VP Biden Says the 2nd Amendment Limits Who Can Own Guns

Discussion in 'Guns' started by Patriot, Jan 18, 2016.

  1. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

    Fatgnat and Oak like this.
  2. Why don't these supposed journalists ask these nuts to cite where in the Constitution they get this stuff from?

  3. The second amendment says who can't own firearms? where?
  4. I am fairly certain Vice President Biden was referring to the "well regulated militia" part, which happens to be the very first sentence of the Second Amendment. I am also fairly certain that the National Guard of each state constitutes the "well regulated militia" component of the Second Amendment. Following that train of thought: if the right of the people to keep and bear arms is completely dependent upon a well regulated militia, then the Second Amendment does say who may or may not posses firearms - and it is clearly not everyone. If the "well regulated militia" part was not the very first sentence of the Second Amendment all of you would have a valid argument.
  5. @Dark Sky, I can see why you would think that. However, the national guard was formed in 1636. They were young men who protected there town or city of a threat ever existed. The national guard came from that town or city's own population. "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". Now since we know that the militias were independent units that had no ties to government early in our history and since we know that the militias were made up of individuals from that state, city or town. One can reasonably assume that there is not limit on my second amendment. And before you bring up the police forces. They had them back then as well. Yet the founders felt it necessary to explicitly allow the citizens of the United States the right to own and use firearms. So, I'm afraid, your argument is invalid.
  6. @LibertarianLiberty

    But your point still does not make sense and does not refute mine. In 1636 we had the militia, which is the current National Guard. This is not my opinion. The National Guard even says so on their page

    We recognize December 13th as the birthday of the National Guard. On this date in 1636, the first militia regiments in North America were organized in Massachusetts. Based upon an order of the Massachusetts Bay Colony's General Court, the colony's militia was organized into three permanent regiments to better defend the colony. Today, the descendants of these first regiments - the 181st Infantry, the 182nd Infantry, the 101st Field Artillery, and the 101st Engineer Battalion of the Massachusetts Army National Guard – share the distinction of being the oldest units in the U.S. military. December 13, 1636, thus marks the beginning of the organized militia, and the birth of the National Guard's oldest organized units is symbolic of the founding of all the state, territory, and District of Columbia militias that collectively make up today's National Guard.

    So, the Second Amendment says,

    Given the history of the National Guard as the "well regulated militia" whose job it is to provide "security of a free state" it is impossible to say that everyone can bear arms. To me, the only people who have a Constitutional right to bear arms are those who are members of a well regulated militia, as they are necessary to the security of a free state.Therefore, the only people who can legally keep and bear arms are members of the National Guard.

    Prove me wrong.
  7. I read that article as well. However, what you are referring to is what is commonly know and the organized militia. Now, the unorganized militia, is primarily comprised of all able bodied men. Think briefly back to the revolutionary war. We had our continental army and our irregular forces. Also known as Minutemen. They were part of the unorganized militia for every state. I encourage you to read this: http://lawandliberty.org/what_mil.htm

    Your move
  8. I did some further research and feel like the Constitution is now even more on my side of the argument here, than it is yours.

    Here is the "Title 10" law defining a militia:

    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—

    the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    Here is an explanation of Title 32

    State Active Duty (SAD) The Governor can activate National Guard personnel to “State Active Duty” in response to natural or man-made disasters or Homeland Defense missions. SAD is based on State statue and policy as well as State funds. Soldiers and Airmen remain under the command and control of the Governor. A key aspect of this duty status is that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply, giving National Guardsmen the ability to act in a law enforcement capacity within their home state or adjacent state if granted by that state’s Governor.

    Title 32 Full-Time National Guard Duty “Full-time National Guard Duty” means training or other duty, other than inactive duty, performed by a member of the National Guard. Title 32 allows the Governor, with the approval of the President or the Secretary of Defense, to order a member to duty for operational Homeland Defense activities in accordance with the following sections of U.S. Code (USC):

    1. 32 USC 502 (f): This statue allows member of the National Guard to be ordered to full-time National Guard duty to perform operational activities. It was used for the Airport Security mission after 9/11 and also for Hurricane Katrina and Rita response effort.

    2. 32 USC § 901: The term “Homeland Defense activity” means an activity undertaken for the military protection of the territory or domestic population of the U.S., or of infrastructure or other asset of the U.S. determined by the Secretary of Defense as being critical to national security and at risk of a threat or aggression against the U.S.

    3. 32 USC § 902 - Homeland Defense activities: funds. (a) The Secretary of Defense may provide funds to a Governor to employ National Guard units or members to conduct Homeland Defense activities that the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate for participation by the National Guard or members. The key to this instance is that Federal Law provides the Governor with the ability to place a soldier in a full-time duty status under the command and control of the State but is directly funded with Federal dollars. Even though this duty status is authorized by Federal statue, this section is a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act; the Governor may use the Guard in a law enforcement capacity while the chain of command rests in the State.

    Here is an explanation of the militia being "activated" by the federal government:

    Title 10 Active-Duty “Active duty” means full-time duty in the active military service of the U.S.

    Title 10. It allows the President to “federalize” the National Guard forces by ordering them to active duty in their reserve component status or by calling them into Federal service in their militia status in accordance with the following USC sections:

    1. 10 USC § 12301 (d) - Voluntary Order to Active Duty: At any time, a member of the National Guard may be ordered to active duty voluntarily with his or her consent and the consent of the Governor. Understanding the Guard’s Duty Status

    2. 10 USC § 12302 – Partial Mobilization: In time of national emergency declared by the President, the Secretary concerned may order any unit and any member to active duty for no more than 24 consecutive months.

