Open carry: Too many guns on the street??

[ivwshane]

Can you provide any proof that the people that founded this country and wrote all these docs didn't want it's citizens armed? I get they talked about militias and I also get that you'll never agree on what one of those were at the time, who they were made up of, and how it would possibly work out if it wasn't made up of citizens that may or may not have kept their own arms. I can't find anything on it, nor could a friend that majored in US history. Granted he's of the believe that the idea was to make sure the citizens could keep and bare arms if needed to avoid another authoritarian group from taking US. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just can't find it. I can find quotes from Jefferson where he directly wrote “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776. I can also find other quotes from others that seem to back up the idea that the idea was citizens were to be allowed to keep arms. I just can't do the other way where they clearly and directly said 'only the militias.. or army, which by your definition is what a militia is. I also find it odd that for centuries the US just went with the version of things were everyone was allowed guns. You'd think if this wasn't the case, and it was only those trained and ordered by heads of state we'd have heard more about it and the US would look different.. but IDK.. Maybe I'm wrong. I do look forward to learning something if I am. Won't change how the laws currently work as those that can tell us what the laws are have already decided (right or wrong) and you'll need 2/3s of the states to agree to the change.

I also find it really interesting the fact that everyone seems to want to Canonize the people that wrote the original docs. I said before that it's very possible that the Second Amendment is something that is out of date and touch with modern day. What's odd is rather than look at that question, there insists upon this odd debate that those writers must have agreed with whatever side of the argument. These were the same people that held and kept slavery around, so I'm not sure whatever they thought at the time should be considered gospel. The quote from Jefferson directly says that only free people could have arms, but not slaves. Makes sense as you wouldn't want to arm those you wrongly bound, but it does point out that they weren't the infallible source of all wisdom. This doesn't really have much to do with if they meant for people to have guns, but I do find it very interesting.

In federalist 29, titled; concerning the militia

Research Guides: Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History: Federalist Nos. 21-30

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pen name "Publius." This guide compiles Library of Congress digital materials, external websites, and a print bibliography.

guides.loc.gov

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."

He then later poses the question:

What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS?

A well regulated militia requires regulations and guess which documents gives the power to regulate militias to congress? That’s right the constitution. That same clause also states that it’s the state that gets to pick its officers and who trains their militias.

It makes zero sense that congress would get to set training and organizing requirements along with arming militias with no one to enforce such regulations, which is why they also gave the authority to pick who their militias comprised of to the states. If a militia was meant to be comprised of individual non professional soldiers then why would the constitution specifically give the states the right to pick their officers? If militias meant random organized citizens how exactly would they call on these militias to defend the country? There is no clause stating that militias had to be registered or counted so how would any of that work? It doesn’t.

As for your comment about citizens always being allowed to have guns, well that may be true but it’s not because the 2nd was interpreted to be an individual right. In fact, for over 150 years the 2nd was perceived as a collective right (the states), until heller that is.

This paper gives examples of terms used during that time period in other state constitutions.

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr

You can also see the founding fathers intentions in the articles of the confederacy.

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

Avalon Project - Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781

Take note of the bolded. It’s pretty hard to argue the 2nd is an individual right when they are to be stored in a central location.

 

[ivwshane]

It means they were mistaken as to the utility of militias for the purposes of national defense.

It can also be argued they weren’t mistaken but rather the failure was from not following the constitution as written. From your link militias struggled because they didn’t believe that anyone other than the president himself was allowed to lead the military.
But again, that’s all irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[ivwshane]

That's fair. Here's a page full of them, though to be honest a good chunk of them could go either way on the subject of militias. I'm very interested in seeing what you find. I'm much more interested in learning about it than I am trying to prove anything.

Sigh...I was afraid such quotes would be provided.

Right off the bat the first quote is incorrect and taken out of context.

First Annual Address, to both Houses of Congress, January 8, 1790 - Tuesday, May 14, 2024

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

www.mountvernon.org

The actual quote:

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

Again, he’s talking about a domestic supply chain for military supplies.

