Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "THIS Is Why Americans Are So Obsessed With Guns (It's not what you expect)" video.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
Refuting the NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's Heller decision is an outlier. In Heller he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The purpose of the Amendment was to establish a National Defense, relying on the well-regulated Militia. That fact is underscored by the Militia Act enacted on May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
The Militia is not an individual; it is a public institution, an arm OF gov't, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws. The Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from the beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously voted down before the proposed Amendment was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS".
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" insurrection was suppressed by the state's well-regulated Militia, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
Under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" insurrection was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn Heller and its progeny.
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
@thinkharder9332 James Madison is said to be the "Father of the Constitution -- some even say that he wrote most of it. And the NRA claims he wrote the "Bill of Rights".
If both of those are true, then the meaning of the word "people" is consistent from the first three words of the Constitution --
"We the people," not "We the individual" --
to the end of the first ten Amendments.
Further, Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of STATUTES -- in this context Militia Acts. STATUTES are more elaborate and detailed.
The well-regulated Militia -- in STATE constitutions the "right of the people," etc. -- has ALWAS been UNDER the rule of law, from constitution on down to statutes and further written POLICIES. Because, LAW-ILLITERATE, the Founders were OPPOSED to ANY THREATS to gov't, not only standing armies but also ANY ARMED threats to gov't..
And see _Cruickshank_: the Second Amendment neither applies to individuals, or to the states.
Further, the ENTIRE Constitution is in effect at the same time; See Art. I., S. 8., C. 15 for the purposes of the well-regulated Militia.
And see Art. I. S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for . . . ARMING . . . the Militia".
1
-
1
-
@thinkharder9332 I have an education in law, and have been researching these issues for more than 30 years. You're a law-illiterate repeating disinformation from other anti-American law-illiterates.
Scalia was EXCORIATED by Constitutional law experts ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM for his ACTIVISM -- his REJECTION of the adjudicatory standard that --
When one can't find in the text of the law the resolution of a conflicting interpretation of the law, then one resorts to the LEGISLATIVE HISTORY of the law. THERE one finds the INTENT of those who WROTE the law.
Scalia was ONLY able to arrive at his FALSE "individual right" interpretation of the Secon Amendment by IGNORING the LEGISLATIVE HISTORY which makes clear that the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a NATIONAL DEFENSE relying on the well-regulated Militia. NONE of that has anything whatever to do with "individual ANYTHING.
AND AGAIN, law-illiterate: LOOK IN YOUR STATE CONSTITUTION: its Militia Clause distinguishes between "the right of the people" -- the well-regulated Militia, which is NOT AN INDIVDUAL -- and standing armies. The Militia Clauses of the state constitutions of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Vermont, and Massachusetts. ALL FOUR distinguish between "the right of the people" -- the Militia GOVERNED AND REGULATED under the STATE constitution AND LAWS, and were the SOURCES for the second Amendment.
The "right of the people" phrase in the Second Amendment is a carryover from those STATE clauses, and is a redundancy for "well-regulated Militia".
The first three words of the Constitution -- Constitutions are DELIBERATELY GENERAL to accommodate the unforeseen -- are "We the people". The word "people" is therefore consistent with that throughout the Constitution. "People" is not "individual".
ALSO in your STATE constitution is the fact that the commander-in-chief of the Militia is your state's GOVERNOR -- THEREFORE the well-regulated Militia is an arm OF THE STATE -- more specifically, LAW ENFORCEMENT. There has NEVER been a right, or a law, that authorizes "taking up arms" against the RULE OF LAW.
READ the "Declaration of Independence" -- ALL of it. The Founders "attacked" and "overthrew" exactly this many govt's:
ZERO.
BECAUSE ALL the gov'ts at issue were all along under the control OF THE FOUNDERS. That is why the state Militia, supplemented by the legislature with a DRAFT, and directed by the governor, CRUSHED "Shays's" insurrection and the insurrectionists were tried for TREASON and sentenced to DEATH.
And the "Whiskey" insurrection was crushed by FEDERALIZED state Militia, pursuant to Congressional legislation, lead by George Washington, and the insurrectionists tried for TREASON and sentenced to DEATH.
The subject of the DEBATES -- the LEGISLATIVE HISTORY -- of the WRITING of the Second Amendment was NATIONAL DEFENSE relying on the well-regulated Militia. The subject of the Amendment is well-regulated Militia; the "right of the people," etc., IS the well-regulated Militia.
I'll put it in your face AGAIN until it PENETRATES:
The ONLY "individual right" included in the various drafts of the Second Amendment and debated was THIS:
": put no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST [bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
That is NOT in the Second Amendment because it was VOTED DOWN BEFORE the Amendment was finalized, submitted to the states for consideration and ratification, and ratified.
PAY ATTENTION, DUNCE:
The several drafts of the Second Amendment included BOTH words: "people" and "person". OBVIOUSLY, nitwit, both words do not mean the same thing; and the Founders, EDUCATED in law, KNEW THE DIFFERENCE.
1
-
1