Posted on 04/17/2017 6:16:03 AM PDT by rktman
The Second Amendment has never been recondite, it is only the judges who have been obtuse. An intelligible interpretation of the Second Amendment emerges the instant one reconciles the prefatory and operative clauses. In other words, the “militia” described in the prefatory clause is a militia composed of a people with a right to keep and bear arms. What type of arms? In 1939, the Supreme Court spoke explicitly to this. At the time the Second Amendment was adopted, men summoned to militia duty were expected “to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” The Amendment not only protects weapons that might be useful in a military context, arguably it only protects those weapons useful in military service. Thus, the 4th Circuit Court was exactly and completely wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The Second Amendment needs no interpretation as it clearly states what it means.
Two things: First, the preamble makes it clear that their “primary concern” was protection (not hunting), and second, whenever you see the words,”the people”, in the constitution, it means each and every individual citizen. The constitution is built on the foundation of protecting the rights of the individual. And in the eyes of the government/law, we all have exactly the same rights and value - until we give them up by violating the law.
So yeah, the second amendment is about ME, PERSONALLY. It is about YOU, Personally.
And that “equal under the law” stuff is why so many people are ticked that Hillary has yet do don orange.
[T]he “militia” described in the prefatory clause is a militia composed of a people with a right to keep and bear arms. …And Richard Henry Lee explained who the militia was.
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. […]Obama was particularly interested in forming his own distinct military that had absolutely no permanent interests and attachments in any US community, take note—he called it his “new civilian army”.
… First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men not having permanent interests and attachments in the community, to be avoided. …
And the media doesn’t use a press either so they don’t have freedoms either? Satellites, cameras, computers, etc. were never conceived
by the Father Finders.
That’s a nice poster but it misses the point about the 2nd amendment. The second amendment isn’t about self defense or hunting. Those are a bi-product of it’s real intent.
Just finished my AR-15 build and sighted in the red dot on Saturday. Sweeeeet.
“In other words, the “militia” described in the prefatory clause is a militia composed of a people with a right to keep and bear arms.”
There is an alternate reading which is equally viable without this ‘clarification’ of militia, a reading which eviscerates the Left’s “militia as government agents” argument. To grasp it, first understand that the Founding Fathers deeply disliked the concept of a “standing army”, but grudgingly understood one would be needed anyway as the “citizen militia” in practice would not be as strong & organized as desired. The Left’s contention is that if there is a standing army, then a citizen militia is unnecessary and thus the people may, nay should, be disarmed; this is not a new concept.
2nd rephrased to wit: “The existence of a standing army, being a necessary evil for the security of a free state, does not preclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
That’s exactly what the Left is trying to mutate the prefatory clause into, yet in doing so the operative clause remains unchanged.
> whenever you see the words,”the people”, in the constitution, it means each and every individual citizen. <
Right you are. It infuriates me when libs try to interpret the 2A is meaning it gives the individual states the right to keep state militias.
If that were the intent of the Founders, they would have said “the right of the states to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
THE HISTORY OF ASSAULT RIFLES
The RATs have shown us that breaking the law has no consequences. Conservatives have the equal right to do the same. Last I heard, NY and CT gun control acts have failed miserably because gun owners refuse to comply.
Unless you choose to protect your home and family with Claymore mines set with a trip wire and and aimed so that a rabbit hitting the wire will get me hit while I’m sitting on my porch enjoying the evening breeze. And I know a firearm has longer range and I could still be hit while sitting on my porch, but the impact area isn’t as large and you’ll be behind the firearm paying attention to what’s behind your target (I can only hope).
You are quite correct about the FF's caution regarding a standing army, but the 2nd would be better translated as:
"The Security of our Nation is paramount to its continuance, therefore do not F*CK with the Militia or the right of EVERYONE to own and carry weapons."
From the TEXAS Declaration of Independence from Mexico ...
“It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defence, the rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments.”
(of the many states in Mexico that seceded when Santa Anna became dictator, Texas was the ONLY ONE who kept their independence)
The Founder's Intent
click the pic for hi-res
Actually, it doesn’t matter what “militia” means, because the amendment says “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The “militia” could be left-handed lesbians, or invaders from Mars, and the amendment would still say that “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The constitution was written from the perspective of what the founders had just experienced; a civil war against a well regulated militia, the British army. What were their feelings about an army at that time? The answer is fear. The second amendment means that because a well regulated militia (an army) is a necessary evil for the security of a free country, but also inherently dangerous to the freedom of said country, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The second amendment exists to protect the people from the government. Read some of the state versions of the right to keep and Bear arms.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:
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.
Judge Alex Kozinski
Judge Alex Kozinski is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where he has served since 1985. He was Chief Judge of that court from November 2007 to December 1, 2014.
I consider the Second Amendment as embodying the complete right to self defense—both individual and collective.
If one peruses the Founders' statements regarding the right to Keep and Bear Arms, the individual right to self defense—as opposed to the collective right embodied by the Militia—is also noted.
For instance:
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
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.