The second quote went through several drafts and you can see its intention in the 2nd and third draft.

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

www.monticello.org

The third quote is also taken out of context. Jefferson weighs the pros and cons of the three different kinds of societies.

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery (Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

www.monticello.org

I’m not going to continue as I think I made my point.

 

[Skel]

Sigh...I was afraid such quotes would be provided.

Right off the bat the first quote is incorrect and taken out of context.

First Annual Address, to both Houses of Congress, January 8, 1790 - Tuesday, May 14, 2024

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

www.mountvernon.org

The actual quote:



Again, he’s talking about a domestic supply chain for military supplies.

The second quote went through several drafts and you can see its intention in the 2nd and third draft.

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

www.monticello.org

The third quote is also taken out of context. Jefferson weighs the pros and cons of the three different kinds of societies.

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery (Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

www.monticello.org

I’m not going to continue as I think I made my point.

I'm not sure what you mean with the intentions part with Jefferson's quote.. even the other drafts still read that he thought people should be allowed to own firearms. Side note: there should always be limits upon how and where those firearms can be used.. even which ones: End side note. While it wasn't used in Virginia's constitution doesn't mean much when we're talking about his thoughts upon the subject. Either way, I can't see how this would mean he thought only people in a militia should be allowed to have guns.. Having said that I might be missing your point.

You've made a point that the quotes could and possibly are taken out of context. Though to be fair, unless there are a bunch of stuff that clearly shows they weren't meaning citizens shouldn't be allowed to keep guns it's hard to say for sure those aren't what they meant. I can't help but feel if there was clear documents showing what they meant, then there would be no question for the Supreme Court to even weight, let alone decide what they did. Unless we've all been living for over 200 years with everyone assuming what it meant for all this time.. which would also be odd as they wouldn't stop writing to further clarify what they meant.. Either way, I still look forward to what you find.

Edit: Also per that site Jefferson was a gun owner that appeared to enjoy them well enough (link), not sure why he'd think limiting them to only militas would be a good idea as that would make him unable to have them.. no?

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not sure what you mean with the intentions part with Jefferson's quote.. even the other drafts still read that he thought people should be allowed to own firearms. Side note: there should always be limits upon how and where those firearms can be used.. even which ones: End side note. While it wasn't used in Virginia's constitution doesn't mean much when we're talking about his thoughts upon the subject. Either way, I can't see how this would mean he thought only people in a militia should be allowed to have guns.. Having said that I might be missing your point.

You've made a point that the quotes could and possibly are taken out of context. Though to be fair, unless there are a bunch of stuff that clearly shows they weren't meaning citizens shouldn't be allowed to keep guns it's hard to say for sure those aren't what they meant. I can't help but feel if there was clear documents showing what they meant, then there would be no question for the Supreme Court to even weight, let alone decide what they did. Unless we've all been living for over 200 years with everyone assuming what it meant for all this time.. which would also be odd as they wouldn't stop writing to further clarify what they meant.. Either way, I still look forward to what you find.

Edit: Also per that site Jefferson was a gun owner that appeared to enjoy them well enough (link), not sure why he'd think limiting them to only militas would be a good idea as that would make him unable to have them.. no?

Two things. First, I’m not sure why you keep talking about 200 years with everyone assuming what it meant because prior to the Heller decision the Supreme Court had held that the 2nd amendment was a collective rights issue (meaning it protected the states not individuals).

Secondly, it’s entirely possible for Jefferson to want to codify the right of states to protect themselves while not guaranteeing a similar right to individuals. Just because he didn’t fight for individuals to have a right to arm themselves doesn’t mean he thought citizens shouldn’t have guns.

 

[Muse]

If thats true we really need to disarm police.
European countries seem to be doing alright. Of course, they dont have a small fraction of the social problems we do.
Social problems which lead directly to violent crime.
We gotta cure societies ails before we can do anything else.

