When do we use the 2nd Amendment

[Ed Ames]

I think you missed the point. And you are factually incorrect.

The 1st states: "Congress shall make no law respecting ..." In other words, congress shall make no laws either pro or con that issue. No Law.

The second, on the other hand, says "shall not infringe". The 2nd allows laws, so long as those laws do not infringe on a particular named right. Which means you have to understand what that named right, The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, is so you can judge whether a particular law infringes.

Infringement is a judgment call. Does a law requiring you to own a gun infringe on your right to keep and bear arms? Depends on whether your right includes the right to NOT own a gun. Does it?

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

I haven't read much of this thread (lazy). However, to me there are two aspects to the 'use' of the 2A. I use it ever day, in that I am a open and honest gun owner and advocate it to everyone who is responsible. I use the 2A as practically as I can in every aspect of my life.

The other aspect, one which we could call 'original intent' is another subject matter. One for which there is not a definitive answer, and likely never will be. The most honest answer I can give is when you have weighed all the consequences and possible outcomes from your inaction and still believe that to act is better. Many will disagree with me, but in the end, that will always be true. There are those who can suffer evil far greater than I and those who can suffer far less. I can only speak for myself and my family. I do not enjoy the prospect of fighting, but if there is no reasonable alternative, then I would gladly march for what I believe in. History will either vindicate me or condemn me, but by the time that happens, I won't be around to read it.

 

[Lou McGopher]

The problem is that there is no right to free speech. There is freedom of speech, and it's protected from abridgment, but not protected from infringement.

How could one's speech be abridged by the state without being infringed upon?

 

[luigi]

We use the second amendment every day. We're using the second amendment now
Do you not think the gun grabbers in Washington noticed the great gun run of '09? they're not stupid. Do you not think we sent a message when we went out and got God only knows how many hit on NICS right after Chairman maO got elected?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

And out of the woodwork they come. I'll 'splain things tomorrow, ladies and gents.

Woody

 

[Ed Ames]

LOL ... yeah, 'splain ... but before you do, maybe you should address the substance of what is being said.

You assert that "infringed" is absolute. Yeah, I get it, and I don't disagree. But it isn't relevant. Unless everyone agrees about what the right is, what is being named when we say, "The Right of the People to ______________", there can be no consensus on whether a particular act is infringement or not.

There has been a substantive argument going on, in high circles and low, regarding what is being named when we use that phrase. People here on THR tend to agree with my perspective, which is that the people means everyone. That would be as opposed to "citizens" (e.g. "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.") which would mean people with citizenship, or states (e.g. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."), etc. I think the weight of evidence supports my view...but a lot of influential people have yet to come around. I'll skip over keeping, bearing I think is a tricky one because IMO it includes a lot more of the "take up arms" than people today would credit. I think the people who wrote that amendment were more concerned about limiting the influence of the Southern Poverty Law Center than they were about the Branch Davidians.

Further, and this is where my view becomes the minority on THR, my take is that the right includes everything that would be considered arms... cannon, rockets, guns, bombs... and the things that make those arms functional, like ammunition, ships, airplanes, and so forth. I base my belief on the knowledge that, especially early on, private citizens often owned and used the material of war in the defense of self, hearth, and country. I don't place limits because I think most of the "nightmare scenarios" of private nukes and the like are simply false problems. A nuclear weapon costs tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions of dollars to actually manufacture and maintain, and private individuals who would own them would be unlikely to use them casually...and, perhaps more to the point, those with the resources to afford them are unlikely to be stopped by any laws and there are probably a few in private collections today. But that's just me.

What's left to 'splain?

 

[jhco50]

One more thing to consider. Ms. Hillary has told the UN that the Obama administration would support unilateral bans of small arms. Is this worth the effort to "take up arms"? We shall see, because this administration is willing to give the UN free reign to change our laws and trample the Constitution. This is ok for this bunch in Washington, as they don't use it anyway.

 

[huntsman]

I base my belief on the knowledge that, especially early on, private citizens often owned and used the material of war in the defense of self, hearth, and country.

+1 Thompson used to market their gun to ranchers and farmers as a HD tool. I resent the fact that I can't go down to the hardware store and buy one off the rack.

 

[eye5600]

Ms. Hillary has told the UN that the Obama administration would support unilateral bans of small arms.

