When do we use the 2nd Amendment

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Mirriam Webster: "bear arms" (under the heading of bear

4 a. BEAR ARMS

1: to carry or possess arms

2: to serve as a soldier​

Interesting. None of these definitions say to actually fight, kill, maim, destroy, engage in war, or whatever.


Collins English Dictionary: "bear arms"(under the heading of arms

4.BEAR ARMS

a. to carry weapons

b. to serve in the armed forces

c. to have a coat of arms​

5. IN OR UNDER ARMS armed and prepared for war

8. TAKE (UP) ARMS to prepare to fight

9. TO ARMS! arm yourselves!​

Interesting. None of these definitions say to actually fight, kill, maim, destroy, engage in war, or whatever.

American Declaration of Independence: "He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands."

If these conscripts were ordered to bear arms against their country, why was it necessary for it to be mentioned that they "become the executioners of their friends and brethren" if it was understood that to bear arms meant to actually engage in war and use those arms? Simple answer: "bear arms" doesn't mean to actually use them. You bring them to bear, then you use them.

A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities... Vol 2 (1880): "...in answering the question of Celsus why Christians do not bear arms and bring help to the emperor, admits the fact that they were unwilling to take up arms and slay men..."

Again, we either have redundancy or "take up arms" and "slay men" don't mean the same thing.

Sorry, Ed. I'm not buying your bent interpretations, because there is this:

Oxford English Dictionary: ""to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," Circa 1330

Hmm, that's curious. The printing press wasn't invented for over a hundred years. And the first Oxford English Dictionary didn't come to be until 1928. In my searching, I can't find where it says what you've posted here: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," in any dictionary - least ways one easy to find on the Internet. When I google it, I do find that one line on Wikipedia, and I've found where it is referenced in DC v. Heller. And it seems that that is supposed to be some form of idiomatic definition of the phrase "bear arms". Maybe so. But when you take the ENTIRE phrase in the Second Amendment into context, it includes "Keep". There is no way you can make "keep" mean anything like going to war, fighting, to serve as a soldier, or do military service. The entire phrase taken into context negates any idiomatic definition of "bear arms" to mean, "to serve as a soldier, do military service, or fight".

When you take "keep" into account, you can both keep arms at home and keep arms with you - yes, Virginia, "bear arms".

Now I know right where you stand. It's not with the people, it's with folks like Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

Conversation terminated.

Woody

 

[Ed Ames]

The printing press wasn't invented for over a hundred years. And the first Oxford English Dictionary didn't come to be until 1928.

Circa 1330 as in that's the first known references, not "that's when the dictionary was written". Yikes! Read up on etymology to see why that's important.

You are very much mistaken as to where I stand...and about a lot of other things. I think I've made it clear that I believe in, and stand for, a total view of the 2nd. In other words, that it acknowledges that we, me, you, and everybody has a named right to keep and bear arms of all types (military and recreational). Where you and I part is that you, for political reasons, think that the 2nd does not also include the right for you to form a militia, where I think the founders would find that bizarre. Of course you have the right to bear arms in the military sense. So do I. It's an individual right protected by the 2nd. You just don't like it because you want to justify Ruby Ridge/Branch Davidian style applications of force by government against "private militias".

I think it's telling that you, when presented with someone who wants true freedom, instantly start looking for loopholes and throwing insults.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If your arguments matched your claimed stand, I'd believe you.

I'll take no more bait.

Woody

 

[Ed Ames]

You dislike my argument because you have trapped yourself into thinking that you must break "bear arms" into "bear" in order to be pro-individual-RKBA. You were suckered into thinking that by people who wanted to be able to attack private (civilian) militia groups despite their clear protection under the 2nd. You bought into their arguments so hard that you can't accept that others can parse things differently and reach similar, but in fact broader (acknowledging more personal rights), conclusions.

That would be fine. However, you then make the mistake of claiming that, because you don't agree with how I get to my conclusions, I must in fact be your enemy.

That's just stupid. Sorry.

 

[stroked250]

I know I use the Second Amendment every day when I put my 1911 into my IWB before I go about my day!

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=501873

When these people do something.......

 

[jhco50]

The 2nd amendment recognizes the God given right to keep and bear arms. And YES, it is God given, as are the rights of freedom of speech, of religion, of assembly, etc. No God given right can be GRANTED by government/men OR taken away. The left has worked for decades to disarm the American people because it is both very difficult AND very dangerous to attempt to enslave and armed citizenry. The amendment was specifically included in our Constitution for the purpose of making sure the PEOPLE had the means to defend the nation from attack AND defend their rights against a criminal/tyrannical state. The left will eventually overturn our right to keep and bear arms, probably by indirect means. These are people who cannot help themselves. On that day, we'll know if the US is meant to continue on by the number of actual Americans who take up arms and march on DC.

Oldpuppymax is absolutely correct. You fellas are disecting the 2A just like the Liberals like to do. We haven't lost the original intent and if you guys will read the letters the original founders wrote back and forth, you would see their intent for yourselves. When it is time for us to stand up to tyrany, you will still be discussing the meaning of bear arms.

 

[stroked250]

scary vid...

 

[RC45]

If the framers of the constitution did not intend for people to have keep their arms and be permitted to use them, why even mention them at all?

If all they meant was you could keep your arms and carry them to your cousins farm, why not just say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear plowshares shall not be infringed" rather than "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"?

After all. what good are arms if you may not use them? There is no more security in arms that may not be used than there is in carting a plowshare around.

I believe, that to think the 2nd Amendment means anything less than, the people may keep weapons that they might at times need to bring to bear against a tyrannical government and recall the legislature, is nothing short of a dismissal of the very core founding principals of this nation.

