Reply #197: FTGFN's "QUESTION" ANSWERED!!!!! [View All]

[Will E Orwontee]

Posted by fightthegoodfightnow:

Was the right to keep and beer arms for the purpose of having an Organized Militia?

Setting the above question's grammatical deficiencies aside and FTGFN's evasive "debate" tactics, FTGFN's position can be easily discerned and effectively rebutted.

FTGFN's position first demands one ignore or otherwise dismiss over a century of plain, unambiguous Supreme Court precedent. SCOTUS has said that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment and that the right to arms is not dependent, in any fashion, on the Constitution for its existence.

What's that mean?

Well, since the right is not created, conferred, established, given or otherwise granted to the citizen (or any entity for that matter) the words chosen merely to SECURE the right can not be outwardly interpreted to restrict, qualify or condition the right only being recognized and guaranteed.

Your reading of the Amendment begins ass-backward because you fail to understand (or refuse to accept) the right existed before the Constitution was enacted and no power to injure the right was ever granted to government. See, that's a fundamental maxim of our form of government; ALL NOT SURRENDERED IS RETAINED. The 2nd is only telling the feds what they are forbidden to do even though no power ever existed to actually act in such a manner . . . The Amendment is completely redundant and unnecessary; as SCOTUS has said, even setting the 2nd Amendment out of view, government can not disarm the citizen.

The right to arms is a completely separate entity from the 2nd Amendment and any interpretation that conditions the exercise of the right on language that does not create, establish or confer the right is illogical and unconstitutional. It is akin to someone saying Newton's Law modifies, constrains or can even be interpreted to negate gravity.

It is possible for FTGFN's question to become grammatically, historically, legally and logically correct and all it requires is a small edit . . . One must add just a single word (but it imparts an immeasurable shift of philosophy, making it correct!):

Was the right to keep and beer arms secured for the purpose of having an Organized Militia?

The answer then is an emphatic YES! The 2nd Amendment was written with "obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such (militia) forces." (US v Miller) That is the "object" of the Amendment; to ensure that in times of emergency the state could always call the citizen to muster and the farmer, blacksmith, butcher, baker and candlestick maker would appear with firearms supplied by themselves, a prudent supply of ammunition and sufficient provisions in a knapsack for a few nights away from home. The "object," in and of itself, is not self-fulfilling nor self-perpetuating; other conditions are required to fulfill the object. The citizen and his "secured," pre-existing right to arms is the "means" to achieve the Amendment's "object."

Just so we are all on the same page, here are the definitions of "object" and "means" and "secured" as I am using them:

From Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

OB'JECT, n. 2. That to which the mind is directed for accomplishment or attainment; end; ultimate purpose.

MEAN, n 3. Instrument; that which is used to effect an object; the medium through which something is done. In this sense, means, in the plural, is generally used, . . .

SECU'RED, pp. Effectually guarded or protected; made certain; put beyond hazard; effectually confined; made fast.

Try this revised 2nd Amendment on for size; this structure illuminates what the provision is about.

Because the people are secure in their right to keep and bear arms, States will be assured of their ability to raise, organize and train well regulated militias as the States deem necessary for their security.

Your (and the District's) argument that the 2nd does not apply to DC because DC is not a state is defeated on multiple fronts; here's two . . .

1) The 2nd does not speak to, protect or defend any state action nor does it forbid state action, it is only binding on federal action. Thus, the entire "it's a state right provision so it couldn't mean DC" is muted. Not only is the "state's right" interpretation dead, it was dead in 1942 when it was first used in the federal courts. The federal courts continue to opine that the 2nd affords the states an immunity that SCOTUS has held for over 180 years, DOES NOT EXIST! Thankfully this smoke and mirror sideshow will soon be kicked to the curb.
2) Being that DC is federal enclave and completely under the command and control of Congress, the provisions binding Congressional action are in force even against whatever structures and schemes of lower political subdivisions created by Congress. . . The DC Council is a creature of Congress, Congress is a creature of the Constitution; neither can ignore or dismiss the "higher power." The Council is not autonomous (as you have stated) neither does it enjoy any sovereignty.

FTGFN (or anyone), awaiting your reasoned, on point rebuttal to any of my positions!