How Would You Answer This Argument Against the 2nd Amend.?

[TheCracker]

In the terms of the day "well regulated" meant to be well equiped not to have regulations put on them. Everyone was part of the militia. It's not like an army where you join and are trained and equipped. It's a militia where everyone just grabs what they have and shows up.

The 2nd Amendment was put in place because the Republic minded southern states were afraid that the Federalist minded northern states would band together and pass a law making militia's illegal and then exert control over them with the then largely northern Continental Army. The fight over slavery was already heated and the civil war was simply the failure of congress to peaceably find a resolution.

This is exactly right. The anti gunners get hung up on the "well regulated" and "Militia" and dont understand that the meanings of the words have changed shifted to meaning something else.


this is a great explanation:

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

[az2tx]

The real question is he a client you want to keep? If so, don't engage. If you do you may win the argument but loose the client

[SB09]

I would just ask who put them in charge of deciding the definition of a "militia," as well as, what rate of fire is "too fast." It's an opinion, doesn't make their argument fact.

Not to mention... There's text in there that says, " the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. " Maybe if that said the right of MILITIA MEMBERS to keep and bear arms they would have an argument. Militias are mentioned, yes, but not the be all end all of the right to bear arms.

I have yet to see an expiration date on the Second Amendment, or any text that reads if guns modernize and fire at a faster rate this amendment is null and void. The 1791 comment doesn't make any sense to me.

No matter what you say you've got to decide whether you need this person as a customer.

[Tommyh]

Had a client send me this over the weekend and to be honest, I'm not sure any amount of reply will change their mind, but I was curious to see how you guys would respond to this? I have my own thoughts about this, but I wanted all of your opinions first.

Id answer like this.

the right of the people(lower case is very important in this instance) shall not be infringed. This is dealing with individuals instead of the populace in the case of "We the People". this guarantees that "arms", at that time, were anything owned because of rebellions and invasions, so cannons and mortars, and whatever else could be handled were used as a backup and main fighting force as the army was not standing until later. this still holds true even if the mainland US may NEVER be invaded.

[Bill]

Answer: The US Supreme Court upheld the true meaning of the 2nd Ammendment in the 2008 District of Columbia vs. Heller decision. End of argument.

Also point out, it's the only right that includes the phrase "Shall not be infringed"/

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

What I would ask your friend is since he believes he's a Constitutional expert, can he kindly point out where:

- The 5 words "Seperation of Church and State" appear to ban the public display of a God and the Christian religion? I can't find them. I can find this, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
- Where it says a woman may terminate the live of her unborn child, strictly for her convenience, without the biological father's concurrance, and the right to having it funded by the federal government?

[Daniel75]

Answer: The US Supreme Court upheld the true meaning of the 2nd Ammendment in the 2008 District of Columbia vs. Heller decision. End of argument.

Also point out, it's the only right that includes the phrase "Shall not be infringed"/



What I would ask your friend is since he believes he's a Constitutional expert, can he kindly point out where:

- The 5 words "Seperation of Church and State" appear to ban the public display of a God and the Christian religion? I can't find them. I can find this, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
- Where it says a woman may terminate the live of her unborn child, strictly for her convenience, without the biological father's concurrance, and the right to having it funded by the federal government?

SMH ^^^^, you sure know how to go off track don't you. I thought we were talking about the 2nd Amendment?

[Stoof]

Did the founders foresee the internet and cell phones when the wrote the first amendment?
High capacity communication!

[Bill]

No really off topic- the OP requested how to respond to somebody who clearly thinks they're a Constitutional law expert, and while on the topic of Constitutional law, I'd ask them my questions in return for their interpretation.

Or, the simple response to the OP's question is "the 2008 Supreme Court decision in the case of the District of Colombia vs. Heller clearly confirmed the interpretation that the right to keep and bare arms is an individual right and not a collective right for a militia. Would you like a link to a good web reference at Cornell University to read about it?"

Or you can impress people with terms like prefatory clause the operative clause.

[Bily Lovec]

I'll refrain from telling you how I respond to those idiots,
but most muzzleloader shooters can reload in under 1 minute.

[Daniel75]

Had a client send me this over the weekend and to be honest, I'm not sure any amount of reply will change their mind, but I was curious to see how you guys would respond to this? I have my own thoughts about this, but I wanted all of your opinions first.
Quote:
Since the start of the 2nd amendment concerns "A well regulated militia" the rest of the text refers to the subject. Therefore, if you want a gun you MUST be a member of a 'well regulated militia'. If you aren't then you have no 'right' to a gun. Additionally, since the amendment was written in 1791 when it took an expert about 2 minutes to fire and reload, to adhere to the 2nd amendment, all assault weapons MUST be eliminated because they fire too quickly

No really off topic- the OP requested how to respond to somebody who clearly thinks they're a Constitutional law expert, and while on the topic of Constitutional law, I'd ask them my questions in return for their interpretation.

Or, the simple response to the OP's question is "the 2008 Supreme Court decision in the case of the District of Colombia vs. Heller clearly confirmed the interpretation that the right to keep and bare arms is an individual right and not a collective right for a militia. Would you like a link to a good web reference at Cornell University to read about it?"

Or you can impress people with terms like prefatory clause the operative clause.

You might want to re-read his original post. He was asking specifically about 2A, but I'm not gonna argue with you.

[tvc184]

You might want to re-read his original post. He was asking specifically about 2A, but I'm not gonna argue with you.

He was actually talking about the 2A and the other guy's response to a requirement to be in a militia.

[Bill]

X2. The real answer to why you don't need to be in the militia to keep and bear arms in the 2nd Amendment is my reply. My 2 follow-on questions are from personal experience, great ones to get liberals into a frenzy if you're in for some entertainment. When they get red faced, just keep repeating the questions with "since you're such an expert......."

[cajuntec]

Have him research more of the time period. In particular, he may want to look into Tench Coxe. In a quote from James Madison Research Library and Information Center here:

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/t_coxe.htm

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people 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 Coxe 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)

The people at the time were allowed to have weapons without restrictions on type, caliber or capability, in order to ensure they were armed well enough to defend against not only an opposing foreign force that may have overrun the traditional professional Army, but also against those very powers if used against them.

In all reality, the balance of that power has completely shifted. We do not have the same access to weapons that match our military. Restrictions have been slowly eroding our access to equal armament in such ways that the balance is no longer there. Some of it is warranted (tanks and howitzers for example). Some is not.

To quote a Sirius / XM comedian (although funny, and not serious, it kinda' drives home the point) - "I believe every American should have access to an Apache helicopter."

All the best,
Glenn

[gregharp]

James Madison, the author of the 2nd Amendment, also wrote, "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Any question as to his intent regarding the individual RKBA should be settled with that point.

Those who argue the 2A applies to muskets need to be asked if the 1A freedom of the press only applies to anything beyond quills and moveable type.

[Bill]

I had not seen this quote before. You can't argue with GW!

"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