Ms. Hillary can say anything she wants, but any agreement has to pass the Senate.

 

[defjon]

Of note to me is Lemmy's posts.

The same people that get their knickers in a twist over the current state of things were passively silent a few years ago, getting swept up in post 9/11 sentiments and happily signing away the rest of their bill of rights to get them 'dern terrorists.

If you're going to be hardline for the constitution then you can't pick and choose.

 

[mack]

As has been previously posted, I think there is a pretty good guide to finding the answer to that question in the Declaration of Independence which says in part:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

So, Government is granted power by the people to protect the free exercise of their inalienable rights. When that government after a long history of seriously abusing the rights of its citizens, becomes insufferable, and shows evidence of unalterably pursuing a plan to enslave the people under absolute despotism, then it is the peoples right and their duty to rebell against that government and insitute a new government.

The argument may then be examined on a number of points.

1. Have peoples rights been seriously abused over a long period of time?
2. Have the abuses become insufferable?
3. Is the government unalterably pursuing a path towards absolute despotism?

Of course each of us will have different opinions, the key is when enough people agree that the answer to all three questions is yes - then it is time.

My answer to the first question is: yes - government has seriously overstepped it bounds - not just the federal government, but most state and local governemnts.

My answer to the second question is: no, not yet, many of our rights are protected and we still do have a lot of freedom.

My answer to the third question is: no, it does not look good, but that there is still reason to hope - perhaps I delude myself because I dread the consequences of the alternative. I should add that for me, should the answer to this third question become yes, then the answer to the second question will also be yes, since without hope for change, abuses that were once sufferable become insufferable.

When would I lose hope? The old cliche is the analogy of the four boxes of freedom: the soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

When those are taken away or made null by the government then for me it would be time. Is the government insensitive to public opinion and/or does it act in a coordinated effort to gag or to effectively marginalize its critics? Are elections fair and is there a real choice or are they corrupt and/or are the options limited and controlled by those in power, also do elected officials act in good faith to follow the constitution as servants and not rulers? Is the judiciary upholding the constitution and protecting rights and is there a right to trial by a jury of ones peers, and does that jury have the right to practice nullification. Do the people retain the right to keep and bear arms?

Right now I think that people can still be heard and can still get the word out. I think such movements as the teaparty movement are evidence of this along with the internet. I think that the ballot box is in serious trouble, and has been, and I personally believe that often we are offered a choice of tweedle dum and tweetle dee and that paperless voting opens the door for huge abuses, and that there have been instances of serious voter fraud related to mutiple voting and non-citizen voting. The courts are a mixed bag, but there have been some victories there and despite jury stacking and a hostilty to jury nullification from the bench, I think that it is still viable. And the cartiridge box is still working, the politicains have noticed gun sales, and it is still a deterence, and the RKBA has made some gains - from the recent past.

 

[Werewolf]

The Amendment states "Shall not be Infringed" not "Shall not be Infringed or Restricted." CCW's, background checks, etc, are "inconvienances" not "infringements." At least, as I see it.

Hmmmph...

It may be an inconvenience for you or me who get permission but it is hardly an infringement for those refused.

Now - if we could be sure that only felons and the mad were the only folks being refused you might have a point - might.

BUT we both know that isn't the case.

And besides one man's inconvenience is another man's infringement.

Edited to Add:Seems I should have read the rest of the thread before posting. The last 20 or so posts pretty much prove that one man's inconvenience is another man's infringement. Considering that we here on THR cannot agree it seems highly unlikely that society as a whole ever will. That doesn't bode well for the future IMO.

 

[Shadow Man]

Werewolf, I think if you had continued to read the thread, you would have seen that I recanted in a later post what I said in your quoted section. Post #71, to be exact.

Originally posted by ConstitutionCowboy
I'm glad you included the "... as I see it." In truth, you cannot restrict something without infringing upon it.

ConstitutionCowboy, I did include the "as I see it" for a reason. I am not closed to changing my mind, or admitting that I am wrong. In this case, I pondered what you wrote for almost half an hour, and I have to agree. You are correct. Any restriction upon a right is, in fact, an infringement upon your freedom to excercise that right...I take back what I said. Thank you.

mack, I think that was an excellent rundown of A: when we can excercise the right, and B: the fact that we have not yet reached that point.

