Pinky and MJ - Sorry but I can't find the Poll about the 2nd Amendment so I'm opening this one for further discussion. However you need to repost the links you want me to read. Question: Why doesn't the 2nd just apply to state Militia?
Shelly, if you don't mind, I will reply to your posts here in a new thread. I would think that the ancillary uses/enjoyments of weapons use would be protected in the absolute statement: right to keep and bear shall not be infringed.
I am glad that you support the second. It is your amendment too! I don't believe that anyone should be victimized. Had only the slaves been armed, many centuries if human suffering would have been prevented.
You certainly did your homework on this one JM. And you make a persuasive argument. But I'm not sure your rationale for the word regulated is correct but I'm willing to give it further study. That being said I don't think our FF could have
anticipated the society we have today. And the ability if large groups of citizens getting together with their " arms" to become an oppressive force. Which was the point of " regulated" I believe. A catch 22 if there ever was one. Leaving us in a
potentially unending cycle of perpetual violence. Now this might one day not be an issue if education and medical science advances to the degree we can prevent firearm use in anger and mental disability, but that day is not today.
It is unlikely that the majority of the citizens would be involved in rioting. If the whole of the people were armed and prepared to serve in the militia, such acts as you describe could be stopped quickly and efficiently.
Not is it likely to be in the near future. I don't want you to assume I'm for elimination of all firearms all though I have argued that before in a fit of anger after sandy hook,but the solution of doing nothing is an abject failure.
As with any right, there is the inherent obligation of responsibility. If you have weapons it is your obligation/responsibility to be well versed in their safe use and operation, proper storage, and maintenance. I am for harsh penalties for failure to meet these obligations.
The problem is that we live in an imperfect world. There are people who will try to harm the innocent. I believe that arming the innocent deters most crime, and offers a fighting chance against the rest.
Unfortunately, there will always be people with us who are pleased to use violence to advance their ends. As a last resort, for the criminal who will not be dissuaded, the victim should have recourse to effective self defense.
The Greeks and Romans began the Western tradition of the armed citizen. This passed into the common law, particularly in England, and we inherited it from them.
Okay - I now know what A LOT of people think (or have legally decided) that the 2nd amendment says and means today. It interestingly enough says nothing about sport or hunting. Does that mean that Americans do not have a constitutional right to
Version passed by Congress in National Archives (prepared by a scribe, William Lambert):
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.
First of all, grammar and spelling conventions were...
...not as rigid as they are today. Hence, the differences in the capitalization of certain words is probably not meaningful. Modern English grammar strictly forbids placing only one comma between a subject and verb, but that is precisely what the scribe did in this version in his placement of...
...the third comma. Two or more commas may occur between a subject and verb, since two (or more) commas could be used like two (or more) sets if parentheses, enclosing and subordinating whatever is between the commas to the structure outside the commas, the subject and verb. As the third comma...
...stands, the only possible subject would be 'Militia,' and the sense will not allow that reading. The 'right' is what is being infringed; therefore, 'right' is the subject of that verb. The only conclusion is that the scribe liked to put commas in periodically for decoration. Thus, I believe...
Wow - it might interest you to know I just voted on the "would you repeal the 2nd amendment" poll and although I don't care for guns - I voted no - because I recognize the impirtanceb
...that the version ratified by the states is more in keeping with a modern reading.
Version ratified by States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:
Swell regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
The first phrase is an absolute phrase, similar to an ablative absolute in Latin. It could have been written with a subordinating conjunction such as: Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms...
...shall not be infringed. This rendition means the same as the version with the absolute phrase, since modern speakers of English rarely use the absolute construction today. Thus, the phrase up to the first comma is a subordinate phrase. The main clause follows the comma and proceeds to the end
...of the sentence: ". . .the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This clause is straightforward and should present no difficulty. People should be able to keep their firearms in their home and should be able to use them to defend themselves and the free state.
The militia was not a large Federal Army. It was free citizens who could be called upon to take their guns at a moment's notice and rise up to defend the American way of life, here. At the time that the Constitution was written and the Bill of Rights added, the founders were concerned about...
...tyranny. They had just fought a war against those who would have subjugated them. Thus, their main emphasis was to maintain a FREE state. That idea was forefront in any debate the original authors would have conducted. It is clear that the founders were thinking about the people having the...
...ability to rise up and put down tyranny should it raise its ugly head.
Another controversy surrounds the word 'regulated.' This word generally today means 'ruled or overseen,' but ample evidence exists in texts to show that at that time in history it meant 'equipped, and fitted properly.'
Since many Americans had served as Minute Men, ready in a minute to take their arms and rise up to the defense of the US, I am sure that the founders, by the term 'militia,' did not mean anything near what our Armed Forces have become.
Okay - I read the pages that Mc wanted me to read - they still speak only of defense - they don't talk of sport or provision of food. They also barely speak of self defense and that is in conjunction with defense of the nation. I STILL don't
Matt - it was Wiki stuff about the history of the 2nd and where it came from - I couldn't follow the links because they weren't clickable anymore from the web version so I just searched, but he is coming with more links now
Matt - my view is that the SCOTUS has made clear that guns are now the right if every citizen for whatever reason. However, as written, the second amendment seems to me to specifically address the need of Americans to have guns to defend the country
So let me see if I'm understanding you correctly, it applied to the militias if the several states, which are now the national guard, but it didn't apply directly to individual citizens. Am I correct! Is that your view?
I suggested that this was because the people of that time would never even imagine a time when a gun wasn't a part of everyday life. MJ wants me to read some laws from England I think, but I don't have the links anymore
Like the English bill of rights? I can pull that up for you, but I probably should note it only applied to Protestants, so it wasn't everyone. And the British understood some restrictions were necessary.
The view of SCOTUS for about 200 years was that there was no individual citizen right to bear arms. It's been a relatively recent shift (since the 70s if I recall correctly) that they've changed their minds.
Shelly, actually many of the founding fathers wanted gun ownership not to defend the country, but to defend individuals from their own oppressive government. We had just overthrown British rule, there was inherent distrust in centralized government.
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment