Skip to main content

View Diary: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery (294 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well obviously, that's a state's issue and here (7+ / 0-)

    we are discussing the second amendment. You know, the federal one.

    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

    by cany on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:11:50 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Hon, you know the reason we have the (9+ / 0-)

      um, "federal one" is because of the State's ratification documents that were submitted along with the constitution, right?

      You do know that the original text was as follows:

         "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms".
      And that specific ending phrase was addressed
      In the First Debates In Congress:
         This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

          "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary.

          Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

      And you do know, that it was because of Mr. Gerry's argument above that it was removed right????

      Of course you did.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 10:35:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are completely wrong (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc, Shockwave, JayBat

        the manner in which the people's right to bear arms was up to each state and I think with out exception included the purpose of militias to protect the state.

        •  Review the comment I replied to (4+ / 0-)

          If we were to discuss the states, that is easy:

          http://www.theatlantic.com/...

          43 out of 50 define it as an individual right.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 11:40:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And the others? (0+ / 0-)

            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

            by cany on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:15:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Which means pretty obviously that (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dallasdoc, RFK Lives, Smoh, JayBat, blueness

            the states have discretion. Don't use words like never, unless you mean it.

            It is so explicit and obvious that a collective right was conferred by the second amendment, your comment that it was never, ever intended as such is glaringly overzealous.

            The "necessity" is a well regulated militia. Don't deny that obvious truth.

            •  Not after incorporation. The 14th Amendment (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea

              guarantees all rights protected under the Federal Constitution to be protected from state infringement as well. The incorporation, however, of that is piecemeal, and occurs in case law. Heller found that the individual right is guaranteed by the 2nd (and presented ample historical precedent for such), and MacDonald incorporated that right using the 14th.

              Furthermore, "explicit and obvious" are words used by people without citations to back it up. gerrilea has provided ample citations disproving what you assert to be explicit and obvious.

              Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

              by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:17:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Then why is it listd with other individual rights? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea, Cedwyn, sensetolisten

              It is so explicit and obvious that a collective right was conferred by the second amendment,

              if that was so, then why is it listed as #2 in a list of individual rights? All of the other rights in the Bill of rights are individual rights, not group rights.
              (yes I know these are now also corporate rights, snicker)
              Why isn't it obvious to the SCOTUS and a liberal POTUS?
              Parsing the words of the 2d amendment is like arguing over how many angels dance on the head of th pin. Either do something about it or not, standing and demanding that people go by your interpretation of it won't do it

              Happy just to be alive

              by exlrrp on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:22:43 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I will deny your attempts to claim that white is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sensetolisten

              now black.  You're "obvious" truth is meaningless in the context of the historical records I've presented and established.

              HELL, even if I were to accept YOUR intentional re-write of history as valid, YOU then fail to understand the purpose and INTENT of the Bill Of Rights AND the constitution itself.

              The Constitution confers limited authorities to the central government to do business and direct the general political needs of the States.

              The Bill of Rights enumerates specific exceptions to unalienable rights that pre-exist nor are created by said piece of paper.  Every American is born with those rights whether or not we have a government we created to protect them.  

              Therefore, the 2nd A MUST be understood as granting the one exception when the central government can regulate arms, during militia service, not before or after.  And only those citizens defined as "militia members" would be subject to that limited "regulating" power of the central government.

              Note it does not say anything about women, children, doctors, lawyers, priests, etc, etc, etc.

              I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to explain this to you today.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:26:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site