Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: right to bear arms- federal or state version

  1. #1
    Member hooternanny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Interior, AK
    Posts
    404

    Post right to bear arms- federal or state version

    dirrectly from wikipedia-

    There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[4] One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:[5]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:[6]
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribeWilliam Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

    in a nutshell, the aruguement of question is, is the right to bear arms a right of the people (society at large) or a right of the army/goverment (ect.), for them to have arms to ensure the goverment stays safe.

    i know how i interpret it. just wanted to make sure my fellow americans were aware of this debate-

    taken from here-
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_..._United_States

    my purpose for pointing this out is, we have never been playing by the same rules. read up on it and you will see, it is the most important right you have.....it insures all other rights.....no matter your weapon of choice.

    I highly recomend getting out to a safe place and squeezing off a weapon and getting young people involved! note the feeling it gives you......and never forget what keep's you free!

  2. #2
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,601

    Default

    Goverment is (Of The People By the People For The People) even though its not realy used anymore. At one time all Peoples of a State were defenders of the State to include its borders and laws but that went out the window about a hundred and fifity years ago with no change to the Bill Of Rights.
    I figure now days any goverment big enough to give all you want can also take all you have.

  3. #3
    Member big_dog60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    between wasilla and palmer
    Posts
    1,061

    Default

    Perhaps since I am not a lawer I don't understand, but I don't see why this changes any thing? What is the difference in meaning?

  4. #4
    hap
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by big_dog60 View Post
    Perhaps since I am not a lawer I don't understand, but I don't see why this changes any thing? What is the difference in meaning?
    The argument did mean something prior to the Heller decision. In the first case the first comma renders the first four-word phrase non-critical. Were it critical as in the second example it would have standing and would have to be resolved.

    Heller of course changed the argument entirely in a pro-second kind of way.
    art

  5. #5
    Member bgauthierfamily's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    willow- houston line
    Posts
    26

    Default thanks

    thats an interesting point!

  6. #6
    Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Palmer,Alaska
    Posts
    1,737

    Default

    When we would look at our State (Alaska) Constitution we see that the people that render our State Constitution had no problem with and understanding in te late 1950's about what was the U.S. Bill of Rights. Before moving to Alaska I acquired a book about the the Alaska Constitutional minutes, read the history, and found the lack of knowledge about our States Constitution to be amazing.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tryants." (Thomas Jefferson

  7. #7
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,601

    Default

    Remember the majority of the people of Alaska did not want Statehood but to be a Provence. The elected officials got caught up in it all and the power and went against the peoples wishes.Nothing is new

  8. #8
    Member hooternanny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Interior, AK
    Posts
    404

    Default isn't it interesting?-

    in the days before copy machines, everything written with a ink dipped feather quill pen. each copied by hand and room for error...and what an error.the very thing the fed's wrote at the continental congress was not the same thing they submitted to the indiviual states to ratify. there is much to read about what in turn- individual states wrote their own state consitutions to directly addressed this issue.

    again i suggest all readup on it if you have not, what our forefathers had to say about the right to bear arms in there own state consitutions. the original 13 colonies of the time. they told quite a tale of how indivuals interpreted it and what they made law in there own states.

    some of them furthered the arguement for it as an individual right and often a right to form a militia. standing armies in times of peace were considered a threat to free people. for some, that interpretation was that the people would have arms so they could rise up and defend against an outside enemy, as in a militia. in other cases it was to rise up as the very people of society to bear arms to defend against tiranny within our own country. some said outright to do so against the goverment. nowdays that makes you a terrorist! nuff said

    it is also notable that in times of peace it was decided that we would have no subtancial army built up. too do so was considered a potential threat to our free society in our own homeland, a threat from the ruling power. we as american's owe it to the rest of the world to keep our goverment in check. we have quite a recipe brewing here, see what i mean-

    AND, i just get a kick out of the whole shall not be infringed thing. OMG! it was infringed as soon as it was re-written, and it has been infringed every time there is a new gun law. infringed 150-200 times or so -so far!

    the reason japan never attacked the mainland lower 48 USA was because they're leader said no way! he said behind every door and around every corner the american people have guns and they'll use them. probably a testament to the old west times and our reputation from that outlaw period.

    know that a large amount of british and candian's gun have already been collected. america is the largest free society on the planet because of our weapons, for now anyways. so......get a kid involved today, teach them gun's or-(weapon) safety and respect. we owe it to them! we owe it to our forefathers. we owe it to ourselves

