Aren't We the People the same People in the Second Amendment?

[mt4design]

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]

Go ask the current office dweller, I'll bet a big NO comes out of his lying mouth.

[Calzona]

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]

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

[Moonshine]

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]

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]

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]

The DICK ACT January 21, 1903. To promote the efficiency of the militia, and for other purposes.

[glbtrottr]

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]

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]

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]

thank you

[GrizzlyGuy]

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":

[anthem]

Read Scalia's assent on the second amendment on DC v Heller.

[Hogstir]

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.