I don't know, I'd sure like me one of these. Just as a conversation piece of course.
Posted on 12/19/2012 9:31:17 PM PST by horsappl
The Right to Bear Arms
The following excerpts from the Constitution of the United States, I believe, are relevant to the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Article I (All legislative Powers)
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
To raise and support Armies,
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Article. II. (Executive Powers)
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
Articlle. IV
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Amendment II
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.
Breaking Down the Second Amendment
In order to help cut through so much miss-information that abounds about the amendment, we will look at it in four parts:
- First part, the word “regulated”, as defined by Webster’s:
1 a: to govern or direct according to rule
b (1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2): to make regulations for or concerning”
- Second part, indicates the necessity of the first part (well regulated Militia), and defines what it is necessary for, a FREE State. Notice, this is not THE State. This amendment is about securing FREEDOM, not PERSONAL PROPERTY.
- Third part, identifies who and what the amendment gives the right to. The word “Arms”, as defined by Webster’s:
1 a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm
- Fourth part, the word “infringed”, as defined by Webster’s:
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
2 obsolete: defeat, frustrate
Conclusion
Looking at the Constitution and understanding the purpose of the Bill of rights to limit governmental (mainly federal) authority, it should be apparent now that the amendment is often miss-construed to apply to other situations such as national defense and hunting. As it is plainly stated in the Constitution, the federal government has the power to raise, arm, and operate an army, navy, and militia.
Just Another Concerned Citizen,
Peter M. Jennen
The term doesn't refer to being under the control of a government.
latest media meme: why should civilians be able to own assualt weapons?
followed by: if they can be armed like the military, why not tanks and bazookas...?
Not the way they have been playing the last few weeks . . .
Our reply should be:
How many more children must die at the alter of “gun free zones”?
Or we could state:
The largest mass murders in all of history have been governments with unarmed populations.
Too bad elected Republicans check their balls at the door to Congress....
We aren’t armed like the military.
Not even remotely close.
Where is my Cobra gunship with 30mm cannon and HEPs?
Where’s my aircraft carrier?
Where’s my automatic weapon?
Where’s my Spectre gunship?
We are armed with civillian weapons, stupid media. The assualt weapons you refer to are nothing more than military “style” weapons. they are not military weapons.
****ing idiots.
“Why Precup chose to take pictures instead of try to get away has been forever a mystery.”
Quality goes to the free market supplying the public.
The Second Amendment was written to prevent another King George in America (like now in the WH.) We had just defeated the totalitarian British. As stated, it was not about hunting. Hunting was a necessity for getting food, as well as protection from Indians and outlaws. A shotgun or single-shot rifle would do for most hunting back then.
A semi-automatic well-filled clip is necessary when defending rights from intrusive government. As usual the dictator-like Democrat Party is determined to ban any rifle they determine to be “war-like.” Assault rifles can be fired on automatic. Those require a special license from ATF. A patriot who voted for Obama is not one.
My answer is two part. First, come up with a viable definition of "assault weapon."
Then tell me why exactly I have to justify exercising an inalienable right based on "need?" No one asks you to show a need for another email account based on the 1st Amendment. No one is calling for a capacity limit of 10 friends or less for facebook pages in California. Hey, you have a facebook page, why do you *need* to communicate with that many people at a time? Ha!
I may or may not need an "assault weapon" (how-ever you try to define it) - but I absolutely, unquestionably need the freedom to own one. That is non-negotiable.
bunkerhill7 to Jeff Winston
Actually it means more than that:
1887 Webster`s Dictionary:
“to bear, bear v.t., “
“1. to support and move; or carry
2. To be equipped, furnished, or marked with;
to have as belonging, distinguishing, identifying, or characterizing; as to bear a sword, an inscription,, a title, a good reputation or an evil look,
7. To be directed; to be pointed; as, to plant guns to bear upon a trench”
I have it simple on my truck tailgate
“Criminals prefer unarmed victims”
“...if they can be armed like the military, why not tanks and bazookas...?”
Yes, I want both...guaranteed by Amendment 2.
