Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "NBC News"
channel.
-
77
-
52
-
46
-
41
-
34
-
27
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
20
-
19
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
Actually it wasn't. That i why the Militia Law EVOLVED to the point that the weaponry was provided by the gov't. That eliminated a lot of excuses and other problems.
What you fail to grasp is that you are not living in the past. That is, you are a law-illiterate who doesn't know what he's talking about. But it isn't that difficult to LEARN; one can, for example, READ the Constitution you've never read, with the knowledge that the entire Constitution is in effect at the same time. These are the first two of the four Militia Clauses in the Constitution:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
In short, the well-regulated -- UNDER LAW -- Militia is LAW ENFORCEMENT -- the OPPOSITE of "taking up arms" against the gov't, which is INSURRECTION, and which the Founders classified as TREASON.
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States [GOV'T] respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS.
That "prescription" is in the form of STATUTES -- MILITIA ACTS.
That provision also establishes, under the Supremacy Clause, the FEDERAL gov't as the SUPREME authority over the States' well-regulated Militia -- which is ALSO under the STATE constitution and Militia Acts.
This succinctly described the purpose of the well-regulated Militia:
___
From Supreme Court decision _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886):
"(115) . . . . It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions . . . have . . . the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations . . . . (116) The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine."
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
". . . . And also, so that you can understand the wording of the 2nd Amendment as written, pay attention here."
Let's play your history- and law-illiterate game -- then SHRED it:
1. When the several states ratified the Constitution, they included with that written statement to Congress a PETITION to be accepted as a member of the Union.
2. Several states also included proposed amendments.
3. James Madison, a Congressman in the House of Representatives, codified the proposed amendments into a "Bill of Rights" resolution, which he then submitted to the House for debate. This is where the history- and law-illiterate claim that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. This is their "history":
James Madison was the "Father of the Constitution, AND he wrote the "Bill of Rights"/Second Amendment. If those facts are true then --
The first three words of the Constitution are, "We the people," not, "We the individual". Thus the word "people" -- the "We" makes it PLURAL -- has the same meaning from those first three words to the end of the "Bill of Rights" -- the first Ten Amendments.
IN FACT the House debated the resolution as COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE -- i.e., the entire House of Representatives Debated and wrote the "Bill of Rights".
AND the Senate ALSO debated and contributed to it. Madison was not a Senator.
4. The "Madison [Second] Amendment" was actually the first DRAFT of that which eventually became the Second Amendment. That an all but the last draft included ONE "individual right" -- which is obvious from its language, and which means the drafts of the amendment included BOTH the words "PEOPLE" -- which is PLURAL -- and "PERSON" -- which is obviously INDIVIDUAL. This is the ONLY "individual right" that was debated:
": but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms, shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY -- one could be DRAFTED into militia DUTY] to render military service [in well-regulated militia]".
That was OBVIOUSLY VOTED DOWN before the "Bill of Rights" was ratified.
One last fact:
Occasionally one or another gun-nut will boldly assert: "The Founders put the Second Amendment after the First Amendment to back up the First Amendment.
1. As submitted to the states for consideration and ratification, the proposed "Bill of Rights" consisted of TWELVE proposed Amendments.
The first two were REJECTIED, making the third the First, and the fourth the Second.
2. The First Amendment includes --
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridged . . . the right of the people to PEACEABLY assemble".
Thus the First amendment is consistent with "Art. I., S. 8., C. 15:
"The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS".
To "take up arms" against the gov't is INSURRECTION -- which is PROHIBITED. The alternative established by the Founders, and the Constitution and laws, is VOTING.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@american236 I don't skip it:
___
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" Congress 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".
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Remo1147 In FACT, locksmith db's law-illiteracy notwithstanding, the Bill of Rights was DEBATED AND WRITTEN by CONGRESS -- both House and Senate. This is how standard adjudication works:
If there is a conflicting interpretation of a law, such as a Constitutional provision, and the resolution of the conflict is not in the text of the law at issue, then one refers to the LEGISLATIVE HISTORY - the "paper trail" that resulted in the law. The LEGISLATIVE HISTORY is LEGAL AUTHORITY. That is the obvious approach even to the dumbest. And it has been the adjudicatory standard since forever.
