True meaning of the Second Amendment.

[Remmah2]

http://www.wimp.com/truemeaning/

I have not seen this one in years. Historic landmark event that solidified one persons view of the Second Amendment.

[baldguy]

1. The 2nd Amendment is about national defense, not personal defense.

That's a effective bit of NRA propaganda, but it's got nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Katya Mullethov]

3. Luby's changed everything

Like 9/11 .

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Meaning it changed nothing.

Except some individual's personal perception of risk.

[Katya Mullethov]

40. Indeed

This reassessment caused a great many to be offended by the status-quo of defensive carry at the time . Some to this day still carry "Full Hupp" , or , " without permission " .

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ian David]

11. FREEDOM! LIBERTY! GASTROPODS! PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! DIEGESIS! N/T

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. 31 posts, and as yet no copy and paste ......

although I see Ian David has posted some jingoistic phrases.

[jpak]

5. do not offend the hive - a swarm of NRA talking points will emerge

:evilgrin:

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. You know, I've found the phrase "NRA talking points" to be synoymous with...

..."an inconvenient fact I cannot refute".

And you've just confirmed my opinion....

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. if a person can not protect theirself how can they protect the nation?

:shrug:

[baldguy]

7. By paying their taxes.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. can you please elaborate.........

trying to follow your reasoning here.

on edit...what is a nation built on, if not its persons?

only taxpayers deserve the right to protect the nation, by having their taxes go to the defense?

so then you want more money to go to the military...?

[baldguy]

10. No.

See post #4. If you can't read, want to wallow in NRA-fueled ignorance, and have no idea why the federal gov't exists or how it functions, that's not my problem.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. lovely.

you actually elaobrated on nothing. You writing skills leave a lot to be desired.

[spin]

58. Hard to read Post #4. The Mods deleted it. (n/t)

[slackmaster]

16. That is one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen posted on DU

:nuke:

[PavePusher]

35. Wow. Just... wow. n/t

[Deep13]

8. Agreed.

The NRA is fond of ignoring the first half of the amendment.

[slackmaster]

15. Is your personal security not a part of the security of a free state?

:crazy:

[Deep13]

17. Not really, no.

If I get run over by a truck or murdered or something, it doesn't affect the viability or sovereignty of the state.

[slackmaster]

18. It's unfortunate that your life is so meaningless. I value mine, and so do many other people.

If I get run over by a truck or murdered or something, many people will feel the loss. The whole state would be harmed.

[Deep13]

20. You're being dishonest. I didn't say my life is meaningless.

I said the loss of one person does not affect state security. People die every day and the state is still in business.

[slackmaster]

22. I say loss of one person does affect state security. Your attitude is precisely why...

...I parted ways with the left wing a long time ago.

If every community, every family, and every individual is not secure, the state is not secure. Security of the state means NOTHING if it doesn't apply to everyone.

[Straw Man]

30. The individual and the state.

I said the loss of one person does not affect state security. People die every day and the state is still in business.

Fascism in a nutshell.

[Katya Mullethov]

41. To some , ideas come first , and people come second

And they will sacrifice human life* on the altar of ideals .




* In recent times , flaming cash has been substituted .

[GreenStormCloud]

39. That horse is dead. You can give up beating it. N/T

[lawodevolution]

50. You mean the dependent clause?

[slackmaster]

14. Individuals, families, and communities are all part of the state

HTH

[Atypical Liberal]

21. It is about DECENTRALIZED national defense.

I agree with you that the second amendment is mostly about defense of the State, and not of the person, though it has been successfully argued that if the individual is not secure in his person neither can the state be.

But the second amendment is clearly made in a military connotation, this is why they mention militias.

The important distinction about the second amendment, and other contemporary documents of the time, is that they point to the concept of a decentralized military system. As everyone learns in grade school, our government was created as a series of checks and balances. This was done to prevent the concentration of power in any one branch of the government. The military was set up in the same manner. Many of the founders were distrustful of a central federal army because they feared the central government could use that army as a tool to oppress the states.