I don't know, I'd sure like me one of these. Just as a conversation piece of course.
I think the redefining will be around common and general Welfare of the United States
You redefine both of those and it's a game changer. Does anyone here think that those at the DUmp or anybody @ the Soros group defines general Welfare the same as we do?
How I see it (FWIW)
States maintain a Militia
States appoint the Officers of the Militia
Congress prescribes a training discipline by which the States are to train the Militia
Congress provides for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia
Congress shall govern such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States - that part which is not employed in the service of the United States is not governed by Congress but by the State
Congress shall call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
When called into the actual Service of the United States the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States
Amendment II
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.
Conclusion:
The people keep and bear Arms.
The people are to be trained by the State according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
The people are to be armed by Congress
The Militia may be called upon for service by their Governor
The Militia may be called upon for service by Congress.
States are to train the Militia according to the discipline presecribed by Congress.
Congress shall arm the Militia - the people.
BTW whatever happened to State Armories? I am not speaking of National Guard posts, but State Armories. Congress shall arm the Militia... which houses the arms in the State Armory. Where have those arms gone? Heavy arms. Where are they? The militia has not been provided for. The States do not train the militia... the whole of the people. States can not repel Invasions, hello Arizona!
followed by: if they can be armed like the military, why not tanks and bazookas...?
actually the Constitution does allow you to have any weapon if you have the money I guess...
“The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed!”
The money words in 2A are: “the right of the people to keep...”
It doesn’t say ‘store’ in an armory. It doesn’t say separate from you or put any limit on the time you are allowed to keep these arms. It doesn’t say at what age you can have arms or at what age you must give them up. It doesn’t distinguish between male and female, child or adult. It doesn’t set any limit per household or any limit on how many household members may KEEP arms, whatever arms they see fit, or numbers thereof. It does not distinquish between a head of a household separate from the rest of the household. It doesn’t even say household. It says PEOPLE...so it applies equally to ALL people, not necessarily in a household. It does not say A state or THE state has the right to take away or otherwise confiscate arms from any citizen of the several states and lock them away for any reason.
It says to KEEP. Period.
Ping to #21
I did say “the people keep and bear Arms”
Also “The people are to be armed by Congress” - BUT, and just to clarify, those arms are in addition to whatever the people have.
Every able bodied male should be issued a military rifle Barrett, HK, etc, be trained, and be tested for proficiency.
Armories are for things like tanks, transports, shoulder launched missles. And stockpiles of light weapons and ammo.
Any move on the stockpile and it’s Lexington & Concord all over again.
Training should be required.
Also open carry should be the norm. It’s pretty simple: don’t pull any sh*t or everyone around you will end it.
“followed by: if they can be armed like the military, why not tanks and bazookas...?”
Which was the original intent of the 2nd amendment.
Most of the arguments about the Second Amendment made by both sides revolve around a single assumption - that the Second Amendment grants a citizen the right to bear arms. What both sides fail to understand is that the Second Amendment grants no such right, in fact, the Constitution grants no rights at all!
The Constitution identifies what powers that ‘’We the people’’grant to the government. This is the whole purpose of the Constitution - to tell the government what it can and cannot do.
That is why Marxists Democrats like Obama hate our Constitution because it is a limitation on Government not a limitation on We The People.....
Read the Second Amendment closely, it doesn’t say the people have a right to bear arms but rather that the
government cannot infringe on that right.
Amendment II
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.
That’s it, that is the whole 2nd Amendment...where does it say that the government gives us any right? It doesn’t, it only says that the government cannot infringe on our rights.
The framers of our Constitution considered our rights to be “natural’ rights, “fundamental” rights. Basic rights that all free people possess.
Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government- that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government. — Ayn Rand
That first sentence made blood squirt out my eyes but after reading the rest I calmed down.
Rereading Joyce Lee Malcolm’s book “Guns and Violence”, I think “the people” here was roughly equivalent to what was termed in reference to the 1689 events in England: “Persons of Virtue”. These did not include criminals, children, or insane people.
Sometimes I find myself thinking we would be better off if instead of the 20,000 gun laws on the books, we adhered more closely to the meaning and intent of that phrase Of course, the devil is in the details: how crazy a person? how young a child? how criminal a criminal?
Even if the term DOES mean “under control of the government”, it still works our way.
A valid interpretation of the 2ndA amounts to “even though we grudgingly acknowledge a standing army is necessary, the people STILL have an inalienable right to own military weapons”. The Founding Fathers disliked the idea of a standing army, but realized one was necessary (armed populace is great in theory, but not reliable come organized international warfare). In granting the government the power to raise and maintain a standing army, they clarified that doing so in no way justified disarming the populace.
The awkward wording makes more sense this way, and still comes to the same conclusion.
During the Revolution, anyone who fought against Britain was considered a criminal. The Constitution and Bill of Rights is a uniquely AMERICAN document for the AMERICAN people and no one else. It is OUR culture and I don’t care how many ‘interpretations’ they tout to agree with their own opinions or agendas there are. It is what it is.
Sorry Ray76, I’m re-joining the NRA today,Just to make the liberals heads explode.....I quit when I learned that they supported Jack Murtha and Harry Reid. I guess I will forgive them.
The supreme court made a clear distinction between Article 1; Section 8 “ Defense” and the 2nd amendment in Houston v Moore in 1820.
Here's a link:http://www.largo.org/literary.html
I would disagree that the construction of the sentence is awkward at all, especially for our Founders, many of whom were trained in the classics. The militia phrase is a common construct in Latin and is known as an absolute clause.
The relationship between the militia clause and the rest of the sentence is intended to be unstated and such that the dependent clause does not change the meaning or intention of the independent clause.
You should also add in the Pre-amble to the Bill of Rights that clearly states it's purpose.
RKBA is an Individual Right and is not dependent upon militia service.
5.56mm
In the usage of the 18th century, ‘regulated’ had a somewhat different meaning. A definition included in a 1980 edition of the Random House College Dictionary shows “of troops: properly disciplined.” From other writings at the time there was a great concern that the militia be well equipped and knowledgeable in the use of their arms. That pre-supposes the militia (defined as all of the people) have access to arms.
Don’t have any problems with private tanks and bazookas myself, except that I can’t afford ‘em...
..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The Constitution was written by intelligent people for mostly uneducated citizens. It was written in plain language so the average citizen could understand it.
It lays out our rights as citizens.
It doesn’t specify what arms we can keep, but it also doesn’t exclude any.
The Constitution is not a cafeteria plan.
No problem!
Didn’t need any coffee to get going this morning. :)
Yeah I can’t afford them either. Which is why I want to go down to the armory and practice with it.
Hell, I can’t afford ammo for a modern tank! What does it cost per shot, $500?
(Checked on some surplus ammo for a 40mm - costs $10 per round if you buy in bulk. No imagine what a 120mm DSFSDU round would cost...)
MIGHT be able to afford a couple of shots with a rocket launcher or bazooka... Some of the old HE or HEAT stuff is pretty cheap.
The “and bear arms” part is good too. And clear. We can ‘keep’ them and when necessity arises we can ‘bear’ them. We don’t need permission to deal with threats. I am also very fond of “shall not be infringed.” For goodness sake the meaning of that is so clear any ten year old should be able to understand it with certainty. And I’m sure they would. Only an adult could play such mind games with such precise and efficient phrases.
Agreed.
One of the enumerated powers of Congress is to issue "letters of marque and reprisal" to privateers, authorizing them to attack enemy ships. Privateers were privately owned, heavily armed ships - probably one of the most powerful "weapon systems" of the 18th century. So yeah, why not a tank or bazooka, or a heavily armed ship?
REGULATE
control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly: a hormone which regulates metabolism
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/regulate?q=regulated
Controlled militia or Maintained militia. “Maintained” is the logical usage in the context of the RKBA.
Thanks for pointing that out.
“You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916...We also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed.
We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”
Barry’s right.I’m becoming a pirate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.