Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

2nd amendment grammar question

Discussion in 'Legal' started by SB88LX, Jul 18, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SB88LX

    SB88LX Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    256
    Location:
    Under tyranny in MD
    "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"

    Why is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" used so heavily to deny peoples rights? I don't see where it says the people have to be a part of this militia to keep and bear arms, its just a factual statement. Am I misunderstanding olde tyme sentence structure, or is the first part just as easily omitted as if it were to read "the sky is blue, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Please school me on this.
     
  2. AZRickD

    AZRickD Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,684
    Step by step

    Well Regulated = "Skilled"
    William W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125 (2d ed. 1829). was the author of "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America." His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point. He is quoted by Stephen P. Halbrook in "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Consitutional Right" as follows.
    William Grayson of Virginia wrote to Patrick Henry,
    Tench Cox, a friend of Madison’s wrote the following glowing report of the Second Amendment,
    Cox again:
     
  3. G1FAL

    G1FAL Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Messages:
    270
    Location:
    Ohio
    One thing to consider, the meaning of words in the English language has a tendancy to change over time.

    For instance, when Shakespeare talked about "first thing we'll do is kill all the lawyers" in one of his plays, he wasnt referring to attorneys, who we call lawyers nowadays. He was referring to legislators. If he'd meant attorneys/lawyers, I think the word he'd have used is 'ballisters' or something. I dont remember exactly. Magistrates, perhaps? Bah, someone on here will be able to fill in that particular tidbit.

    Anyway, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, 'regulated' doesnt mean the same thing as when we think of the word regulated today, i.e., bogged down in useless .gov requirements, rules, procedures, etc. The best translation I could give for 'regulated' in the 2nd is 'equipped'.

    What they're basically saying is that "Since a well-equipped militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

    But, as with anything else, when liberal communist-socialists get their dirty little paws on it, they try to pervert it. In this case, they try to make it seem like the 2nd actually reads something closer to "The National Guard of each State shall be allowed to possess and train with firearms", or something like that.

    And its not just the 2nd that they've done that too, either. They also managed to change the 1st so that instead of reading "Congress shall make no law...", it should say "Congress shall make no law unless it deals with assigning extra penalties when a white heterosexual uses a word like f*g, n1gger, or wetback; or desecrating national symbols without any kind of spoken or written word; or banning a song/artist who sings about things that enough people find objectionable; or if the words in question might make someone incapable of self-control attack the speaker". Or something like that. The things I am referring to in this example are 'hate' crime laws, burning the flag WITHOUT actually saying anything, or having a sign, placard, whatever whilst you do so, 'fightin words', and Ice-T's song "Cop Killer". FWIW, I dont agree with someone burning the flag, and would probably knock them out if they did so in my vicinity, but if they actually are saying something, then that IS free speech. Objectionable speech, yes, but still speech. Its when they DONT say anything, just burn a flag because they can, that I think they are no longer covered under the 1st.

    Then there are such wonderful things as police roadblocks and no-knock warrants.

    And I dont think its really necessary to go any further with how the rest of the Bill of Rights has been re-interpreted to mean whatever the Party wants it to mean. The point has been made, neh?
     
  4. G1FAL

    G1FAL Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Messages:
    270
    Location:
    Ohio
    Yeah, he probably did a better job of explaining it than I did.
     
  5. JPL

    JPL Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,479
    "For instance, when Shakespeare talked about "first thing we'll do is kill all the lawyers" in one of his plays, he wasnt referring to attorneys, who we call lawyers nowadays. He was referring to legislators."

    Sorry, but that's incorrect.

    Lawyer, from the French Lauier, was well established by Elizabethan times as a term for a person whose profession was to plead cases in front of judges in the courts.

    You're thinking of the term "barrister," which is also a Middle English term for a member of the legal profession who can plead before the superior courts, as opposed to a solicitor, who can only plead before the lower courts.

    There's a lot of debate over whether or not Dick the Butcher was being complimentary to lawyers, or panning them.

    Probably both.

    In other plays, Shakespear uses the term lawyer in a way that we can recognize today.

    In King Lear, Shakespear refers to the "unfee'd lawyer," clearly a reference to someone who is paid (or not) for rendering legal service -- not a member of parliament.

    And, finally, from Hamlet...

    "There's another: why may not that be the skull of a lawyer? Where be his quiddits now, his quillets, his cases, his tenures, and his tricks?"
     
  6. Warren

    Warren Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    2,454
    Location:
    Northern California
    Even if they had written it "All individuals have the right to own whatever weapons they choose, without needing the permission of any one in any government agency. "

    The antis would still find a way to twist it.
     
  7. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,847
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    For reasons unknown to me, the preamble to the Bill of Rights is not always included in reproductions of the Constitution and BOR. In the local post office it is.

    The preamble states the purpose of the BOR: To prevent abuse of power by the State.

