2nd Amnd. question?

[SamlautRanger]

Ok, just curious how this is read. "A well regulated militia, being neccessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

How does one reply to liberals who read into this that the right to bear arms is suppose to be regulated and ony pertains to a regulated militia or a paramilitary organization.

It seems to say, that a militia needs to be regulated and neccessary. So is this how the liberal lawyers and judges will tear this apart - that if you are not a member of a government sanctioned militia, military reserve unit or police force then you do not have the right to own a weapon.

Believe me, I fully support and believe in the right to own firearms and to be able to carry anywhere. But, how do we argue against the "militia" part of this and the "regulated" part of this.

Thanks.

 

[MAKOwner]

It's pretty simple, it doesn't say anything about that "well regulated militia" or "free state" having the right to keep and bear arms... It states the reasoning behind it, and then acknowledges a right of "the people"...

And it specifically states that right of the people, and while mentioning them, it says nothing about limiting it to the well regulated militia (which IMO well regulated means well equipped/trained by the way, not regulated as in bogged down in PC laws and red tape...) or to the state government. If such a limitation had been intended it would say something about the people having said right in accordance with official state militia duties only, etc. Or it would leave out "the people" and say something about the state governments having a right to bear arms, etc. It says no such thing... They didn't just throw "the people" in there for nothing...


Then people try to argue the collective vs individual right of "the people". I say that's a crock, either way for it to be collective or individual a single citizen needs to be able to keep and bear arms or it's pointless...

I think when you get down to it most of the anti-gunners know exactly what the 2nd Amendment means as well, they just don't like it and do their best to muddy the waters and get what restrictions they can around it. They know they have about zero chance of getting it repealed outright... As for your average person who doesn't feel strongly about it either way I doubt they've actually read the thing in 10 years and frankly should probably shut up about what it does or doesn't say...

 

[critter]

"the right of the PEOPLE---"

Now, go and read the preamble to the constitution, and the entire bill of rights. Underline the word 'people' every time you see it and note number of times you see that word "PEOPLE".

In EVERY ONE of the other cases, "PEOPLE" means 'people'. Why in the world would it mean anything else only in the 2nd ammendment?????

 

[shermacman]

Ditto critter and MAKOwner.

Also, the words "well regulated" mean something different in today's Nanny State. The Left-wing, lunatic, Liberals have changed the definition to include "that which is controlled by the Nanny" or "Anything not specifically approved shall be illegal."

"Well Regulated" in the 1700's meant your wood stock was well oiled, your barrel free of rust, dry powder, carefully moulded lead bullets, new, sharp flint. When the Constitution was written, "well regulated" meant that the things you used, the tools that your life depended on, the equipment that your family relied on, worked.

We have come a long way from freedom, independence and citizenship; when our lives and belongings were "well regulated". Today we beg The Nanny to take our paycheck in return for a Socialist fantasy of being cared for.

 

[El Tejon]

"The people" means individuals, just as in all of the BoR as the Supremes have held. The militia clause is dependent upon the right of the people. The militia springs forth from the people.

The authority to raise a military and police force is not derived from the Second Amendment, but in another section of the Consitution.

The Supreme Court has held that the National Guard is part of the federal army and not "the militia". Federal law defines the militia as all males 17 to 45. "Well regulated" in the terminology of the day means "well trained and equipped."

I can give cites if you want to get technical.

 

[GRB]

Remember that the second amendment does not convey the right to keep and bear arms to the people nor does it even simply ennunciate said right. What it does is say that said right shall not be infringed because of a need for a well regulated Militia. This would then seem to me to indicate that even because of things like national security issues you could not infringe on that right - especially since it was in place to allow for the overthrow of the government if need be. Imagine that, a government soconcerned with the welfare of her citizens, that it allowed the people the power to overthrow the government. Not the way it is today, because our right to keep and bear arms has been not merely infringed upon but trampled upon.

Best regards,
Glenn B

 

[Redneck Revolver]

if you want to get technical the militia part is known as a justification clause, while the "right of the people..." part i known as the rights clause. justification clause does not modify, restric, or deny, the rights clause. that pretty much sums it up. further more you have to consider that other rights, such as the first amendment, used the word abriged, instead of infringe. the differance may seem minor but this is not the case. IMO it means that there are SOME (read: practical) limitations to the rights guarentted in the first amendment but no such leeway exists within the second.