To address those concerns, the United States was set up with a decentralized military system, with each State maintaining its own army - militias made up of the people. The hope here was that you could not enlist a bunch of sovereign states to oppress other sovereign states, but collectively they could act in unison for the common defense.

So the 2nd Amendment is about national defense, but it is mostly about a decentralized national defense system that keeps the arms in the hands of The People, rather than in the hands of the State or Federal government.

[baldguy]

23. Then the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.

We stopped doing decentralized national defense after WWI, and totally eliminated it prior to WWII.

[slackmaster]

24. Individuals, families, and communities still need to be able to defend themselves

If you and I are not secure as individuals, then we don't really live in a free state.

[RSillsbee]

28. You are dead wrong ( Why am I not surprised?)

The Militia was called up in Alaska , Oregon, California and Maryland during World War Two to serve as coast watchers and a privately owned airship w/ an honest to God letter of Marque was able to sink a German submarine off the Eastern Seaboard.

The current Alaska State Guard gets used frequently to assist the Alaska state police as well as the Coast guard Every member of the Alaska State Guard is also s worn constable w/ arrest authority

[Hangingon]

32. Texas also has a Texas State Guard

[AtheistCrusader]

37. WA as well.

Independent of the Washington State National Guard.

The Washington State Guard is much smaller of course. No 'capital' assets that I am aware of. (like Helicopters)

I think Gregiore should activate the 'state militia' for sandbagging and search and rescue operations. Might be surprised at the turnout.

[Bold Lib]

80. And state air force.

[Atypical Liberal]

34. uboat?

I'd love to see a link for that one. That sounds cool.

[RSillsbee]

42. I read about it in an NRA magazine

It was a good year blimp believe it or not

I can't find a link but the article is in the March 2009 issue of America's First Freedom"

[Remmah2]

45. I hear they're banning that magazine too. nt

nt

[spin]

59. If "they" can do away with both the First and Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights ...

would we live in a peaceful paradise or under the thumb of a brutal government.

[baldguy]

46. Sounds like bullshit.

The Maryland Historical Society doesn't seem to know of it.

http://www.mdoe.org/privateers.html

And Goodyear seems to have "forgotten" too:

http://www.goodyearblimp.com/history/wingfoot.html

And a footnoted reference on Wikipedia says:

No letter of marque has been legitimately issued by the United States since the nineteenth century.<29> The status of submarine-hunting Goodyear airships in the early days of World War II has created significant confusion. Although various accounts refer to airships Resolute and Volunteer as operating under a "privateer status", Congress never authorized a commission, nor did the President sign one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque#21st-century_American_renewal_of_Letters_of_Marque

See what a little research can do? I'm sure the other claims made by the denizens of the gungoen are equally valid. The NRA & other organizations of their ilk don't like little things like facts.

[petronius]

51. If you want to keep believing that about "other claims" you should probably not start keeping score

You'd be in for a substantial disappointment...

[baldguy]

53. Facts are inconvenient things for gungeon dwellers.

I'm not the one spouting unsubstantiated absurdities from the lie factories of the NRA.

[Straw Man]

54. Of which persuasion?

I'm not the one spouting unsubstantiated absurdities from the lie factories of the NRA.

No, you're the one spouting baseless ad hominems and unsubstantiated absurdities from the lie factories of the Brady Campaign and VPC.

[petronius]

56. Facts are inconvenient things for anti-rights types who troll the forum

As are history, logic, data, and progressive values... :hi:

[baldguy]

61. Supporting RW front groups like the NRA

and disseminating their lies is not a "progressive value".

[petronius]

62. Supporting Constitutional rights, liberty, self-preservation, and choice are progressive values

Too many of our anti-rights DUers are on the wrong side of that divide...

[Atypical Liberal]

57. A little more research.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Airship

1942, the Goodyear blimp Resolute was operated as an anti-submarine privateer based out of Los Angeles. As the only US craft to operate under a Letter of Marque since the War of 1812, the Resolute, armed with a rifle and flown by its civilian crew, patrolled the seas for submarines.<48>

<48> Shock, James R; Smith, David R., The Goodyear Airships, Bloomington IL, Airship International Press, 2002, p. 43, ISBN 0-9711637-0-7

[baldguy]

60. Where's a copy of the Letter of Marque?

Passed by the 77th Congress, and signed by FDR? Such an important & historically significant document should be easy to produce.

Just because the blimp-happy "authors" of a picture book (which seems to be the only modern cite for this claim - look it up) are duped by the same NRA propaganda as a gun-happy DUer doesn't make it definitive. On the other hand the guy saying there have been no Letters of Marque issued since 1812 is (as of a year ago) an "Air Force Judge Advocate and is currently serving as trial attorney in the Air Force Commercial Litigation Division in Washington, D.C."

Here's a like to the original article:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1591039

And here's the relevant footnote 121 on page 429:

"These airships were not privateers, especially if they lacked a legal commission. There is nothing in the Congressional Record authorizing any letters of marque during World War II, nor are there any executive orders commissioning these aircraft as privateers. Without congressional authorization, the Navy would not have been able to legally issue any letters of marque."

Google is your friend.

[Atypical Liberal]

64. Google IS your friend.

And the point of my posting was to show THAT THE VERY SOURCE YOU QUOTED (Wikipedia) CONTRADICTED ITSELF.

Googling this subject gives NUMEROUS citations of the airships having letters of marque. Obviously this is a very commonly held misconception.

To say that everything someone says on firearm rights is tainted because someone repeated a very widespread urban legend about airships - something completely unrelated to firearm rights - is asinine.

[baldguy]

65. The point is the NRA lies. About EVERYTHING.

Yet gun happy DUers always trot out the same old NRA propaganda to support their positions.

[petronius]

66. What makes you think that everything or anything said here in support of gun rights

has its source in the NRA?

I've never understood why anti-rights posters repeatedly froth about the NRA even on threads with no connection to the group at all... :shrug:

[Atypical Liberal]

69. Two things.

The point is the NRA lies. About EVERYTHING. Yet gun happy DUers always trot out the same old NRA propaganda to support their positions.

First of all, again, how you go from someone making an incorrect reference to a common urban legend about airships - which has nothing to do with firearms - to a sweeping statement about the NRA is ridiculous.

Second of all, if the "NRA propaganda" is all lies, then you should be able to easily refute it. Yet this seldom happens.

[Hoyt]

67. Good, if you are in a militia then you can keep a gun and bear it if called upon.

[petronius]

68. 2nd Amendment rights are not limited to militia members - that clause identifies one

foundation (out of many) of the necessity for the right...

[Hoyt]

70. Interpretations vary. One day when we've had enough of guns, it will be re-interpreted.

Fortunately, courts recognize the need for controls. Now we just have to keep right wingers from trying to arm every citizen and force us to put up -- or deal -- with carriers, who can't function without a gun in their pocket/waistband/hangingfromtheirshoulder, parading around in public places.

[petronius]

71. The language of the second is quite clear, regardless of how you wish to interpret it

There's nothing to reasonably suggest that the right is predicated on militia membership (formal or otherwise).

(As an aside, who is it that's "trying to arm every citizen" or "can't function"? I haven't heard of or met these people...)

[Hoyt]

72. I guess that is why numerous legal scholars disagree, and smart states outlaw guns in public.

[petronius]

73. Because of wishful thinking, yes. There's no valid reason to think that militia membership

is required to exercise 2A rights...

[oneshooter]

74. Provide verifiable evidence, including link. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

33. Which is why the founders enumerated the right of The People.

We stopped doing decentralized national defense after WWI, and totally eliminated it prior to WWII.

The first steps to this decentralization predate WWI, with the passage of the Dick Act in 1903. This effectively federalized the state militias.

But this is no doubt why the founders enumerated the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and not the militias, nor the states. They feared that the institutions of the state or the militias might become corrupted or usurped, as they were, and thus they recognized that the people would need to be the ultimate holders of power in order to protect themselves from oppression.