    3. 10 USC § 12304 – Presidential Selected Reserve Call Up: When the President determines that it is necessary to augment the active force or any operational mission, he may authorize the service secretaries to order any unit and any member to active duty for not more than 365 days.

    4. 10 USC § 331 – Federal Aid to State Governors: Whenever an insurrection occurs in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its Governor, if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection. This section is a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act.

    5. 10 USC § 332 – Use of Militia and Armed Forces to Enforce Federal Authority: Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the U.S., make it impractical to enforce the laws of the U.S. in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion. This section is a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act.

    6. 10 USC § 333 – Interference with State and Federal Law: The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if it: a. So hinders the execution of the law of that State, and of the U.S. within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or b. Opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the U.S. or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

    7. 10 USC § 12406 – Air and Army National Guard: Air and Army National Guard call into Federal service in case of invasion, rebellion or inability to execute Federal law with active forces.

    You should note that Number 5 above grants an exception to Posse Comitatus Act - so only the militia can take action on U.S. soil. The federal U.S. military can't ever take action on U.S. soil because of the Posse Comitatus Act. Thus, the states must keep a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

    We also still have the other types of forces you referenced above:





    What say you now?
  9. (2)
    the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
  10. So, let me get this straight ;). Are you saying that the Second Amendment was put into place for someone to start their own militia? Then how do you explain the "well regulated militia" part? Part of what the government does is enact regulations. In order for something to be regulated, there must be an entity to enforce the regulation. The document that gives authority to the government to enact such a regulation is the Constitution.

    But if you are still hanging your hat on the unorganized militia, then wouldn't an unorganized militia, by its very definition, be one that is absent of regulation?

    Don't worry, you are not the first Conservative/Libertarian that I have stumped on this.
    Fatgnat likes this.
  11. I can see where you're going with this. But I think the thing you're missing is that the constitution wasn't written for the government. It was written for the people. The citizenry hold the power over government. We both know what the second amendment says. Let us ask some framers how they feel about it for they can articulate this to you better than I ever can.

    “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; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

    George Washington

    “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

    “(W)hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” – Federal Farmer, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

    “No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788

    Samuel Adams

    This is the source :https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/history/the-founding-fathers-on-the-second-amendment

    The second amendment isn't just for the national guard or military, but for the individual. The individual which is the true power of our democratic republic.

    LadyLiberty likes this.
  12. I find it quite ironic how liberals suddenly care about the constitution when they spend the vast majority of their time on reinterpretations that have little historical basis. (I guess it would also be ironic for an ostensible constitutional originalist to be done in by the founder's intent.)
    Dark Sky likes this.
  13. Well played @Tobak

    I'm the first to admit that liberals and even middle of the road Democrats spend very little time developing a comprehensive understanding of the original intent of the Constitution. In this instance though, I stand by my interpretation that the federal government has the authority, provided in the Second Amendment to limit who can poses firearms and who can not. In my view, only members of a "well regulated militia" are the only citizens with that right.
  14. And as I stated in my previous reply, citizens are the militia. @Dark Sky , do you believe that the federal government works for us or do you believe we work for the federal government?
  15. Both of you need to dig deeper.

    In order to understand the "well regulated" component of the argument made by @Dark Sky we must all be clear on how the term was used when the Second Amendment was written:

    The following passages are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary during the time that the 2nd amendment was written:

    1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

    1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

    1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

    1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

    1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

    1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

    The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was to render the government powerless to do so, which is precisely why the founders wrote it.
    LibertarianLiberty likes this.
  16. First of all, there are way too many guns in this country and someone needs to do something about it. The only organization that CAN do something about it is the government. There is no reason for anyone to own a firearm. Don't claim hunting either because you can just get in your car and go to the grocery store - which the founders didn't have. I bet if they did, there would be no Second Amendment.
  17. As I stated previously, the second amendment isn't for hunting. It's sole purpose is the preservation of liberty and also to keep the government in check. That's it. Because you are seemingly so passionate about this issue shall we discuss a few venerable Utopias in terms of citizens not having he right to own a firearm. We shall. Let's talk about Mexico, did you know it's illegal for the ordinary citizen to own a firearm? Good thing that the government down there isn't corrupt at all. You should move there!. Let's see. There's Honduras, Cuba, China, Sweden Norway. Norway is my personal favorite as they hold the record of the most killed in a mass shooting. That's right, Gun hating, socialist, governmentally controlled Norway. Or we have Switzerland a land where military service is mandatory as well as firearms ownership. You @Fatgnat are reminiscent of a generation. This generation where throngs of people who are afraid of there own shadow are totally for the redistribution of wealth so long as it didn't com from their own pockets. You people disgust me. That RIGHT you have even afforded by birth is there to all the other RIGHTS you have. I fail to see the logic that out of the entire bill of rights, all ten of them. They somehow fuc*ed up the second one.

    And honestly, why did you bring up cars in your response as if that is somehow going to to win this argument. Like the founders weren't capable of higher thought or innovation....raaaah. You're unintelligent. The governments power is meant to be limited. If you want big government intrusion in your life than please find residence in one of the countries I've stated above as your absence here will not be recognized. Good day and good luck on your rebuttal.
  18. The meaning of the second amendment is not to restrict the people access to guns it was created to prevent the government from disarming citizens. This is the whole reason for breaking ties with Great Britain. A well regulated militia just meant militias needed to be trained properly. James Madison, himself said a well regulated militia is composed of people, that are trained to handle firearms.

    LibertyBelle likes this.

Share This Page