Was the 2nd amendment for individuals?

[themcfarland]

I was in a friendly discussion and the individual firmly believes the constitution isn't about individuals at all.
He uses the language that well regulated militia .. not individuals..
Now , I am not educated enough to articulate this in a manner that needs to be said. I firmly believe it's an individual right..
I brought up the fact that the SC just affirmed it is .. he argued or stated he felt it was not the same.

Does anyone have a a logical path to discuss this and lend some credence to either side?

 

[AdvancedLaser]

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)​

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)​

Heller is the one you want to bring up. In Heller the USSC found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms for the purpose of self-defense, unrelated to militia or military activity. And because handguns are today’s primary defensive weapon of choice, they’re also protected.

 

[themcfarland]

Thank you Sir. I appreciate this. I'm not sure it will matter , but I feel better about having something ..

 

[dwhaley929]

The intention of the authors of the constitution was to prevent a central government from amassing so much power that the citizenry would have no means to oppose the authority of tyrants. It's not like the government would say to an opposing militia "...go out and find some guns. We'll wait...". Those things tend to happen rather quickly.

 

[Mitch Dufour]

The US Constitution grants no rights. One either has a right or not.

 

[sandman7925]

At one time gun control wasn’t even a topic of conversation. A few interesting events happened that changed that. If curious this podcast tells the history behind the current idea of gun control and also dives into the wording of the 2nd Amendment and the question of “militia or individual”. I’ll admit the creators of this podcast lean left but it’s honestly worth it. They cover some stuff I didn’t know and most don’t know.

 

[Jmfox3]

The historical context of a 'militia' is that your neighbors came together for the collective protection of the community. They brought their own weapons and were 'well reulated'. Well regulated meant they were drilled in the state of the art military tactics of the time. The regular Army were called 'Regulars'. Yes, all of it to check the tyrannical use of power by a central government and the basis for both decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). The fallacy of the left is they are trying to re-interpret the historical definitions of 'militia' and 'well regulated'. Legally, the easier argument before the Supreme Court is that the Gov should fund the NRA to teach gun safety in schools, buy everyone an AR15 such that community 'militias' can be formed, and attend 12 weeks sniping school when they graduate high school so they are 'well regulated'. Well, maybe a little of my dream come true there.

 

[AdvancedLaser]

Also, the intention of the 2nd Amend was made very clear in the Federalist Papers.

 

[bigsk]

Food For Thought

The Second Amendment was framed to be broad enough to protect the rights of private individuals with principal concerns for the popular majority over the Federal Government and State Governments. The textual use of “the people” from the Constitution’s Preamble, like in the First Amendment, demonstrates the principle of popular sovereignty and popular rights of self-government. Therefore, the “people” in the Second Amend is intended to be held as the same “We the People” who established the Constitution at the various ratification conventions.

The use of “militia” in a subordinate clause negates the narrative that this is a State’s right to regulate a an organized “state militia” rather that a citizen’s right to bear arms. The use of the term “militia” as in the Second Amendment, had a very different meaning 200+ years ago. In 1789, the term “militia” referred to all Citizens capable of bearing arms. At that time, any paid or part-time volunteers would have been referred to with a qualifying adjective such as “a select corps” or “select militia”.

Proof of the true intent can be found in the initial version of the Second Amendment that passed in the House which defined the militia as “composed of the body of the People”. The Senate removed this definition and other wording in a stylistic shortening of the amendment. The use of “militia”, as composed of the citizens, is used throughout The Federalist in keeping with the use of the time.

 

[Emperor]

All of the supporting evidence above is crystal clear. The problem is the future. One day, hopefully never, the Supreme Court could flip back to democrats. They always appoint ideologues and puppets. If you had three more Justices like Kagan and Sotomayor, and had another landmark 2nd Amendment suit they could use to roll back the individual Right of gun ownership, don't bet against them doing it.

Precedent and historical reference mean nothing to ideologues!

 

[themcfarland]

This is awesome stuff. Thanks everyone.
To clarify my position.
I have always felt it was an individual right and just couldn't articulate it well.
The well regulated part I get, to build up or to bolster .. the militia part and the fact they evidently Had facilities to muster a group of men to fight ia what my sticking point is with him.
I'm not sure there is a winning argument ever, as I have learned but it's an interesting thing to be challenged at a personal level in your own home. Lol

 

[falshooter]

I'm not sure there is a winning argument ever,

When you argue with a r-tard it takes you down to their level. Walk away
Don't argue or discuss matters that take common sense to understand with an r-tard

 

[themcfarland]

I'm not sure he is retarded for thinking something different anymore than I have been for picking bad friends..
I do respect him a lot and as such ,I listened and we are just different. Not entirely sure his experience in life will be affected by how he thinks..
Said another way I'm not sure there is a penalty for him to think this way. Or a reason for him to change

 

[AdvancedLaser]

I'm not sure he is retarded for thinking something different anymore than I have been for picking bad friends..
I do respect him a lot and as such ,I listened and we are just different. Not entirely sure his experience in life will be affected by how he thinks..
Said another way I'm not sure there is a penalty for him to think this way. Or a reason for him to change

Have you offered to take him shooting ? Youd be amazed when a anti gets a chance to shoot for the first time how fun they see it can be and may change a little.

 

[themcfarland]

So, to clarify. He isn't anti gun.
In fact he has a pistol and shotgun and is fine with my collection.
He was mis informed from the media and hyperbole about what restrictions and laws are already in place.
I explained all the things we have to do to purchase one and what laws are in place already ..
He doesn't feel there is a reason for us to own anything military ish , although he owns a Beretta 9.
I explained I felt it was all to keep tyranny at bay and to protect my loved ones and that included him when he was in my home.. which I think was lost on him.

Explained the tax stamp and when it came to be and why as well as the fact there were repeating guns prior to 1775 like the puckle gun.
If someone doesn't want to change or isn't suffering enough with where they are , there isn't a reason for them to change .

 

[Fugum]

I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar, but hasn't the Bill of Rights always been about the rights and protections for the people, and limits on the government?

 

[Abby Normal]

And that Militia was to be Every man over 18 (i think) was to purchase a musket and train once a month on the parade grounds of town. And those were the same guns that the government had, not squirrel guns for hunting. After training everyone hit the pubs just to make sure everyone would attend.
I like this quote.
if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

Luke 22:36

 

[buttanic]

Simply ask him to show what laws regulating guns were in effect at the time the second was written. People associate regulated with laws to do so. There were no federal laws regulating any firearms until The National firearms Act of 1934 and there is no way to know if the authors of the 2nd would have considered the laws of the NFA legal or an infringement.

 

[Magdump]

Some points to ponder:
How do those documents begin?
“We the people”……
Not “we the government”…

Everything pertaining to the bill of rights is written on behalf of We the People.

The militia they spoke of was made up of We the People back in those days.

I know a few people that like to argue these points. I find it better to keep it simple and remain solid in my beliefs. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

 

[davidd]

If I remember correctly, amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 specifically refer to the right applying to "the people." Hard to imagine that was an oversight.