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

tortoise1956

(671 posts)
37. Let's take these one at a time
Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:12 PM
Apr 2016

It was an individual right under English law. Yes, it may have only extended to the common defense as the English Crown intended it, but that is not what was written into the second amendment. Otherwise, it would have said "The right of the People to keep and bear arms for the common defense".

Not one of these states limited the possession of arms to militias. 5 states actually stated the right (Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island). of those 5, 2 included personal defense, two talked about defense of the state/common defense, and one (Rhode Island) simply stated the right to keep and bear arms. Non of them had a clause including a word or phrase such as "only" or "limited to".

Here is some additional material. Once again, there are no limitations placed on the right to keep and bear arms.
Source: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC7

I. Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). 1

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 2

Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). 3

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defense (1780). 4

North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defense of 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 (1776). 5

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the 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 (1776). 6

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790). 7

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842). 8

Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense (1796). 9

Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defense 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 (1777). 10

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 11

II. Calls for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from State Ratification Conventions

12
Five of the states that ratified the Constitution also sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. Here, in relevant part, is their text:

New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.

North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms."

Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.


As you can see, there is nothing here that limits the right to militia service only. Any interpretation as such is only possible by ignoring facts in evidence, and represents only the person's wish that it be so...

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

2A: Group or individual right? [View all] tortoise1956 Apr 2016 OP
How interesting. SheilaT Apr 2016 #1
It seems a foregone conclusion that... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #2
My education in political theory pretty much held that the B.O.R.'s rights... Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #13
I reject the notions of collective and/or individual so-called "rights" to guns. stone space Apr 2016 #3
But can you support such an assertion... theatre goon Apr 2016 #4
At my age, I offer mostly moral support for those actively struggling against the tools of violence. stone space Apr 2016 #6
So, the answer is no. theatre goon Apr 2016 #8
At my age... CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #17
In other words, you do nothing of substance to advance your cause of gun control Lurks Often Apr 2016 #18
Au Contraire! DonP Apr 2016 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #20
I'm amused by the near complete lack of support that one receives Lurks Often Apr 2016 #21
So, you you believe... Puha Ekapi Apr 2016 #7
What part of "I reject the notion" did you not understand? stone space Apr 2016 #9
Ok, I just wanted to see... Puha Ekapi Apr 2016 #10
Perhaps the confusion originates in the fact that you are unable to answer questions... Marengo Apr 2016 #29
re: "Guns are not a "right"." discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #11
I used the expression "negative" in regard government's restrictions and implied duties. Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #14
Always has been an individual, always should be. ileus Apr 2016 #5
Three important points... CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #12
It became murky when the representatives recreated the Miltias into the National Guard. jmg257 Apr 2016 #15
The Militia and the National Guard are not one and the same... CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #16
UNorganized Militia is a JOKE jimmy the one Apr 2016 #25
I take it... CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #28
feel good unorganized militia, mostly untrained armed rabble jimmy the one Apr 2016 #31
This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #35
This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #36
All of which is entirely irrelevant to the simple fact that it exists. Marengo Apr 2016 #30
Linguistically, clearly individual. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #22
Let's say for a moment... CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #24
What good are rights not granted to the individual??? ileus Apr 2016 #23
Well - rights SECURED for the individual...I fixed it! :) nt jmg257 Apr 2016 #27
This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #26
such misconstruction of what's right before your eyes jimmy the one Apr 2016 #32
Let's take these one at a time tortoise1956 Apr 2016 #37
raccoons are scavengers discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2016 #38
re: "Group or individual right?" discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #33
Very obviously individual, of course. N/T beevul Apr 2016 #34
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»2A: Group or individual r...»Reply #37