So, leave guns in the hands of people living in an unstable society? That will help? Arm the open asylum that is the USA? IMO, guns are a big part of the problem of this, the by far most armed country on the globe, by no means part of the solution.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Legalize MJ!! But the problem is the war on MJ in particular is a big money business!!
I hate to say it but the government makes money off the war on MJ!!
To and including using the proceeds to fund the police and prisons!!

I never realized how huge the jail industry is for business and profit until I watched the documentary "13th". It goes way beyond paying cops, judges, DAs, public defenders, prison guards etc... There are massive industries built on and dependent on prisoners....health care providers, food providers, clothing, anything you can think of. NONE of them wants anything but more and more prisoners.

 

[ivwshane]

I never realized how huge the jail industry is for business and profit until I watched the documentary "13th". It goes way beyond paying cops, judges, DAs, public defenders, prison guards etc... There are massive industries built on and dependent on prisoners....health care providers, food providers, clothing, anything you can think of. NONE of them wants anything but more and more prisoners.

And nothing changes because everyone thinks if you are in jail you belong there. No need for any kind of reform if only bad people go to prison or get arrested, right?

 

[Skel]

Two things. First, I’m not sure why you keep talking about 200 years with everyone assuming what it meant because prior to the Heller decision the Supreme Court had held that the 2nd amendment was a collective rights issue (meaning it protected the states not individuals).

Secondly, it’s entirely possible for Jefferson to want to codify the right of states to protect themselves while not guaranteeing a similar right to individuals. Just because he didn’t fight for individuals to have a right to arm themselves doesn’t mean he thought citizens shouldn’t have guns.

... I'm not sure why you're not agreeing with the fact that Heller also was ruled that the Second protected an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia. Regardless of if that's right or wrong. I'm not sure if you're ignoring that part or if I'm reading what you wrote here wrong. Why I say 200+ years of everyone assuming that it was the case is because if it wasn't and everyone except a small group believed it was not a individual's right we would have had way more gun laws on the books. Most of them get knocked off because of the Second over rules them, and how it's been interpreted.

The link I provided.. Again for the lazy.. from the site you provided to show me that him saying "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." was out of context.. which I still don't see as all the other drafts were along the same lines.. but I digress. The link shows the letters he wrote to his nephew when speaking of exercise "... I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance 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." I'm not sure why he would say that if he was a proponent of individuals not having guns as it would make what he suggest illegal for him and his nephew.

I still could be wrong, when you show me all the links showing clearly that's what they intended I'll happily stand corrected.

 

[Jhhnn]

I never realized how huge the jail industry is for business and profit until I watched the documentary "13th". It goes way beyond paying cops, judges, DAs, public defenders, prison guards etc... There are massive industries built on and dependent on prisoners....health care providers, food providers, clothing, anything you can think of. NONE of them wants anything but more and more prisoners.

Job Creation! Being a prisoner is the shittiest job of all, but somebody's gotta do it, right?

 

[JEDIYoda]

... I'm not sure why you're not agreeing with the fact that Heller also was ruled that the Second protected an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia. Regardless of if that's right or wrong. I'm not sure if you're ignoring that part or if I'm reading what you wrote here wrong. Why I say 200+ years of everyone assuming that it was the case is because if it wasn't and everyone except a small group believed it was not a individual's right we would have had way more gun laws on the books. Most of them get knocked off because of the Second over rules them, and how it's been interpreted.

The link I provided.. Again for the lazy.. from the site you provided to show me that him saying "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." was out of context.. which I still don't see as all the other drafts were along the same lines.. but I digress. The link shows the letters he wrote to his nephew when speaking of exercise "... I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance 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." I'm not sure why he would say that if he was a proponent of individuals not having guns as it would make what he suggest illegal for him and his nephew.

I still could be wrong, when you show me all the links showing clearly that's what they intended I'll happily stand corrected.