The militias spoken of by the second amendment no longer exist, as you note. But the people still do, and their right to keep and bear arms must still not be infringed, for the same reasons it always has.

[Bold Lib]

79. It is not obsolete until it is repelled. Until then it is part of the supreme law of the land.

No matter how much you protest.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be

"SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."


My state codified it in 1889, whether you read that into the Federal Constition or not. (well after the advent of repeating arms)

Most states have similar language, and after Heller vs. DC, you're factually wrong.
Go ahead, make a negative argument about Heller that doesn't similarly weaken progressive landmark decisions like Roe vs. Wade. I'll wait.

[Callisto32]

55. Pigs FLY!

See, I can do it too...

Oy.

[oneshooter]

75. Provide verifiable evidence, including link. n/t

[Upton]

13. i've seen this clip before..

but I had forgotten Chuck Schumer's smirking during her testimony.

Suzanna Gratia Hupp has been a very effective speaker for those of us who believe in the individual right to keep and bear arms as outlined in the 2nd Amendment...

Recommend..

[slackmaster]

19. Chuck Schumer's behavior was deplorable

The man is truly an ass.

[rl6214]

48. I agree whole heartedly

As long as he gets what he wants he doesn't care gow it affects anyone else.

[oneshooter]

49. You should listen to him about the Space Shuttle and Houston. n/t

[Remmah2]

31. Suzanna Gratia Hupp

I like the fact that's she not a (negative) stereotypical firearm owner, was not an NRA member, not a hunter. The fact that she's a doctor, educated and a woman must really threaten some egos.

My kids rifle coach is of the same mindset. She can handle a 1911 and a .357 like the best (competitive shooter), yet she's a petite redhead who is also working on her doctorates in education-history. She's a full time AP history teacher (high school). Apparently her ex-husband was quite an inspiration for her introduction to firearms. She is the person I want to CCW in my kids school.

[rrneck]

25. It means

that if we need a militia we can draw its members from a civilian population that is already armed.

[slackmaster]

26. The security of the state is not just about the state as a whole

A state is made up of communities, families, households, circles of friends, couples, and individuals. If the parts aren't secure, the state isn't secure.

[rrneck]

27. Yep.

That's why the people have the right to be armed and not the organization called a militia.

[aikoaiko]

47. If the communities, families, households, and individuals aren't secure, the state isn't secure!

I couldn't fit it all in the subject box, but well said Slack.

[DWC]

43. It does not get more "mainstream"

than this statement by Suzanna Gratia-Hupp.

Anyone that expects the State to protect them against violent crime has pre-selected victim status.

Semper Fi,

[lawodevolution]

52. The 2a gives me the right as an individual to own firearms of my choice

And the purpose of than right is in part for national defense. If you hate guns you will be willing to use intellectual dishonesty or voluntary stupidity in order to claim that the first and dependent clause is more important than the second and independent clause. It has still been correctly decided in court that the second clause and the only independent clause in the 2A is more important and there is nothing you can do about it, get used to it.

[Hoopla Phil]

63. She did a book signing at a central Texas gun show a couple weeks back.

My dad picked me up a copy. A very fine lady.

[DWC]

77. That was just down the road from my shop. She is amazing! n/t

[Flyboy_451]

76. who can we ask about the intentions of the 2nd???

hmm...how about the guys that wrote it? Or the people who made efforts to convince the various states to ratify the constitution? Here is some of what they had to say...

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
Tench Coxe (May 22, 1755 – July 17, 1824) was an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789. He wrote under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian".

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 <1894>)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 )


Interestingly, there seems to be a small group of people that think our founding fathers intended for our government to dictate whether or not the right to arms is an individual. These people seem to want to "interpret" some meaning that is not obvious in the text, or to impose some "sensible regulation". I think the text of the second amendment is pretty clear in protecting an individual right (and the supreme court happens to agree), but for those who would argue that it means something else, how would you answer to the words of those involved in writing and gaining ratification of the bill of rights?

JW

(ALL EMPHASIS ADDED BY ME)

[Bold Lib]

78. Excellent post! n/t