ensured by guaranteeing the right of law abiding citizens to be armed. Article 4 of that document was written as “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” which was to become what we know today as our second amendment.
Modern scholars have since confirmed that James Madison "did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing in both common law and in the early state constitutions." As such, the right to bear arms is a part of every law abiding American’s legacy, even before there were amendments ratified.

Tell that to a non-believer and watch their head ceremonially explode!!

 

[BRTreedogs]

Every conversation I have had i simply ask them if they have actually read the the 2nd Amendment for them selves?

They always give me a blank stare and answer no.
Then I calmly tell them that I'm not sure it will sway them, but I fail to see how they could argue against something if they haven't even taken the time to read a paragraph so they are educated on what they are arguing against.
And that I can't take them seriously if they can't even be bothered to read the text themselves.

Shuts them down every time.

 

[IDVortex]

But we must do whatever we can to save the children. But excuse me as I go support folks who scream and praise for abortion.

 

[t_carlson]

Tell that to a non-believer and watch their head ceremonially explode!!

I guess you have more faith in the communists than I do. I don't think there is anything you can say to them that will break through and be digested as critical thought. I've given up. "Agree to disagree" until that is no longer feasible, and then its time to dig a big hole.

 

[Article 4]

I guess you have more faith in the communists than I do. I don't think there is anything you can say to them that will break through and be digested as critical thought. I've given up. "Agree to disagree" until that is no longer feasible, and then it’s time to dig a big hole.

I hear you. Silence is pacifism.

 

[Wrench]

I do wish the statement about the militia was never recorded.....

 

[ThorM465]

Many people want to argue the 2nd amendment whether for or against without knowing from where it truly came. Some background

On March 4th in 1789, the US Congress met for the very first time under the terms of the recently ratified US Constitution. A document had been drafted by the first sitting United States Congress in New York, then signed by John Adams, the Vice President of the United States. In that document our founding fathers set forth the resolutions which would become what we know today as the first 12 amendments to the constitution of the United States, ratified in 1791.
We know it to be true then, well before the amendments were ratified, that the god given guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will always be ensured by guaranteeing the right of law abiding citizens to be armed. Article 4 of that document was written as “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” which was to become what we know today as our second amendment.
Modern scholars have since confirmed that James Madison "did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing in both common law and in the early state constitutions." As such, the right to bear arms is a part of every law abiding American’s legacy, even before there were amendments ratified.

Tell that to a non-believer and watch their head ceremonially explode!!

That's great information. Thank you for posting. I'll add this.

Very few people, in my experience, understand how to read the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution in general. They read the Bill of Rights as pertaining to the individual and that couldn't be further from the truth. This is in fact why James Madison originally argued against adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Madison was afraid that over time people would come to read the Bill of Rights as pertaining to the individual and become a de facto finite list of rights. Our Rights do not come from the state, nor does the Constitution have the power to grant rights.

The Constitution does not apply to the individual, it only applies to the state. Under the ideas within the Declaration of independence from which we were founded, the Constitution can only do three things. It can give power/authority to the state from which must be taken/derived from the Rights of the Individual, it can force the state to do something, and it can explicitly limit the power of the state. Reading the 2nd Amendment within the proper context you see that what it actually dictates is that the state is explicitly denied the power to regulate weapons of war. The 1st Amendment explicitly states that the state is denied the power to regulate speech, religion, and peaceful assembly. And so fourth.

 

[Article 4]

That's great information. Thank you for posting. I'll add this.

Very few people, in my experience, understand how to read the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution in general. They read the Bill of Rights as pertaining to the individual and that couldn't be further from the truth. This is in fact why James Madison originally argued against adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Madison was afraid that over time people would come to read the Bill of Rights as pertaining to the individual and become a de facto finite list of rights. Our Rights do not come from the state, nor does the Constitution have the power to grant rights.

The Constitution does not apply to the individual, it only applies to the state. Under the ideas within the Declaration of independence from which we were founded, the Constitution can only do three things. It can give power/authority to the state from which must be taken/derived from the Rights of the Individual, it can force the state to do something, and it can explicitly limit the power of the state. Reading the 2nd Amendment within the proper context you see that what it actually dictates is that the state is explicitly denied the power to regulate weapons of war. The 1st Amendment explicitly states that the state is denied the power to regulate speech, religion, and peaceful assembly. And so fourth.

In most of my reading and research, circuit and many Supreme Court opinions is that it applies to the state and individual in many cases.
I would enjoy seeing more about the state having the right versus the individual.