It really doesn`t matter! You can`t change the minds of people of your ilk!!
Gun Nutterz unite!!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

I'm not sure what you mean with the intentions part with Jefferson's quote.. even the other drafts still read that he thought people should be allowed to own firearms. Side note: there should always be limits upon how and where those firearms can be used.. even which ones: End side note. While it wasn't used in Virginia's constitution doesn't mean much when we're talking about his thoughts upon the subject. Either way, I can't see how this would mean he thought only people in a militia should be allowed to have guns.. Having said that I might be missing your point.

You've made a point that the quotes could and possibly are taken out of context. Though to be fair, unless there are a bunch of stuff that clearly shows they weren't meaning citizens shouldn't be allowed to keep guns it's hard to say for sure those aren't what they meant. I can't help but feel if there was clear documents showing what they meant, then there would be no question for the Supreme Court to even weight, let alone decide what they did. Unless we've all been living for over 200 years with everyone assuming what it meant for all this time.. which would also be odd as they wouldn't stop writing to further clarify what they meant.. Either way, I still look forward to what you find.

Edit: Also per that site Jefferson was a gun owner that appeared to enjoy them well enough (link), not sure why he'd think limiting them to only militas would be a good idea as that would make him unable to have them.. no?

its ok to claim ignorance in the face of irrefutable facts!!

 

[ivwshane]

... I'm not sure why you're not agreeing with the fact that Heller also was ruled that the Second protected an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia. Regardless of if that's right or wrong. I'm not sure if you're ignoring that part or if I'm reading what you wrote here wrong. Why I say 200+ years of everyone assuming that it was the case is because if it wasn't and everyone except a small group believed it was not a individual's right we would have had way more gun laws on the books. Most of them get knocked off because of the Second over rules them, and how it's been interpreted.

The link I provided.. Again for the lazy.. from the site you provided to show me that him saying "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." was out of context.. which I still don't see as all the other drafts were along the same lines.. but I digress. The link shows the letters he wrote to his nephew when speaking of exercise "... I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance 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." I'm not sure why he would say that if he was a proponent of individuals not having guns as it would make what he suggest illegal for him and his nephew.

I still could be wrong, when you show me all the links showing clearly that's what they intended I'll happily stand corrected.

You did it again (bolded), I did not say he was for individuals not having guns. He simply wasn’t for codifying that right into the constitution. In fact, in the quote you keep using, you can see that from his first draft to the next he restricted the individuals right, he did not expand It. So from that quote alone you can deduce that he supported restrictions on individual gun rights. You cannot infer as you keep claiming is happening, that Jefferson was against an individuals right to bear arms and it’s certainly not something I’ve said either.


As for providing you with more links, there isn’t any point in doing at you haven’t disputed anything in the links I have provided.

 

[shortylickens]

I never realized how huge the jail industry is for business and profit until I watched the documentary "13th". It goes way beyond paying cops, judges, DAs, public defenders, prison guards etc... There are massive industries built on and dependent on prisoners....health care providers, food providers, clothing, anything you can think of. NONE of them wants anything but more and more prisoners.

If they paid regular people minimum wage to do these jobs they wouldnt have billions of dollars sitting in banks doing nothing.

THINK, MAN!

 

[Skel]

You did it again (bolded), I did not say he was for individuals not having guns. He simply wasn’t for codifying that right into the constitution. In fact, in the quote you keep using, you can see that from his first draft to the next he restricted the individuals right, he did not expand It. So from that quote alone you can deduce that he supported restrictions on individual gun rights. You cannot infer as you keep claiming is happening, that Jefferson was against an individuals right to bear arms and it’s certainly not something I’ve said either.


As for providing you with more links, there isn’t any point in doing at you haven’t disputed anything in the links I have provided.

Maybe we've circle jerked ourselves around where I've lost the bit.. but I was responding back to

Actually they got the second amendment right. Most Americans just don’t realize that because we had a Supreme Court totally distort what its original intentions were.