    So, if the BOR is a package of restraints against the state, how can it also be restraining of the citizenry?

    So, rather than worrying about word definitions or the location of commas and any effects they have upon the meanings of the clauses, I choose to ask the anti-gun crowd as to the purpose of ALL the Amendments. I ask how only one of them can somehow be taken from the context of the total package and be seen as restraining you and me and others as to a right.

    Art
     
  8. G1FAL

    G1FAL Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Messages:
    270
    Location:
    Ohio
    I stand corrected.
     
  9. Gameface

    Gameface Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    102
    Location:
    USS Nimitz
    The answer to Art Eatman is that the bill of rights and later amendments are never supposed to create restrictions for the people. They are there to define the limits of the government and to protect the people. The BOR protect the people from the government and even the will of the majority.

    There was one amendment that restricted the people and there has only been one amendment to be nullified—the 18th. The use of constitutional amendments to make it possible to prohibit the people is completely inappropriate. Ignoring the BOR, and later amendments, and passing legislation that contradicts them is also completely inappropriate. However, in the end, even if something shouldn’t be done, is supposed to be illegal to do, but is done and nobody stops it, well then I guess we’ve endorsed it in a way. By standing by and watching the AWB ban go into effect and just waiting for it to sunset we’ve legitimized what it was and we’ll have a less credible argument the next time there are enough anti-gun legislators who want to pass gun restrictions.

    Gameface
     
  10. AZRickD

    AZRickD Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,684
    I've never gotten an answer to this question when I post it to the antis.

    If the 2A protects the right of the state to have a militia (ie, National Guard), how, exactly could the Fed.gov violate the 2A.

    What if they decided to cut funding in half for the NG? Would that be a violation?

    What if the fed.gov decided to ship a state's NG out of state for several months so that that state would essentially be denied the protection of its NG?

    Perpich v US (the governor sued the DoD because its NG was sent to Central America for training), says such is not a violation.

    So, what is it?

    Rick
     
  11. Graystar

    Graystar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    1,756
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    King George III, fearing that war with the colonies was imminent, started a campaign of disarmament by confiscating the arms and ammunition stored in the armories.

    The states wanted assurance that the new federal government would not do to the states what the king tried to do to the colonies. The Second Amendment, like the other amendments of the Bill of Rights, was created to address this specific grievance.
     
  12. JPL

    JPL Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,479
    I'm rather surprised that no one has mentioned Title 10, section 311, to the US Code, which establishes the National Guard as a separate military entity. The National Guard is established under Title 32, USC.
     
  13. Reno

    Reno Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Location:
    Colorado
    You also need to remember that there's no such thing as a "collective right," only individual rights.

    The 9th amendment also lends support to the 2nd.
     
  14. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Because leftist extremists have a legal right to say whatever they'd like, even if it's patently false and completely stupid and ludicrously at odds with American law. They'll eviscerate the First Amendment after they're done with the Second.
     
  15. USAFNoDAk

    USAFNoDAk Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    486
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Also, if you look at the wording, the right is existing already, and the Second is saying that the right shall not be infringed. There is a court case which I cannot recall off of the top of my head, that states that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the Second Amendment, nor is it in any way dependent upon the Second Amendment for its (the right to keep and bear arms) existence.

    If the right didn't previously exist in the minds of the creators of the BOR, they would have said something more to the effect of;

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the people shall have a right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed".

    Instead, the founders merely stated that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, implying that the right was already there, as in a natural, God given, unalienable right.

    The anti gunners will not accept this fact it seems, even when pointed out in court cases. Instead, they cling to US vs. Miller and the fact that the USSC in that case stated that since the Second Amendment mentions the militia, it must be looked at with the militia in mind. However, that would seem to indicate that any arms which are suitable for service in the militia, would be necessarily protected by the Second Amendment. Then the antis will bait and switch to the old statement, "Well, the National Guard has now replaced the need for a militia, so the Second amendment pertains to the National Guard".

    Very sinister the Dark Side is.
     
  16. pinblaster

    pinblaster Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    190
    Location:
    Baltimoronland, MD
    It seems self explanitory to me , the people means the people . It doesn't say the people in the militia , national gaurd , people that are LEO's etc. , it says THE PEOPLE . Keep and bear , means keep and bear , it doesn't specify when , where , how or why . Shall not be infringed , if you don't understand this part look up "infringe" in the dictionary . As for the first part of the sentence , the second part makes it a moot point .
     
  17. Don't Tread On Me

    Don't Tread On Me Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,213
    Location:
    FLORIDA
    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"


    Think of this part as a "preamble" -- it sets up the Right as in why we have it - not HOW we should use it.


    It gives the idea. It can be translated perfectly like this:


    "A well prepared people, is necessary for securing the community/society" therefore "the right of the people to..."

    This is pretty much what they *mean* by it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page