Thread: Gun Legislation
View Single Post
Old 08-14-2019, 11:38 PM   #149
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,411
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
funny ...
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned,

What's "funny" is the notion that every specific thing that the Federal Government might possibly wish to abridge the citizens right to own should have been discussed during the Constitutional Convention. I'm not sure, but I don't think the right to a head of cabbage, for health or any other purpose, was discussed during the Convention.

What is not funny is that deceptive articles such as the one you linked actually persuade good people to believe that there is any significance to the idea that if some particular thing was not discussed, then there is no reason to believe that the Federal Government should be denied the power to control that thing.

To begin with, the Bill of Rights as a whole and as it was drafted, was not written during the convention. It was added to the Constitution afterwards in order to assure ratification by states whose representatives wanted a Bill of Rights. The reason that the majority of Representatives during the Convention voted down addressing a Bill of Rights was because the way the Constitution was written already denied the Federal Government the power to abridge the rights that a bill of rights would propose.

So your article's ruse of pretending that somehow the 2A is diminished in scope and meaning because "There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention" is an idiotic tautology. Of course there was not a single word about and individual's right to a gun--because they did not discuss it during the Convention. And they didn't because, even if the 2A had not been created, the limitations that the original, pre-amended, Constitution would still have prohibited the government from infringing the right to arms. The Bill of Rights was not part of the original constitution. It was added later as an Amendment in order to assure Ratification.

or One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

This is a bald faced lie. We really do know what the Framers meant by those words. They are preserved, verbatim, as in the above links which it seems you did not read.

so please show me how the Words support what the gun lobby is suggesting . 2a means
I don't know what the gun lobby is suggesting. I know what the 2A says and what those who wrote it and discussed it and later commented on it meant.

I couldn't stand reading your whole article because it started out with lies and misinformation. It was an obvious progressive ploy to make us believe that the 2A, and the entire Constitution no doubt, can mean whatever a judge says it means. To which I say, then if that is so, what purpose does it serve? Why bother to have written it in the first place?
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote