The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers ... which was created in 1903, 112 years later.

Christian news in maine.com ^ | 18January, 2004 | Larry Austin

[newsgatherer]

Handgun Control Inc. says it wants to keep handguns out of the hands of the wrong people. Guess what. If you are a law abiding citizen who owns a handgun you have the "wrong hands."

Banning guns works. That is why New York and Chicago have such high murder rates.

Washington D.C. which has strict gun controls has a murder rate of 69 per 100,000. Indianapolis, without them has an awesome murder rate of 9 per 100,000. Gun control works.

You can incapacitate an intruder with tear gas or oven spray. If you shoot him with a .357 he will get angry and kill you.

A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman standing with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

The "New England Journal of Medicine" has some excellent articles on gun control just as "The American Rifleman" carries equally great articles on open-heart surgery.

The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard which was created in 1903, 112 years later.

The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "the right of the people to be secure in their homes" refers to individuals while "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

One should consult an automobile technician for vehicle repairs, a computer programmer for problems with your hard drive and Sara Brady for firearms expertise.

Most citizens cannot be trusted so we need firearms laws because we can trust citizens to abide by them.

If you are not familiar with most of the above you have not been following the firearms debate. In fact you haven't tuned in to the liberals who still have their hands in your pockets and on your firearms even though the pounding defeats ...

[RobRoy]

Thanks for the reminder on that. Someone once told me that the bill of rights is not what rights the government gives us. It is the God given rights that the government will not take away.

Gives "rights" a whole different perspective.

[Huck]

those suitable for militia use.

I wonder if this doesn't beg the question: What is the militia's purpose? Is it strictly infantry? Was the militia not responsible for artillery, spying, cavalry, etc? I thought at the time of the founding, the whole army was the militia. Or is the militia just armed men to supplant whatever army is organized?

[Dead Corpse]

You are arguing in reverse. The Militia Act established MINIMUM requirements for what you show up with, no mention of a limitation on what you could own.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
(Tench Cox in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution." Under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18,1789 at 2 col. 1)

[robertpaulsen]

You've described the second amendment protections against federal laws.

Certainly, state gun laws are only restricted by their state constitution, correct?

[Jim Verdolini]

Two problems with your use of the Constitution. First, note that it mentions Government granting letters of Marque. If ships armed with cannon were protected under the 2nd, there would be no reason for government to give its permission.

Next, Madison's notes come from the Constitutional Convention which occurred 2 years before he wrote a Bill of rights. The use of privateers discussed at the Constitutional convention could not be based on a right that was only drafted 2 years later.

No, the right protected by the 2dn is best described in the Militia Act of 1792 here:

"I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

No mention of cannon there.

You confuse owning a cannon with having a protected right under the Constitution to own a cannon. The founders simply did not grant protection to the cannon nor did they forbid them. They left that up to the states.

[Dead Corpse]

Read up a bit more. It was to provide Federal funding for private ships already equied to be hired in to the Navy, to allow them to attack pirates/enemies, and to disburse funds for their up keep and re-arming.

[orionblamblam]

> An awful lot of this country is desert or other wide-open space, owned in the hundreds of acres.

Sadly, Da Gubmint owns *more*. I'd personally love to own a few thousand acres of Alaska. Ain't gonna happen.

[justshutupandtakeit]

That distinction is as old as the gun and is in no way a modern one. It was called a "firearm" for hundreds of years before the Constitution because it could be carried and emitted fire.

Apparently you have not carefully read the 2d which is in no way designed to use to fight the government. It clearly refers to a "well regulated" militia and part of that regulation was being led by STATE appointed officers. Only the nuttiest of the Founders believed that a government elected by the PEOPLE was a danger such as that put over them by a power which was outside their control. You also ignore the fact that the fedgov had the power to call State militias into federal service.

[ctdonath2]

The militia act of 1792 provides a specific list of what they expected the individual members of the militia to arrive with.

That was a minimum that they were expected to arrive with. In no way would a poor farmer be expected to show up with cannon or battleship - that would be preposterous. The modern equivalent would be a militia act of 2005 specifically stating "Selective Service" draftees show up with an M4, 3 magazines, and 90 rounds of ammo; there would presumably be no prohibition against a citizen showing up for war duty with an M40A3, M82 Barrett, M1 Abrams or A10 Warthog suitably loaded.

The flip side is there is NOTHING in the 1792 act (or other writings) indicating a limit on what one could own. There may have been local gov't-run armories, but those were presumably provided precisely because few in town could afford the contents (NOT because the locals were prohibited from owning such).

There is not a scintilla of evidence that any arm greater than a individual arm was ever considered as an arm to be kept or provided by an individual militia member.

Certainly nothing REQUIRED one to own larger arms. There is not a scintilla of evidence that any arm greater than an individual arm was ever PROHIBITED from being kept or provided by an individual militia member.

If you doubt me, provide a reference to a specific founder or a court case where the issue comes out as you claim.

I present: The very cannons kept by George Washington upon his front lawn, and likewise by other Founding Fathers.

