Conversation w/ guy from UC berkeley re: 2nd
So I know this guy who went to UC Berkeley, and I think I'm making progress convincing him that the 2nd is an individual right, through a series of emails.
The whole issue started when he made a statement about our militia being in Iraq.
-ie that the National Guard was the militia mentioned in the constitution.
Here are some relevant parts:
Me: "What are you talking about? The National Guard is NOT our militia! The militia of the United States is defined as all male able bodied citizens (or those who have declared their intent to become citizens) between the ages of 18-45."
him: "f you have a source for that definition, I'd like to see it. Our founding fathers certainly did not define their terms when they wrote our constitution."
Me: sent links to the current legal definition as per: TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > ? 311
him: "fascinating. I still can't find out when this definition was adopted and amended, but it is the currently applicable definition. Now if we could agree on what "well regulated" means, we would be close to understanding the second amendment."
Me: Sent links to the definition as per the militia act of 1792 (the bill of rights was ratified in 1791),
"It should also be noted, that as with the rest of the constitution,
the bill of rights was based heavily on previous writing, like the magna
carta, locke, the english bill or rights, etc.
In the English bill of rights, they say that Protestants have the right to bear arms for self defense.
The US constitution expands this right, by saying "the people" rather than limiting it to a religous group, and removes the self defense part ....
Indeed, this implies to me, the 2nd is meant to be interpreted more liberally than the previous english right, which clearly was an
individual"
him: "As you note, the writers of our constitution alluded to, and rested
on older documents. So now we have a Code which distinguishes the
"organized militia" (California guard, in this case) from the
"unorganized militia""
"and we have a constitution that speaks of a "well regulated militia".
Is this the same as the "organized militia"? Then the right to bear
arms might inhere only to the California guard. I don't think that's
what was intended."
"The fourteenth amendment is usually interpreted as attaching to the individual all the rights that the foregoing constitution had attached to the states. Unlike the rest of the bill of rights, the second amendment explicitly names the right to keep and bear arms as a right of "the people". Should we discard the clause about the "well-regulated militia" entirely? That seems to torture the text, rather than interpret it, but there are those who champion exactly that."
Me: "The code distinguishes organized vs unorganized, not regulated vs unregulated. Refer back to some of the original militia regulations, that ensured militiamen
were to equip themselves with equipment equivalent to that found in the regular army.
Note that Military specification equipment conforms to a set of regulations. "Well Regulated" is extremely ambiguous, but there are those who say given the common language of the time, it didn't mean organized and controlled by an official government entity, but rather people with military spec equipment."
re well regulated: "my interpretation is that it places no restrictions on
the right, but is rather an explanation of why the right must be recognized.
Individuals must have the right to arms effective at combatting the government, such that if it becomes abusive, they may form a militia to fight it."
him: " Overall, it's clear to me--although not to all--that this was included to protect the states from the powers of an over-reaching federal executive. The point was to prevent the feds from tyrranizing the states and the people. To this end, the states (and the
individual?) must not be deprived of the arms that would be needed to overthrow a tyrannical federal government."
I think the best part of this conversation, was when I showed that now, as was back then (except back then was only for free-white people) that every male citizen was a member of a (well?) regulated militia, and said if he wanted to limit the rights of the 2nd to the militia as per US regulations, it would essentially be discriminating based on age and sex, and if he wished to refer to the original definition, he would be discriminating based on race too.
He tried to call me out when I said I was part of the militia and defined the militia, and I backed it up all the way to the year after the 2nd was ratified.
The whole issue started when he made a statement about our militia being in Iraq.
-ie that the National Guard was the militia mentioned in the constitution.
Here are some relevant parts:
Me: "What are you talking about? The National Guard is NOT our militia! The militia of the United States is defined as all male able bodied citizens (or those who have declared their intent to become citizens) between the ages of 18-45."
him: "f you have a source for that definition, I'd like to see it. Our founding fathers certainly did not define their terms when they wrote our constitution."
Me: sent links to the current legal definition as per: TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > ? 311
him: "fascinating. I still can't find out when this definition was adopted and amended, but it is the currently applicable definition. Now if we could agree on what "well regulated" means, we would be close to understanding the second amendment."