It seems the common misconception is that if, we the people, have to resort to an armed recall of the government it is an indicator that the Great American Experiment has failed, but I believe that will be the very proof that the Great American Experiment has worked as it was designed to.

Remember, such an action would not be a "revolution that overturns the government and replaces it", but rather an excercise in returning the government to the correct path as envisioned by the founding fathers.

And chances are, the simple act of bringing arms to bear may cause the misguided government of that time to back down and return to the founding principals with nary a shot fired.

 

[Bufford t. Justice]

Except our government would see us all as traitors and make war on us. A war we could never win at this point. Unless NFA is ever over turned and folks are allowed to own tanks and blackhawks we will never again have the might or the will to change any course this government sets for itself. Sad but true. The firearms we now own are the last resort between our freedom to live as we choose and obama and his ilk coming in to our homes and doing as they please.

 

[WinchesterAA]

I have and do things because I can, not because a piece of paper says I should be able to have and do things.

In this regard, I'd find it more accurate to say the constitution serves as a template for .govs insanity, but then again.. It doesn't mean as much today as it did yesterday, and grows ever nearer to being a useful as a taco bell wrapper in a drain somewhere.

Regardless of what the future holds, there are certain aspects of my lifestyle that are constant.


@Bufford - What, you don't know how to steal a tank?
Also, Steve lee is a bunghole. http://karendecoster.com/steve-lee-like-guns-and-government-gun-control.html

 

[Bufford t. Justice]

I have and do things because I can, not because a piece of paper says I should be able to have and do things.

In this regard, I'd find it more accurate to say the constitution serves as a template for .govs insanity, but then again.. It doesn't mean as much today as it did yesterday, and grows ever nearer to being a useful as a taco bell wrapper in a drain somewhere.

Regardless of what the future holds, there are certain aspects of my lifestyle that are constant.


@Bufford - What, you don't know how to steal a tank?
Also, Steve lee is a bunghole. http://karendecoster.com/steve-lee-like-guns-and-government-gun-control.html

You're right. He is a bunghole. Thanks for the link. Too bad too I liked the song.

 

[trol79]

I think many countrys in europe need a 2nd Amandment too!

 

[Steven Youngblood]

All day, everyday.

 

[zombieoutfitters]

Except our government would see us all as traitors and make war on us. A war we could never win at this point. Unless NFA is ever over turned and folks are allowed to own tanks and blackhawks we will never again have the might or the will to change any course this government sets for itself. Sad but true. The firearms we now own are the last resort between our freedom to live as we choose and obama and his ilk coming in to our homes and doing as they please.

That is one of my biggest bones of contention regarding the ownership of arms for rebellion against the government. We're not talking men against men with muskets and cannons. We're talking semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols against laser guided smart bombs and drones. If the SHTF and it's the "free man" against "big government" we've all seen the movies to imagine all the plausible scenarios.

We're silly to think that our gun collections will count for anything if all the powers and resources of this nation were brought to bear upon us. Even in and of that scenario there are problems for both sides. We would in effect be powerless against the might that is our military...BUT...what would big government do? Wipe out everyone? Then who is left to pay taxes and push around? As has been shown in history...the government would need to control the majority some how. Whether through threat of force, financial motivation OR put us in a position as a society where we are dependent upon them for the most basic life-needs. Then they could control the masses, single out the "rebellious" and wage war against them. Sounds like a REALLY good argument AGAINST socialism to me.

Don't get me wrong, my spirit never waivers and I stand for protecting our rights and liberties as intended by the founders...but it's an ugly, long and drawn out picture one must paint to think of "free men" alone against the current military machine.

Personally, I'm pulling for RC45's scenario...

Great thread by the way!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

zombieoutfitters

Don't forget that all those mighty weapons our government could wield against us require someone at the controls, or someone to push the button. Those planes have to land some time, the tanks need fuel and ammo, and all our mighty navy can do is repel any outsiders hoping to muscle in on the action. France had a resistance of how many hundreds or thousands? We'd be a resistance of how many millions?

No, if they dared, it would certainly be their end not ours.

I would prefer to be equally or better armed, and in fact I insist! We are not supposed to be cannon fodder, sacrificing our lives to the end of forcing the enemy to use up their ammo before we might prevail. I like the mutually assured destruction doctrine that might keep us on the brink of nuclear disaster but no one will breech. Any time a government believes it can win - yes, even over its own people - will, sooner or later, attempt it.

After all. what good are arms if you may not use them? There is no more security in arms that may not be used than there is in carting a plowshare around.

I believe, that to think the 2nd Amendment means anything less than, the people may keep weapons that they might at times need to bring to bear against a tyrannical government and recall the legislature, is nothing short of a dismissal of the very core founding principals of this nation.

It seems the common misconception is that if, we the people, have to resort to an armed recall of the government it is an indicator that the Great American Experiment has failed, but I believe that will be the very proof that the Great American Experiment has worked as it was designed to.

Remember, such an action would not be a "revolution that overturns the government and replaces it", but rather an excercise in returning the government to the correct path as envisioned by the founding fathers.

And chances are, the simple act of bringing arms to bear may cause the misguided government of that time to back down and return to the founding principals with nary a shot fired.

You're spot on. While local governments may be able to prohibit discharging firearms in the middle of downtown except in cases of self defense, no law would long stand - nor those who would pass and enforce such a law - that would prohibit or in effect prohibit the use of our arms in casting off tyranny, despotism, enslavement, dictatorship, or any other form of government We the People do not choose for ourselves or attempt to cast off at the ballot box.

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, property, and happiness." B.E.Wood