  9. #9
    Member Hunt&FishAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Valley trash
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    you can take mine from my cold dead fingers! I will not allow my rights- as a free person- to be mocked, negotiated, abused or taken. Its like Mr. Elmer Keith said " Ive had a gun within reach for almost 80 years, and I strongly believe that any free man should do the same thing!" Nuff Said my friends



    Release Lake Trout

  10. #10
    Member c04hoosier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Hooternanny, you hit the nail on the head. The 2nd Amendment, as originally intended, has nothing to do with hunting or sport of any kind (although I'm glad it protects that too). It has to do with defense against outside, or INTERNAL, threats to freedom. You must remember at the time the Bill of Rights was written, the new U.S. had just gotten out from under the powerful British government, which had oppressed the colonies. Therefore, the founding fathers were very careful to ensure the people had the means to defend against such a thing happening in the future. They were very distrustful of a powerful central gov't. That is why they built the federal system, where the States (Delaware, Pennsylvania, etc.) had separate and distinct powers from the national gov't. And also why they established the system of checks and balances between the 3 branches of gov't (legislative, executive, and judicial). That way no one section of gov't could become too powerful. But if it did, the 2nd Amendment gave the people the ability to overthrow that gov't.

    I'm guessing hunting, self defense, etc. did not even enter their minds because that was a given in those days.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    2,146

    Default

    Just remember when the socialists begin ranting about the militia being the national guard, tell them the national guard wasn't officially created until 1916.

    Now for all the "pry them from my cold dead....", people; you'll cough'em up. Just like the sheeple in New York, Detroit, Kalifornika...and Nowleens. Sheeple don't have the guts to stand up anymore.
    Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Albert Einstein

    Better living through chemistry (I'm a chemist)

    You can piddle with the puppies, or run with the wolves...

  12. #12
    Member hooternanny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Interior, AK
    Posts
    404

    Default be safe bagdad

    Quote Originally Posted by c04hoosier View Post
    I'm guessing hunting, self defense, etc. did not even enter their minds because that was a given in those days.
    i agree and my worry is that as hunting demishes further, the idea of weapons for self defense will be challenged by further weapons restrictions to the point of complete removal.

    the patriot act and living in post 911 USA, it's good to hear the same opinion from someone apparently serving in the military.

    afterall, the US military technology and pure superiority on the planet is something that most citizens of the country don't fully grasp. even those who serve should remember we held a "neutral country" status pre WW1 &WW2 may never return to it.

    i understand america has a natural role to fill in the world. i just wish more average americans would realize we the people of ordinary citizenry have a obligation and responsibilty to manage our own goverment seeing as how the rest of the world pretty much will fallow us as is/has been shown.

    the right to speak #1, and a right to have a gun to back that up #2

    nothing to do with hunting/self defence........but it has beeen under attack since day 1

    i assume that your serving, thank you for keeping us safe.

    please do your best to keep you and your bud's safe-

    come home soon

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Your question is one that has been long debated: is the Second Amendment an individual right or a collective right (i.e., the National Guard)? Luckily for most of us on these boards, in the recent Heller decision, the SCOTUS ruled that it is an individual right.

    However, I'd argue that the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is not really relevant. The 2nd Constitution has not been "incorporated" under the 14th, and thus the states are welcome to infringe as much as they'd like. In fact, until the 14th Amendment came around, none of the Bill of Rights applied to the states! The original BoR was merely a check on federal -- not state -- authority.

    This might change once the pending McDonald Case has been settled, however... Most SCOTUS watchers think that it will be incorporated against the states. That means that the states will have to abide by it, just as they must abide the First, Fifth, etc.

    What is relevant to us up here in Alaska right now is Section 1.19 of the AK State constitution:

    A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State (Red = added in 1994).

    The '94 amendment makes it pretty clear... It is pretty hard (i.e. impossible) to interpret the AK measure as anything but an individual right. It is explicitly defined as such.

  14. #14
    hap
    Guest

    Default

    The real question is the level of scrutiny regulations must pass.

  15. #15
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,790

    Default I'll cough some up if they search my house

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitroman View Post
    Just remember when the socialists begin ranting about the militia being the national guard, tell them the national guard wasn't officially created until 1916.

    Now for all the "pry them from my cold dead....", people; you'll cough'em up. Just like the sheeple in New York, Detroit, Kalifornika...and Nowleens. Sheeple don't have the guts to stand up anymore.
    ... But they're not going to find the others I've got squirrelled away.

    Bout time for a few to chime in here and tell us we have no reason to fear, everything is OK and will remain the same, etc., etc.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •