Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   2nd Amendment confusion? (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/2nd-amendment-confusion-29126/)

IDVague 07-08-2010 09:28 PM

2nd Amendment confusion?
 
This is a subject that has bothered me for years. It reminds me of the old maxim about how you should never argue with an idiot because others will have a hard time telling which is which.

I really hate it when an anti-gunner throws out the notion that the 2nd Amendment references the "militia" therefore it only applies to a government entity. The reason I hate that, is because so often the pro-gunner will counter with the argument that it means we are all a part of the "militia". Bunk!

This is why it is important to learn the English language as a tool for communicating through writing as well as speech. The 2nd clearly states that "A well regulated militia (comma) being necessary for the security of a free state (comma) the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The first thing to recognize is that this is an amendment to an existing document. The existing document, the Constitution, had already established the militia and the government's right to arm it. That was a done deal. Over. Established and ready to be ratified. But, the states wanted a little more clarification on what rights would go untouched by the Federalists once the ratification took place. So the wording of the 2nd Amendment is an acknowledgment of those concerns. Some were against the government sponsoring a standing army period. The wording is basically expressing the idea of, okay here's the deal---We need an armed force (militia), but to alleviate your concerns, YOUR right to be armed won't be touched. To accept the opposition's argument that the 2nd refers to the government's militia being armed by saying, "Oh but we are all a part of that" is to miss the whole idea and gives their argument standing. I've yet to hear it, but I'm surprised no anti-gunner has made the case that only able-bodied men aged 17 to 45 should be allowed to own weapons since that was the criteria for the "militia" at the time of ratification.

skullcrusher 07-08-2010 09:36 PM

Ok, ...Free State... is what? An individual State like Ohio or Colorado, or State as in the whole country?

IDVague 07-08-2010 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skullcrusher (Post 312047)
Ok, ...Free State... is what? An individual State like Ohio or Colorado, or State as in the whole country?

I'm not sure it applies to either. The lack of a capitol "S" could be an indication that it refers to an all-encompassing meaning. The word "state" primarily refers to a condition or station in life. So, "...necessary to a free state..." could just as easily be "...necessary to a free condition..." or "...necessary to maintain freedom...".

JonM 07-08-2010 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IDVague (Post 312041)
This is a subject that has bothered me for years. It reminds me of the old maxim about how you should never argue with an idiot because others will have a hard time telling which is which.

I really hate it when an anti-gunner throws out the notion that the 2nd Amendment references the "militia" therefore it only applies to a government entity. The reason I hate that, is because so often the pro-gunner will counter with the argument that it means we are all a part of the "militia". Bunk!

This is why it is important to learn the English language as a tool for communicating through writing as well as speech. The 2nd clearly states that "A well regulated militia (comma) being necessary for the security of a free state (comma) the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The first thing to recognize is that this is an amendment to an existing document. The existing document, the Constitution, had already established the militia and the government's right to arm it. That was a done deal. Over. Established and ready to be ratified. But, the states wanted a little more clarification on what rights would go untouched by the Federalists once the ratification took place. So the wording of the 2nd Amendment is an acknowledgment of those concerns. Some were against the government sponsoring a standing army period. The wording is basically expressing the idea of, okay here's the deal---We need an armed force (militia), but to alleviate your concerns, YOUR right to be armed won't be touched. To accept the opposition's argument that the 2nd refers to the government's militia being armed by saying, "Oh but we are all a part of that" is to miss the whole idea and gives their argument standing. I've yet to hear it, but I'm surprised no anti-gunner has made the case that only able-bodied men aged 17 to 45 should be allowed to own weapons since that was the criteria for the "militia" at the time of ratification.

you are 99% there. the founding fathers had just fought a war that was won by recruiting common citizens. the people brought into the army brought their own weapons some did not. the lack of some not having guns put a huge burden on the fledgling army. training was also an issue. with those things in mind and knowing that at the time militia was the common term for military, it is easy to see why they worded it the way they did. they wanted a pool of citizens who were already armed to recruit from for future conflicts. they knew from experience the neccessity of an armed society. they had just fought off an oppressive over-taxing burdening english government. they were also aware that the new fledgling republic could become equally oppressive. they had just lived through a prime example of how a gun bearing society can throw off their shackles. so they worded it simple and sweet.

the founding fathers were very wise. our current political masters are a clear and present danger to a a free nation. they fear an armed citizen. they fear a citizen that is able to speak freely. that is why the current regime and socialist everywhere do their best to stifle speech and guns. whether it is through race baiting ala rev. wright/jackson, campaign reform, or gun banning ala mayor dailey the socialist really are out to get you.

IDVague 07-08-2010 10:57 PM

JonM, I agree. It IS simple language that the opposition has tried to twist and turn on itself to satisfy their agenda. Obviously, a people in rebellion against an oppressive government would have to rely on a militia comprised of private citizens, and they never wanted the new government to forget that or to be tempted into being as oppressive as the previous English monarchy had become. That's why I am appalled whenever I hear anyone allow the current usage of the word "militia" be applied to the 2nd Amendment.

bkt 07-08-2010 11:21 PM

"Free State" refers to individual states, not the nation as a whole. Jefferson referred to Virginia as his "country". States were entities unto themselves back then and should be again.

As for the militia...

United States Code
Title 10
Subtitle A
Part 1
Chapter 13
Subsection 311: Militia: composition and classes

(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 areó
(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.

Source: United States Code: Title 10,311. Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

The bottom line is this. We as living entities have the right to protect our lives, property, wealth and liberty -- and by protect our liberty, I mean we have the right to repel those who would make us slaves -- and by logical extension, we therefore have the right to access to the common tools necessary for that protection: firearms.

If a leftist says otherwise, ask him or her how they would feel if George W. Bush were back as president and wanted to lock up, torture and execute all liberals. Wouldn't the liberal want to be able to protect him/herself from that sort of despotism? 2A applies to all people.

If the leftist says "no, I'd rather die and let my kids die than use a gun", walk away from that person; they're a waste of skin. If they can begin to understand what 2A means by that example, then there's hope for them.

CA357 07-08-2010 11:34 PM

The key word is PEOPLE. The People! That's us, WE are the People. There is no room for argument, no matter what those douchebag lawyers and cowards and manipulators say. They're masters of semantics and chicanery. Their tools are ignorance and obfuscation.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean exactly what they say and nothing those scumbags pull will change that. It is up to us to ensure Liberty and Freedom.

If you're not frightened and mad as Hell, you're not paying attention.

pandamonium 07-08-2010 11:58 PM

The PLAIN words of the the Constitution and Bill of Rights, are constantly being mis-interpreted and distorted by the un-holy (lawyers). The SCOTUS, (lawyers), do the same. The Highest Law of the Land, should, if interpretation is deemed necessary by the SCOTUS, always go towards the rights of the PEOPLE, instead, they lean towards Government power. So laws are upheld or repealed in favor of government power, as opposed to citizens rights. Hence, the government getting away with denying rights that are defined as inalienable.
Our polititians and Chief Justices have lost sight of what it means to BE an AMERICAN, with rights, and liberties, that no other nation can match.
GOD HELP THE USA!


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:07 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.