Discussions
Reply to: [Official discussion] Total beginners guide to guns Posted April 26, 2020

That article gets a lot of things wrong.  For one, it’s individually bearable military grade weapons that are well suited for resisting invasion or oppression that are exactly the weapons the 2nd covers and conveys an individual right to keep and bear.  That’s things like automatic rifles with large clips, etc. To get to the truth of the situation you have to go back to a time before the 2nd was controversial to get the actual right that it conveyed.  The following analysis from Cooley gets it mostly right even though there are some things that he didn’t get into.  For instance, most people don’t know that the 2nd amendment was only put into the bill of rights to keep from establishing a preference for a particular religion.  The right to keep and bear military weapons came to us from the English Bill of Rights but it was only technically applied to protestants.  That would have been grandfathered into US law had it not been addressed specifically by the 2nd amendment.  The founders did not want to establish a preference for the protestant religions.  Most people don’t realize that the 1st clause of the 2nd amendment was a guarantee to the states that they could keep their militias and doesn’t modify or restrict the 2nd clause in any way.  The southern states weren’t going to ratify the constitution unless they were guaranteed they could keep their militias to protect the institution of slavery. “Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley was the leading constitutional commentator of the late 1800s; he wrote a treatise entitled A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations (1868), which he then revised many times over the next three decades, and an abridgment entitled Principles of Constitutional Law (1898) What follows is Cooley’s analysis of the 2nd amendment. “The Constitution. — By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that “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.” The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation. The Right is General. — It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order. Standing Army. — A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them. What Arms may be kept. — The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited.”  

Reply to: [Official discussion] Total beginners guide to guns Posted April 26, 2020

in Re:  “Yet, how has Congress justified this infringement but not other infringements?” There is a lot of information that would go into answering that question.  But, to be brutally honest, it has never been justified.  It’s simply been done.  I did a lot of research on the 2nd amendment nearly 50 years ago when I was researching the morality of nuclear weapons. The 2nd Amendment needs either to be modified or repealed because there aren’t many regulatory schemes (above and beyond not allowing felons to possess) that are consistent with the 2nd. One of the most honest assessments of the 2nd amendment was one undertaken in the 1800’s before the 2nd became a source of such controversy and passionate disagreement.  Here’s the way it was analyzed then by the leading constitutional scholar of the century. ” “Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley was the leading constitutional commentator of the late 1800s; he wrote a treatise entitled A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations (1868), which he then revised many times over the next three decades, and an abridgment entitled Principles of Constitutional Law (1898) What follows is Cooley’s analysis of the 2nd amendment. “The Constitution. — By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that “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.” The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation. The Right is General. — It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order. Standing Army. — A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them. What Arms may be kept. — The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited.”

Reply to: [Official discussion] Total beginners guide to guns Posted April 26, 2020
No activity yet.
Reply to: [Official discussion] Total beginners guide to guns Posted April 26, 2020

That article gets a lot of things wrong.  For one, it’s individually bearable military grade weapons that are well suited for resisting invasion or oppression that are exactly the weapons the 2nd covers and conveys an individual right to keep and bear.  That’s things like automatic rifles with large clips, etc. To get to the truth of the situation you have to go back to a time before the 2nd was controversial to get the actual right that it conveyed.  The following analysis from Cooley gets it mostly right even though there are some things that he didn’t get into.  For instance, most people don’t know that the 2nd amendment was only put into the bill of rights to keep from establishing a preference for a particular religion.  The right to keep and bear military weapons came to us from the English Bill of Rights but it was only technically applied to protestants.  That would have been grandfathered into US law had it not been addressed specifically by the 2nd amendment.  The founders did not want to establish a preference for the protestant religions.  Most people don’t realize that the 1st clause of the 2nd amendment was a guarantee to the states that they could keep their militias and doesn’t modify or restrict the 2nd clause in any way.  The southern states weren’t going to ratify the constitution unless they were guaranteed they could keep their militias to protect the institution of slavery. “Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley was the leading constitutional commentator of the late 1800s; he wrote a treatise entitled A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations (1868), which he then revised many times over the next three decades, and an abridgment entitled Principles of Constitutional Law (1898) What follows is Cooley’s analysis of the 2nd amendment. “The Constitution. — By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that “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.” The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation. The Right is General. — It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order. Standing Army. — A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them. What Arms may be kept. — The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited.”  

Reply to: [Official discussion] Total beginners guide to guns Posted April 26, 2020

in Re:  “Yet, how has Congress justified this infringement but not other infringements?” There is a lot of information that would go into answering that question.  But, to be brutally honest, it has never been justified.  It’s simply been done.  I did a lot of research on the 2nd amendment nearly 50 years ago when I was researching the morality of nuclear weapons. The 2nd Amendment needs either to be modified or repealed because there aren’t many regulatory schemes (above and beyond not allowing felons to possess) that are consistent with the 2nd. One of the most honest assessments of the 2nd amendment was one undertaken in the 1800’s before the 2nd became a source of such controversy and passionate disagreement.  Here’s the way it was analyzed then by the leading constitutional scholar of the century. ” “Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley was the leading constitutional commentator of the late 1800s; he wrote a treatise entitled A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations (1868), which he then revised many times over the next three decades, and an abridgment entitled Principles of Constitutional Law (1898) What follows is Cooley’s analysis of the 2nd amendment. “The Constitution. — By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that “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.” The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation. The Right is General. — It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order. Standing Army. — A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them. What Arms may be kept. — The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited.”

Reply to: [Official discussion] Total beginners guide to guns Posted April 26, 2020