In the days of the constitution creation many state laws had laws that requires arms to be locked up or even stored at a separate location. Arms were intended for militias only, that is, voluntary non professional soldiers. The point of the 2nd amendment was to guarantee the states the right to continue doing that as the founders recognized that state militias were necessary in order to protect their sovereignty from foreign and domestic threats. This is supported by the constitution itself, article 1 section 8 clause 15 & 16. Which also states that congress is the one that controls the organizing, arming, training, and discipline of said militias. Who was to be authorized to implement the above was to be determined by the states.

The second amendment was never intended to be an individual right (if it was they would have included it in the 1st element with the rest of the people’s rights). This is further supported by clause 15 which specifically gives Congress the ability to call said militias to execute federal laws and to put down insurrections and rebellions.

If you think about it, it makes sense that the 2nd wasn’t an individual right since an armed populace would severely undermine our democracy. In fact, with the recent events in Kenosha, we see exactly why that is. Having armed citizens greatly hinders peoples ability to assemble and protest.

Democracy doesn’t work if it’s held at gun point.

which I disagree with as the people writing the docs all seemed (still could be wrong) to be proponents of the individual having guns. It makes little sense to me that they'd be proponents of it, but wanting it to only be for the states to decide. If anything the fact it's number 2 on the top 10 list tells me it meant a lot to them to make sure it's there. It makes sense as England kept a hold of it's monarchy partly by making sure those in power were protected by arms the general populace didn't have.

I still also find it bizarre that this debate is even there as these were the same idiots that protected slavery in the docs so they can and have gotten it wrong on stuff. Not sure why anyone thinks by having them on 'their side' of the debate matters at all. If anything the circle jerk convo of "would they have allowed it if they knew about ARs" highlights that things can and should change. Having said that I am interested in topic at hand from a historical point of view. I just don't think the writers of the docs were on the 'only the army should be allowed arms' side.

 

[Skel]

It really doesn`t matter! You can`t change the minds of people of your ilk!!
Gun Nutterz unite!!!

roar.. funny how you call me a Gun Nutterz and how my mind won't change when I've repeatedly said that it's possible the Second is out of date and should be changed.. but again. roar..

its ok to claim ignorance in the face of irrefutable facts!!

Not sure which facts you speak of.. I've freely admitted that I'm ignorant of a lot of stuff, which is why I asked ivwshane to provide me more info on the subject. I've not been able to find anything clear that the people that wrote it all up were of the mindset that it wasn't for the individual. I've never once said it isn't possible nor out there, only that I couldn't find it.

roar.. do I get a free gun? Roar.

 

[snoopy7548]

Guns are stoopid.

 

[Stokely]

And nothing changes because everyone thinks if you are in jail you belong there. No need for any kind of reform if only bad people go to prison or get arrested, right?

Not only that, but if you are found guilty of a felony you are pretty much screwed in any number of ways.

I helped a relative who made a big mistake, mostly out of ignorance, and they were treated like dogshit from day one. We broke your computer, lost your phone...too bad. We'll charge you fee after fee and generally jerk you around like you are criminal long before your trial date. It is VERY easy to see how poor people end up in prison--they can't afford a good defense, and maybe can't even drive themselves around to all the damn hearings you have to attend. Part of it is all the downtrodden people working in these miserable jobs must get some ray of sunshine out of spreading the misery--in that regard, much like the INS, which I've had years of dealings with.

But yeah, we have private prisons who sued because they weren't getting their agreed-to number of prisoners. Goes hand in hand with the idea of keeping people out of prison, or helping people rehabilitate, right?

 

[ivwshane]

Maybe we've circle jerked ourselves around where I've lost the bit.. but I was responding back to



which I disagree with as the people writing the docs all seemed (still could be wrong) to be proponents of the individual having guns. It makes little sense to me that they'd be proponents of it, but wanting it to only be for the states to decide. If anything the fact it's number 2 on the top 10 list tells me it meant a lot to them to make sure it's there. It makes sense as England kept a hold of it's monarchy partly by making sure those in power were protected by arms the general populace didn't have.