 

[mlr1m]

Many people believe that infringement and prohibition are the same. That to do anything less than total prohibition is not an infringement. Therefor huge taxes and or stopping all future manufacturing or importation of firearms would not be an infringement because if you can follow the rules enacted you are still free to own one.

Michael

 

[Gungnir]

I actually think the problem is two fold

We have no real accepted definition of what Arms are in the context of the 2nd amendment as Ed pointed out

We have no real accepted definition of what infringed means in the context of the 2nd amendment.

On the first point I'm with Ed, arms are arms, be that a 2" folding knife, or a Czar Bomba. I think the fear of privately owned nukes is overrated, and those private individuals who can afford the cost and pay offs and want a nuke most likely already have a nuke, I don't think deregulating arms controls will have any proliferation consequences since the market will regulate itself anyone got 5 Mil+ to drop on an Abrams M1A2 you also got the maintenance budget? However as shown many believe that the Founding Fathers implicitly limited this to arms of the time, as shown by the Brady Bunch and a whole bunch of legislators who trot out the "the Founding Fathers couldn't possibly have envisioned these weapons of war". Remember it's about everyone, not just those of us with an interest in firearms

On the second point even we can't agree, is a CCW/CPL/CHL pick your TLA an infringement some believe it is others don't. Similarly on another thread, taking your gun into a bar, infringement or not, some believe yes others no. So that's another problem. Add in the unwashed masses, and you have a huge sea of confusion as to what should be allowed or not, and what is a sensible restriction, and what is an unconstitutional infringement.

Until we can define and have accepted terms of what the real legal semantics of arms and infringement are then people are going to always have mixed opinions on whether certain restrictions or legislation is contrary to the 2nd amendment or not. Unfortunately some of those mixed opinions include the Legislative, Executive and Legal branches of the Federal and State Governments.

 

[Shadow Man]

However as shown many believe that the Founding Fathers implicitly limited this to arms of the time, as shown by the Brady Bunch and a whole bunch of legislators who trot out the "the Founding Fathers couldn't possibly have envisioned these weapons of war". Remember it's about everyone, not just those of us with an interest in firearms

Just point out that the Founding Fathers could not have possibly envisioned 24 hour cable news, telephones, telegraph, airplanes, trains, automobiles, cellphones, the internet, etc, and that according to their logic, the First Amendment should only pertain to those forms of communication and travel (for gatherings and such) that were available to them at the time. It has worked for me on a number of occasions.

 

[Gungnir]

Just point out that the Founding Fathers could not have possibly envisioned 24 hour cable news, telephones, telegraph, airplanes, trains, automobiles, cellphones, the internet, etc, and that according to their logic, the First Amendment should only pertain to those forms of communication and travel (for gatherings and such) that were available to them at the time. It has worked for me on a number of occasions.

Doesn't help the situation, unfortunately, remember unwashed masses getting told by a "gun nut" that this is the case has been shown by the repeat appearance of the statement to be an unsuccessful argument.

Admittedly the argument is valid, since these have been integrated into legislation and constitutional rights associated with each. However until we as a whole can have a legally accepted definition of what arms are the argument will continue for ever, or until (if ever) firearm ownership is as pervasive as TV, Cellphones, air travel, etc.

 

[mack]

I know this is a gun forum and I know the topic is the 2nd amendment, but I think some in this thread are getting too myopic or too focused on just the infringement of the RKBA. We have many rights and our RKBA, while certainly a fundamental right in my eyes, is not the only right that the infringement or abridgement of could trigger the awful prospect of making it necessary to "throw off such Government," and use the RKBA to do so.

Also I disagree somewhat on the necessity to come to legally defined agreement about what each term exactly means or what the exact legal definition and parameters are for each right.

Again, I would suggest that we look back to our history - the American revolution did not spring forth one day in April fully formed. It was a slow process that happened over a period of years. It began with people getting together to discuss their grievances over the actions of their government. From that discussion people began to develop shared beliefs about what was wrong and about steps that needed to be taken. At no point did everyone agree - look at the debate over the Declaration of Independence - and we were already well into organized armed conflict when that happened.

