PDA

View Full Version : Aren't We the People the same People in the Second Amendment?


mt4design
01-08-2013, 2:02 PM
I've been wondering about this as an argument since antis want to proclaim that the Second deals only with militias or with limited uses like for hunting, etc. They want to complicate what I believe is a very simple correlation between the opening of the Constitution and everything that flows within it from those opening three words on.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution begins with those words, "We the people."

That's us.

So, are we not the same "people" mentioned specifically in the SA?

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Thoughts?

yuccales
01-08-2013, 2:20 PM
Go ask the current office dweller, I'll bet a big NO comes out of his lying mouth.

Calzona
01-08-2013, 2:20 PM
Depends... When you are talking about different classes of people, stating one set of people have certain rights could mean another set of people don't.

According to many anti-2A people I know, they firmly believe that 2A applies only in the militia sense that we have come to know them by. If we were to accept their argument then the framers of the constitution would have established two distinct classes of citizens. People in that sense would mean militia.

I'm not saying I actually believe that... But there it is for you.

M. D. Van Norman
01-08-2013, 2:24 PM
Iíve been wondering about this as an argument since antis want to proclaim that the Second deals only with militias or with limited uses like for hunting, etc.Ö

Asked and answered. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this question.

Moonshine
01-08-2013, 2:29 PM
According to various liberals it actually reads "the right of the government to regulate firearms for the purpose of deer hunting shall not be infringed." I rarely even hear them mention pig, dove, duck, goose, elk, turkey, varmint, or predator hunting... It seems like even when it comes to hunting its all about deer and 3 shot bolt action deer rifles. Which might I mention a good flat round like .243 or .270 is devastating on soft tissue but I guess .223 has mystical powers so its more dangerous.

the86d
01-08-2013, 2:30 PM
No, no, no, it MUST mean that police are a militia, and the military, but not us common-folk. :)

I don't think that the wealthy and their friends, celebrities, or politicians are any more needy of carry-permits as us common folk are, but elitists like Feinstein, Obama, Pelosi, and Boxer... well they believe they know best, and the monkey-sloths (that vote for them) believe them...

Joewy
01-08-2013, 2:32 PM
Well you used to be we the people. But that was before you sold your rights and the rights of your kids for a few trinkets...

Ammodog
01-08-2013, 2:33 PM
The DICK ACT January 21, 1903. To promote the efficiency of the militia, and for other purposes. (http://www.alternatewars.com/Congress/Dick_Act.htm)

glbtrottr
01-08-2013, 4:38 PM
Depends. Are you the militia?

My crystal ball says that the current administration will let you march into the line, like sheep, claiming to be the militia. Ignore for a second that California specifically outlaws any militias save the Governor's.

Then, once you're comfortable romanticizing same said militia, people like Professor Bogus will make his findings even more public: That the militia was EVERYONE, at least in the SOUTH, tasked with protecting white folk from being slaughtered by black folk during the Stono rebellion. That Uviller and Merkel have discounted his thesis or conclusions is immaterial; the militia will be labeled as racist white folk.

philobeddoe
01-08-2013, 5:04 PM
the militia debate is tiresome,
the bill of rights reserves rights to the states and the people respectively,
the phrase about militia clarifies that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved to the people ...
because the right is reserved to either the state and the people respectively,
not to the federal govt, the phrase that a state will have a militia clarifies that the state will naturally be armed, as the militia is a necessity,
thusly the right to keep and bear arms is reserved to the people ... not the state, not the state militia, but the people, and shall not be infringed by either the federal or the state government

it's pretty clear, always amazed that in all the attempted deconstruction everyone mucks it up and tries to declare that the people are the militia,
sure the people are the militia, if they choose to be, but it matters not
as the right to keep and bear arms is reserved directly to the people, the individual, and shall not be infringed by either the fed or the state

naturally the founders knew that the state would be armed, it being a necessity, thus the individual, the people, reserved the right to keep and bear arms as protection against the fed and the state, the right to be infringed upon by neither

HTH, philo

mt4design
01-08-2013, 5:09 PM
the militia debate is tiresome,
the bill of rights reserves rights to the states and the people respectively,
the phrase about militia clarifies that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved to the people ...
because the right is reserved to either the state and the people respectively,
not to the federal govt, the phrase that a state will have a militia clarifies that the state will naturally be armed, as the militia is a necessity,
thusly the right to keep and bear arms is reserved to the people ... not the state, not the state militia, but the people, and shall not be infringed by either the federal or the state government

it's pretty clear, always amazed that in all the attempted deconstruction everyone mucks it up and tries to declare that the people are the militia,
sure the people are the militia, if they choose to be, but it matters not
as the right to keep and bear arms is reserved directly to the people, the individual, and shall not be infringed by either the fed or the state

naturally the founders knew that the state would be armed, it being a necessity, thus the individual, the people, reserved the right to keep and bear arms as protection against the fed and the state, the right to be infringed upon by neither

HTH, philo

Exactly.

This is not about an interpretation of what the intent might have been and the slippery slope of the definition militia.

This is about the specific word, "People".

We, the people, are the same people as referenced in the Second Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

There is a direct line.

There need not be any confusion, obfuscation, or re-interpretation.

philobeddoe
01-08-2013, 5:19 PM
thank you

GrizzlyGuy
01-08-2013, 5:24 PM
Here is a nice overview of the history and meaning of the 2nd amendment, and they spend quite a bit of time on what was meant by a "well regulated militia":

yb7dpmtxSco

anthem
01-08-2013, 5:30 PM
Read Scalia's assent on the second amendment on DC v Heller.

Hogstir
01-08-2013, 5:44 PM
We the people are we the militia. The militia was made up of farmers and their guns, merchants and their guns, woodsmen and their guns. Without the people owning and bearing their own guns there would have been no revolution. The framers did not like a Federal govt but realized for some limited purposes it was a necessary evil. For a long time the term was "These" United States of America. The framers feared a large central govt and the right to keep and bear arms was one of self defense.
Self defense against a Federal Govt gotten out of hand and repressive. Individual self defense was a given back in those times. A militia is simply a group of individuals grouping together to defend themselves against a common enemy. Hence the core of the second amendment is individual self defense.

mt4design
01-08-2013, 6:05 PM
I suppose what I am trying to get to is the most basic, simple a concept to talk to an anti like one might talk to a child.

We understand the larger concepts that the framers argued and debated and the conclusions they came to regarding the necessity to include the Second Amendment.

We don't need to convince each other.

But, the people we find ourselves confronted with only get their information from the leftist media and a school system dedicated to selling a revisionist history of how this nation was founded.

They'll never tell a child this nation was born of blood, and violent struggle, and sacrifice and at the center of that struggle was the most modern firearm of it's time.

So, we're left with a need to simplify the argument.

We, the people, are the same people per the SA who keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

Dhena81
01-08-2013, 6:17 PM
This is a really good video done by ZombieTactics

R5AUPJDFMnw

anthem
01-08-2013, 6:23 PM
the militia debate is tiresome,
the bill of rights reserves rights to the states and the people respectively,
the phrase about militia clarifies that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved to the people ...
because the right is reserved to either the state and the people respectively,
not to the federal govt, the phrase that a state will have a militia clarifies that the state will naturally be armed, as the militia is a necessity,
thusly the right to keep and bear arms is reserved to the people ... not the state, not the state militia, but the people, and shall not be infringed by either the federal or the state government

it's pretty clear, always amazed that in all the attempted deconstruction everyone mucks it up and tries to declare that the people are the militia,
sure the people are the militia, if they choose to be, but it matters not
as the right to keep and bear arms is reserved directly to the people, the individual, and shall not be infringed by either the fed or the state

naturally the founders knew that the state would be armed, it being a necessity, thus the individual, the people, reserved the right to keep and bear arms as protection against the fed and the state, the right to be infringed upon by neither

HTH, philo

Thank you, thank you, thank you....

mt4design
01-08-2013, 7:37 PM
Great video Dhena81, thank you!

Merkava_4
01-08-2013, 7:39 PM
PM sent to mt4design.

mt4design
01-08-2013, 7:45 PM
PM sent to mt4design.

Got it, thank you!

Tarn_Helm
01-08-2013, 8:09 PM
I suppose what I am trying to get to is the most basic, simple a concept to talk to an anti like one might talk to a child.

We understand the larger concepts that the framers argued and debated and the conclusions they came to regarding the necessity to include the Second Amendment.

We don't need to convince each other.

But, the people we find ourselves confronted with only get their information from the leftist media and a school system dedicated to selling a revisionist history of how this nation was founded.

They'll never tell a child this nation was born of blood, and violent struggle, and sacrifice and at the center of that struggle was the most modern firearm of it's time.

So, we're left with a need to simplify the argument.

We, the people, are the same people per the SA who keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

Oversimplifying plays into the hands of revisionist historians and their uneducated dupes.

As soon as someone starts talking about militia, invite him to sit down with you and go over the sources.

Remind him also that the SCOTUS has already ruled that "people" = "[the unorganized] militia" = "us"--based on historical sources.

So to answer your question: No.

If the problem were so simple, the SCOTUS would have never had to rule on it.
:cool:

mrdd
01-08-2013, 8:20 PM
According to many anti-2A people I know, they firmly believe that 2A applies only in the militia sense that we have come to know them by. If we were to accept their argument then the framers of the constitution would have established two distinct classes of citizens. People in that sense would mean militia.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already settled this in Heller. They held that it is an individual right.

chris
01-08-2013, 8:22 PM
Asked and answered. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this question.

of course we know what it really means but the mindless minions of this country believe the politicians that the 2nd Amendment is a collective one. i think they still believe Miller vs US is still valid.

mrdd
01-08-2013, 8:55 PM
of course we know what it really means but the mindless minions of this country believe the politicians that the 2nd Amendment is a collective one. i think they still believe Miller vs US is still valid.

I think you mean "United States v. Miller", and why do you think it is not a valid decision?

The Wingnut
01-08-2013, 9:09 PM
Many statists view 'the people' as being equivalent to the state, in that the state represents the people, be it with their consent or not, in line with their desires or not.

The People's Republic of China is most decidedly NOT governed by the people or for the people of China, and this is what sets the United States -as it was intended- apart from the rest of the world; there is meant to be no difference between the most impoverished citizen and the most empowered government servant. They are meant to be treated equally under the law because they are both citizens. There is no differentiation between them.

'The people' means something completely different to those who view it through a statist's eyes, whether they honestly believe it, or are being intellectually dishonest for the sake of their argument. THIS is a lynchpin in how our rights are being broken down and infringed.

Heller v. D.C. is well-known among the firearms community, but it has been buried and hidden from general public knowledge. Many people are still unaware that the Supreme Court weighed in on the nature of the nature of the right to self defense as being an individual right, and unless those of us in the know continue to bang the gong of enlightenment and and bang it loudly, it will continue to be obscure.

pistol3
01-08-2013, 10:29 PM
The Supreme Court said it well in US v. Miller:

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

EL_NinO619
01-08-2013, 10:36 PM
Couldn't we all just not form one BIG A&S Militia? Problem solved, no they would probably regulate that also...