Posted on 06/06/2015 8:50:57 AM PDT by stevie_d_64
A new Pew Research Center report states that 52 percent of Americans support gun rights, the highest percentage in the last two decades. Yet the gun rights that they believe are guaranteed by law may very well be an illusion..
That's because we have allowed lawyers instead of language professionals to interpret the Constitution of the United States.
Ask any high school English teacher to parse the Second Amendment, and they will say that it does not prohibit common-sense restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns, in spite of the National Rifle Association's claim to the contrary. The proof lies in the amendment's exact language — "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."
Literally, it means that the American people will retain the right to carry weapons as members of a state militia in order to safeguard their freedom.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
You and I are in total agreement.
I’ll also note that it wasn’t until 1968 that certain groups of people were prohibited from owning fire arms. Somehow we existed all of those years until the leftist, and even some here deemed the 2nd A is not an absolute, protected God Given right.
Wait, you forgot right for foreigners to sneak into the country and get welfare, EBT cards, free medical and housing money. Basically what that means is the United States has to support everyone in the entire world. Seriously, that’s what it means right? California last week passed a bill granting free healthcare for illegals. So by their thinking, if everyone in the entire world sneaked into California, California taxpayers would have to foot the healthcare costs for 7 billion people. Hey, the only requirement is one sneaks into the country which anyone in the world can do. It’s a no limit healthcare system!
They also forget this part of the BOR, that the rights are declatory and restrictive:
The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
This old crap again??? Do any of these “well-regulated militia” stumpers ever read history? Do they understand the intent of a “militia” and the Second Amendment? Or does their whole argument turn on a participial phrase?
Leftists lack comprehension skills
Thus the use of the phrase: Commonsense Civil Right of Armed Self-defense.
According to the idiot author of the article, only the "well-educated" would have the right to "own and read books".
Anyone not able to grasp and understand the meaning of such a clearly worded statement as “Shall Not Be Infringed” should go back to their grammar school and repeat the 6th grade.
“This article proves that we need some common sense reform in the spoken and written press.”
Like a seven day waiting period and background check to buy a book or a newspaper. :-)
Wrong, so WRONG,
IT never said the right of the militia shall not be infringed!!
Their interpretation is that of a full blown enlistment of the nation in a collective military, as in.... Armed citizens being necessary for a free state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed!
Indeed, check my tag line, they are reading my tag line, the opposite of the text!
Back in the 18th century, the words “well-regulated” meant “well trained.”
Of course, liberal school teachers twist these words to mean whatever they want.
I found some gen you wine “language professionals” who recorded a reading of the 2nd Amendment, then played it backwards.
It said, Sarah Brady is a vicious lyon biotch, just like the moron Giffords and her hypocrite husband, and the 2nd Amendment in fact confers the individual right to keep and bear arms without condition.
Right after the recording, the tape was destroyed and you’ll have to take the word of the language professionals for it.
"the wording and structure of the Second Amendment protects the people's right to bear arms only if they belong to a state militia."
OK.
Let’s look at this two ways.
ORIGINAL INTENT.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." -- Tench Coxe, 1788.
Or take a look at the actual legal definition of the militia as set forth in the United States Code:
Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are —
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
Again:
10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes -
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. - See more at:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311
So the good Mr. David McGrath, Professor of English, might want to find his way over to both the History and Legal Departments.
.
Indeed, it is the militia that is regulated by free armed citizens. It could not be any clearer.
It goes like this, liberals are “rational”, ie. They do not see a need for a gun unless one of them decides one day to rob a bank, then they need the gun.
We do not need guns, we have them for the eventuality.
We have to be careful when we hear Uncle Sam say: we want you to put down the guns! What are you up to Uncle Sam?
BS.
If that was the case THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED FOR THE AMENDMENT.
Listen moron every single tyranny has that "freedom". In fact they force that "freedom" on you in many cases.
You are drafted into the military and forced to carry a weapon that must be used how and when the state commands.
Why would any free thinking person put that in their Constitution? It is like saying, "A crime free society being necessary for order the right of people to go to jail shall not be infringed."
Would that make anything close to sense?
1717 June 13 Albany, NY “Hunter, Robert (1664-1734)
Proposition to the Five Nations - : Governor Hunter assures the 5 Nations of the good will and protection of their sovereign, King George, so long as the Indians uphold their part of the agreement. He reminds them that the 5 Nations and the English are bound to keep peace with each other, and also to protect and defend the other in the event of an attack.” -"
“Brethren , , We are now mett at this place by Order of The King of Great Brittaine my Master, by who’s command and in who’s Name I now give you In this publick and solemn manner full assurance of his good will and affection towards you, and his powerfull Protection against all such as shall dare to molest you as friends to him and a people [strikeout] he has honor’d wt his special [struck: gra] grace and favour , In the same publick and Solemn maner I here In his name and by his Command renew the antient covenants wt yr five nations promiscing on his part that all the known Conditions of ye sd Covenant shall be punctually and duely obserb’d, so long as you shall honestly and faithfully perform what has in all times [inserted: hither to] been [inserted: strikeout] promis’d and perform’d on yours [2] And to prevent all mistakes on this head I must [struck: inform] [inserted: remind] you what has ever been mean’t and understood by you as well as us by the Covenant Chaine, that [strikeout] is, that on the other hand, The subjects of his Maty on this Continent should not only refrain from all acts of hostility or any thing tending lending that way toward you but readily attest you when you were attack’d by others or Inable you by such methods as were In their power to repell [strikeout] force by force or to defend your selves, and on the other hand you were on your part to live in the strictest friendship with all his matys subjects and In case they should be attack’d by any Enemy whatsoever to affect them the readiest and most Effectual Assistance In your power. , When I have receiv’d your answer to these Genll propositions I am to make you a very handsome present from his maty In token of his affection towards you and In assurance of his Protection to you, , [docket], 13 June 1717, Govs Publick Proposition to ye 5 nations.”*
source*Gilder Lehrman Collection #: GLC03107.02127 The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History 49 W. 45th Street, 6th Floor · NYC, NY 10036,
http://www.gilderlehrman.org/collections
BTW the Iroquois had no "militia"
David McGrath lacks common sense.
Every reporter wishes he were king.
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.