It's all about Comma's

[Pancho]

I've just been reading the information about the all important legal actions going on in the Supreme Court about the 2nd amendment in D.C. The anti 2nd people are hanging their hopes on comma's! The way they read it(with the comma's) is that the 2nd says militias have the right to bear arms not the citizen. What really steams me and scares me is that the courts interpret words written 200+ years ago with present day eyes and brains. Can you imagine our 18th century forefathers allowing only a militia to have firearms? It was not only the regulars that won the war for independence it was also the sharpshooting woodsmen and farmers providing their own rifled firearms that contributed to the victory. I believe I have my history right when I state that the colonials were the first to promote that every person could own a firearm. They needed to own and become proficient with firearms for protection and protein. Europe on the other hand allowed only the military and the privileged to own firearms. This was to their detriment because our troops could out shoot theirs. COMMAS MY BUTT!

 

[Irwin]

What do you mean Europe only aloud there army and the privileged to own arms its was common in Britain atleast for everyone to bear arms also was it not alot of British vs British? As it was explained to me by my canadian english teacher so that means atleast it was partly the british army who tought them how to shoot? Am I compleatly wrong? Irwin

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

I've just been reading the information about the all important legal actions going on in the Supreme Court about the 2nd amendment in D.C. The anti 2nd people are hanging their hopes on comma's! The way they read it(with the comma's) is that the 2nd says militias have the right to bear arms not the citizen. What really steams me and scares me is that the courts interpret words written 200+ years ago with present day eyes and brains. Can you imagine our 18th century forefathers allowing only a militia to have firearms? It was not only the regulars that won the war for independence it was also the sharpshooting woodsmen and farmers providing their own rifled firearms that contributed to the victory. I believe I have my history right when I state that the colonials were the first to promote that every person could own a firearm. They needed to own and become proficient with firearms for protection and protein. Europe on the other hand allowed only the military and the privileged to own firearms. This was to their detriment because our troops could out shoot theirs. COMMAS MY BUTT!

I disagree. In this case it's all about periods.

 

[Geronimo45]

Yes. The deep, dark secret that's written on the back of the Bill of Rights (in invisible ink, only visible with 3-d shades and lemonade) is that the 2nd Amendment is simply acknowledging the right of the military to bear arms.

Our founders had seen how the French and British armies had been disarmed by their governments, and forced to go to war with cricket bats and tennis rackets (thus the British victories during the Napoleonic wars - cricket bats are a much better combat weapon).

 

[Bobo]

This is what it's all about...

http://www.saf.org/journal/4_Schulman.html

 

[Pancho]

Irwin, the common man in the colonies had the need not necessarily the right to own a firearm and developed the need for accuracy instead of the volley. The need became a right with the 2nd amendment. Stealth and accuracy brought home the protein in the 18th century in the colonies. The British would have done better to bring over their bowmen.

 

[El Tejon]

The right to arms has long and glorious (get it, historical pun, my mother would be so proud) roots in English soil. In the English Bill of Rights only two were individual rights, and their right to arms was one of them.

 

[jakemccoy]

...double...

 

[jakemccoy]

The right was already there before the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment merely recognized the right as being inalienable, meaning the right comes from God. The forefathers recognized that no man can take a right which God has given. The right to keep and bear arms transcends the Second Amendment itself. Those who attempt to disarm innocent people are acting not only against the forefathers, but also against God.

This previously posted article gives some good explanations...

http://www.saf.org/journal/4_Schulman.html

 

[Mot45acp]

"I disagree. In this case it's all about periods."

Paragraphs as well. Separate your thoughts in order to convey them to others.

 

[Standing Wolf]

It's all about Comma's

Plurals are never formed with apostrophes, and "comma" isn't now, never has been, nor ever will be a proper noun.

 

[Baldy518]

It is about the People!

If you read the other Amendments, they acknowledge the rights of the People, not the State, Militia or any other group. The Second Amendment logically should be assumed to pertain to the People, and not be singled out. The anti-gunners single out the second amendment, obviously, for their own gain.

 

[Jimmy Newman]

I find these threads very amusing.

Everyone says, essentially, "logic dictates that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms." Anyone who didn't say it agrees with it.

That's great. The people who are really anti-gun don't care. They just don't like guns and want them to disappear.

 

[Evenflo76]

I'm with Baldy. The brady folks are the ones concentrating on the word "Militia". They want the SCOTUS to define "Militia". Why isn't anyone paying attention to the second sentence and the word "People"

Edit: I stand corrected. This was found for me elsewhere

http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

Makes me optimistic

 

[frenchbushmaster]

Just a little point in French history about civilian with guns.

Before second world war every french civilians could buy and hown a war rifle, a revolver a semi-automatic pistol. This was easy. You bought the weapon without any paper, without any concern.
I invite you to try to found the MANUFRANCE CATALOGUE of the beguinning of the century. Very interesting.
This had changed just before the second world war in 1939.
Authority decided to create a national archive where all the weapon were register.
During the second world war the first think our "fu....g" governement give to the nazis is the list of the weapon of civilian people. Reason why the resistance was so hard to organised.

Some other government in nord europe country have destruct the list of civilian weapon before captor capture them.

The best problem for me is not the list.
It's what you want do with this list.
Before 1939 our constitution say : "every citizen could hown a gun completely freely".
After : "You could have a gun, but me governement I must know it. Because I could ask you every day to give back your weapon because I'm the new governement and I change the rule".
So I understand very well your point of view.
It's a bit strange for you a french guy say you this.
But an amendment could be change.
Warning my friends.
Piece by piece our anti friends try to abrogate our right.

Mick from France

 

[El Tejon]

"Do you have a copy of the French Constitution?"

"I am sorry, sir, we do not carry periodicals."

If amendments change, it does not change an inalienable right. Amendments give no rights; amendments merely recognize rights.

 

[Wopasaurus]

Well... if that becomes the case... Who wants to start a militia with me?

 

[frenchbushmaster]

EL Tejon :
I never think to search it.
But your right that could be interesting.
If I found it, I send you