I present: The complete absence of any writings by any Founding Father indicating anything to the effect of "the people should not be permitted cannons, battleships, or other arms unsuitable for individual use".

I can provide the opposite.

Go for it. I'm waiting to see a single law or writing, penned by the Founding Fathers, which calls for, allows, or presumes the prevention of private citizens from owning cannons or battleships or anything larger than individual arms.

[King Prout]

look at the US Constitution, Article One, Section Eight, Part Eleven.

allow me to quote it for you:

The Constitution of the United States... ARTICLE I... Section 8. Powers of Congress... The Congress shall have the power... 11.To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water...

Look up the meaning of "letters of marque and reprisal" and then think of the implications such a power has on the types of arms a private citizen is "allowed" to possess according to the wisdom of the Founders.

Again, allow me to cut to the chase:
A letter of marque and reprisal is a congressional writ authorizing a private citizen to cunduct maritime acts of war against a foreign enemy's assets, military/naval and/or shipping/commercial, using his own privately owned ship(s) armed with his own privately owned cannons.

You should also try to understand that the "militia" definition the Founders had in mind was the reserve militia comprising all able-bodied men at least seventeen years of age. These militia were not the standing army, nor were they the "select" or cadre militia of the several states, nor yet were they the paramilitary forces of the police or fire brigades. They were the common man, and trhey were expected to be armed and trained at their own expense with at least the standard shoulder-arm of the day.

As to "arms" - one last note: DO YOU THINK THE FOUNDERS WERE IDIOTS???
They were well aware of technological progress in firearms design, and knew very well that further improvements were inevitable. Why do you think they used the term "ARMS" instead of "flintlock rifled musket"?

[ctdonath2]

If ships armed with cannon were protected under the 2nd, there would be no reason for government to give its permission.

"Letters of Marque" were included in the Constitution so Congress could permit individuals to attack other countries, as a matter of foreign policy. It did not address permitting citizens from owning the arms in the first place.

[Dead Corpse]

Letters of M&R are essentially the same as deputizing someone. No more. No less. The "permission" is for privateers to act against enemies with legality, not so much the arming of said ships.

Once again, the Militia Act establishes minimums required for militia service only. It does not speak to what limitations there are on the Secdon Amendment at all.

[King Prout]

you suffer from tunnel-vision:

The Constitution of the United States... ARTICLE I... Section 8. Powers of Congress... The Congress shall have the power... 11.To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water...

A letter of marque and reprisal is a congressional writ authorizing a private citizen to cunduct maritime acts of war against a foreign enemy's assets, military/naval and/or shipping/commercial, using his own privately owned ship(s) armed with his own privately owned cannons.

[Jim Verdolini]

No, state law cannot prempt Constitutional rights. The 14th amendment applied the bill of rights to the states. This is why exactly what is protected is so important and the nature of the right (individual or collective) matters.

If the right is individual and if the right extends absolutely to arms suitable to the militia (as says US v Miller, the last Supreme Court case to discuss the issue), then the states have no authority except raw power, to prohibit such weapons. If the right is collective to the states, then they can do about whatever they want.

The problem is, there is no Collective right that goes back to the founders. it only goes back to state law based on state Constitutions beginning in 1840. In fact, all this state law begins by stating specifically that the second does not apply to the states but only to the feds. The 14th eliminated this caveat.

[Dead Corpse]

Not for fighting the Government huh?

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington- First President of the United States

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyrany in government."
Thomas Jefferson

[justshutupandtakeit]

Yeah sure and Roe v. Wade is as much in the constitution as is those things which are NOT "arms" are in the 2d amendment. Either words mean what they say or we are in a state of anarchy.

American ships were forbidden to carry cannons during a point in the Jefferson administration when he was trying to avoid war with France or Britain. Nothing in the constitution protects the right to arm private ships although it was generally not forbidden.

In addition, privateers were not allowed to operate without government authorization. That authorization was what distinguished "privateer" from "pirate."

Those worrying about the potential "tyranny" of a government of the people were precisely those OPPOSED to the Constitution in the first place. Like Hamilton and Madison said there was no right given the fedgov to abrogate the RKBA in the first place. Nor did the amendment prevent the states from doing just that as the Southern states routinely did regarding Blacks.

[steve-b]

"Arms" is generally understood to mean the sort of weapons that a citizen might reasonably carry in self-defense. Thus, it might possibly extend to a ship owner equipping his ship with cannon, but would not extend to what we today call "weapons of mass destruction" (which by definition are not precisely targeted -- they can reasonably be kept out of private hands on the grounds that they are a threat to innocent bystanders even if used properly).

[steve-b]

The 2nd Amendment has been infringed upon since the 1930s.

Actually, major infringements of the 2nd Amendment go back to the post-Reconstruction South, for obvious reasons (ever try to wash blood stains out of white sheets?)

[justshutupandtakeit]

Those warships and cannon were not explicitly protected by the Constitution though as were arms.

[Dead Corpse]

Two wrongs don't make a right troll. Just as Roe V. Wade was an abuse of judicial power, so is every gun law in this country.

Forbidding the firing on of foriegn ships is a LOT different than stripping us of our Second Amendment protected Rights.