Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: To help, others, understand the 2nd Amendment.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    To help, others, understand the 2nd Amendment.

    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.

    http://english.stackexchange.com/que...nguages-most-d

    By contrast, some anti-gun politicians have tried to read the sentence as follows:

    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.

    They take the two phrases in brackets as modifying a well regulated Militia: "a well regulated militia, which is necessary to the security of a free state—in other words, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—shall not be infringed."
    Ran across this and thought it would be good to share.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    This is a a good read.

    Unfortunately, arguments from authorities on language, historical usage and printing, and literature and legal construction are not recognized as legitimate by the "anti's".

    They gleefully trash all authority based on history, science, and proper language in favor of emotional propaganda, racist disarmament policies and nanny state protectionism, because they believe that the State Monopoly on Force is legitimate and a DESIRABLE condition, in direct contradiction of every historical example...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    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.

    http://english.stackexchange.com/que...nguages-most-d



    Ran across this and thought it would be good to share.
    That is almost a correct way to read it. However Liberals and Statists refuse to use the word "militia" correctly. Police are not the militia, the army is not the militia, the Marines are not the militia, the National guard is not the militia. The People are the militia, not tied to any government or agency; the militia might be subject to the authority of the feds, but the right of the militia, or the people to arm themselves is not.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    That is almost a correct way to read it. However Liberals and Statists refuse to use the word "militia" correctly. Police are not the militia, the army is not the militia, the Marines are not the militia, the National guard is not the militia. The People are the militia, not tied to any government or agency; the militia might be subject to the authority of the feds, but the right of the militia, or the people to arm themselves is not.
    The people are the militia.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    why?
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    The people are the militia.
    Here's another informative addition to anyones library.

    The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms
    Stephen P. Halbrook ; http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/founders.html (Author)

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    That is almost a correct way to read it. However Liberals and Statists refuse to use the word "militia" correctly. Police are not the militia, the army is not the militia, the Marines are not the militia, the National guard is not the militia. The People are the militia, not tied to any government or agency; the militia might be subject to the authority of the feds, but the right of the militia, or the people to arm themselves is not.
    One slight correction... the National Guard has been defined as the "organized militia". The people (as in: general population) are the "unorganized militia". Pax...
    Last edited by Gil223; 05-20-2012 at 01:41 AM.
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  7. #7
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    One slight correction... the National Guard has been defined as the "organized militia". The people (as in: general population) are the "unorganized militia". Pax...
    The way the National Guard is being used has proved that to be false.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    One slight correction... the National Guard has been defined as the "organized militia". The people (as in: general population) are the "unorganized militia". Pax...
    So? Changing the definition through law does not change the nature of something; it only confuses the reader when the literature is older than the redefinition.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    So? Changing the definition through law does not change the nature of something; it only confuses the reader when the literature is older than the redefinition.
    So? I wasn't consulted when "organized militia" and "unorganized militia" was defined, I simply stated the fact as it is. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    why?
    Posts
    432

    Obama: I’ll Decide What’s Constitutional

    “Congress may pass laws, but I decide which of its laws are constitutional and which I can simply choose to ignore.”

    ;http://brvanlanen.wordpress.com/2012...onstitutional/

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by scott58dh View Post
    “Congress may pass laws, but I decide which of its laws are constitutional and which I can simply choose to ignore.”

    ;http://brvanlanen.wordpress.com/2012...onstitutional/
    I hate to give credit, but it's true that the Executive has just as much right to decide what is constitutional, and what he will or won't enforce, as does the Judiciary. And, for that matter, the Legislature.

    All are equally qualified to determine constitutionality. When you look at recent abuses by the legislature, signed off on by the executive, they all trust the judiciary to undo the wrongs they did.

    It shouldn't be that way. Each branch should examine constitutionality, and refuse to do anything without constitutional authority.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    I hate to give credit, but it's true that the Executive has just as much right to decide what is constitutional, and what he will or won't enforce, as does the Judiciary. And, for that matter, the Legislature.

    All are equally qualified to determine constitutionality. When you look at recent abuses by the legislature, signed off on by the executive, they all trust the judiciary to undo the wrongs they did.

    It shouldn't be that way. Each branch should examine constitutionality, and refuse to do anything without constitutional authority.
    Just don't expect the judges, prosecutors, and the jury to agree with you.

    I've learned that juries are stacked with idiots.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  13. #13
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    I hate to give credit, but it's true that the Executive has just as much right to decide what is constitutional, and what he will or won't enforce, as does the Judiciary. And, for that matter, the Legislature.

    All are equally qualified to determine constitutionality. When you look at recent abuses by the legislature, signed off on by the executive, they all trust the judiciary to undo the wrongs they did.
    Having the "right" (or power) to do a certain thing does not automatically make one "qualified" to do that thing (remember the "Peter Principle"?). And, if "all" are the least bit qualified, one would immediately think that there is an unnecessary redundancy of effort. The reason that we have the three branches of government is to provide "checks and balances". Our government was established in that fashion in order to prevent any one branch from running amok - with the final say belonging to SCOTUS. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  14. #14
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Griswold vs. Conn

    "The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there ARE additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments"

    "A 'JUDICIAIL CONSTRUCTION' that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in 'explicit' terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment"

    " Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive. "

    If SCOTUS has ruled against this, in regards to the 2nd...please provide me with cites...IANAL....I can't find anything.
    Last edited by zekester; 05-21-2012 at 12:44 PM.
    GOD gave me rights!!!....The Constitutuion just confirms it!!

