A questions as to your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

marionmedic said:

"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."

Click to expand...

You took out two commas that were in the first draft. See my earlier post of the "first draft."

You can see below today's Bill of Rights" still has the original commas as given in the first draft.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Done....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&feature=related

CenTex said:

You took out two commas that were in the first draft. See my earlier post of the "first draft."

You can see below today's Bill of Rights" still has the original commas as given in the first draft.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Click to expand...

As ratified, it has one comma. With the one comma, it makes sense. With the three commas, it does not make grammatical sense. As I posted earlier, I think someone kept correcting the commas, and someone without a lick of grammatical sense kept putting them back. Fortunately, the version ratified by the States, the version that matters, the version that should have been memorialized, contains the single, sense-making comma.

Citizen said:

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.

Click to expand...

This would be one of the Federalists concerns over the ratification of a Bill of Rights...that its existence would imply that the enumerated right could be abrogated up to the point that the amendment specified. The point was to outline some of the important ways in which the natural rights should not be infringed, not to outline the absolute extent of each category of right. Unfortunately those concerns have played out.

Great read and exceedingly well written discourse on the 2nd Amenment by David Hardy

http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardhist.html

There may well be certain occassions when it is necessary, proper, and reasonable to require temporary surrender of arms . I'm not at all settled on what those occassions are, because in each presumed to be "reasonable" GFZ (gun-free zone) along comes an example of WHY we should probably not submit to requirements to surrender our arms under those circumstances. If there is a threat there - either I do not go there , or I go there armed -if allowed any choice in the matter.


The 2A itself proscribes the federal government from having ANY direct authority to define the limits of the RIGHT enumerated therein, or to engage in oversight of that RIGHT - let alone actually regulate it. Fortunately, or unfortunately the federal judiciary has found it necessary to wade in on the 2A right "question" through application of the provisions of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has found it necessary to draw at least a vague line in the sand in order to protect the RIGHT from being totally obliterated by both the federal government and state and local government entities.

I would refer any and all to watch the movie "Red Dawn" periodically. You can't watch that flick and conclude that the 2A RIGHT limits arms to merely personal service weapons such as handguns, rifles, and shotguns. The determination as to what an individual, community, or state militia might need to resort to in selecting an arsenal to preserve either life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness ultimately rests with the people at the scene. I for one believe that in confronting any threat - be it a personal, neighborhood, community, or state security matter -the right to keep and bear arms includes whatever weaponry becomes NECESSARY,PROPER, and AVAILABLE to deal with the threat -period.

I don't recommend using a movie to conclude what weapons the 2A protects. Use the history of the right and the actual writings of the folks who penned the Constitution and the 2A to draw that conclusion.

Now, the movie might illustrate why one thinks certain arms should have been intended by those who wrote the words in the 2A, but it provides zero insight into what they actually intended.

Very simple: The Constitution is my PERMIT...And I carry as I choose.....
The 2A affirms my Constitutional Right which I had before the Constitution
was even written.....And no Law can violate that Constitution.....

eye95 said:

I don't recommend using a movie to conclude what weapons the 2A protects. Use the history of the right and the actual writings of the folks who penned the Constitution and the 2A to draw that conclusion.

Now, the movie might illustrate why one thinks certain arms should have been intended by those who wrote the words in the 2A, but it provides zero insight into what they actually intended.

Click to expand...

You are 100% correct.

To understand and properly "define" the 2nd, a person has to also study and take into consideration, the "other writings" of the Founders.

Without proper CONTEXT, the illiterate tend to make incorrect assumptions as to what the words mean.

It is also beneficial to know that the definitions of certain terms has been bastardized over the past 200 years.
"Slanglish" has replaced English, and people no longer know how to read properly and understand what they are reading.

DevinWKuska said:

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.

Click to expand...

First of all, this has been debated by far greater minds that myself but here's my take on it.

As citizens of the U.S.A. we are all meant to have the right to own a firearm (the general populace is meant to be the "militia"). I think that to understand the 2nd amendment you have to look backwards and try to put yourself into the authors' shoes. You have just won a revolution against a tyrannical government in which you had to fight to break free. In trying to set up a new government, you try to think of every angle to keep the same from happening again. One of the major components is arming every citizen against foes both foreign and domestic. If I were to write a constitution to form a "free/democratic" country I would come to the same conclusion along with free speech, etc... If a government oversteps it's bounds, to the point of trampling the rights of the individual citizen, you want the ability of the average citizen to "rise up" and displace the corrupt government with one that functions within the original intent of the constitution.

Look at what's happening in Egypt right now for instance. What if we had a president that did the same as Mr. Mubarak? What if they tried to hold onto power for more that the allotted term limits (or rigged elections)? What if he/she had the support of the military? The only option would be for the people to forcibly remove him or her from power. Fortunately for the Egyptians, the military seems to be siding with the general populace - this is not always the case.

My wife has family who live in Switzerland (they live in Basel and Zurich). Pretty much every household has a selective fire rifle that is maintained and ready to be used in a time of need. The Swiss have a similar mindset to our own country in that the people are self reliant and willing to uphold freedom no matter what the cost. I don't have a problem with firearms being regulated to some extent but this is where it gets tricky. I suppose the limits (firearms should not be allowed to be owned by those convicted of certain crimes for instance) of those regulations should be up to the voter as they are now, we are a democratic society afterall.

UHHH...MY PURPOSE in mentioning "Red Dawn" was to address the point that given circumstances necessitating the keeping & bearing of arms will largely determine WHAT ARMS are proper, and necessary - if available.

The framers had their reasons for not choosing to parse the meaning of "arms" - or "infringed". I'm not suggesting that some future brief before the SCOTUS cite "Red Dawn", "Tombstone", " First Blood", or "Nine to Five". Good grief !

It was considered to be SELF-EVIDENT at the time of the framing and ratification of the U.S. Constitution that the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE cited in the 2nd Amendment was NOT TO BE SUBJECTED TO ANY INFRINGEMENTS by the newly formed federal government - whether the available arm be a gun, a knife, or a frigate. Endeavoring today to reduce the 2A into its elemental historical components in search of evidence for the existence of implied parameters entirely misses the central point expressed in the provision - that this RIGHT -both collectively and individually held by the people- SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED upon by the federal government.

The 2A RIGHT obviously is being infringed upon by the federal government, and that infringement IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL - whether that fact is affirmed by the SCOTUS to not.

Once again, I suggest reading the history of the enumerated right (it predates the Constitution by hundreds of years) and reading what the people who wrote the amendment meant. They weren't talking about frigates.

That is not to say that there should not be or that there is not a natural right to keep (and bear???) a frigate, just that that is not the right enumerated by the 2A.

Regarding FRIGATES - bringing guns TO BEAR .

The obvious value of historical research regarding the individual right is duly noted, however THE RIGHT recognized in the Second Amendment is also a collective right. Notwithstanding the existence of historical commentary that is familiar to most of us, and was cited by the SCOTUS in Heller/McDonald supporting the individual small arms right, THE RIGHT enumerated and enshrined in the WORDS of the 2A has always existed independent of any particular specifications, or commentary.

i always quit interpreting when i got to the part; shall not be infringed.

rushcreek2 said:

Regarding FRIGATES - bringing guns TO BEAR .

The obvious value of historical research regarding the individual right is duly noted, however THE RIGHT recognized in the Second Amendment is also a collective right. Notwithstanding the existence of historical commentary that is familiar to most of us, and was cited by the SCOTUS in Heller/McDonald supporting the individual small arms right, THE RIGHT enumerated and enshrined in the WORDS of the 2A has always existed independent of any particular specifications, or commentary.

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court ruled that the 2A is an individual right, not collective. The militia is not a right of the State or of the collective. It is a responsibility and an authority of the State to regulate it.

The 2A gives the collective no "right." The whole idea of the collective having rights is repugnant to the idea of Liberty.

THE RIGHT we are discussing was merely alluded to by the framers of the Constitution when they included the reference known as the Second Amendment. The framers had no illussions that the amendment served to DEFINE this natural right that predates recorded human experience, and exists with or without historical references, the SCOTUS, or any contemporary "cracker-barrel" commentary.

The High Court acknowledged in Heller and McDonald that it did not create the RIGHT in question. The Court did not even "rediscover" the right hidden among the various historical writings referenced. The Court merely acknowledged the existence of this natural right, and affirmed in the two recent 2A decisions that this right incorporated into, and protected by the federal constitution does infact apply to the U.S. federal government , as well as jurisdictions within the several states.

This natural right, undefined within the text of the U.S. Constitution, stands as a "solid-gold nugget" in comparison to the "low-grade ore" produced to date in the hallowed chambers of the SCOTUS.

Like most, when I was a kid I loved to chase down "fire-flies" with my friends - each of us seeking to be the ONE having gathered the MOST bugs in our respective glass jars. As I recall , it was nearly impossible to obtain an accurate count on a jar full of these jitter-bugging critters. When we either got tired of the pursuit, or ran out of available "fire-flies", we would compare our "catches", with at least TWO contenders claiming to have captured the "MOST".

When it was all said and done - we released the subjects of our contest to return to their natural existence. Had we kept them in the jars , they would have eventually suffocated due to lack of oxygen.

If we elect to resign ourselves to accepting a SCOTUS rendering of the this natural right, it too will most likely eventually suffocate due to lack of oxygen.

In order for the grand kids to be successful in gathering ALL of the "Easter eggs", one or two of them must periodically step back a few feet, and survey the landscape. If the eyes are transfixed on the obvious, the more obscure often remains invisible.

The THREAD is about what the 2A means.

Moving on.

One need only to peruse the companion recognitions of the right to bear arms as defined in state constitutions to understand the 2A... Ratified pre-Heller or anything else. The final legal opinion rest with SCotUS and here's that:

'ARMS': "The Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments which constitute bearable arms. The amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existance of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed.": SCJ A. Scalia 2008

The language, purpose and premise of the 2A is so simple... yet so disingenously 'interpreted' by those who think they are so cunning, so above it all. These 'elitists' , who when buttonholed for an answer on the definition of 'bear' will invariably cower behind some imaginary judicial robes and claim that is not the opinion of SCotUS. THIS is the opinion of SCotUS:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:F7Qk-ewm_BkJ:http://www.poli-sci.utah.edu/~dlevin/jud_pro/DC_v_Heller.pdf+to+bear+ginsburg+definition&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbTuvbisxDqL3k_QsWhZX8ZfbYyQ8w

'Bearing Arms': "At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to ‘bear arms in defense of themselves and the state’ or ‘bear arms in defense of himself and the state.’ It is clear from those formulations that ‘bear arms’ did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit"


Of note... and I can't imagine nobody seems to have caught this... "SCJ Ginsburg: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”

Therefore... it seems obvious that the 'bearing' part of 2A was intended to be exercised at the descretion of the bearer. "upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket" Open or concealed made no difference. No difference was intended. If a certain thing is not prohibited, then it is legitimate by default.

All US laws must be consistant with the Constitution or they have no legitimate effect of law at all. Yet.... we have such 'laws' in abundance along with those who would willingly enforce such unconstitutional legislative contrivances as imposed.

Directing my thoughts to the OP's core question - Do the people have the right to carry FIREARMS ? According to the SCOTUS in the Heller/McDonald decisions YES, BUT ONLY IN THE HOME . We know that is NOT the meaning of the 2A at all. Those decisions only provided limited remedy to the people of D.C., and Chicago.

Only the legislative process will provide the ultimate 2A remedy in D.C., and Chicago - or any other jurisdiction. Questions of constitutionality are ultimately political issues - not judicial issues - and the RTKBA is no exception to this principle. The authority asserted in any court decision only applies to the remedy provided in the case before it. The majority opinion of the SCOTUS is just that -OPINION. That opinion offers general guidance in the sense that should a similar case come before the federal court in the future the same rationale expressed in the majority opinion will likely be applied - unless the POLITICAL make-up of the SCOTUS is altered significantly through the POLITICAL process.

Willingness to accept the SCOTUS as the final arbiter of the meaning of the 2A, beyond the remedy provided in resolving a given dispute within the confines of a particular case before the court, equates to surrender of a natural God-given right in exchange for tid-bit grants of court dispensation. As we have seen in the aftermath of the Heller and McDonald decision, the infringement of the right - only slightly mutated - continues to circumnavigate the protection of the RTKBA provided by the 2A.

The RTKBA will ultimately only be preserved by preventing, and eliminating the opportunity for legislative and executive infringement - at the ballot box.

rushcreek2 said:

Directing my thoughts to the OP's core question - Do the people have the right to carry FIREARMS ? According to the SCOTUS in the Heller/McDonald decisions YES, BUT ONLY IN THE HOME . We know that is NOT the meaning of the 2A at all. Those decisions only provided limited remedy to the people of D.C., and Chicago.

Click to expand...

No, not correct. How do you get that from those rulings?