Posted on 05/08/2014 7:58:28 AM PDT by Publius
History, politics and law are all tangled up in contemporary court interpretations and public understanding of the Second Amendment, and politics is the greater part of the mix these days.
Last week, I wrote that we’ve so misread the amendment that maybe we ought to get rid of it. That’s certainly not on the horizon, but the idea drew a strong response and suggested to me that a review of the amendment’s history might be helpful. (Some of the responses also reinforced my belief there are many people who should not be allowed anywhere near a gun. What does racist name calling have to do with gun rights anyway?)
One theme that ran through comments supportive of unrestricted gun-ownership rights was that it is necessary for individuals to own guns to protect themselves against both crime and the U.S. government, and that the framers of the Constitution intended for the amendment to protect that individual right.
That’s a new way of reading the amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.com ...
No, Jerry, that's the historically accurate and proper way of reading it. It's only through your drug and alcohol fueled, public-school educated insanity that you believe any other "modern" interpretation.
“...Last week, I wrote that we’ve so misread the amendment that maybe we ought to get rid of it...”
No, “we” haven’t “misread” it. That’s a “You’ve” misread it, sport...
“...That’s certainly not on the horizon...”
Several million gun owning American Patriots agree... whole-heartedly.
Like hell it is. That man's a damned liar.
Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an “AMENDMENT”. No “Articles in Amendment” to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until “further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added” “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers”. (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.
In this Light:
“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.” What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to “amended”?
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE “MILITIA”. The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the “militia” as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. “(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)
What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the “Militia” that was so offensive to the States?
First understand that the word “militia” was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the “Militia” was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word “militia” as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of “Militia” that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend “People” today:
“Militia” in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:
“To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions.” Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:
“To provide for the 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, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” Any “patriot” out there still want to be called a member of the “MILITIA” as defined by the original Constitution?
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: “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;” The only way the States would accept the “MILITIA” as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”. The States realized that “THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE” required that the “MILITIA” as originally created in the Constitution be “WELL REGULATED” by a “restrictive clause.” How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”? By demanding that “restrictive clause two” better know as the “Second Amendment” be added to the original Constitution providing:
“THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” The States knew that “PEOPLE” with “ARMS” would “WELL REGULATE” the Federal “MILITIA”!
Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:
“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.”
For those still overcome by propaganda:
The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the “MILITIA” is not “WELL REGULATED” by “PEOPLE” keeping and bearing arms, the “MILITIA” becomes a threat to the “SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.”
The “MILITIA” has no “RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” in the Second Amendment, rather it is only “THE RIGHT OF THE “”PEOPLE”” TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
The confiscatory regulation IS THE NEW left wing interpretation.
Common Core seeks to brainwash the young minds full of mush back into the notion that the second amendment is about protecting the government from the people.
This is one of the best explanations I have seen and this needs to go viral. Congratulations on spelling it out clearly in simple terms.
Idiot. As is the "lawyer" he quotes as upholding his idiocy.
The 2nd was never JUST about owning arms in relation to militia service. It was a private, individual, unalienable RIGHT to both keep and bear arms so that forming a militia would even be possible.
Especially in the face of a government bent on exceeding it's rightful limits.
Like we have today.
We need a purge in this Country. I'm convinced of this more and more each day. I've resisted the notion, but I feel it's inevitable at this point.
wow. excellent, excellent, excellent.
That just became part of my RKBA library.
Thanks!
Was the Supreme Court, in 1856, suggesting that a freed slave was only allowed to carry arms while serving in a "well-regulated Militia", and was subject to being disarmed otherwise? No reasonable person could read this Supreme Court decision in that way.
Beware of anyone advocating removal of your means to defend yourself from violent coercion
because they obviously intend to use violent coercion.
History shows that very scenario being played out time and again...
You’d think we’d learn this lesson better.
Liberal pathology alert. Call the psych hospital, tell 'em we've got another straitjacket case for Doc Savage.
I'm not sure I buy that interpretation.
To me, all references to "regulation" refer to training the Militia in use and in military drills (nowadays, small-unit tactics and marksmanship).
I see 2A more as a reserve guarantee, or rather a worldly wager, that no caudillo, Communist conspiracy, or other potential strongman or junta would ever be able to overcome the armed resistance of the People.
The Framers clearly intended the People to maintain their freedom by the exercise of arms, if needed, against all comers, no matter the would-be tyrant's pretext, ideology, theory, or claims of right to rule.
It isn't the first time a college professor has erred in his own subject. That statement is categorically false.
You are missing the meaning and intent of the definition. The "Militia" or in this case the armed Federal Army (all organized and armed Federal soldiers in all the branches of service and or armed law enforcement under the authority of the President) are by definition a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE." The only way to regulate such a force is if the entire population is free to own and bear arms. That is the intent of the second amendment.
Obviously it helps to have a trained force to protect and defend yourself from another well trained force. The founding fathers probably never envisioned the size of modern day armed forces and weapons at their disposal. But even today the federal government could not muster enough forces to suppress the entire armed populace of the United States. Thus the 2'nd amendment proves it's worth in that the vast numbers of civilian firearms prevents a tyrant from controlling the military and using it to serve his own purposes and taking over the States and the country. If the government wants to ignore the constitution and take away our freedom they will first have to disarm us all. Even if they tried to use bloodshed and use the military against the people, most of the military would defect. Ukraine is a good example of that right now.
Well, not really. Ukraine is multi-vectored, state-on-state stealth aggression in several domains simultaneously: infowar, political war, demographic warfare, cyberwar, economic warfare, and finally modulated low-intensity warfare directed by Vladimir Putin himself.
I don't think the Framers thought of the U.S. Army of the future as being a militia army like the Continental Army, but rather a standing force. U.S. Regulars appeared in Canada in the War of 1812 and elsewhere and distinguished themselves, in contrast to the miserable failures of militia units before Quebec and at Bladensburg in 1814 (which allowed the British to burn Washington that night).
I think your larger assertion is correct, that the People were to be understood by all parties to be invincibly invested with the right to keep, bear, and practice arms, so that no tyrant, however clever, could master all the United States of America, and would always be vulnerable to the Militias of the States he may have failed to dominate completely. (Like Texas under the Emperor Osagyefo Obozo I Babykiller.)
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.