Consider a few nascent developments; the tea party movement, the home schooling movement, peoples identification with the terms red state and blue state (recreating in a way a sense of state identity), the active concealed carry movement that has swept much of the nation, the recent emergence of the state sovereignty push in the form of legislation on guns that is really a push back on the commerce clause. Most of these are relatively recent developments. The gun rights examiners and the libertarian cant of much of the internet forums and blogs. All these may be part of a movement towards real change, (as opposed to the established political parties that always advertise change like a breakfast cereal but of course just really want to perpetuate more and more of the same). We are living in interesting times, and I feel that the future is up for grabs.

The question is a Franklin asked all those years ago - is it a rising sun or a setting sun. There is no knowable hard fast line in the sand that we can foresee - the founding fathers did not see Lexington and Concord. What we must do if we believe that there is a problem is to get active sharing our views with others - get busy with finding some points of consensus - get organized to act upon some common goals to seek a redress of grievances - and start to put things into motion to effect change in the government and the powers that be - some of the above movements are trying to do that.

Because, I really believe that the same road may lead to either peaceful change or violent revolution. The determining factor is not the initial course that is steered but the governments response to it. The founders sought first to work with the king and with parliament, they were denied redress, they argued and discussed, they had a tea party, they argued some more, they organized amongst themselves, eventually the king reached out his hand to take away their arms and they resisted and violent resistance began.

Remember that history - there was no hard line in the sand it was a gradual loose consensus that evolved over time and that only coalesced when the government reached out to attack a part of that consensus - in a sense it was the British that drew and then crossed the line. Today we look back and we say, ah there was the line, but out founding fathers had no such luxury. I think that today we are in that process - hopefully it results in a peaceful revolution and not a violent one. YMMV

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The 1st states: "Congress shall make no law respecting ..." In other words, congress shall make no laws either pro or con that issue. No Law.

You've omitted "...an establishment of religion, etc. ...". from your dissertation. That pretty much delineates a rather narrow band of restriction forbidding Congress to pass law establish a national religion and forbidden to pass law to prohibit you to freely exercise your religion. Congress can make laws prescribing the manner in which public acts - such as marriages performed in churches - are recognized throughout the United States. Congress can pass a law to prohibit violent assembly, and the several states can make law to punish slander and libel.

Infringement is a judgment call. Does a law requiring you to own a gun infringe on your right to keep and bear arms? Depends on whether your right includes the right to NOT own a gun. Does it?

No. When the Constitution and Amendments were crafted, "to infringe" meant to violate; to break laws or contracts. That couldn't be more plain. Whether you have a right NOT to keep and bear arms is immaterial. The Second Amendment only protects your right TO keep and bear arms.

How could one's speech be abridged by the state without being infringed upon?

Simple. While government cannot alter what you say(abridge it), you can be held accountable for what you say. If speech were uninfringeable, there could be no laws to punish perjury, or libel, or slander, or child pornography.

You assert that "infringed" is absolute. Yeah, I get it, and I don't disagree. But it isn't relevant. Unless everyone agrees about what the right is, what is being named when we say, "The Right of the People to ______________", there can be no consensus on whether a particular act is infringement or not.

What is not clear about the words "keep" and "bear" and "arms"? And, "consensus" has nothing to do with it. These are "is" or "isn't" things.

... bearing I think is a tricky one because IMO it includes a lot more of the "take up arms" than people today would credit.

Going back to the definition of "bear" when the amendments were crafted, Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1755, has something like 36 definitions of the word "bear", but only two fit the context of the Second Amendment: "To carry as a burden", and "To convey or carry". These definitions fit the modern dictionary definition that says, "to carry; to endure; to support, to sustain; to conduct (oneself); to produce or bring forth." (I placed the relevant definitions in bold.) "Take up" was not included back then nor now. "Take up arms" implies to go to arms, same as to take up a business or a hobby. It isn't synonymous to "bear".

Further, and this is where my view becomes the minority on THR, my take is that the right includes everything that would be considered arms... cannon, rockets, guns, bombs... and the things that make those arms functional, like ammunition, ships, airplanes, and so forth. I base my belief on the knowledge that, especially early on, private citizens often owned and used the material of war in the defense of self, hearth, and country. I don't place limits because I think most of the "nightmare scenarios" of private nukes and the like are simply false problems. A nuclear weapon costs tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions of dollars to actually manufacture and maintain, and private individuals who would own them would be unlikely to use them casually...and, perhaps more to the point, those with the resources to afford them are unlikely to be stopped by any laws and there are probably a few in private collections today. But that's just me.