 

[Soap]

In addition, simple logic tells us that every Amendment in the BOR is an individual one. No one every argues that Amendments I and III-X are not individual. So why would one out of ten Amendments refer to a government right?

 

[mack69]

Good job all...I really like it when posts about RKBA and 2A come up...if only more citizens would read and understand our BoR and Constitution we would be a better nation. As I see it, I'd be willing to bet that the majority have never even read them through once let alone make any attempt to understand them and the language used to create them. To me, the language is plain as the nose on my face. But you have to figure....most folk read things as they want them to be...Take the Bible for instance...can't just read one sentence or verse, you need to read the whole passage...
Also, seeing posts like this one help keep it center stage for us...Somethingnthat good bears and needs repeating. And I agree, you need to understand the language of the time period when our forefathers wrote it.

 

[rwc]

It is also worth noting that many state constitutions (particularly in the Western US) make it explicit that it is an individual right.

 

[Old Fuff]

The anti-gunners say that the “Militia†referred to is today’s National Guard and/or Military Reserves. They can be quickly counter by telling them to look at the following link:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Title 10 is part of the USC or “United States Code†(In other words, a federal law). Notice that the Militia is comprised of ALL able-bodied males at least 17 years old, and under 45. Also females who are members of the National Guard.

It is not unusual to find that the anti-gun person you are talking to falls within this gender and age group, and they usually throw a tizzy …


I agree with those that say the founding fathers did not want to restrict small-arms ownership in any way – they left plenty of written evidence of this. But since the above is “the law†it’s a good place to start.

 

[Baba Louie]

Amendment II
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.

In order to have and hold onto our God given, inalienable freedoms, an armed and well trained group of citizens, hereinafter known as "Militia", have the obligation and right to keep and bear arms, upon which Congress shall never infringe.

40 words as opposed to the original 27. The Founding Fathers brevity only confuses those who wish to cloud the issue and disarm the "people"... and these persons are not really confused, just pushing a different agenda from the F.F.'s... which is why the words were written and included in the Bill of Rights in the first place.

 

[pax]

SamlautRanger ~

I take the argument presented in the following quote and run with it:

"A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed." I would ask you to try to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted ones at that. – Bruce Tiemann

Or similarly:

A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed. Would anyone argue that this means that only people who are actively enrolled public school students should be allowed to own books?

Or else I just look at them blankly and say with some sarcasm, "Are you telling me we have a constitutional amendment just to say that the government may have weapons?? Wow..."

More answers on an old thread found at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=99425

pax

 

[Tom Servo]

The grammar is a bit outdated, but in modern terms, it would read: Amendment II
As a well prepared Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The militia here means "the people," which, as the courts have found, refers to individuals. Everywhere else in the BOR, "the people" refers to individuals. The 2A is no exception. It is not about "community" rights. There are only individual rights and government rights. "Community" is not defined by the law.

"Well regulated" simply means well-prepared. In the 18th century, free men were expected to have a gun and ammo ready to defend their country at all times. In fact, the term Minutemen referred to folks who would be able to respond to a threat in sixty seconds.

The argument that the 2A refers to the Nat'l Guard is also fallacious. The Nat'l Guard wasn't founded until almost 60 years after the BOA was written, and falls under Congress' ability to raise limited standing armies as deliniated in the main body of the Constitution. Why would a clause granting the government power be embedded in a document otherwise devoted to defining individual rights, anyway?

The 2nd Amendment was written for two reasons: 1) to make sure that, in the absence of standing armies, individuals could organize to provide for the common defense, and 2) so that, if the Rule of Law failed, citizens could hold the government accountable through force.

The official opinion of the DOJ can be found here.

 

[Baba Louie]

Re: Erik F's link referring to Ashcroft's recent DOJ interpretation... If I recall correctly, Clinton's AG (Reno) had her boys singing a different tune back during the Emerson case and perhaps our next Administration's DOJ will be back to singing same sad tune.

