Quote:
Originally Posted by Aperez
Why is it that no one ever points out the specifics of the second amendment that it shall not be infringed. Do people know what the meaning of infringe means. The only reason they are trying to do controls is because there are to many dumb people out there that don't know how to read apparently cuz last I check infringe means that it cannot be changed or altered in anyway so how are we allowing them to even attempt to restrict anything. When our four fathers wrote this amendment specifically for these types of situations. To be clear it can never be changed. When will some step up and point that out.
|
I hear "Shall not be infringed" regularly. Not sure why you don't hear it. Even on this forum it is frequently said.
The problem is the punctuation in the 2A, specifically two commas. There are two versions of the 2A from back when it was adopted. The first one is the one that was ratified by Congress, this one:
Quote:
|
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.
|
You see that first comma? It is not there in the version that went to the States for ratification. The second comma is the one that the anti-gunners ignore.
As I read it (and while I am no Constitutional scholar not am I a lawyer or politician, I do know words and writing) it says to me that in the language of the time the Founders were stating three things;
1) A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Period.
2) The People have a God given natural right to keep and bear arms. Period.
3) Neither of those shall be infringed.
In other words, they were aware of the fact that there must be a way for a free state to defend itself, and while the Colonists did not have a "well regulated militia" during or even for some time after the Revolutionary War, they did fully understand that the newly created nation must have that now. (read up on the Revolutionary War for the information, as I have not enough time to reiterate what has already been written on the subject. One excellent book on the subject is "1776" by David McCullough.)
They also realized that the People (notice that they did not use the word "Citizens") must have the means at hand to revolt against the Government, even if the Militia was used against the People.
The anti-gunners choose to ignore those commas (or the comma), so it appears to them as though the "well regulated militia" and the "people" were meant to be one and the same. To me (and I presume to many of you, and to the SCOTUS) these words with the punctuation means that the two are distinct.
When will someone step up and point it out? It has been happening since this country was founded. Pay attention. Spread the word.
Linear Mode