Thats me as well. It appears you understand precisely what the Second Amendment is and does. Why are we even arguing?

We have no real accepted definition of what Arms are in the context of the 2nd amendment as Ed pointed out

We have no real accepted definition of what infringed means in the context of the 2nd amendment.

Ah, that "accepted" thing. We don't need to know what is "accepted" or what the "consensus" is. It is what the written word is, and it is as it was when it was written. That removes all doubt. If there are some among us who don't like what the Second Amendment protects, and the absolute terms in which the Second Amendment does the protecting, they have the option to propose an amendment to change or even abolish the Second Amendment.



So, to answer the OP, we don't use the Second Amendment to respond to the scenarios listed, we use the Second Amendment in court to stop disarmament or anything leading up to disarmament. We would use the TOOLS protected by the Second Amendment in some of those scenarios, and the time is not now.
I would say the actions of law enforcement and those in command who participated in the confiscations after Katrina fit the requirements. Each and every one of those people should be in court right now defending their actions since they survived their wrong doing. Shakespeare had a great line in Measure for Measure that goes like this:

"Those many had not dar'd to do that evil, if the first man that did th' edict infringe, had answer'd for his deed."

The evil was to confiscate arms, and the edict is the Second Amendment.

Woody

 

[the iron horse]

The Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is my concealed weapons permit, period!

~Ted Nugent


I vote Libertarian. The quote by the Nuge expresses my view well.

 

[shenandoah]

Frogo, how'd the ultrasound come out? OK I hope, I'm due for one, myself. After the woman lost it did you go to the nurses station and tell them somebody forgot to lock the nut ward? The antigunners don't realize that cellphones and concealed carriers have done more to ward off street crime than anything else.

 

[Ed Ames]

Going back to the definition of "bear" when the amendments were crafted, Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1755, has something like 36 definitions of the word "bear", but only two fit the context of the Second Amendment: "To carry as a burden", and "To convey or carry".

"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."
-- Declaration of Independence.

So you are trying to say that they meant "...taken Captive...to carry or convey Arms...", as in it was a complaint against slavery???? Or "...taken Captive...to carry as a burden Arms..."

No, that's laughable. If they are just carrying Arms around why is the choice between, "become the executioners of their friends and Brethren," or, "to fall themselves by their (the friends and Brethren's or the captors, I'm not sure which was intended) Hands."

"Bear Arms" means taking up arms, as in to fight. We were declaring independence in part because the King was conscripting our citizens and forcing them to fight and kill (or be killed by) other citizens, brother and friend against one another.

Why are we even arguing?

Pretty simple.

"The" is a definite article. Definite articles are used in one of a few ways.
1) To refer to something all parties know and understand. ("The Constitution")
2) To refer to something already mentioned in the conversation. ("the argument")
3) When defining a particular person or object ("the original poster")
4) Objects which are unique ("the moon")
on and on...

When I read "The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms" I hit that first "The" and say "this is something that has already been mentioned, is understood by everyone, is unique, is....", in other words, I see that it is a The ____________ sort of thing.

The people who wrote that amendment referenced a thing they figured everyone would know so well that there was no need to define it. "Keep and Bear Arms" wasn't the definition, it was the NAME. It was shorthand for all sorts of assumptions that the authors considered so obvious you wouldn't need to list them all.

We've lost consensus on that definition. We've had so many generations of cultural drift, so many waves of immigrants (and I'm a descendant of immigrants myself), we've gone in so many directions socially, that even here on THR there are a thousand conceptions of TRotPtKBA.

Any dictionary thumping on "infringe" is irrelevant until you define The Thing.

Contrast the wording of the 2nd with the other amendments. The 1st is direct... "congress shall make no law _________", the 3rd is equally direct, "No Soldier shall _________"

The 4th is like the 2nd... it names a thing that everyone knows and understands. <The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures>, shall _______"

The 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th are all like the 1st and 3rd.