As concerns the INTENT of the Second Amendment, one READS THE CONRESS'S DEBATES -- they are readily available -- of the WRITING of the Amendment. From those one learns that the PURPOSE of the Amendment was to establish a NATIONAL DEFENSE relying on the well-regulated Militia.
A "militia" is not an individual. And the well-regulated Militia has ALWAYS been BOTH GOVERNED AND REGULATED under BOTH Federal and state constitutions and laws. And subsequent to ratification of the Bill of Rights, and as concerns the Second Amendment, Congress enacted two statutes -- "Militia Acts":
May 2, 1792: "An act to provide for calling forth the Militia [of the Second Amendment] to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
May 8, 1792: "An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an UNIFORM MILITIA throughout the United States."
I have an education in law and have been focused on researching the issues for more than 30 years. And what the law-illiterate OMITS -- probably because ignorant of the fact, is that there were criticisms across the political spectrum from Constitutional scholars of Scalia's Heller decision for a simple and basic reason: he argued at length that the LEGISLATIVE HISTORY was IRRELEVANT -- which is NOT the adjudicatory standard.
It is ONLY by REJECTING the legislative history, in which one finds the ACTUAL INTENT of the Second Amendment, as established by the Congress that DEBATED AND WROTE IT, he was able FALSELY to find an "individual" "right" where none exists. IT IS CLEAR in those Debates that only ONE "individual" "right" was debated --
": but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated militia] shall be compelled [as in DRAFT -- militia service was a DUTY, not a "right"] to render military service [in well-regulated militia] in person."
That -- the right NOT to serve in the militia -- was obviously VOTED DOWN before the PROPOSED Amendment was submitted, along with the other ELEVEN proposed amendments, to the states for consideration and ratification.
To refute another false fantasy made up about the Second Amendment -- that the Second Amendment was placed directly after the First in order to enforce the First:
As submitted to the states, the PROPOSED Bill of Rights consisted of TWELVE PROPOSED Amendments. The FIRST TWO were REJECTED -- making the 4th the 2nd, and making the 3rd the 1st.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@rhynosouris710 "J Nagarya The issue is settled in DC v Heller: "The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.""
I'm well aware of Scalia's "holding" -- in fact there are TWO in that decision -- AND of the fact that in his "Heller" decision" he argued strenuously that the LEGISLATIVE HISTORY -- the DEBATES of the CONGRESS that WROTE that which became the Second amendment -- are "irrelevant" to the issue.
That's why we KNOW that Scalia was an ACTIVIST inserting his own views/the views of the gun industry/right-wing "Christian" rejectors of the Constitutional separation of "religion" and gov't OVER the law:
The STANDARD of adjudication -- NOT activist -- when there is a conflicting interpretation of a law, and the resolution isn't found "within the four corners" of the text of the law, a court resorts to the LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, which is LEGAL AUTHORITY, in order to determine the INTENT of the law.
The LEGISLATIVE HISTORY -- the DEBATES of the Congress that WROTE the Second Amendment -- PROVES that the INTENT of the Amendment was to establish a NATIONAL DEFENSE relying on the WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. The SUBJECT of the amendment is at the beginning of the Amendment: well-regulated Militia.
The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" was taken from the FOUR STATE constitution Militia Clauses that were the SOURCE of the Amendment, which Clauses distinguished between the well-regulated militia -- "the right of the people," etc. -- and standing armies.
FURTHER: Constitutional provisions are IMPLEMENTED by means of STATUTES, in this context termed "Militia Acts". Completion of ratification of the Bill of Rights was on December 15, 1791; in May, 1792 there were two "Militia Acts" enacted. The second of the two is captions:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
As for "Heller": Scalia made TWO holdings:
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual right" -- which is REFUTED by the DEBATES of the WRITERS of the Amendment.
2. The gun control is Constitutional -- for which the evidence, AS LAW from the FOUNDIGS of the several colonies, and as continued through and beyond the 1770s, is OVERWHELMING.
And there is this:
___
No law protects private fake "militia":
See _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008), citing _Pressor v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), both of which are available via "Google" search:
The Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".
In fact, all 50 states classify such fake "militia" as paramilitary organizations and PROHIBIT them.
Pick your state:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/
4
-
4
-
4