Second Amendment Poll-USATODAY (question about Individual Rights)

email | 1/5/7 | do the dhue

[do the dhue]

Please vote this gun issue question with USA Today. It will only take a few seconds of your time. Then pass the link on to all the pro gun folks you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms.

First - vote on this one.

Second - launch it to all the pro-gun folks and have THEM vote - then we will see if the results get published.

To vote in the USA Today poll, click on the link below. Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?

[do the dhue]

Thanks for the vote!

[robertpaulsen]

"In my view, if you read this between the proper comma placement, it is saying that a well regulated militia and the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, shall not be infringed."

So, in effect, you're reading the second amendment as, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well, that's a new interpretation, I have to admit. It's wrong, for sure, but it is a new one.

The second amendment does not say, "An armed populace, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Founders discussed this and ruled it out, saying that such a scheme would be "as futile as it would be injurious".

A "well regulated Militia" was necessary to the security of a free state. The Founders wished to protect the right of "the people" (not all citizens) as members of a Militia to keep and bear arms from federal infringement.

[do the dhue]

OK, with the ‘and’ I am placing in there, you are right. But if I am wrong, why didn’t the founding fathers gather all the hunting rifles and weapons that people were using back in the day, who were not members of a well regulated militia?

[robertpaulsen]

"But if I am wrong, why didn’t the founding fathers gather all the hunting rifles and weapons that people were using back in the day, who were not members of a well regulated militia?"

Because they had no power to do so?

Don't make the mistake of confusing a non-protected right with illegality -- in other words, if a right is not protected it doesn't mean it's illegal.

Second, because the RKBA for non-milita members is not protected by the second amendment, that doesn't mean it's not protected elsewhere. Almost every state constitution protects the individual right.

[do the dhue]

I don't concur with your statement. Law is power. If what you are saying is true, then why write the law the way they did? Of course men in the militia should have a weapon to fight with. Why add the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed on top of a well regulated militia shall not be infringed? It is common sense that a militia must have a weapon to fight with. Why would they add that the peoples right to bear arms shall not be infringed? It doesn't make sense. If they didn't want people outside of the militia to keep and bear arms, they would have simply said a well regulated militia shall not be infringed, but they didn't write it that way. They added the people, not the people in the militia.

[robertpaulsen]

"they would have simply said a well regulated militia shall not be infringed"

The concern at the time was the arming of the state Militia. Since rights are protected for individuals, they couldn't say "the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms ...". Also, it wasn't their intent to have the second amendment protect the right to keep and bear arms for all persons or even all citizens.

So, in 1789, they protected the right for "the people" -- white male citizens only.

[do the dhue]

If what you say is true, they wanted the people armed so the militia could be armed. So, no matter what and because I am part of the people (the State), I have the right to keep and bear arms period. To be redundant, the individual has the right to keep and bear arms period.

Please allow me to go here:

Who makes up the body of the State? I believe the people do. You can not say that it wasn't their intent to have the Second Amendment protect the right to keep and bear arms for all person or even all citizens, because the people are the State. We are the ones who will make up the State militia too. We have the right to protect our country against threats foreign and domestic. This is what the Second Amendment protects. Again, if they didn't want the people to have the right to keep and bear arms, they would have said you have to be part of the militia to have a weapon. They would have put out a mandate to turn your weapon in if you are not part of the militia or face stiff penalty, if caught with a weapon. But they did not do this because they knew that push comes to shove, people will join the militia and they will need a weapon and this is how the militia will be armed. Hence, the people's (individual's) right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[do the dhue]

[robertpaulsen]

"You can not say that it wasn't their intent to have the Second Amendment protect the right to keep and bear arms for all person or even all citizens"

I can and I will.

And why are you saying "all person or even all citizens"? Don't you know who the second amendment protects? Why are you guessing? Which is it?

"they wanted the people armed so the militia could be armed"

Not all persons. Not slaves, that's for sure. Not foreign visitors or illegal aliens. Not the insane, prisoners, or non-citizens. Not women and children.

I don't understand where you're getting this "all individuals in a state have their RKBA protected by the second amendment". Where does it say that?

The second amendment says, "the people". NOT all persons, or all individuals, or all ctizens. It says, "the people" because the Founding fathers meant "the people" and not all persons, all individuals or all citizens.

Who were "the people"? Look at the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States".

Were "the people" who voted slaves? Non-citizens? Women? Children? Prisoners? Nope. Adult, white, male citizens.

Google up the Militia act of 1792. Who were the ONLY ones qualified to be in a Militia? Adult, white, male citizens.

Who does the second amendment protect? "The people" Who were "the people"?

I think you're getting it.

"They would have put out a mandate to turn your weapon in if you are not part of the militia or face stiff penalty, if caught with a weapon."

First, why would they do that? Second, where do they get the constitutional power to do so?

[do the dhue]

And why are you saying "all person or even all citizens"?

I said this because you said it.

[do the dhue]

You know, I stopped reading your email because you couldn’t even remember what you said to me. But I went ahead and finished reading.

I get people because that is exactly what it says in the the second amendment. It does not say, men or woman or what not, it says the people.

I am still saying that the Second Amendment protects my individual RKBR. Are you saying people are not individuals?

And may I ask, where do they get the Constitutional power to do anything? They apparently have the power to protect our free speech and so in BOR, I would think they would have the Constitutional power to say turn in your weapon.

[robertpaulsen]

"Are you saying people are not individuals?"

So you're saying the second amendment protects the right of all individuals in the U.S. -- Non-citizens. Illegal aliens. Felons. Foreign visitors. Prisoners. The insane. 3-year-olds.

I mean, they're all individuals, right? They're all "persons".

You really haven't thought this through, have you?

"And may I ask, where do they get the Constitutional power to do anything?"

Article I, Section 8. "The Congress shall have the power to .... ". Now, if you can find where is says that Congress has the power to disarm the citizens, I'd like to see it.

[bmwcyle]

bttt

[do the dhue]

I have never, ever said that Congress has the right to disarm citizens. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

I never said the Constitution gave Non-citizens any right. You again are putting words in my mouth.

Common sense is required here.

[robertpaulsen]

"I never said the Constitution gave Non-citizens any right."

So the second amendment does NOT protect the right of all individuals as you previously said it did. It only protects the right of U.S. citizens, correct? Felons? Prisoners? The insane? 3-year-olds? They're all citizens.

Did it always protect the right of U.S. citizens? When it was ratified in 1791, did it protect the right of women to keep and bear arms? Non-whites? Children?

You're getting closer to the truth.

(Oh, our U.S. Constitution protects a number of rights for non-citizens -- 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendment rights are protected for all persons. The inalienable right to life and liberty are protected for all persons.)

[do the dhue]

It protects the peoples right to bear arms. Do you think the founding fathers were referring to law abiding citizen’s or do you think they were referring to felons and the like when they said the we the people? I believe they are referring to law abiding citizen when they say the people.

[robertpaulsen]

"The people" are the enfranchised body politic. Those with an investment in the country; those who are participants in the political process.

Basically, the voters.

“[T]he people” seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by “the People of the United States.” The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people.” See also U.S. CONST., amdt. 1; Art. I, § 2, cl. 1."

"While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
-- United States v. Verdugo- Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)

Not every individual. Not every person. Not even every citizen.

[do the dhue]

Well, I am a voter and you can pry my guns from my cold dead hands.

[molette67]

ok i voted