The Wording of the 2nd Amendment...I wish it was different
- Thread starter StrikeFire83
- Start date
- Status
oneounceload
member
Sorry felons are still citizens
Yes we can when we vote - the correct President and Legislators can ensure a proper SCOTUS
Birch Knoll
Member
So?
If the choice is between keeping guns from felons or preserving the citizen's right to keep and bear arms, then I'm more than willing to let felons have guns. It's not like we're very successful keeping bad guys from getting guns anyway.
SouthernBoy
Member
All of the Bill of Rights is fine and correct in its English language use. The problem arises with the concept of interpretation. If one is if a mind, one can read pretty much anything into some text, or interpretively remove it should that be their goal. The Founders knew exactly what they were saying and why, and for us or anyone in contemporary America to try to second guess them or question their meaning is vane arrogance in the extreme.
The perfection of the Second Amendment is its directness and simplicity. Leave it as it is and we will be fine. Then just make sure to vote the bastards out, or get rid of them by impeachment and once again, we might lay claim to the Original Intent.
The perfection of the Second Amendment is its directness and simplicity. Leave it as it is and we will be fine. Then just make sure to vote the bastards out, or get rid of them by impeachment and once again, we might lay claim to the Original Intent.
Last edited:
RNB65
Member
Yes. The introductory clause is totally unnecessary and creates the ambiguity that empowers the Brady Bunch and other gun control groups.
It's always been crystal clear to me.
It's also clear to some folks that regularly make the rounds lobbying for more gun control and arguing for the 'collective' right-they're not stupid, they know it means what it says-they just hope the folks they're trying to con are gullible and lack reading/comprehension skills.
Here's one that at least had the honesty to 'fess up' after DC vs. Heller (he regularly made the rounds preaching gun control):
The big problem, for me, is the clarity of the Second Amendment's guarantee of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." The traditional argument in favor of gun control has been that this is a collective right, accorded to state militias. This has always struck me as a real stretch, if not a total dodge.
I've never been able to understand why the Founders would stick a collective right into the middle of the greatest charter of individual rights and freedoms ever written -- and give it such pride of place -- the No. 2 position, right behind such bedrock freedoms as speech and religion.
'Course, he's now wrong on the "deadly consequences" of the ruling as well as believing The Constitution is a living document, or is he now simply trying to hoodwink the public on those two points as he previously was on the 2nd?
ALSO (italics mine)
From Professor Nelson Lund of George Mason University-perhaps our foremost Constitutional scholar on the Second Amendment.
Below is taken from the link-in the "The Original Meaning of the Second Amendment" section of his article.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wm1851.cfm
The text of the Second Amendment does not imply that the right to arms is confined in any way to militia-related purposes. The most significant grammatical feature of the Second Amendment is that its preamble ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...") is an absolute phrase. Such constructions are grammatically independent of the rest of the sentence and do not qualify any word in the operative clause to which they are appended. The usual function of absolute constructions is to convey some information about the circumstances surrounding the statement in the main clause.
Another very significant grammatical feature of the Second Amendment is that the operative clause ("...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed") is a command. Because nothing in that command is grammatically qualified by the prefatory assertion, the operative clause has the same meaning that it would have had if the preamble had been omitted or even if the preamble were demonstrably false.
Consider a simple example. Suppose that a college dean announces: "The teacher being ill, class is cancelled." Nothing about the dean's prefatory statement, including its truth or falsity, can qualify or modify the operative command. If the teacher called in sick to watch a ball game, the cancellation of the class remains unaffected. If someone misunderstood a phone message and inadvertently misled the dean into thinking the teacher would be absent, the dean's order is not thereby modified.
It's also clear to some folks that regularly make the rounds lobbying for more gun control and arguing for the 'collective' right-they're not stupid, they know it means what it says-they just hope the folks they're trying to con are gullible and lack reading/comprehension skills.
Here's one that at least had the honesty to 'fess up' after DC vs. Heller (he regularly made the rounds preaching gun control):
The big problem, for me, is the clarity of the Second Amendment's guarantee of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." The traditional argument in favor of gun control has been that this is a collective right, accorded to state militias. This has always struck me as a real stretch, if not a total dodge.
I've never been able to understand why the Founders would stick a collective right into the middle of the greatest charter of individual rights and freedoms ever written -- and give it such pride of place -- the No. 2 position, right behind such bedrock freedoms as speech and religion.
'Course, he's now wrong on the "deadly consequences" of the ruling as well as believing The Constitution is a living document, or is he now simply trying to hoodwink the public on those two points as he previously was on the 2nd?
ALSO (italics mine)
From Professor Nelson Lund of George Mason University-perhaps our foremost Constitutional scholar on the Second Amendment.
Below is taken from the link-in the "The Original Meaning of the Second Amendment" section of his article.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wm1851.cfm
The text of the Second Amendment does not imply that the right to arms is confined in any way to militia-related purposes. The most significant grammatical feature of the Second Amendment is that its preamble ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...") is an absolute phrase. Such constructions are grammatically independent of the rest of the sentence and do not qualify any word in the operative clause to which they are appended. The usual function of absolute constructions is to convey some information about the circumstances surrounding the statement in the main clause.
Another very significant grammatical feature of the Second Amendment is that the operative clause ("...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed") is a command. Because nothing in that command is grammatically qualified by the prefatory assertion, the operative clause has the same meaning that it would have had if the preamble had been omitted or even if the preamble were demonstrably false.
Consider a simple example. Suppose that a college dean announces: "The teacher being ill, class is cancelled." Nothing about the dean's prefatory statement, including its truth or falsity, can qualify or modify the operative command. If the teacher called in sick to watch a ball game, the cancellation of the class remains unaffected. If someone misunderstood a phone message and inadvertently misled the dean into thinking the teacher would be absent, the dean's order is not thereby modified.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
According to the Constitution no person shall be denied their rights without due process. Convicted fellons have been given due process and found guilty. They can not vote either
SouthernBoy
Member
There is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that says, "no person shall be denied their rights without due process". However, in Amendment Five in the Bill or Rights, there is this statement; "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Perhaps this is what you were referring to.
Last edited:
gbw
Member
As usual Mr. Fiddletown pretty much nails it.
In the end it's a political decision more than a legal one. The words in the amendment aren't too important; it's up to us to steer the political will of the majority. We do that through our actions and words - as gun owners we talk and act always in ways that show the right to own and bear guns is a net benefit to the non-interested majority. Because for them it's a close call.
If we don't, there is no need to repeal. It won't be long 'til enough people who aren't particularly interested in guns will decide that the amendment is satisfied if we are allowed to own one single shot .22 rifle and one cartridge for it after a year's training. And if they do, it is.
In the end it's a political decision more than a legal one. The words in the amendment aren't too important; it's up to us to steer the political will of the majority. We do that through our actions and words - as gun owners we talk and act always in ways that show the right to own and bear guns is a net benefit to the non-interested majority. Because for them it's a close call.
If we don't, there is no need to repeal. It won't be long 'til enough people who aren't particularly interested in guns will decide that the amendment is satisfied if we are allowed to own one single shot .22 rifle and one cartridge for it after a year's training. And if they do, it is.
Last edited:
Carl N. Brown
Member
The stance of anti-gunners from 1960s Madison Avenue ad exec Carl Bakal ("No Right to Bear Arms") to the 2000 Carl T. Bogus symposium (The Second Amendment in Law and History 2001, Carl T. Bogus, Michael A. Bellesiles) has been to pretend that if they keep saying "collective right" nobody will bother to read the founding fathers, the Federalist papers, or the majority of state RKBA clauses and academic articles which support the individual right view aka the Standard Model.
A few admitted liberal gun control advocates will admit that the Standard Model interpretation is correct:
John R. MacArthur, "My compromise in the gun debate", The Providence Journal, July 5, 2000, (c) 1999 Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-157407123.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63162862.html
The author, publisher at Harper's Magazine NYC, visited my hometown during a gun show at the convention center. His op-ed (by "a visiting Northerner ... one with liberal beliefs and a fervent commitment to gun control") was reprinted in the local paper as "A Northerner's fear and loathing in Kingsport". He admits that "The Second Amendment (which even liberal anti-gun legal scholars will concede really means what it says) isn't likely ever to be repealed."
A few admitted liberal gun control advocates will admit that the Standard Model interpretation is correct:
John R. MacArthur, "My compromise in the gun debate", The Providence Journal, July 5, 2000, (c) 1999 Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-157407123.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63162862.html
The author, publisher at Harper's Magazine NYC, visited my hometown during a gun show at the convention center. His op-ed (by "a visiting Northerner ... one with liberal beliefs and a fervent commitment to gun control") was reprinted in the local paper as "A Northerner's fear and loathing in Kingsport". He admits that "The Second Amendment (which even liberal anti-gun legal scholars will concede really means what it says) isn't likely ever to be repealed."
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Just FYI a few posts have been deleted from this thread so it may look odd.
SouthernBoy
Member
I have an original copy of the paperback edition of "No Right to Bear Arms". In the first few pages, a suicide is mentioned that took place in the early hours of November 22, 1963. This incident was about two miles from where I lived and I was awakened by the sirens responding to this suicide in the wee hours of that morning. We all know what happened later that day.
FourTeeFive
Member
Most of the antis seem to focus on the "well regulated militia" part of it.
yes, and that is a desperate attempt to find holes.....
..they conveniently leave out any mention "the right of the PEOPLE......"
anyone with 2 neurons to rub together can figure out what the 2A means, and how our founding fathers meant it to interpreted.....people just like to skew the interpretation because it doesnt agree with their political beliefs.
FourTeeFive
Member
So what IS the best explanation of the founding fathers meaning of the "well regulated militia"? I haven't researched it.
I don’t know that I’ve ever heard it interpreted it this way, but years ago when I read the 2nd, I kinda assumed the first part was put in there to acknowledge the militia etc was needed to defend the country, but that being said, the right of the people…
I figured way back then they probably had folks arguing if you want to be armed, join the militia etc?
Flash forward a few hundred years and you have both General Wesley Clark and one of Hitler’s propaganda boys stating pretty much the same thing (I’m paraphrasing)-you want a gun, join the military!
(can't lay my hands on the reference, but I've seen the almost identical comments supposedly said by both Clark and Goebbels?)
I always thought the 2nd may have been written as is as there were probably folks back then that thought as Clark and Joseph Goebbels?, and probably made comments similar to theirs.
To me, the first part of the 2nd may have been thrown in there to derail the two aforementioned (and others) from arguing we’re not denying you the right to keep and bear arms-all ya gotta do is join the militia/military!
I figured way back then they probably had folks arguing if you want to be armed, join the militia etc?
Flash forward a few hundred years and you have both General Wesley Clark and one of Hitler’s propaganda boys stating pretty much the same thing (I’m paraphrasing)-you want a gun, join the military!
(can't lay my hands on the reference, but I've seen the almost identical comments supposedly said by both Clark and Goebbels?)
I always thought the 2nd may have been written as is as there were probably folks back then that thought as Clark and Joseph Goebbels?, and probably made comments similar to theirs.
To me, the first part of the 2nd may have been thrown in there to derail the two aforementioned (and others) from arguing we’re not denying you the right to keep and bear arms-all ya gotta do is join the militia/military!
Romeo 33 Delta
Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2011
- Messages
- 402
I always taunt liberal, anti-gunners with:
1. Identify the subject of the sentence.
2. Identify the object of the sentence.
The English language and its rules of grammar, when properly applied, make understanding the sentence quite clear!
1. Identify the subject of the sentence.
2. Identify the object of the sentence.
The English language and its rules of grammar, when properly applied, make understanding the sentence quite clear!
Soldier415
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 45
This thread prompted me to post an article I had saved giving a breakdown of the 2nd Amendment and its wording. All gun owners/2A supporters should read this and share the link far and wide, especially to anti-gun types to drop some logic on them.
A Breakdown of the 2nd Amendment
A Breakdown of the 2nd Amendment
ConstitutionCowboy
member
TexasRifleman said:
Precisely.
Woody
SouthernBoy
Member
In the late 18th century, the word "regulated" as used in the Second Amendment meant, "to keep and make regular". [source: Judge Napolitano]
Therefore, one would say that a militia at the time was to be kept and made regular which one could also infer to maintain a militia and have it ready to be called up for service on a moment's notice.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
The Second Amendment also assures there will be a sufficiently armed and proficient populace to draw from when Congress needs to exercise its power in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15. There are several states where the laws of those states are antithetical to that need.
Woody
Woody
Bobson
Member
People put far too much emphasis on the second amendment. The diction itself is irrelevant.
Yes, the second amendment gives us the right to own guns, but we've been able to maintain that right for this long, despite the "antis," because we've been able to convince people that we should/must/can own them. Even if the supreme court were to formally decide that the second amendment really does refer to an official military (and they've already decided that it does not), a 28th amendment would be added granting all citizens the right to private ownership of firearms. At that point, antis would be combating the 28th amendment and it's implementation.
The second amendment is just that - an amendment (or change/update) to the Constitution. Any amendment can be removed from the Constitution if enough people believe that it should be, just like new amendments can be (and have been) added to it. Our laws aren't eternally etched into stone. Anything Constitutional can become unconstitutional, and vice-versa. The fact that so many people lean on the Constitution with the gun debate is just setting us up for failure down the road. Learn to lean on logic instead.
It would be ridiculously foolish and just plain stupid for Americans to give up our right to own guns, and it would be a mistake for our government to try and confiscate the ones we already have.
Yes, the second amendment gives us the right to own guns, but we've been able to maintain that right for this long, despite the "antis," because we've been able to convince people that we should/must/can own them. Even if the supreme court were to formally decide that the second amendment really does refer to an official military (and they've already decided that it does not), a 28th amendment would be added granting all citizens the right to private ownership of firearms. At that point, antis would be combating the 28th amendment and it's implementation.
The second amendment is just that - an amendment (or change/update) to the Constitution. Any amendment can be removed from the Constitution if enough people believe that it should be, just like new amendments can be (and have been) added to it. Our laws aren't eternally etched into stone. Anything Constitutional can become unconstitutional, and vice-versa. The fact that so many people lean on the Constitution with the gun debate is just setting us up for failure down the road. Learn to lean on logic instead.
It would be ridiculously foolish and just plain stupid for Americans to give up our right to own guns, and it would be a mistake for our government to try and confiscate the ones we already have.
- Status
