School and the 2a

[LibShooter]

...The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

I never intended to imply the right to keep and bear arms was contingent on anything. The second clause is clear that the right "shall not be infringed." For any reason. If the US were the last nation on Earth and we somehow had eliminated every possible security threat both foreign and domestic, the Second Amendment would still guarantee the right to keep and bear arms.

However, that doesn't alter the fact that "security of a free state" is the reason the right to keep and bear is protected. If not, why did the founders put it right there in the Constitution?

 

[Ike R]

The word "people" in the bill of rights is interpreted to mean "all of the citizens of the United States" by Liberal extremist's in all instances EXCEPT the second ammendment ...in the second ammendment the word people mean the Armed Forces/ Public Services.

These same extremeists have worked for centurys to corrupt and in most cases erase the legacys of our founders. Its crazy how much of the constitution does not exist these days, in fact only one amendment does , the 14th. All of the other ammendments either do not exist (the 10th) or are regulated through the 14th ammendment (pretty much all of them) or have been undone by bills such as the patriot act (1st, 3rd, and 4th)

There can be No doubt as to the intent of the founders when they added The Right to Bear Arms on the list as Number 2, it is not about hunting, or plinking at the range, it is there so that the goverment knows that The People have a violent means of removeing them from office in the event that reasoning with them does not work. George Washington said it, Jefferson, Franklin...a slew of others stated this.

That is why the goverment wants to take our Right to Bear Arms away....they know what its there for, and they know that they are not doing thier jobs well at all.


I am glad that my Vote counted this election year, I have hopes for many of the new congressmen and senators elected. Hopefully we can get some of those rights back.

 

[youngda9]

However, that doesn't alter the fact that "security of a free state" is the reason the right to keep and bear is protected. If not, why did the founders put it right there in the Constitution?

I suggest you re-read my link in post #50 if you haven't already. It's all broken down and explained quite nicely.

 

[Nushif]

You do know they're just arguing with you because of your name now, right?!

 

[LibShooter]

To re-quote Copperud's purple prose... I absolutely agree with his main point:

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

However, I found nothing in Copperud's comments to refute the fact that the Second Amendment is ABOUT security. It's the reason the founders wanted to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. They say it clearly in ink and parchment right there in the first clause of the amendment. (I do disagree with Copperud's conclusion that the first half of the Second Amendment is a participle phrase. It's clearly a subordinate clause. "Militia" is the subject, "Being" is the verb. "Necessary" is a predicate adjective. But that's all beside the point.)

That's not to say the right to keep and bear arms is in any way dependent on the task of providing security. The right exists in times of war and peace and everything in between.

Here's an analogy. I was replacing the front axles on my Honda. To remove those big nuts in the middle of the hubs, I needed a 36mm socket and big breaker bar. That job was the REASON I bought those tools. Now that the axles are replaced, the socket and bar still exist. They're still sitting in my toolbox ready for their original purpose... OR ANY OTHER.

Likewise, the founders wrote the protection of the right to keep and bear arms into the Constitution BECAUSE they wanted a well equipped and practiced militia ready to respond to threats to the security of a free state. We have to admit that reason is less pressing today than it was in 1789. But that doesn't matter. The right to keep and bear arms still absolutely exists. RKBA is sitting in the toolbox ready for other tasks (home protection, self defense, killing Bambi's mom).

You do know they're just arguing with you because of your name now, right?!

Yep. That's half the fun.

 

[awgrizzly]

One can say it's about security, but one needs to identify "it". In this case the it is not our right to keep and bear arms, it is the inability for the government to restrict this right. The right exists naturally, and the purpose can be any reason a person may have. So one cannot say that since we arguably no longer have militias, the right is obsolete. That's pretty much what you've been saying LibShooter. This just may go to explain why folks are arguing the point.

More to the point of this thread, I checked the definition of "infringe":

Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on ~ Webster

Then the definition of "encroach":

to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another ~ Webster

So infringe does not just mean a ban, but a limitation. Thus "arms" could include automatic and other advanced weapons. I suppose it would be a matter of social agreement where to draw the line, or just practicality. It sure would be neat to own an F16 though.

(BTW, our founding fathers were liberals.)

 

[Dokkalfar]

The Second Amendment is about, and only about the security of a free state.

actually, here is a much better way of wording it:

The Second Amendment is about, and only about, the security of a state of freedom.



Also, what awgrizzly said. And, to compound on that, think about this: When the nation was founded, who owned the 'navy'? Private companies. I have no clue on actual statistics, but I would think that the large majority of naval firepower was owned by shipping/trading companies on their privately-owned cargo vessels.

Where do letters of marque come from? The government authorizing private vessels to essentially wage war on the government's behalf. Back in those days, the government barely even owned weapons. Maybe some cannon, but most personal arms were personally owned.

So, why would the second amendment be designed around a citizenry which owned more, bigger, and better arms than the government itself, but now only applies to small calibers and semi-autos?

(BTW, our founding fathers were liberals.)

Back then. Today, they'd be considered reactionaries. liberal, conservative, etc descriptions are relative to the status quo.

 

[LibShooter]

...actually, here is a much better way of wording it:

The Second Amendment is about, and only about, the security of a state of freedom.

Maybe so... but that's not how The Constitution words it.

 

[One-Time]

the 2A clearly states we have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed, and only enumerates a pre existing right and doesnt grant us anything

Thats the only way the 2A should be taught

 

[TexasBill]

To anyone who ever had to learn English grammar, the wording of the Second Amendment is crystal-clear. To anyone who has ever researched what went on behind the scenes in the incorporation of the Second Amendment, there can be no doubt as to its intent.

The Second Amendment does not confer a right based on the need for a militia, well-organized or not. The Framers of the Constitution clearly believed right to keep and bear arms existed before the founding of the United States and they enjoined the government from ever infringing on that right. They believed the people were the backbone of the nation's defense and that was an adequate reason for affirming that pre-existing right. It was never the only reason, because the right existed before the need for a militia was identified.

 

[2ndAmFan]

Stuff like what the OP posted is why I discuss history and the Constitution at home with my kids. My youngest daughter came home from school one day and announced that guns are bad, only bad people have them, and I needed to get rid of mine. She said her teacher had told the class that. I hope they fired that teacher and she moved to someplace with good gun control so it's safe. Maybe Mexico. After I told her a bit about the 2nd Amendment and took her target shooting with me and let her blow up a few soda cans filled with water with a 10/22 she decided her teacher was wrong. I can't hardly go target shooting without taking her along anymore. She's a pretty good rifle shot too.