Just want to make sure everyone is clear that the Bill of Rights were the People’s rights, not the states, not the state militia. (Gun related)

In My Humble Opinion
41

I don’t know about that… Maybe not all males (I’m too old), but most.

10 USC Ch. 12: THE MILITIA (house.gov)

§246. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

42

I’m pointing out how you are another person with strong opinions about a subject you’re ignorant about.

43

I know that guns kill people when they are used correctly and Americans kill more people with their guns than any other country that doesn’t have some sort of war currently taking place on its soil. The physics of how I’m going to die when someone who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a gun decides to make his mental illness my problem is of little importance.

44

Yeah, Some towns had a no carry zone for cowboys, drifters, etc- they left their guns at the Town Marshal’s office- residents were exempted. Any shopkeeper or saloonkeeper could have any guns they wanted. And the Population of e.g. Dodge City was under 1000 actual residents, and no one cared enough about the law to take it to a higher court- likely since the penalties were so minor- a small fine and maybe a night in jail.

You actually can yell Fire. It depends.

And of course, many business have rules against carrying weapons- also in the USA silencers are pretty much banned. So, no you can’t. And that gun is banned in California, also.

45

I don’t see that here. Smapti mentioned that the AR-15 had armor piercing bullets, and your reply basically confirmed that he was correct.

What am I missing here, other than gun right activists insist that everyone must have total knowledge about a subject before they can have an opinion? That tactic is common in the general cesspool of Internet message boards, but really doesn’t work here. Or at least shouldn’t work. Your first response was in the interest of fighting ignorance, the follow up quoted above is not.

46

I think it’s useful to read “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” as a bit of salesmanship.

Recall that the Bill of Rights was added to the constitution to get it ratified; some critics feared that the federal government could trample over certain rights, and so express provisions were added to make it clear what limits it had.

Among those were rights assured to the States. And those states, with regard to the military, had 2 major fears. One was that a standing federal army could invade their state, and the other was that a state without its own military force might be powerless against an insurrection within its borders.

The 2nd amendment was a promise that this wouldn’t be a concern. It is basically saying “You need a military to protect your sovereignty so the federal government can’t take that away.”

But it should also be remembered that the Constitution, and its amendments, applied to the federal government - it was only later that the Supreme Court started applying these rights to state action.

So, as originally written, the 2nd amendment didn’t assure a person the right to keep and bear arms vis a vis the state. Rather, it was the federal government that couldn’t remove that right. No reference to a state prohibition applied, and so none should be inferred. If a state decides it wants to disarm its citizens, the U.S. constitution doesn’t say it can’t.

(Ultimately, the cynic in me says that this ‘promise’ to the states related, as much of the document does, to slavery. Why would the federal government invade a state if not to free its slaves? And why would a state need to quell insurrections if not because slaves were revolting? In this reading “the security of a free state” is a reference to a state’s ‘freedom’ to maintain slavery).

So, no, not an individual right, but a means of limiting federal power at a time when the country was suspicious of standing armies.

47

To enforce payment of federal taxes. That was the first example of the federal government using force within a state.

Washington led a force of the state militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

Not every instance of civil unrest had to relate to slavery.

48

Except the Whiskey Rebellion happened after the Bill of Rights was ratified, and nobody conceived of the federal government enforcing taxes as an ‘invasion’ against state sovereignty; the rebels were farmers, not the state government.

True, but the defining issue of the constitution was slavery (and its fraught politics are reflected by the fact that only euphemisms are used). Reading the document without realizing that it was a compromise regarding slavery is to miss much of its meaning.

49

I recognize that for far too long we whitewashed the role that slavery played in the discussions surrounding the formation of the US, and that it’s very important to correct the historical record and focus on the importance of slavery in the process; but I do think that calling it “the defining issue” of the constitution is a bit of an overcorrection. Certainly, it was the single biggest potential source of conflict among the states and between them and the federal government, and a significant role of a constitution is to adjudicate such disputes. But it wasn’t “the defining issue” IMHO.

I think that’s anachronistic for the same reason that I’m critical of the idea I’ve seen floating around recently that the Revolutionary War was secretly motivated by fear that England was going to ban slavery in all the colonies.