Me: Sent links to the definition as per the militia act of 1792 (the bill of rights was ratified in 1791),
"It should also be noted, that as with the rest of the constitution,
the bill of rights was based heavily on previous writing, like the magna
carta, locke, the english bill or rights, etc.
In the English bill of rights, they say that Protestants have the right to bear arms for self defense.
The US constitution expands this right, by saying "the people" rather than limiting it to a religous group, and removes the self defense part ....
Indeed, this implies to me, the 2nd is meant to be interpreted more liberally than the previous english right, which clearly was an
individual"
him: "As you note, the writers of our constitution alluded to, and rested
on older documents. So now we have a Code which distinguishes the
"organized militia" (California guard, in this case) from the
"unorganized militia""
"and we have a constitution that speaks of a "well regulated militia".
Is this the same as the "organized militia"? Then the right to bear
arms might inhere only to the California guard. I don't think that's
what was intended."
"The fourteenth amendment is usually interpreted as attaching to the individual all the rights that the foregoing constitution had attached to the states. Unlike the rest of the bill of rights, the second amendment explicitly names the right to keep and bear arms as a right of "the people". Should we discard the clause about the "well-regulated militia" entirely? That seems to torture the text, rather than interpret it, but there are those who champion exactly that."
Me: "The code distinguishes organized vs unorganized, not regulated vs unregulated. Refer back to some of the original militia regulations, that ensured militiamen
were to equip themselves with equipment equivalent to that found in the regular army.
Note that Military specification equipment conforms to a set of regulations. "Well Regulated" is extremely ambiguous, but there are those who say given the common language of the time, it didn't mean organized and controlled by an official government entity, but rather people with military spec equipment."
re well regulated: "my interpretation is that it places no restrictions on
the right, but is rather an explanation of why the right must be recognized.
Individuals must have the right to arms effective at combatting the government, such that if it becomes abusive, they may form a militia to fight it."
him: " Overall, it's clear to me--although not to all--that this was included to protect the states from the powers of an over-reaching federal executive. The point was to prevent the feds from tyrranizing the states and the people. To this end, the states (and the
individual?) must not be deprived of the arms that would be needed to overthrow a tyrannical federal government."
I think the best part of this conversation, was when I showed that now, as was back then (except back then was only for free-white people) that every male citizen was a member of a (well?) regulated militia, and said if he wanted to limit the rights of the 2nd to the militia as per US regulations, it would essentially be discriminating based on age and sex, and if he wished to refer to the original definition, he would be discriminating based on race too.
He tried to call me out when I said I was part of the militia and defined the militia, and I backed it up all the way to the year after the 2nd was ratified.
0
-
Good job...
I've made some significant progress with friends who were very anti-gun..
Just keep pushing, you'll make headway0 -
"A Well Regulated Militia" is often the debate and its definition. As the Dems see it, we did not have Nuke subs, f-22 raptors
Hummers with ma duces 300 years ago. But we have them now! what do you have to fear.[;)] [;)]We will protect you[:D]
BTW have you hugged your M1A today[:D] I did[:p]0 -
quote:Originally posted by FrancF
"A Well Regulated Militia" is often the debate and its definition. As the Dems see it, we did not have Nuke subs, f-22 raptors
Hummers with ma duces 300 years ago. But we have them now! what do you have to fear.[;)] [;)]We will protect you[:D]
BTW have you hugged your M1A today[:D] I did[:p]
and honestly my only problem with some rich guy owning a fighter jet complete with all the weapons is that if it came down to it he'd get in the way of the real USAF/USN aviators0 -
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
quote:Originally posted by FrancF
"A Well Regulated Militia" is often the debate and its definition. As the Dems see it, we did not have Nuke subs, f-22 raptors
Hummers with ma duces 300 years ago. But we have them now! what do you have to fear.[;)] [;)]We will protect you[:D]
BTW have you hugged your M1A today[:D] I did[:p]
and honestly my only problem with some rich guy owning a fighter jet complete with all the weapons is that if it came down to it he'd get in the way of the real USAF/USN aviators
except we all know the REAL aviators are in the ARMY[:
0 -
I am a graduate of UC Berkeley, and I have never had any problems with the the 2nd.
Pete0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments