A questions as to your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

I have a question for anyone interested. What do you believe the 2nd amendment to mean? I know many consider this amendment to mean we the people have the right to carry firearms. Such as
(In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


However my understanding is that the ORIGNAL 2nd Amendment was this:
As passed by the Congress:

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.
As ratified by the States:

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Dont get me wrong I own many long guns as well as 2 sidearms(handguns). But I am concerned that people are warping its meaning. I do not believe this was necessarily intended to mean everyone should have the right to carry a weapon(although i understand back then rifles were considered hunting tools). I have heard in the past that every state has a regulated militia and I am not a member. SO should I REALLY be able to carry firearms? This question boggles my mind. In one hand I dont think I would willingly give up any firearm. On the other hand I would like to think I would surrender a firearm to preserve the true meaning of the constitution. The Government already twists and warps the Constitution to say what they want it to. I would like to be on the honest side. I would appreciate your thoughts, but please try to be objective.

In Michigan all abled bodied males 18-(45? 65?) are part of the State Militia.

I am a Libertarian. I believe people should be able to do as they please so long as they cause no harm to another.

I also think Amendment 10 makes it clear that the US Constitution establishes the entire scope (enumerated only) of what the Federal Government can do. It does not limit the people, rather the Government.

As a libertarian, I am predisposed to interpret law in the way that maximizes individual freedom without harming anyone.

I note for everyone else you are new to the forum (3 posts). What organizations do you belong to? What are your motives? Why would you interpret law in a way that would increase government control over individuals?

If you read the history of the 2A, there is no doubt that the intent was to author a protection of the RKBA that says exactly what the 2A does, that the PEOPLE have a right to own and carry arms and that no one (not just the feds) shall infringe on that right. The introductory clause merely explains one of the reasons (not the only reason) for the necessity of the right.

Any other interpretation ignores the reality of what the Framers were doing. In today's context, they really meant for anyone to be able to carry a firearm when and where he will.

It is odd that you would join this site if you did not accept that with all your heart and all your mind.

THeQ

I note for everyone else you are new to the forum (3 posts). What organizations do you belong to? What are your motives? Why would you interpret law in a way that would increase government control over individuals?

Click to expand...

Yes I appologize I should have stated I was new. I hope this was not viewed as an attempt of any kind mislead anyone. I feel you mis-understand my intentions. I dont necessarily believe in giving the govt. more control over individuals. I am simply concerned that the constitution seems to be interpreted differently from person to person instead of being clear and un-deniable. Our freedom of speech seems to get stepped on every day because this group or that group want to believe it says what they want it to say.
As for as organizations.. I work for Comcast, is that what you mean? I dont belong to any organizations that I know of.
My motives are simple. I am curious as to how people in this forum interpret the 2nd amendment. I work with alot of liberal individuals and get to meet many conservative individuals(my customers). In either case I dont believe it proffesional to ask them their personal beliefs as it does not pertain to the work. I hope you do not view me as ignorant or pro government. I am just curious as to what people think. You have given me your opinion and thats all I was looking for. I guess I am just on the fence so to speak on what to believe.

Eye95

It is odd that you would join this site if you did not accept that with all your heart and all your mind.

Click to expand...

First of all I would like to thank you guys for your input.

Proverbs 11:14 ESV / "Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.

Click to expand...

"


Hmm I can see your point. I suppose one of the reasons I joined this site was to learn more from those who can provide facts. Goose gave me a brochure with this site and expalined it was a great forum for gun FAQ's and info about Firearm laws in general. If my posts make you uneasy, I appologize. I am just one of those people who thinks too much about stuff. Your opinions however (for the most part) seem un-biased and I appreciate how everyone sites facts instead of random quotes.

For instance I learned today on this site(sorry cant remember where I saw it) that unless I am operation a motor vehicle I am not required to carry ID. I was always told by people I know that in Washington state anyone over the age of 16 was REQUIRED BY LAW to carry ID. I am now the wiser. Again thanks for your input

If the second amendment is not clear, let us make another one that makes the individual RTKBA crystal clear.

But I would put forth it is clear as-is.

TheQ said:

If the second amendment is not clear, let us make another one that makes the individual RTKBA crystal clear.

But I would put forth it is clear as-is.

Click to expand...

Please forgive me but I am still trying to learn all of thise forums abbreviations. What is RTKBA? Is there a spot I missed in these forums with a definition all the common abbreviations. I appreciate your insight.

Right To Keep & Bear Arms


which clearly "shall not be infringed."

Is there a spot I missed in these forums with a definition all the common abbreviations. I appreciate your insight.

Click to expand...

Acronyms
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?64583-Acronyms

DevinWKuska said:

SNIP SO should I REALLY be able to carry firearms? This question boggles my mind.

Click to expand...

We all have a fundamental human right of self-defense.

A militia is just individuals acting in concert for self-defense against a larger number of aggressors.

The 2nd Amendment does not give you a right; it merely recognizes an already existing right.

The 2nd Amendment does not tell you what your right is. It tells everybody else they cannot say what your right is not.

This link has been posted before, but I can't remember if it was here or on another forum. It seems to be a pretty clear interpretation on the second amendment by an English professor.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1444

This whole discussion is due to a pair of misplaced commas that came and went throughout the process of authoring, considering, adopting, and memorializing the wording of the Second 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.

Click to expand...

Someone kept pulling the danged things out, and some moron kept putting them back. The sentence makes no sense with them. Any reasonable person ignores their presence as typos (or a calligraphos) by some well-intentioned but errant punctuation cop. These commas add no meaning to the sentence, nor do they change the meaning. Instead, they remove all meaning.

Let me explain.

The presence of two commas setting off "being necessary to the security of a free State" make it parenthetical, expounding on Militia, and wholly unnecessary to the formation of a complete, grammatically correct sentence. While you may change the amount of information communicated by the sentence, removing a parenthetical should not alter the meaning of what remains. So, let's take it out, the commas that set it off and all, and see what we have:

A well regulated Militia the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Click to expand...

It makes zero sense. Clearly "Militia" is the subject of the sentence in search of a verb. "hall not be infringed" seems to be that verb. But, what is "the right of the people"? It just dangles there, adding no meaning to the sentence, even if it is set off with both leading and trailing commas as parenthetical. However, antis use this structure to assign the verb to the militia, meaning that the right can be infringed, the Militia cannot be. Nonsense.

So, what if the editor who kept removing the commas succeeded in gaining unquestioned recognition of the commas not being there? Actually, he did achieve some level of recognition. The version that went to the States and was ratified by the States did not contain the errant commas:

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.

Click to expand...

Now, "being necessary to the security of a free State" is not longer parenthetical. More importantly, Militia, the subject of the introductory clause, has a verb in that clause, to wit, "being"! And the sentence now makes grammatical sense.

Adding a few words to heighten the meaning of the introductory clause and the main body of the sentence we get: Because 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. Clearly the portion of the sentence prior to the comma (the only comma in the sentence that makes sense) is explanatory, and the portion following that lone comma is declaratory--declaratory of the right being protected.

With all three commas, the sentence is grammatical nonsense. Logically, we should explore which, if any, of the commas should remain and which are unquestionable errors. Play around with those commas, remove any one, two, or all three. See if you can make a sentence other than the one ratified by the States that makes grammatical sense.

I wanted to explain to the OP why my first response was a bit guarded. I've been using the Internet in various forms for 14 years. Those 14 years have taught me you never know who is on the other side of the wire or what their agenda is.

Can you understand why I'd be a bit dubious about a new person coming and raising a question that casts doubt in RKBA?

As far as I know, you're the president of the Brady Campaign (Brady Bunch).

celticredneck said:

This link has been posted before, but I can't remember if it was here or on another forum. It seems to be a pretty clear interpretation on the second amendment by an English professor.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1444

Click to expand...

It's crystal clear to me. That is a good read.

Adding a few words to heighten the meaning of the introductory clause and the main body of the sentence we get: Because 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. Clearly the portion of the sentence prior to the comma (the only comma in the sentence that makes sense) is explanatory, and the portion following that lone comma is declaratory--declaratory of the right being protected.

Click to expand...

Wow... well done! When put in such a manner it makes much more sense to apply the 2nd ammendment as we know it today. I appreciate your response. It was both informative and tactful, instead of being attacking. I appreciate your insight.

TheQ said:

I wanted to explain to the OP why my first response was a bit guarded. I've been using the Internet in various forms for 14 years. Those 14 years have taught me you never know who is on the other side of the wire or what their agenda is.

Can you understand why I'd be a bit dubious about a new person coming and raising a question that casts doubt in RKBA?

As far as I know, you're the president of the Brady Campaign (Brady Bunch).

Click to expand...

Yes I can appreicate your concerns. LOL however if you ever come to Pierce COunty WA give me call... you can meet me and I am sure your concerns will make you laugh. I dont really believe in jumping on bandwagons. In fact I hate politics! Bullets solve more important issues then politicians do. That being said I believe myself to be a Patriot of this great nation. I would gladly serve any president from George Bush Sr. to Mr. Obama. I feel this way because regardless of their person beliefs they have a very heavy burden that comes with being the leader of the free world. I am sure every day they have to make decisions based on little or no intel theat most of us could not sleep after making... Cheers!

"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."

ONE comma.

Punctuation CAN change meanings, and it also changes the way things are interpreted.

"As ratified by the States" is the ONLY version which is legal, proper, or used by ME.


The first "half" is a declaration.
The second HALF is the statement of solution to the facts identified in the first half.

people need to realize it is not one long sentence.
It has "parts" and each has a "function".

Identify problem/situation..... solve problem/situation.


I think the public indoctrination system has failed to teach kids the mechanics of the english language for far too long.
Nobody knows how to read "proper english" nowadays.


It would read, if written in 2011, like this..........

"A well armed Citizenry is vital to the defense of a free society, therefore the right to own and carry firearms shall not be limited in any manner."

DevinWKuska said:

As for as organizations.. I work for Comcast, is that what you mean? I dont belong to any organizations that I know of.

Click to expand...

First of all..... WELCOME !!!!

I hope you find all the answers you seek here.

Secondly, you DO "belong an organizations"......

You are an AMERICAN.

You are also a part of that "militia thingie" that people have such a misunderstanding of..........

UNITED STATES CODE
10 USC Sec. 311

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Click to expand...

I think it means that John Q. Citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self-defense and/or the defense of the country (one in the same?), and that right cannot be infringed by anyone, any time. I don't agree that the states (or ANY government boy) should have the power "to regulate" a right because once regulated, it becomes a privilege more than a right, and privileges can be taken away.

How much interpretation is required beyond that?

Here is a copy of the "first draft" of the Bill of Rights. You will see the 2nd amendment was originally set as the 4th amendment. The commas are easily seen placed as intended by the author. Click on "FULL SIZE" to see it larger.

http://jpfo.org/images02/bordraft.jpg