Here are all the things I could find from the other thread, slightly edited for brevity, and my responses:
Claeyt wrote:The second amendment was never meant to promote the threat of violence against local or democratically elected government officials [...].
I removed the extremely confusing part about slavery because it made no sense in this context or at all.
Claeyt wrote:[...]but even if you believe the second amendment is only an individual right and not a States right (Which I and most legal scholars don't believe)
...an individual right does not supersede the right of the rest of us in a society to live wholly safe and happy.
I disagree with this and I wonder if you realize how much this remark of yours contradicts your stance on bathrooms? Of course individual rights supersede the rights of the community in many cases. Deciding which rights and when is the defining problem of civilization; trying to balance personal freedom with restrictive law.
Claeyt wrote:[...]some history about how and why the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation in 1789 after 8 years.
The Articles of Confederation, the first form of laws governing the United States created a weak federal government that left much of the power of governance to the States. Individual States began to ignore the treaty with Britain [...] convinced the early government that a stronger Federal government was required. So the Constitution was created to form federal control over and superseding State law, along with other stuff like forming an army... etc.
The Anti-Federalists/Pro-State government supporters were able to pass the 'Bill of Rights' or the first 10 amendments to the constitution AGAINST the wishes of the majority of the founding fathers. Anti-federalist founding fathers such as John Hancock and Sam Adams rightly feared an imperialist federal government controlled by a strong president. They viewed States as the proper balance to opposing this. They viewed the Bill of Rights amendments to the constitution as defining the relationship of the Federal government to the State governments and specifically the protection of individual rights through the State governments and the common inclusion of individual rights within their State constitutions.
The Second amendment was specifically taken from the 'Virginian Declaration of Rights'.
So this section from the 'Virginia Declaration of Rights':
Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
became this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
The Anti-Federalist/Radical Anti-Government strain unique to America and now housed in the Republican party has warped this to mean that any person can buy any gun at any time. They were able to get the supreme court to install this as interpreted law in 1875 and it's been maintained since with no changes to account for modern weapons, or modern ideas about safety of the commons over individual rights.
Actually, when the Constitution was finally complete, three of the delegates, including Madison, proposed a bill of rights and were denied mainly because everyone was exhausted. Some thought it was up to the states to list those rights while others claimed guaranteeing some rights would be seen as denying all others, but the main reason was that they were tired. When the constitution went to the states to be ratified, 9 of the 13 either signed while letting it be known they though a bill of rights was necessary or refused to sign altogether without an actual bill or a firm guarantee of one.
They were worried that the constitution told what the government CAN do, but not what it CAN'T. All the amendments were examples of things that Britain had done to its colonies and which the people were not eager to see happen again with this new government, and they were a lot more united in this than you imply. De-armament was one of those things. While Britain couldn't reasonably take away the colonies' guns, since almost everyone had to hunt to live, it did forbid the making of gunpowder in the Americas, limited the amount of powder it would sell to them, and strictly tracked and limited gun and ammunition ownership.
Madison wrote out the 19 amendments, which were eventually edited down to 10, and relied heavily on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, yes, and on the recommendations of several of the other states who drafted up proposed bills and sent them in. Those states mostly used Virginia as a template and actually copied Section 13 verbatim. Really look at that section 13:
Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
They were afraid of standing armies. They were very much afraid that the government and its military would turn on the states and on the people. That fear is reflected in the wording of the second amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"A well regulated Militia," A properly working militia, one that is trained and knows what it is doing. They're not talking about regulation in terms of restrictions and limits here.
"being necessary to the security of a free State," Little trivia here: 'State' refers to one of the states, while 'state' refers to the federal government. The capitalization is deliberate. They were worried that the states would have to defend themselves and keep themselves free, with military might, against an outside force up to and including the standing army of the federal government itself, which was mentioned in the amendments recommended by the states, though that wording was removed.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's pretty clear. The second amendment might indirectly allude to defense of self, but the main reason that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed, not in any way, is so we can defend ourselves against the potential tyranny, and maybe even military attacks, of our own federal government. To that end, any restriction of weapon type and quantity is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter what the writers did or did not foresee of the future, any successful military revolt is going to require access to approximately equal military strength. Probably an unlikely scenario as such, but there it is.
Now, of course we can remove this amendment, that would change everything. But I have to say, unlikely as a popular uprising of militias created by the people and/or States against a bloated, overpowered, hostile, and draconian government is... I prefer to have the option. Some of the things our government has done in the recent past in the name of things like security are pretty sketchy.
The whole "protection of self, family, and freedom" interpretation actually happened in the 1980's, but is completely irrelevant. That's mainly because the second amendment has always been about all about the protection and freedom of both the individual and the 'commons'. Being able to also protect yourself and family in a dangerous situation using a gun is a side benefit.