I still also find it bizarre that this debate is even there as these were the same idiots that protected slavery in the docs so they can and have gotten it wrong on stuff. Not sure why anyone thinks by having them on 'their side' of the debate matters at all. If anything the circle jerk convo of "would they have allowed it if they knew about ARs" highlights that things can and should change. Having said that I am interested in topic at hand from a historical point of view. I just don't think the writers of the docs were on the 'only the army should be allowed arms' side.

You are certainly entitled to disagree, many people do but I find most of the time it’s because they distort history and find snippets of conversations and declare the out of context quote supportive of their argument.

What I have provided you with is:

References to the constitution itself that uses the same words as used in the 2nd but that haven’t been distorted to mean alternative definitions and that shows the context and thinking of the founding fathers.

I’ve shown you discussions the founders had between each other that show you where their concerns were and how that tied to states rights.

I’ve shown you the articles of the confederation which also referenced a state’s right to defend itself.

And lastly I’ve shown you why the quotes pro 2nd amendment people are misleading.

You have yet to rebuke a single one of these except one where you noted your disagreement but didn’t provided anything to back up your opinion.

So unless you want to address the actual info I’ve given you, I don’t see this conversation going anywhere. Which is too bad as I had hoped you’d be willing to have a legitimate discussion.

 

[Skel]

You are certainly entitled to disagree, many people do but I find most of the time it’s because they distort history and find snippets of conversations and declare the out of context quote supportive of their argument.

What I have provided you with is:

References to the constitution itself that uses the same words as used in the 2nd but that haven’t been distorted to mean alternative definitions and that shows the context and thinking of the founding fathers.

I’ve shown you discussions the founders had between each other that show you where their concerns were and how that tied to states rights.

I’ve shown you the articles of the confederation which also referenced a state’s right to defend itself.

And lastly I’ve shown you why the quotes pro 2nd amendment people are misleading.

You have yet to rebuke a single one of these except one where you noted your disagreement but didn’t provided anything to back up your opinion.

So unless you want to address the actual info I’ve given you, I don’t see this conversation going anywhere. Which is too bad as I had hoped you’d be willing to have a legitimate discussion.

I asked you to provide a place where they clearly stated that it wasn't an individual. I thought that was clear. I'm not able to find any quote, doc or other past someone interpreting what they thought they meant. I haven't changed what I was looking for, nor my stance. All I've seen from you so far, and maybe I'm missing it, is where you were shooting down what I provided. I'm actually trying to have a legitimate discussion, but I would expect that to have both sides providing information, not one side providing it and the other trying to discredit it.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are certainly entitled to disagree, many people do but I find most of the time it’s because they distort history and find snippets of conversations and declare the out of context quote supportive of their argument.

What I have provided you with is:

References to the constitution itself that uses the same words as used in the 2nd but that haven’t been distorted to mean alternative definitions and that shows the context and thinking of the founding fathers.

I’ve shown you discussions the founders had between each other that show you where their concerns were and how that tied to states rights.

I’ve shown you the articles of the confederation which also referenced a state’s right to defend itself.

And lastly I’ve shown you why the quotes pro 2nd amendment people are misleading.

You have yet to rebuke a single one of these except one where you noted your disagreement but didn’t provided anything to back up your opinion.

So unless you want to address the actual info I’ve given you, I don’t see this conversation going anywhere. Which is too bad as I had hoped you’d be willing to have a legitimate discussion.

I asked you to provide a place where they clearly stated that it wasn't an individual. I thought that was clear. I'm not able to find any quote, doc or other past someone interpreting what they thought they meant. I haven't changed what I was looking for, nor my stance. All I've seen from you so far, and maybe I'm missing it, is where you were shooting down what I provided. I'm actually trying to have a legitimate discussion, but I would expect that to have both sides providing information, not one side providing it and the other trying to discredit it.

The two of you need to get a room.

 

[ivwshane]

I asked you to provide a place where they clearly stated that it wasn't an individual. I thought that was clear. I'm not able to find any quote, doc or other past someone interpreting what they thought they meant. I haven't changed what I was looking for, nor my stance. All I've seen from you so far, and maybe I'm missing it, is where you were shooting down what I provided. I'm actually trying to have a legitimate discussion, but I would expect that to have both sides providing information, not one side providing it and the other trying to discredit it.

Sorry you won’t find a quote from any founder saying the 2nd amendment is for states and not individuals and you won’t find the reverse either. That’s why you have to read the links and understand what was common at the time. The right to own a gun at the time was trivial and it stayed that way until 2008. The big concern at the time was whether or not the federal government would be too powerful or not powerful enough (federalists vs anti federalists). They were also extremely wary a standing army and obviously concerned about the ability of states to defend themselves.

 

[Skel]

I missed this post the other day, so my apologies for not responding to it and claiming you hadn't provided anything. It's clearly not the case.

In federalist 29, titled; concerning the militia

Research Guides: Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History: Federalist Nos. 21-30

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pen name "Publius." This guide compiles Library of Congress digital materials, external websites, and a print bibliography.

guides.loc.gov

He then later poses the question:



A well regulated militia requires regulations and guess which documents gives the power to regulate militias to congress? That’s right the constitution. That same clause also states that it’s the state that gets to pick its officers and who trains their militias.

It makes zero sense that congress would get to set training and organizing requirements along with arming militias with no one to enforce such regulations, which is why they also gave the authority to pick who their militias comprised of to the states. If a militia was meant to be comprised of individual non professional soldiers then why would the constitution specifically give the states the right to pick their officers? If militias meant random organized citizens how exactly would they call on these militias to defend the country? There is no clause stating that militias had to be registered or counted so how would any of that work? It doesn’t.

Fed 29 was about both trying to quite any fears of a government run army as well as how that army might be done. It's not so much on who is allowed to have arms. I don't recall seeing anywhere in it where he directly states anything about who is allowed to have arms. Only that any militias should have standards.

As for your comment about citizens always being allowed to have guns, well that may be true but it’s not because the 2nd was interpreted to be an individual right. In fact, for over 150 years the 2nd was perceived as a collective right (the states), until heller that is.

This paper gives examples of terms used during that time period in other state constitutions.

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr

There's been other Presidents that wanted to remove guns but couldn't due to the Second. Roosevelt all but introduced gun restrictions in 37. Still odd that if it wasn't for the individual, then why not just remove them off the board? As for the link, I'm in full agreement with most of it. The Second is from another time and should be reexamined.

You can also see the founding fathers intentions in the articles of the confederacy.

Avalon Project - Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781

Take note of the bolded. It’s pretty hard to argue the 2nd is an individual right when they are to be stored in a central location.

This was replaced with the Bill of Rights where the Second was born. Also, I'm not sure they're talking about making sure the army had guns, not so much saying it was the only place they could be kept

 

[Skel]

The two of you need to get a room.

We have a room.. this one

Sorry you won’t find a quote from any founder saying the 2nd amendment is for states and not individuals and you won’t find the reverse either. That’s why you have to read the links and understand what was common at the time. The right to own a gun at the time was trivial and it stayed that way until 2008. The big concern at the time was whether or not the federal government would be too powerful or not powerful enough (federalists vs anti federalists). They were also extremely wary a standing army and obviously concerned about the ability of states to defend themselves.

It's been an issue before 2008, as I pointed out about Roosevelt. I've also provided places where Jefferson wrote about how awesome guns were so it's not completely impossible that it's not in reverse. Also I still stick with (and we can agree to disagree) that if it really was that clear at the time then we'd at least have better documentation that it's been changed, instead of everyone assuming it was the individual.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I asked you to provide a place where they clearly stated that it wasn't an individual. I thought that was clear. I'm not able to find any quote, doc or other past someone interpreting what they thought they meant. I haven't changed what I was looking for, nor my stance. All I've seen from you so far, and maybe I'm missing it, is where you were shooting down what I provided. I'm actually trying to have a legitimate discussion, but I would expect that to have both sides providing information, not one side providing it and the other trying to discredit it.

The onus is upon you to provide links to what you say.....where are they......what you posted was not specific