Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

jody

(26,624 posts)
19. I picked them because they were the first states to declare rights and they were written before our
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:57 PM
Dec 2012

Constitution.

Heller's opinion and dissent both used the PA and VT constitutions and the dissent said

The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment's omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly protect such civilian uses at the time. Article XIII of Pennsylvania's 1776 Declaration of Rights announced that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state," 1 Schwartz 266 (emphasis added); §43 of the Declaration assured that "the inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed," id., at 274. And Article XV of the 1777 Vermont Declaration of Rights guaranteed "hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State." Id., at 324 (emphasis added). The contrast between those two declarations and the Second Amendment reinforces the clear statement of purpose announced in the Amendment's preamble. It confirms that the Framers' single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee "to keep and bear arms" was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.

nice try but most gun users & killers are not psychopaths - most gun toting killers are sane nt msongs Dec 2012 #1
Apparently many gun owners are content to Skidmore Dec 2012 #2
And thanks for proving the anti-gun point. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #3
but the intent is clear Motown_Johnny Dec 2012 #4
Perhaps not "psychopaths", who by clinical definition Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #8
actually they can laundry_queen Dec 2012 #39
Point taken--you're right. The sociopathy/psychopathy Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #43
The worst of them quite commonly are psychopaths who aren't insane Major Nikon Dec 2012 #9
Until they are not. n/t Bonhomme Richard Dec 2012 #15
You completely missed the point as well as what the 2nd Amendment actually says nt Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2012 #61
Congress has all the authority it needs for the militia in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16. jody Dec 2012 #5
I call BS RoccoR5955 Dec 2012 #6
Please read PA(1776) & VT(1777) constitutions and learn about the right to defend self and property. jody Dec 2012 #7
You might want to learn the structure of the English language. JoePhilly Dec 2012 #10
Apparently you haven't read the Heller opinion. State constitutions written before our Constitutions jody Dec 2012 #11
So do many other writings of the founders. JoePhilly Dec 2012 #13
I picked them because they were the first states to declare rights and they were written before our jody Dec 2012 #19
I cherry pick Hamilton in Federalist 29 nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #41
Nice add ... the founders were not in agreement on all things. JoePhilly Dec 2012 #55
Yup. nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #58
Please quote the section of FP 29 that says what you think it does. X_Digger Dec 2012 #57
No, it's not. Igel Dec 2012 #18
So now, please reframe the 2nd Amendment to fit your model. JoePhilly Dec 2012 #34
Hamilton will agree with you in Federalist 29 nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #42
Thank you for rationality... sanatanadharma Dec 2012 #30
The subject is "the right of the people..." immoderate Dec 2012 #36
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is in support of the well regulated Militia, so JoePhilly Dec 2012 #37
Exactly! RoccoR5955 Dec 2012 #63
Where did you learn the English language RoccoR5955 Dec 2012 #62
The militia clause is a gerund clause. Technically, there is no verb. immoderate Dec 2012 #65
The dates (1776 and 1777) being the pertinent Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #12
Come on, that's been ridiculed so many times it's no longer funny. nt jody Dec 2012 #24
Not by any of the mentally stable, socially responsible people I know... Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #35
Apparently I'm the only one of those you've met and you won't listen to me. jody Dec 2012 #40
Don't flatter yourself...and I won't either. Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #45
You should also notice it makes no mention of the "purchase" of said weapons. JoePhilly Dec 2012 #14
And "sale and purchase is not mentioned" for tools to exercise the other rights. What BS. jody Dec 2012 #16
Not really ... you've heard of the right to free speech, yes? JoePhilly Dec 2012 #17
So you support someone possessing any firearm they construct? nt jody Dec 2012 #20
I think that is closer to what the founders intended. JoePhilly Dec 2012 #21
3D printing really opens up the options for those who want to make their own. nt jody Dec 2012 #23
At least when you gave up, you did so in an obvious manner. JoePhilly Dec 2012 #27
LOL have a blissful evening. nt jody Dec 2012 #29
You didn't need to quit twice. JoePhilly Dec 2012 #33
Ha! neverforget Dec 2012 #38
Well I do - but they have to test fire it personally intaglio Dec 2012 #25
This message was self-deleted by its author jody Dec 2012 #28
In other words you have no reply except to imply I am a drug addict intaglio Dec 2012 #66
I found your post difficult to follow. You say "Essentially you lack knowledge of subordinate jody Dec 2012 #67
No Heller did NOT test the priority of the clauses intaglio Dec 2012 #68
We disagree. Please explain why the opinion and dissent discussions of the clauses do not jody Dec 2012 #69
intaglio please explain how "Heller did NOT test the priority of the clauses". jody Dec 2012 #70
I think you got this right ... those who don't want to find a solution prefer to JoePhilly Dec 2012 #31
No, because if you read it correctly RoccoR5955 Dec 2012 #64
NO NO NO...its about the security of the state, not personal defense sanatanadharma Dec 2012 #32
C: None of the above. nt Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #22
This message was self-deleted by its author Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #26
In the 18th century the militia also served in constabulary roles nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #44
This message was self-deleted by its author Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #47
Yeahs it you asked nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #48
This message was self-deleted by its author Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #50
What do you mean backwards nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #51
A well regulated Militia says nothing about how we care for the mentally ill. JoePhilly Dec 2012 #49
Joe. never mind. I am self-deleting. You guys have fun. I am outta this thread. Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #52
I'm not sure we are having fun ... but you should as always decide where you want to debate JoePhilly Dec 2012 #53
looks to me like you guys are having a whale of a feel good time. Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #54
In a day and age where the Constitution has been trampled by the Bush Admin rhett o rick Dec 2012 #46
Best summary of the 2nd Amendment bongbong Dec 2012 #56
Thanks nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #59
Interestingly enough, every time someone speaks in front of an NRA backdrop these days, Buns_of_Fire Dec 2012 #71
Guns kill people, not people...to take away the guns!!! chirurgdecreier Dec 2012 #60
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Second Amendment rais...»Reply #19