• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

To help, others, understand the 2nd Amendment.

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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/qu...-understanding-of-one-of-our-languages-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.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
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...
 

Shoobee

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
599
Location
CCCP (Calif)
Fortunately John Roberts and 4 of the other US Supreme Court justices can indeed read plain English.

The other 4 must have gone to public schools. Three of them are women.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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/qu...-understanding-of-one-of-our-languages-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.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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...
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
:exclaim: “Congress may pass laws, but I decide which of its laws are constitutional and which I can simply choose to ignore.”

:arrow:;http://brvanlanen.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/obama-ill-decide-whats-constitutional/

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.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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... ;)
 

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
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:

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
"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...
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
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.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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. :)
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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.
 
Top