Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
28. Setting aside everything else that is wrong about your post
Fri Nov 13, 2015, 02:31 PM
Nov 2015

You accuse Second Amendment advocates of leaving out the "militia" part of the Second Amendment and then when you quote the Pennsylvania constitution you COMPLETELY ignore that it states the right of the people to bear arms "in defence of themselves and the State," because that language disrupts your narrative.

And of course there are others from the 1700s:

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. XII, § 23 (1792).

And if you go into the 1800s even more:

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (1818, art. I, § 17).

Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (1819).

Michigan: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 13 (1835)

Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Art. I, § 32 (1851).

Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (1876).

Idaho: The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law. Art. I, § 11 (1889).

And I always like Samuel Adams quotes:

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe 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
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

2nd Amendment showerthought... [View all] Kang Colby Nov 2015 OP
I know people like their guns itsrobert Nov 2015 #1
Actually... Kang Colby Nov 2015 #2
Don't spoil other people's romantic moments.... FSogol Nov 2015 #5
Well, some controllers say the best thing to do with explosive diarrhea... Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #6
What are arms? JonathanRackham Nov 2015 #26
history jimmy the one Nov 2015 #3
You forgot TeddyR Nov 2015 #10
arbitrary power of posters jimmy the one Nov 2015 #22
Actually TeddyR Nov 2015 #27
You are excluding a mountain of case law. (Verdugo-Urquidez, Emerson, etc.) Kang Colby Nov 2015 #19
This ^^^ beevul Nov 2015 #20
Very good post TeddyR Nov 2015 #21
pennsy minority rkba report jimmy the one Nov 2015 #24
Setting aside everything else that is wrong about your post TeddyR Nov 2015 #28
get new glasses jimmy the one Nov 2015 #29
sam adams proposal was withdrawn jimmy the one Nov 2015 #30
don't feel bad for us jimmy the one Nov 2015 #23
Your argument boils down to Kang Colby Nov 2015 #31
state constitutional rkba's jimmy the one Nov 2015 #25
The 2A. deathrind Nov 2015 #4
Re-read the Fourth. Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #7
The 4th. deathrind Nov 2015 #12
They seem to have equated them both in the same sentence. Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #13
Right off the top of my head one issue I have with your interpretation TeddyR Nov 2015 #17
The Second Amendment TeddyR Nov 2015 #8
There is a clear difference between the 4th and the 2nd. deathrind Nov 2015 #11
Thanks for the response and link TeddyR Nov 2015 #16
The 2nd was intended to do 1 thing - ensure the effectiveness of the Militias of the several States. jmg257 Nov 2015 #9
The right to own firearms should be understood at a primary part of natural law. ileus Nov 2015 #14
One small correction. branford Nov 2015 #15
There's a good bit of scholarly work that supports exactly that interpretation TeddyR Nov 2015 #18
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»2nd Amendment showerthoug...»Reply #28