Much arguing surrounds the 2nd amendment. What does “well-regulated” mean? How does prefatory clause connect to the main clause. What does “keep and bear” mean? So many questions. However what is not questionable at all is that at the time of the founding, the right of individuals to own and use arms for defense was well established. This right was part of English common law, and carried over to America. So we know the right to own and use arms for defense was a well established right. And we also have the 9th amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Since the existing right to own and use arm for defense is nowhere else enumerated, and we know it existed prior to the founding, we must conclude that this right was included among all those other rights covered by the ninth amendment.
"Well-regulated" means what Congress thinks it means, as they are the only entity empowered by the Constitution to do so.
Perhaps, but the 9th Amendment only restricts what the federal government can do. Self-defense under English common law could be restricted quite a bit. For example, if you were threatened by someone you had duty to retreat rather than use force against that person.
really-your understanding of archery is limited. free men were expected to have bows, and most lords provided target butts for their followers to practice.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
You're joking. It was literally the law in England for hundreds of years that every able-bodied boy learn to use a longbow and practice every Sunday into adulthood. While this made any English army into a formidable force, it also curbed the excesses of the king and the lords knowing that their peasants were capable of defending themselves should they feel too oppressed. It was a major contributor to the development of common law (not "noble law") as well as the establishment of the Magna Carta. The king and his most powerful lords did not hold absolute power against armed peasant longbowmen and their smaller lords.
An interesting problem. A slave was considered to be property and treated as such. Property cannot have rights, not even the common law rights of everyone. That didn't sit well with everyone, but in order to have a unified nation, the institution had to be maintained. The question is: do you believe that the source of rights is government and, if so, how does that make you different than a slave?
In Heller v US the Supreme Court clearly established that the "militia" wording in the 2s Amendment in no way restricts the rights of citizens to own, keep, or bear arms.
Disagree duty to retreat means that you don't have the right to life. Self defense isn't enumerated in the Constitution because it shouldn't need to be. It is assumed you have the right to defend yourself because the right to swing your fist or fire your bullets stops at someone else's body. Duty to retreat suggests the attackers right to swing their fists doesn't stop at your body. In fact they have the right stick knives into the space of your body is in into your duty to get yourself out of there. That being said lethal Force should absolutely be a last resort. I don't want to carry with me the rest of my days the thought that I ended somebody unless I was pretty sure that was my only mean to survival. And when I talk to you gun people for their own guns people that carry guns people that are real interested in guns they all seem to have this same philosophy. They really don't want to have to kill somebody.
Not this this has anything to do with the 9th amendment, but in the idiom of the day, "well regulated" meant "properly functioning" or "able to properly do it's job". The word regulate didn't have the meaning it currently does in our regulation state. One might refer to a "well regulated clock", for example.
That is dead wrong. CIVICS 101: There are THREE branches in the Federal Government: - The LEGISLATIVE Branch (Congress) MAKES the laws - The EXECUTIVE Branch (President) ENFORCES the laws - The JUDICIAL Branch (Supreme Court) INTERPRETS the laws The intent and meaning (interpretation) of laws is decided upon by the Supreme Court. And they have ruled in Heller v US that the "militia" wording in the Second Amendment in no way limits the right of a citizen to own or bear arms.
And yet Article 1, Section 8 Clause 16 specifically enumerates the power to "organize, arm and discipline" the militia. Is there something else you'd like to include in "well-regulated"?
It was established for those who were oath sworn members of the militia. Those who were not, were disarmed. We have been through this and even went over the actual law at the time. Of course that was at time of war, and people were expected to fight, and those who refused, were disarmed and their weapons used in the war efforts. Now times are different. Personally I support the right to own guns unless you are a criminal or a mental nut-case. It was so in US too, until after the Civil War the "duty to retreat" became more relaxed.
This is simply not true. In the US, every free person had the recognized right to own and use firearms for defensive purposes.
What I said is what they founders wrote, but I guess you know better, although you are not providing anything to back up your claim. As per the Tory Acts (By Continental Congress, March 14, 1776), you either you swore an oath and joined the militia, or they grabbed your gun to be used in the war effort. History is what it is, - not a matter of opinion or emotion. Continental Congress, Tory acts (1775-1776). https://kdhist.sitehost.iu.edu/H105-documents-web/week06/Toryacts1775.html
You’re talking about the run up to a war. I’m talking about centuries of English common law that recognized the right to own and use arms.
You started the thread with "at the time of the founding", so obviously I was talking about the same, but now it's about the English common law. The English was was heavily restricted. Public carry, for example, was against the law, except in certain situation like assisting justices of the peace and constables, or if you were a "noble". Also, travelling armed in populated areas was against the law, and same was true in US (until later). Fair to say, the current laws are looser than they were back then.
