2nd Amendment confusion?


Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > 2nd Amendment confusion?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-08-2010, 08:28 PM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
IDVague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 199
Liked 6 Times on 3 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default 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.



__________________
IDVague is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 07-08-2010, 08:36 PM   #2
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
skullcrusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ohio,Ohio
Posts: 10,949
Liked 17 Times on 12 Posts

Default

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



__________________

From C3Shooter:
Skullcrusher, you are evil, sick, demented, twisted- and my hero!


Quote:
Originally Posted by pandamonium View Post
...without the Second, we cannot protect the rest!
skullcrusher is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 09:26 PM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
IDVague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 199
Liked 6 Times on 3 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skullcrusher View Post
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...".
__________________
IDVague is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 09:30 PM   #4
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 17,536
Liked 5625 Times on 2940 Posts
Likes Given: 371

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IDVague View Post
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.
__________________
JonM is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 09:57 PM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
IDVague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 199
Liked 6 Times on 3 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

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.

__________________
IDVague is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 10:21 PM   #6
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

"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 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.

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.

__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 10:34 PM   #7
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
CA357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 19,871
Liked 1175 Times on 510 Posts
Likes Given: 2978

Default

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.

__________________
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”Samuel Adams
CA357 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 10:58 PM   #8
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pandamonium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,601
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

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!



__________________
GUN CONTROL, I GOT THAT

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. Thomas Jefferson
pandamonium is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
S&W frame confusion Blue2Green316 General Handgun Discussion 9 03-04-2010 05:42 PM
wolf confusion KRAGGY69 Ammunition & Reloading 0 01-20-2010 12:26 PM
Land of Confusion by Genesis..... james_black The Club House 19 12-25-2009 05:18 AM
Confusion??? curly45 AK & SKS Discussion 7 09-07-2009 06:55 PM
pro-gun amendment to HR 980 Kelly J Legal and Activism 1 05-14-2008 08:12 AM



Newest Threads