50

You asked:

In the case of the Whiskey Rebellion, your second question is answered. A state needed to quell an insurrection fought over taxes, not over revolting slaves. Likewise, a state may need to fight insurrections over any number of other issues that people might become insurrectionary over. I’m not aware of any cases off hand other than the Whiskey Rebellion, but we could imagine all kinds of situations - maybe people are unhappy over the results of an election so they storm the state capitol?

As for the Federal Government invading for a reason other than freeing slaves - that’s easy enough to imagine also. The Whiskey Rebellion happened when some farmers decided they didn’t want to pay taxes and took up arms against the government. If those farmers were related to (or were themselves) high ranking state officials like the governor, they might decide to order the state militia to stop tax collectors rather than put down the rebellion. In that case the state itself would be insurrectionary and the Federal Government would invade.

The way our history played out, the first time states were willing to become insurrectionary was over slavery, and once we kicked their ass we changed the whole system to make the Federal Government much more powerful so this all became moot. But one could imagine other issues coming to a head first.

51

He posted it as if there was a specific kind of AR ammo one needed in order for it to be armor piercing.

This is because folk like Dag form their opinion on emotion and ignorance rather than facts. When it comes to a topic that can impede the rights of others that just can’t be tolerated. We’re here to fight ignorance, remember?

52

I take your point, and I probably should abandon such a dogmatic view of the 2nd amendment’s language.

Nevertheless, as I looked for more information, it sure seems that the amendment related to State power, and also seemed to be trying to assuage concerns about a federal standing army.

As originally drafted by Madison, it included a religious exemption, so it was clearly referencing service in a state military.

The House of Representatives debated the words, choosing to reverse the first two clauses (perhaps to emphasize the independence of the state militia?). They also included language about a militia coming from “the body of the people” to distinguish it from professional soldiers.

It was the Senate that gave us the final language we have today.

Ultimately, I read it as a discussion of state versus federal power, which simply became more abridged as it was debated through Congress. Again, not an individual liberty free from state regulation.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/

53

Sure, I agree that the 2nd amendment is about the conflict between a strong central government having these powers and the individual states having them. That question, how centralized should the federal government be, seems to me to be the core issue focused on by the Constitution. (And this idea is anachronistically applied forwards to the Civil War by people who want to deny slavery’s role in that war).

54

And yet, when Reagan abolished the state militias, the “supporters” of the Second Amendment said nothing.

55

What the ever loving fuck are you talking about?

56

The debate over ratifying the constitution.

(My emphasis)

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/

You can read a little more about the Massachusetts Compromise here

57

Which does not comport with your phrasing. A large fraction of the Bill of Rights was ratified after the Continental Congress validated the Constitution. There were promises made, but the Bill of Rights was drafted, passed and submitted for ratification by US Congress 1.0, not added to the Constitution beforehand. And, in fact, one of its Articles met ratification in 1992 (as far as I know, no other proposed amendment has been submitted for ratification severably).

58

Where the fuck did I offer my opinion here?

59

Correct. I never said otherwise.

But the reason that James Madison submitted a bunch of proposed amendments to the document that he was credited with writing was due to his laborious effort to get it ratified. He had been responsible for most of the Federalist Papers, and this was the compromise that eventually arose.

The point I was making was that the Bill of Rights were introduced for a purpose, and that purpose was largely to confirm the acceptance of all of the newly joining states.

It might seem completely anachronistic today to think that politicians felt compelled to fulfill a promise, but this was a time when your honor was sometimes defended with your life, and when federalists like Madison were eager for a cohesive government.

I think it is fair to point out that I didn’t make the timing clear.

But, my original argument still stands; we should read the 2nd amendment’s initial clause as an assurance to the states about their sovereignty, as the bill of rights was a sales job to assure ratification (or, maybe I should say “acceptance”) of the constitution.

60

No, no, no. All centerfire rifle bullets will penetrate some armor. But there is a sort of ammo called specifically “armor piercing”. Not sold in stores.

This is simply not true, Back then, most everyone assumed slavery would just peter out on its own, after the uSA banned importation. The invention of the cotton gin and “king cotton” changed the South and slavery totally.

He did nothing of the sort. He Federalized the National Guard. But several states-Texas & California to name two- still have their own state militias. A state militia is of course 100% legal in the USA.