 

[zetlock]

This is great info...keep it coming.

 

[zetlock]

That's great information. Thank you for posting. I'll add this.

Very few people, in my experience, understand how to read the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution in general. They read the Bill of Rights as pertaining to the individual and that couldn't be further from the truth. This is in fact why James Madison originally argued against adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Madison was afraid that over time people would come to read the Bill of Rights as pertaining to the individual and become a de facto finite list of rights. Our Rights do not come from the state, nor does the Constitution have the power to grant rights.

The Constitution does not apply to the individual, it only applies to the state. Under the ideas within the Declaration of independence from which we were founded, the Constitution can only do three things. It can give power/authority to the state from which must be taken/derived from the Rights of the Individual, it can force the state to do something, and it can explicitly limit the power of the state. Reading the 2nd Amendment within the proper context you see that what it actually dictates is that the state is explicitly denied the power to regulate weapons of war. The 1st Amendment explicitly states that the state is denied the power to regulate speech, religion, and peaceful assembly. And so fourth.

Would you mind sharing resources where I can better educate myself?

 

[5MilesBack]

It doesn't really matter where it came from, how it was adopted, it's intent, or how it is written. Today's left doesn't care about any of that, they only care to trample on it and/or completely remove it......along with anything else that gets in their way of having total control over "the people".

Their agenda has nothing to do with safety, protection, doing what's right, doing what actually makes logical sense, or staying within the Constitution. It's pretty obvious that they are the biggest threat to our nation. We see and experience the disastrous effects of their agenda every single second of every single day.

 

[ThorM465]

In most of my reading and research, circuit and many Supreme Court opinions is that it applies to the state and individual in many cases.
I would enjoy seeing more about the state having the right versus the individual.

Of course the state via the courts are going to try and exceed the powers given to it. It doesn't make their bluster legitimate. The Founders granted the Judicial branch the least powers within the Constitution as they new the Judicial branch was the branch of government most likely to deprive the individual of their Rights, see the Constitutional Debates and the Federalist Papers. This idea that anything that SCOTUS decries is the final word and must be held as legitimate is ridiculous.

I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence. The state has no Rights. The Deceleration of Independence is explicitly clear that Rights are granted to the Individual by the Creator, that's it, the end. The state has no inherent powers, it only has the powers/authorities given to it by the Individual derived from the Individual's Rights per a Constitution. This is what made America a radical new form of government, not the other democracy and self rule BS public school teaches. All that had been done before. It was the idea that Rights originated from the Creator to the Individual and not the state.

 

[ThorM465]

Would you mind sharing resources where I can better educate myself?

I'll use last years buzzword, meta analysis. It's really based on an all encompassing understanding of everything involved starting with America's foundational legal document, the Declaration of Independence (DoI). I'd suggest you start there and move to the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Debates.

The DoI set forth a drastic departure from british common law (BCL). BCL presumes that the Creator endows the state with inherent powers and it's the state that graciously bestows rights to the individual in accordance with the will of God, because only the aristocrats have the vision and authority to understand that will. At least to my understanding of it. I don't mean to unneccessarily single out BCL, because throughout human history societies have been governed under the thesis that the who has the power makes the rules or divine rule where the head of state (king, pharoah, etc.) has been given divine authority where either they were a living god or had been bestowed their authority over the Individual by a god or the God. It was our Founders who created a ripple in the timeline of human history when they declared enough of such tyranny, that we should all agree that Rights come from the Creator (call it God, the Universe, or whatever you want as long as you understand it's an entity that trascends our existence) and are bestowed to the Individual, period the end. This all assumes a finite universe, and in a finite universe every system is a zero sum game. If the Creator bestowed Rights to the Individual, there are no rights or inherent powers left for the state. The state's power must then be given to it by the Individual where we surrender enough Rights and derived thus from. In our case, it was done to have just enough state that it can protect said Rights on the Individual. This is neccessary only because without it society will always devolve into a mob and the only force on Earth more detrimental to the Rights of the Individual than the state is the mob.

Unfortunately, few dating back to the beginning have been capable or willing to hold to these princeples and have forced us back into a BCL framework. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I've read SCOTUS has made more references to BCL and even the magna carter than it has the DoI. I'd argue that this has been intentional and for "the greater good", because it would force them to dismantle our current system that is in direct conflict with our founding legal document.

