Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Explain this please. (6+ / 0-)

    New Hampshire's Ratification Documents:

    http://www.usconstitution.net/...

    XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.
    The Bill of Rights came into full effect in 1789.

    It was never an amendment that meant to confer a collective right, EVER!

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    -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 08:34:37 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  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 ]

    •  If you read the text . . . (9+ / 0-)

      at your link, you'll see that what you've block quoted is one of a number of proposed amendments that New Hampshire's ratifying convention put forth.  And if you compare the quoted text to the text of the U.S. Constitution, it is obvious this proposal was not adopted.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 10:03:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I explored the variations in my diary of 3 yrs (4+ / 0-)

        ago.

        The whole point was that it was never a "collective right" being discussed.

        Even the original text and the ensuing debate on said text led to the final version we have 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 Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you missed my point. (10+ / 0-)

          You quoted the text of a proposed amendment to the Constitution to support of your view.  I explained that the proposed amendment wasn't adopted.  The fact that the proposal was rejected undermines your argument.  

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 11:40:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You can't be serious, right, word games now? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Robobagpiper, FrankRose

            Is this some Orwellian alternate universe I've stumbled into?

            It was adopted without the final phrase and was added to the list of amendments that were collectively presented to the States for Ratification.

            So, you are still mistaken, the amendment was adopted, period.

            It still does not negate the historical fact they were discussing an individual unalienable right OR the fact they were trying to protect that specific understanding by removing the final phrase.

            -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 11:50:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not word games, statutory construction. (0+ / 0-)

              I'm a lawyer, and when courts interpret statutes, they often look to how a statute develops through the drafting and enactment process.  One common practice is to look at language that was proposed but rejected.  Courts presume that if a legislative body was offered the opportunity to adopt particular language and then failed to do so, the legislature's intent differs from that expressed by the language that was proposed but not adopted.

              This is a standard approach to statutory interpretation.  For that reason, I pointed out that the failure to insert the language you quoted into the final text of the Second Amendment undermines your argument.  Those who voted on the Bill of Rights could have enacted New Hampshire's suggested language about Congress not disarming any citizen.  They did not.  That is evidence they did not embrace that idea.

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:16:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  You are completely wrong (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alain2112, Dallasdoc, JayBat, blueness

      And you might want to take that in the context of New Hampshires exclusion of an individual right to bear arms.

      XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defence of a state.

      XXV. Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up without the consent of the legislature.

      XXVI. In all cases, and at all times, the military ought to be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.

      •  Meaningless red herrings. (4+ / 0-)

        http://www.usconstitution.net/...

        I. That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised.

        II. That there shall be one representative to every thirty thousand persons, according to the census mentioned in the Constitution, until the whole number of representatives amount to two hundred.

        III. That Congress do not exercise the powers vested in them by the fourth section of the first article but in cases when a state shall neglect or refuse to make the regulations therein mentioned, or shall make regulations subversive of the rights of the people to a free and equal representation in Congress; nor shall Congress in any case make regulations contrary to a free and equal representation.

        IV. That Congress do not lay direct taxes but when the moneys arising from impost, excise, and their other resources, are insufficient for the public exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the states to assess, levy, and pay, their respective proportions of such requisition, agreeably to the census fixed in the said Constitution, in such way and manner as the legislature of the state shall think best; and in such case, if any state shall neglect, then Congress may assess and levy such state's proportion, together with the interest thereon, at the rate of six per cent. per annum, from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition.

        V. That Congress shall erect no company of merchants with exclusive advantages of commerce.

        VI. That no person shall be tried for any crime by which he may incur an infamous punishment, or loss of life, until he first be indicted by a grand jury, except in such cases as may arise in the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

        VII. All common-law cases between citizens of different states shall be commenced in the common-law courts of the respective states; and no appeal shall be allowed to the federal court, in such cases, unless the sum or value of the thing in controversy amount to three thousand dollars.

        VIII. In civil actions between citizens of different states, every issue of fact, arising in actions at common law, shall be tried by jury, if the parties, or either of them, request it.

        IX. Congress shall at no time consent that any person, holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall accept any title of nobility, or any other title or office, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

        X. That no standing army shall be kept up in time of peace, unless with the consent of three fourths of the members of each branch of Congress; nor shall soldiers, in time of peace, be quartered upon private houses, without the consent of the owners.

        XI. Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.

        XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

        Where are you getting the 24th, 25th and 26th points from? Their State Constitution?  Show me your source. While still a meaningless red herring, I'll read it in the entire context please.

        We are not talking about their State Constitution.

        New Hampshire presented 12 Rights to the Federal Government with their Ratification Documents.

        The last being the right to keep and bear arms.

        How this is incorrect is beyond me.

        YOU CANNOT RE-WRITE HISTORY.

        -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 12:00:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You said it was never meant to be a (0+ / 0-)

          collective right. You are wrong. Look at my comment to this diary and you will see I agree with you. You can't re write history. I sited quite a few original northern state constitutions including New Hampshire's to debunk this made up theory that the 2nd amendment focused on maintaining slavery.

          As a defense against tyranny, only a collective right makes any sense. And it is explained as such in numerous state constitutions and in the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Regardless of an additional individual right to bear arms that may or may not have been intended. The collective right is explicit.

          A militia is never an individual. Use your head.

          •  An army of one. You are still mistaken hon. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sensetolisten

            Please use your head here.  There is nothing explicit about the original text except that it was always about an individual right.  They removed it to prevent the central government from destroying the constitution itself.

            One can fight individually or collectively.  Whether or not a legitimate defense against tyranny is successful would be based on firepower.  Would I need my fellow citizens to fight beside me against a tyrannical government if I wielded a few nuclear bombs? Probably not.  Barring that extreme example, it would be beneficial for us to come together collectively and fight against the tyranny.

            A "militia" is always the individual, even in current US code:

            http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

            (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
            (b) The classes of the militia are—
            (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
            (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

            You can't have a militia without the individual, period.

            -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 06:46:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Dont call me hon, asshole. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MarkC, Rick Aucoin

              Your attempt to make militia mean an individual is one of the most idiotic comments I've seen on this issue.

              You must be the unorganized militia.

              •  Nope, I'm over 45 yrs of age, hon. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sensetolisten

                So, where's that theory of yours again? How's it fit into the reality that many people over that age actually own firearms? Or what about housewives? Are they part of the militia too? NOPE.

                -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 08:14:22 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  asdf you are siting words that (7+ / 0-)

          were stricken from the ratified version, but call the State's actual constitution a red herring? Get real.

          •  Two completely different issues hon. (0+ / 0-)

            The Ratification Documents, that I sourced show the State Of New Hampshire believed it was a individual right the newly created central government must be prevented from abrogating.

            The second issue is their own State Constitution.  While it may lead to support their beliefs here, they did not "tie that right exclusively to militia service" and even if they did, it's a red herring and meaningless in this context because each State could do anything they wanted.

            New Hampshire made clear the central government could not deny that right to any individual.

            -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 06:37:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your manner of addressing me is a surrender (0+ / 0-)

              of your credibility. I accept it.

              The issue is your absurd statement that the right never applied to a collectively. You were wrong to say it and are even more wrong in trying to defend it.

              •  We can agree to disagree, good day! n/t (0+ / 0-)

                -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 10:02:30 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site