Posted on 04/09/2016 7:24:07 AM PDT by rktman
It's one of the most controversial passages of the Constitution. Allegedly, it's also one of the most obscure and unintelligible sections. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, "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."
Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), we were told for decades that the Second Amendment did not guarantee or even refer to an individual right. Based on the wording of United States v. Miller (1939), the theory was promulgated that the Second Amendment protected only State's rights to maintain organized militia. One problem with this curious interpretation is that States don't have rights, they have powers. But there's nothing new about twisting the truth into a pretzel so that it conforms to a dogmatic ideology. Some people still doggedly maintain that the Second Amendment does not refer to an individual right. Among these persons are some judges on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In clear defiance of the Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit recently announced that "states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
RKBA has never been controversial to me.
The fact that someone has to ask this question pays tribute to lawyers and justices run wild. Shall not be infringed. No, I didn’t read the article. This is Free Republic after all!
What Does the Second Amendment Mean?
It means that there is an inalienable right to bear arms, and that anything that any government does pertaining to that right is an infringement.
In my opinion, if the founders had NOT wanted the American people to have the right to keep and bear arms, they would’ve used the word “militia” again instead of the word “people”...
They intended it to apply to everyone....
The meaning of the Second Amendment is completely clear and no honest person could claim it has any ambiguity at all. Only an exceptionally dishonest democrat (meaning 70% of their voters and 99% of their politicians) could claim any meaning other than the natural and literal reading.
Our individual, God-given right to keep and bear arms is given legal protection under that amendment. The legal protection granted is the highest level imaginable - not just a legislative constraint “Congress shall make no law”, but the much more stringent bar on any government restrictions: “shall not be infringed”.
It’s one of the most controversial passages of the Constitution. Allegedly, it’s also one of the most obscure and unintelligible sections. …It is neither.
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them. …Therefore, all of us are the militia. Case closed.
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. …
The meaning is clear. Been talked about forever.
The only people who really seriously ask the question are those trying to change what it means.
Well Eric in the Ozarks, that’s because you have a brain that functions for more than just breathing. The mommunists thought process is non-existent.
In modern language, it would read “A well equipped Militia being necessary for the security state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Today the term regulation only refers to rules and bureaucracy. This was not always the case.
no ifs,ands,nor buts.............???
Only to an indoctrinated liberal.
Second Amendment first of all, like all of the first eight amendments, reminds the feds some specific individual and state rights the feds cannot violate. (The first ten amendments are NOT a bill of rights but a REMINDER of SOME of the rights the feds cannot violate. As the Ninth and Tenth Amendments point out, it is not an exhaustive “list” but a sampling of rights out of many not mentioned. “Bills of Rights” are for communist countries.)
Specifically, the Second Amendment is reminding the feds they cannot violate states’ rights to maintain state militias nor violate individual rights to own and carry guns.
Unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions do not override the Constitution as written and originally understood and interpreted (Art VI, Sec 2) and should be treated by the states as null and void. Also SCOTUS decisions that ARE constitutional are limited in authoritative scope to ONLY those parties in the case involved and any other case with the same d questions of law. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE SCOTUS THE POWER TO MAKE NATIONAL LAW. That is the job on Congress.
Exactly.
...a well-regulated militia being necessary... = because the sky is blue...
They should have left out this meaningless clause. The action part of the sentence is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed".
Second Amendment first of all, like all of the first eight amendments, reminds the feds some specific individual and state rights the feds cannot violate. (The first ten amendments are NOT a bill of rights but a REMINDER of SOME of the rights the feds cannot violate. As the Ninth and Tenth Amendments point out, it is not an exhaustive “list” but a sampling of rights out of many not mentioned. “Bills of Rights” are for communist countries.)
Specifically, the plain meaning and original understanding of the Second Amendment is to remind the feds they cannot violate states’ rights to maintain state militias nor violate individual rights to own and carry guns.
Unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions do not override the Constitution as written and originally understood and interpreted (Art VI, Sec 2) and should be treated by the states as null and void. Also SCOTUS decisions that ARE constitutional are limited in authoritative scope to ONLY those parties in the case involved and any other case with the same d questions of law. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE SCOTUS THE POWER TO MAKE NATIONAL LAW. That is the job on Congress.
Nice, tight, package, no frills.
The right, is not bequeathed upon the populace by an amendment.
No, it pre-exists the amendment.
it is mentioned in passing, that the right (to keep and bear arms), the one we already have, simply shall not be infringed.
“The “Miller” case has been so mis-intrepreted for so long ...”
It sure has
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/gun_control_dencite.htm
Problem Solved:
Any person granted a “Privilege” to “keep and bear arms, without being infringed” shall be prohibited from using that privilege in the defense of others for profit or gain.
Any person violating this law shall be guilty of a Felony, Punishable by a mandatory sentence of not less than 25 years in Prison.
There are NO POLICE OFFICERS or any other person in “Law Enforcement” anywhere in the US, that has a “Duty” to protect the citizenry. The Only “Legal Duty” any Police Officer has,is to the political entity that employs them.
This would eliminate ALL Private Body Guards from carrying guns to protect the elitist ruling class and HOLLYWOOD.
If it is a RIGHT then you can use your gun in defense of others, if it is a “PRIVILEGE” then it is a FELONY TO DO SO.
Pass this law and watch them change their tune overnight.
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.