If that's not enough for you, then I'd encourage you to go down the rabbit hole of the genesis of the "emergency powers" the state proclaimed to possess during covid.

 

[ThorM465]

It doesn't really matter where it came from, how it was adopted, it's intent, or how it is written. Today's left doesn't care about any of that, they only care to trample on it and/or completely remove it......along with anything else that gets in their way of having total control over "the people".

Their agenda has nothing to do with safety, protection, doing what's right, doing what actually makes logical sense, or staying within the Constitution. It's pretty obvious that they are the biggest threat to our nation. We see and experience the disastrous effects of their agenda every single second of every single day.

It most certainly does matter if you want to see this Left wing tyranny replaced with something better.
1st if we assume we do destroy this left wing ideology, without something better with an iron foundation it will only be replaced with a conservative tyranny at least the pendulum swings back again.
2nd if you expect to prevail against the left's ideology we must have something better to offer the American people. Otherwise we're most certainly doomed to failure.

 

[5MilesBack]

It most certainly does matter if you want to see this Left wing tyranny replaced with something better.

You have more faith than I do that it can or will be removed and replaced. At this point I believe that it's just about every man for himself in this, and that we're headed for complete anarchy.

 

[ThorM465]

You have more faith than I do that it can or will be removed and replaced. At this point I believe that it's just about every man for himself in this, and that we're headed for complete anarchy.

You may very well be correct. Even if you are eventually something will rise from the ashes. If I do nothing else I'll continue to work to plant the seeds for a free society for my children or their children. The ideas on which this country was founded are based on the ideas of the enlightenment that took 100s of years to take hold. Not everything can be accomplished within our life span and some times that has to be acceptable.

 

[isItFallYet]

I'll use last years buzzword, meta analysis. It's really based on an all encompassing understanding of everything involved starting with America's foundational legal document, the Declaration of Independence (DoI). I'd suggest you start there and move to the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Debates.

The DoI set forth a drastic departure from british common law (BCL). BCL presumes that the Creator endows the state with inherent powers and it's the state that graciously bestows rights to the individual in accordance with the will of God, because only the aristocrats have the vision and authority to understand that will. At least to my understanding of it. I don't mean to unneccessarily single out BCL, because throughout human history societies have been governed under the thesis that the who has the power makes the rules or divine rule where the head of state (king, pharoah, etc.) has been given divine authority where either they were a living god or had been bestowed their authority over the Individual by a god or the God. It was our Founders who created a ripple in the timeline of human history when they declared enough of such tyranny, that we should all agree that Rights come from the Creator (call it God, the Universe, or whatever you want as long as you understand it's an entity that trascends our existence) and are bestowed to the Individual, period the end. This all assumes a finite universe, and in a finite universe every system is a zero sum game. If the Creator bestowed Rights to the Individual, there are no rights or inherent powers left for the state. The state's power must then be given to it by the Individual where we surrender enough Rights and derived thus from. In our case, it was done to have just enough state that it can protect said Rights on the Individual. This is neccessary only because without it society will always devolve into a mob and the only force on Earth more detrimental to the Rights of the Individual than the state is the mob.

Unfortunately, few dating back to the beginning have been capable or willing to hold to these princeples and have forced us back into a BCL framework. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I've read SCOTUS has made more references to BCL and even the magna carter than it has the DoI. I'd argue that this has been intentional and for "the greater good", because it would force them to dismantle our current system that is in direct conflict with our founding legal document.

If that's not enough for you, then I'd encourage you to go down the rabbit hole of the genesis of the "emergency powers" the state proclaimed to possess during covid.

Well said.

 

[KenLee]

I hear you. Silence is pacifism.

Did your close personal friend Sarah Palin tell you that???

 

[Article 4]

Did your close personal friend Sarah Palin tell you that???

Nope, that was one of mine....

 

[long hunter]

Think about this the idiot in the white house is doing nothing to curb immigration but actually encouraging it, how you ask in the near future they are going to start handing out green cards, the democrat cities are giving out all sorts of freebies. That’s just a quick few not to mention things such as health care, and other benefits you me and others worked for,Now you ask what this has to do with the right to bear arms, there’s a push to include the immigrants in the census now there in lies the goal population counts equals extra members in congress, immigrants in democratic states given everything equals democrat votes,which relates to a overwhelming percentage of democrat congressional representatives on top of that say a democrat senate with a president from there party will be able to garner enough states under there control and the constitution along with the bill of rights is out the window. Things are not as safe as we want to think.