You can say you don't need a single definition for The Right, and that's true, but you do need a general consensus. If 14% think it's an individual right to any and all weapons, 40% think it's an individual right to firearms, 30% think it's a state right to small arms (but not WMDs), 10% think it's a collective (state) right to all weapons, and 6% think it's an individual right to the sorts of weapons available during the revolution... then your best consensus is that 54% agree that it's at least an individual right to firearms.

 

[Gungnir]

CC I think we're arguing not on the goal, but on the path to the goal. Just saying something is so doesn't necessarily make it so. Saying the 2nd means for instance "all chickens lay eggs" doesn't actually mean that the reality is reflecting the statement (some chickens lay eggs, but some are also Roosters).

No. When the Constitution and Amendments were crafted, "to infringe" meant to violate; to break laws or contracts. That couldn't be more plain. Whether you have a right NOT to keep and bear arms is immaterial. The Second Amendment only protects your right TO keep and bear arms.

Here's something I picked up, on this. We argue that at the time the constitution and Bill of Rights was written this "word" meant this "concept" for instance regulated, infringed, etc.. However we also argue that the meaning of the 2nd amendment also means that semiautomatic rifles are covered by the 2nd amendment. Now at the time arms could not possibly include semiautomatic rifles, since they did not exist. So we're playing both sides of the word game, at the time infringed meant as you say to violate, or break promise or oath, to trespass etc. However at the time arms meant Muzzleloaders, swords, spears/poleaxes, cannon. Admittedly arms is more open ended than infringe, however you can see where I'm going with this. So when we pull the at the time routine, then it's no wonder that those opposing the 2nd do the same.

Ah, that "accepted" thing. We don't need to know what is "accepted" or what the "consensus" is. It is what the written word is, and it is as it was when it was written. That removes all doubt. If there are some among us who don't like what the Second Amendment protects, and the absolute terms in which the Second Amendment does the protecting, they have the option to propose an amendment to change or even abolish the Second Amendment.

Yes we do, the statement that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the same as my example "all chickens lay eggs". If we did not need acceptance, then Heller would have been a landslide, back in '34 the GCA could not have been passed, 38 FFA nor the 68 GCA, nor the 86 LEOPA, nor the Hughes amendment, nor the Brady laws.

It comes down to what do the people believe...? I think we all here believe that there is significant inroads to infringing the 2nd. What about the rest of America, does it believe that? Does everyone in California, NY, Chicago, or DC believe that the government (State or local) is acting against the constitution? If you think that the people do believe as we do, then why do these governments keep getting re-elected?

So in reality acceptance and consensus is critically important, because as Ed stated in post #97 we've lost the understanding of the facts and beliefs that makes "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" definite and a no-brainer, most people don't get what Madison and company meant in the 2nd amendment, and these people are voters, as well as Congressmen, Senators, Governors, Presidents, and Supreme Court judges. We know that people don't understand this because we interact with people daily who don't understand the 2nd like we do, who believe that "sensible restrictions" make sense, that certain firearms shouldn't be available to the public, and that needing to undergo training and background checks before being "allowed" to concealed carry is perfectly legitimate.

Unless we can draw a line from where we are to where we want to be, then saying we want to be where we want to be (and we're constitutionally guaranteed to be free of restrictions there) isn't much use.

 

[medmo]

Wow, that took a lot to read through this one. I agree with the simple response "every day". The Good Lord created me a free man, (just like everyone else).

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Ed,

If your interpretation is true, everyone has the right to kill whomever they wish or think is a threat or has something they want. We bear arms in peace as well as in war. "Bear" takes you right up to the point you pull the trigger. Even after you pull the trigger, you are still bearing, but now you are using the arms you bear to kill. We don't keep and bear harm and death. We keep and bear the tool capable of harm and death.

It can be said that we can bear up arms against our government and never pull the triggers. The police and national Guard bore arms against some of the citizens of New Orleans but never pulled a trigger. "Bear" has the same meaning whether the trigger is pulled or not. The act of pulling the trigger is something else entirely.

I do believe the Founding Fathers fully understood all the implications of both "keep" and "bear" when they considered that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. Your interpretation implies the Founding Fathers meant for there to be unfettered use of arms. If that were so, it wouldn't have been necessary for the Founding Fathers to require an act of Congress to call forth the Militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and even to repel invasions!

Woody