I suppose we'll never get a SCOTUS ruling on it in clear cut concise English utilizing the intent the original framers had on the issue, now that we're supposed to incorporate other Foreign thought process in all of our SCOTUS judicial rulings (sigh)

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/3/82551.shtml
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html (read bottom paragraph)

We ALL know what it (2nd Amend) says and what it means, WHY it was included and WHY it is worth fighting for. WE being the Great Unwashed Common Man who does not fear our enemy, being armed and all. But then again, we ALL have probably read Animal Farm and 1984 too, know our history and have looked at the world around us, wondering why we're all alone.

"Freedom's just another word for nuthin' left to lose"
"A Republic, Madam. If you can keep it."

 

[Mauserguy]

Notice that it doesn't state that the militia shall be regulated by the state. One could read it that an organization of citizens in good community standing would qualify, just like the militia that met the red coats at Lexington. Frankly, if you apply the standards of the 18th century, most gun clubs and church groups with gun owners in the membership would qualify as well regulated militias.
Mauserguy

 

[another okie]

It doesn't say the right should be well-regulated, it says the militia should be well-regulated.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

if you want to get technical the militia part is known as a justification clause, while the "right of the people..." part i known as the rights clause. justification clause does not modify, restric, or deny, the rights clause. that pretty much sums it up.

In essence, the justification clause is the "preamble" for that particular amendment. It explains why they enacted it, but it isn't really a functional part of the amendment itself.

Speaking of the militia act, I vaguely recall reading a very old version with an upper age limit of 60 years for males. Is the current limit of 45 a change? If so, when and why?

 

[Freedspeak]

Here is an interesting gramatical breakdown on it!

 

[Aguila Blanca]

In order to have and hold onto our God given, inalienable freedoms, an armed and well trained group of citizens, hereinafter known as "Militia", have the obligation and right to keep and bear arms, upon which Congress shall never infringe.

Be careful when you start playing. The way you rewrote it, you have said that only the militia has the right to keep and bear arms. And the militia has been defined in the US Code as excluding anyone over the age of 45 ... which would then leave me without a right to keep or bear arms under your revision.

Truncate your version: "In order ..., people who are in the militia have the obligation and right to keep and bear arms." What about the people who are NOT in the militia (including women in a great many different categories)?

I'll stick to the original, thank you.

 

[q102josh]

when the constitution was originally drafted, the intent of the second ammendment was to prevent the government from overstepping the bounds of democracy and becoming an oppressive tyrany... if it somehow did, citizens would have firearms as a means to fight this oppressive tyranical government, and they'd be well within their rights. obviously they didn't have muggings and drivebys back in the 1790's, but now in 2005, the scope of the second ammendment is broadened... it includes guns as a means of self defense as well as a militia. but nowadays its more for self defense than anything else. self defense is just as much of a god-given right as freedom of speech, and other constitutional rights.

 

[Old Fuff]

Hawkmoon:

That part about women can be funny. One time I got into an argument/debate with a very liberal anti-gun female. She was expounding about the "Militia isn't the people, its the National Guard" until I pulled Title 10 on her and pointed out that under my interpretation women had the same rights as men (e.g. individual right interpretation) while under Title 10 women were cut out unless they were part of the National Guard.

Of course she blew a fuse ...

 

[Waitone]

When the BoR was written the Americans had just endured 8+ years of armed combat fought in the main by militia. One would have to stretch one's mind to think these same people would craft a document which would specifically exclude the means of participation that they had just enjoyed.

Besides that, The British headed to Concord and Lexington to confiscate firearms and ammunition of militia.

 

[svtruth]

Rkba

Does anyone think that if a few citizens on the airplanes used in the terrorist attacks had been carrying that the world trade towers might still be standing?

 

[Kamicosmos]

To answer the thread, I always respond with: Who makes up the Milita? The People, right? If they persist about it meaning the Military or something else, I ask Who makes up the Military? The People right? Or do you think the people in the Military have more rights than you and I?

Does anyone think that if a few citizens on the airplanes used in the terrorist attacks had been carrying that the world trade towers might still be standing?

Thread Drift Alert, Will Robinson! Thread Drift Alert! But to answer that, I would hope that armed citizens would have prevented 911. Perhaps they did defeat the terrorists on Flight 91.