  15. #15
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by zekester View Post
    "The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there ARE additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments"

    "A 'JUDICIAIL CONSTRUCTION' that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in 'explicit' terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment"

    " Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive. "

    If SCOTUS has ruled against this, in regards to the 2nd...please provide me with cites...IANAL....I can't find anything.
    On June 29, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Portillo-Muñoz, upheld a federal statute prohibiting firearms possession by undocumented immigrants by concluding that undocumented immigrants are not part of “the people” granted Second Amendment rights. (SCOTUS subsequently upheld the 5CC)

    The Constitution only affirms our rights as citizens. It does not, in any fashion, extend ALL those rights to any others. But... the government can grant certain of those rights to others, as the government sees fit. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  16. #16
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Just don't expect the judges, prosecutors, and the jury to agree with you.

    I've learned that juries are stacked with idiots.
    +1000

    A jury can decide if someone broke the law or not, regardless of the law says. I have been in that situation before. I was within what the law said, but a jury felt that what I had done was immoral, in their eyes, so they found me guilty. Yes, I appealed, and was cleared, but I was enraged at the fact that they decided what was right and wrong not based on the law.
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    On June 29, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Portillo-Muñoz, upheld a federal statute prohibiting firearms possession by undocumented immigrants by concluding that undocumented immigrants are not part of “the people” granted Second Amendment rights. (SCOTUS subsequently upheld the 5CC)

    The Constitution only affirms our rights as citizens. It does not, in any fashion, extend ALL those rights to any others. But... the government can grant certain of those rights to others, as the government sees fit. Pax...
    You've claimed this twice. Care to provide a cite in either place? Where did the SCOTUS uphold this? Seems to me they chose not to review it. Does that mean Heller shouldn't have ever happened since the SC never took on 2A cases post-Miller?

    Of course not, because "choosing not to review" and "upholding" are different things.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  18. #18
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    You've claimed this twice. Care to provide a cite in either place? Where did the SCOTUS uphold this? Seems to me they chose not to review it. Does that mean Heller shouldn't have ever happened since the SC never took on 2A cases post-Miller?

    Of course not, because "choosing not to review" and "upholding" are different things.
    Whine, whine, whine... keep looking. The difference between the two is that one essentially says, "The lower courts did an acceptable job. This is not worth the time of SCOTUS" (and that is probably based upon some law clerk's research and recommendation). "The Supremes" have better things to do with their time.
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    Whine, whine, whine... keep looking. The difference between the two is that one essentially says, "The lower courts did an acceptable job. This is not worth the time of SCOTUS" (and that is probably based upon some law clerk's research and recommendation). "The Supremes" have better things to do with their time.
    One essentially says, and the other actually upholds.

    You fail, but we already knew that.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  20. #20
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    One essentially says, and the other actually upholds.

    You fail, but we already knew that.
    Being a "fail" in the eyes of some folks is a high compliment. Thank you!
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Just fodder for discussion, regarding aliens and their rights.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned...one year...ten years...for life...or may be sentenced to death.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    Just fodder for discussion, regarding aliens and their rights.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned...one year...ten years...for life...or may be sentenced to death.
    As I read it, the above quote applies to the punishments for individuals, or associations of individuals. It seems to have quite a bit of interpretation... but then, it is a university (and universities are notorious for their "port list"). I find it difficult to believe that the U.S. Code says
    ...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned...one year...ten years...for life...or may be sentenced to death.
    The law doesn't seem to have that much fondness for ellipses, and the specification of punishments seems to be a bit vague. What happened to fifteen years, twenty years, etc? (Besides, not even the U.S. Code trumps the Constitution.) .

    Now that I have reviewed your cite, I see there was some selective editing/redaction done. To be a quotation the statement must contain the exact wording of the original, which reads:
    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;
    The full quote then goes on to prescribe separate, more extensive punishments for violations resulting in injury and death Pax...
    Pax..
    Last edited by Gil223; 05-26-2012 at 12:38 PM.
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  23. #23
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    The Constitution really doesn't say anything concrete; it is more of a set of guidelines that are treated as if they are some sort of Affirmation, or Fundamental Nature of Man's existence.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  24. #24
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    The Constitution really doesn't say anything concrete; it is more of a set of guidelines that are treated as if they are some sort of Affirmation, or Fundamental Nature of Man's existence.
    I agree that the Constitution is the Founding Father's "affirmation" of our basic rights as citizens. The Constitution doesn't "grant" anything to citizens, it is a declaration of the government's recognition and acceptance of those rights.
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  25. #25
    Regular Member hjmoosejaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.W. Pa.
    Posts
    406
    I think the words "The People" mean a lot in the phrase " The right of (The People) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". After all, the very first words of the Preamble are "We (the People)"of the United States". If "The People" means the citizens of the U.S., to protect the First Amendment ( freedom of speech ), the right to protect us from illegal search and seizure,(4th) and the right to remain silent,(5th) etc. How can "The People" mean something else for The Right of (the People) to Keep and Bear Arms?
    Last edited by hjmoosejaw; 05-26-2012 at 06:00 PM.
    watch your top knot !

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •