Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Does The 2nd Amendment Mean?
Personal Liberty Digest ^ | January 24, 2013 | Bob Livingston

Posted on 01/24/2013 8:02:29 AM PST by Resettozero

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.—Amendment II

Some of the recent attacks on the 2nd Amendment and lawful gun owners by the gun grabbers have focused on the meaning of the words in the Amendment. Particularly, gun grabbers have zeroed in on what the Founding Fathers meant by the words “well regulated Militia.”

So what did the Founders mean when they penned and approved those words? As Thomas Jefferson suggested in a letter to William Johnson, “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

(Excerpt) Read more at personalliberty.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol; militia; rkba; secondamendment; wellregulated; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 last
To: Resettozero

I would gladly trade Graham for either one of my two so called Senators.

To tell you how bad it is here, Feinstein ran virtually unopposed in November. I can’t even remember the name of the Republican Woman that ran against her, unlike in 2010 where Carly Fiorini ran against “Call me Senator - Dumb as a Box of Barbara Boxers” Barbara Boxer.


61 posted on 01/24/2013 2:30:05 PM PST by Kickass Conservative (I only Fear a Government that doesn't Fear me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Nip
You make some very interesting points. As far as The BFLAN lying about it, well we have to concede that he is allergic to virtue.

He prefers to make his actions LOOK virtuous, so as to fool the fools.

I do remember thinking at the time he made that comment as a candidate thinking "why didn't he just use the words 'a well-regulated militia'?

He has no desire to allow us our Constitutional rights.

He wants a group who is well-regulated by him to do us in.

Bill Ayers said that their goal is to destroy the American Republic.

Only savage beasts talk like that.

62 posted on 01/24/2013 2:42:06 PM PST by Slyfox (The key to Marxism is medicine - Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative
I would gladly trade Graham for either one of my two so called Senators.

Now that you remind me, I guess it could be worse. But I am NOT voting for him again, no matter who or what they run against him. I have been unforgivingly peeved.
63 posted on 01/24/2013 2:52:49 PM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: arthurus; Gaffer
The “well-regulated militia” thing is solely a STATE function. Wrong. The wording does not imply of that interpretation at all. A militia CAN be a state function but was not so defined at the time.

According to the Constitution, the militia is foremost a state function, because the officers of the militia must come from the states. The president can use the militia in times of emergency, but the officers of the militia are under state control, not federal control.

Article I Section 8:


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;

Congress regulates the provisioning, organization and discipline of the militia, but they don't control the officers. State control of the officers was a check against federal abuse of the militia.

-PJ

64 posted on 01/24/2013 3:01:04 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Exactly the same as for the first, libel/slander/incite/etc. You are held to account for the damages caused by using your Rights; not for the tools themselves.

Unfort. the GOP couldn’t debate itself out of a web paper bag


65 posted on 01/24/2013 3:05:31 PM PST by i_robot73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

Unless I missed something, the article is the “same old same old”.

He didn’t address the meaning of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, or as he put it toward the end, “the right to keep and bear arms”.

As I recall, Heller left that open. If we don’t start addressing the meaning of those words it will be done for us. There can’t be an infringement if what is “infringed” doesn’t fall within the meaning of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, whatever that is.


66 posted on 01/24/2013 8:44:42 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson