# States Rights? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 12, 2002, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights/142345 "2002-12-12T22:17:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights/142345/61 "2002-12-14T13:51:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Not at all. The intent of the founders was that the _state militias_ be better armed (or at least _capable_ of being better armed) than the federal army. See, it’s right there in the introductory clause of the amendment: "A well regulated **Militia** being necessary to the security of a free **State**. . . " \*\* Where, then, did anyone get the idea that the right to arms was linked only to militia duty, and not to the individual right of self defense? This mistake is a modern one. The earliest court decisions–Kentucky in 1822, Indiana in 1833, Georgia in 1837, to name only a few–recognized an individual right to arms. The Georgia Supreme Court in particular noted that the second amendment protected “the right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description.” Only in 1905 did a Kansas court invent (without any historical examination) the idea that the right to bear arms was meant only to protect the organized state militia. Since there is no question that the right to arms clause was more important to the Americans who demanded a bill of rights–prior to Virginia’s convention, few proposals even gave the militia a mention. There had been framers who stressed the militia–but they were appeased by the first part of the second amendment; its right to arms clause was meant to answer entirely different critics, seeking an entirely different principle. In any event, few anti-gunners would really want to restore the militia system, which made gun ownership mandatory. * * * ## “The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses with which they are attended, and the facile means which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”\_\_\_ Justice Joseph Story, United States Supreme Court, 1811 - 1845 ## The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the ‘High Powers’ delegated directly to the citizen by the United States Constitution, Amendment II, and “is excepted out of the general powers of government”. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon it or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power. \_\_\_ Texas Supreme Court Decision, Cockrum vs State of Texas, 1859 “The right of self-defense is the first law of nature. In most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited; liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” \_\_\_\_\_ Justice George Tucker, Virginia Supreme Court, 1803 * * * ## “Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense.”\_\_\_\_\_ John Adams, Second President of the United States, 1787-1788 “False is the idea of utility…that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction of liberty. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…such laws serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”\_ Thomas Jefferson, ‘Commonplace Book’, 1775 * * * ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights/142345/62 "2002-12-14T13:59:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RobertTB \* > \*\*But aren’t Amendments something other then ‘God given’? Maybe I am getting lost in the lingo, but it doesn’t make sense that people believed we had an unalienable right to not consume alcohol or Divine Prividence has granted us Presidential term limits. > \*\* Prohibition and term limits were not written by the founding fathers. Our Founding Fathers stated unequivocally that our rights came not from men, nor governments, but from our Creator. Since our rights are from our Creator and therefore preceded the founding of this country, the government has no authority to deprive us of our rights no matter how unpopular they might become with the government, or even the majority of the people. "That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent ‘the people’ of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms… " – Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book “Massachusetts,” Pierce & Hale, 1850 pg. 86-87 go here for a complete explanation and answer to your question : [http://www.tennesseefirearms.com/articles/rkba\_important.asp](http://www.tennesseefirearms.com/articles/rkba_important.asp) ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights/142345/63 "2002-12-14T15:50:17Z")
Hey, **Susanan** , does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to steal someone else’s intellectual property? Because your post two spots up the page was lifted wholesale, and without attribution, from an essay entitled [“Toward a New Understanding of the Second Amendment”](http://www.omphalos.net/files/pagan/2NDAMEN.TXT) by a guy named David T. Hardy. Three posts up the page, large portions of your post were lifted directly–and without attribution–from an essay entitled [“Where Do We Get Our Rights?”](http://www.seidata.com/~neusys/colm0043.html) by David W. Neuendorf. It even says, right at the top of the page, that it is _copyright 1996_ by David W. Neuendorf. And of course, even your post right above this one was taken from someone else. At least you linked to the page you were cutting and pasting from this time. Still, wouldn’t it have been polite to _quote and acknowledge_ your source instead of impliledly claiming the words as your own? I suppose I could go on to some of “your” other posts, but there doesn’t seem much point. Google makes plagiarism so easy to identify. Do try to turn in your own work next time, m’kay? ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights/142345/64 "2002-12-14T16:56:54Z")
[Moderator Hat ON] minty green is correct. You may quote small excepts or a link to writings not your own as long as you provide proper attribution. You may NOT quote large sections of copyrighted work even _with_ attribution, and you may NOT represent other’s work as your own. Do not do this again. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2002, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights/142345/65 "2002-12-15T00:04:04Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by erislover_ > Excellent. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > What, in the sense that she can cut and paste the same old quotes reprinted on hundreds and hundreds of pro-gun sites, right down to the odd use of parenthetical attribution, without contributing even one independent thought? Color me unimpressed. Oh, sure, **minty** ; when I’m _your_ sycophant everything’s ok… 😉 It is just excellent to read those quotes. I like the sentiment, and I agree with the general position. The reason the government has guns to protect us from foriegn invaders—whether there is a clear threat or not—is the same reason I want a gun to protect me from the government or criminals—whether there is a clear threat or not. Fin. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights/142345/66 "2002-12-21T14:18:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaudere \* > \*\*[Moderator Hat ON] > > minty green is correct. You may quote small excepts or a link to writings not your own as long as you provide proper attribution. You may NOT quote large sections of copyrighted work even _with_ attribution, and you may NOT represent other’s work as your own. Do not do this again. > > [Moderator Hat OFF] \*\* Sorry. I apologize. I didnt know all your rules, and I have not done it since you mentioned this rule. It makes no difference to me, as long as the point is made. These issues have been so thoroughly discussed for so long, I seriously doubt if anybody today is making an original point, or saying something that has not been said before, but I will quote somebody if I do a straight copy and paste. ---
**Author:** ![OpalCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8edcca/32.png) [@OpalCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OpalCat)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2002, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights/142345/67 "2002-12-22T00:39:16Z")
Intellectual property rights make no difference to you? Geez. Everyone, hide your books! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2002, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights/142345/68 "2002-12-22T09:12:18Z")
And minty is up to his old word games. Like equivocating on the word “intent”: > [@](#): > > Laws are to be interpreted and applied according top their original intent. In this case, the law explicitly states its intent: To protect the state militia. In the first sentence, the word intent means “what the founders wanted the amendment to **mean** ”. In the second sentence, the word “intent” means “what the founders wanted amendment to **accomplish** ”. By switching from one meaning to another, he makes it seem like the history of the amendment is somehow relevant. And he leaves out important words: > [@](#): > > In fact, the Bill of Rights is almost exclusively about _the government_ and limitations of its power [over individuals]. And he seems to have no sense of irony: > [@](#): > > And your (selective) sense of history authorizes you to disregard the text of the amendment? The amendment says that the people have the right to bear arms. No amount of sophistry can change that. And then he tries to inject a completely irrelevant meaning of “unorganized” > [@](#): > > Compare and contrast: > well regulated Militia" > > “unorganized militia” I can just see minty defending John Gotti: ”Racketeering? My client’s never played tennis in his life!” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights/142345.md?page=3)