Posted on 01/18/2013 12:14:05 PM PST by RightFighter
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."
That’s what the very definition of Amendment in a contract is, a refining of the specifics, not a REDEFINING of them.
My thought is too many caps.
But seriously, I’ve always been horrified by the concept that the militia consists of all able-bodied males. For then it would seem the feds are empowered to conscript, which is among the chiefest of gubmint evils. No, there is no latent militia. That’s never how it was. The militia is the activmobilized: those whom have been mobilized. The pool out of which militias are culled is not itself the militia.
How it used to work is in time of emergency the colonial legislators would call for volunteers, assigning quotas to local recruiters. The recruiters would go around signing people up. Should they not meet their quota, then men could be drafted. Once inducted the men were part of the militia, not before.
All able-bodied males never were the militia. The militia is that group which has been called up. The feds never had the power to draft. It was the states’ job to raise militias. Once they were in existence the feds could use them, in a limited manner. They do and did NOT have the power to mobilize the citizenry.
It doesn’t much matter what the rest of the amendment’s text is trying to say. The part with the force of law, that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and that it shall not be infringed, is clear and cannot possibly be misconstrued except through mendacity or gross ignorance.
To regulate means to “keep regular.” Nowadays it might as well mean the opposite, which us to outlaw.
To regulate means to “keep regular.” Nowadays it might as well mean the opposite, which is to outlaw.
Not intent, meaning. Meaning controls. Intent is up in the air, legally speaking.
Ever hear of "regulars" in the language of the time?
Or the words "Regular Army" in today's time?
Or "Irregulars"? Those who didn't drill, have military discipline, proper formations, morale, uniforms, or other accoutrements a proper, "regular" army would have?
Many units, even in the Civil War, were "irregular," and had varied uniforms, training, discipline, and weapons.
That's what they meant by "well-regulated"--they meant the difference between what Gen. George Washington inherited at the start, and what he and Baron Von Steuben and others crafted during the years of war.
We began the War for Independence with an irregular militia.
Then, they became a well-regulated militia. Some men left after the war to go back to farming.
By the end of the war, we had a proper Army.
The Founders were evidently saying that a militia should be well TRAINED (made regular), but the clear implication by culture, tradition, and language of the 2nd Amendment was that, similar to the Swiss, we have for every man, his own weapon, and so ownership is an indvidual right. (We all agree on that.)
Excellent post, btw!
Ever hear of "regulars" in the language of the time?
Or the words "Regular Army" in today's time?
Or "Irregulars"? Those who didn't drill, have military discipline, proper formations, morale, uniforms, or other accoutrements a proper, "regular" army would have?
Many units, even in the Civil War, were "irregular," and had varied uniforms, training, discipline, and weapons.
That's what they meant by "well-regulated"--they meant the difference between what Gen. George Washington inherited at the start, and what he and Baron Von Steuben and others crafted during the years of war.
We began the War for Independence with an irregular militia.
Then, they became a well-regulated militia. Some men left after the war to go back to farming.
By the end of the war, we had a proper Army.
The Founders were evidently saying that a militia should be well TRAINED (made regular), but the clear implication by culture, tradition, and language of the 2nd Amendment was that, similar to the Swiss, we have for every man, his own weapon, and so ownership is an indvidual right. (We all agree on that.)
Excellent post, btw!
Ever hear of "regulars" in the language of the time?
Or the words "Regular Army" in today's time?
Or "Irregulars"? Those who didn't drill, have military discipline, proper formations, morale, uniforms, or other accoutrements a proper, "regular" army would have?
Many units, even in the Civil War, were "irregular," and had varied uniforms, training, discipline, and weapons.
That's what they meant by "well-regulated"--they meant the difference between what Gen. George Washington inherited at the start, and what he and Baron Von Steuben and others crafted during the years of war.
We began the War for Independence with an irregular militia.
Then, they became a well-regulated militia. Some men left after the war to go back to farming.
By the end of the war, we had a proper Army.
The Founders were evidently saying that a militia should be well TRAINED (made regular), but the clear implication by culture, tradition, and language of the 2nd Amendment was that, similar to the Swiss, we have for every man, his own weapon, and so ownership is an indvidual right. (We all agree on that.)
Excellent post, btw!
Wrong. That’s not how the supremacy clause works. Why do you think, for instance, states were allowed to have official churches despite the 1st amendment? Because the federal Constitution, in addition to forbidding the states some powers, applies mainly to the central government. That is the body which shall not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
Should the people have wushed the states ordered not to do the same, that’s what state constitutions are for. It wasn’t until the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine that the 2nd amendment applied to state law.
Hamilton also wrote in Federalist 29 the description of regulated by contrasting the training of a standing army with the occasional training of the people at large.
Hamilton concludes by saying that the people, who are similarly armed as the army, and similarly trained in the use of the arms, would be a deterrent against the misuse of the army.
-PJ
Yeah, I figured that out over the summer, just re-reading the amendment again. It dawned on me that it was two different thoughts. Because we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Good find.
You are right. At least not lately. That has been corrected. I was referring to the original source which, alas, is illegible. However, there seem to be a few unchallenged references.
One would think that with all the modern advances in restoring old manuscripts, the scan of the original could be enhanced to close to its original legible state.
Assuming there is no challenge to this one, it seems to include the preamble to the BOR. But even that one is edited, for reasons difficult to comprehend.
If a state couldn’t infringe on that right it’s because it’s a right, not because it was in the 2nd amendment. You seem to make a point with the “Congress shall make no law” point, but consider that elsewhere when it restricts state powers, as with ex post facto, etc., it does so explicitly. I do believe the feds were what could not infringe the right mention in amendment 2. If you wanted to restrict the states, you’d have to say so. Or rely on the state constitutions to do so.
Three sentences in and you prove how tenuous your grasp of English is.
The 1st states Congress shall make no law. There is no such limit on the 2nd.
Also, there are no Federal “people”. The “people” in the Second is all of us.
All in all, epic fail for you.
There are State copies, from ratification, that can be found with a bit of digging. Doing a Google search for “original bill of rights” under Images turns up quite a few.
States ceded authority listed in the Con to the Fed. As supreme law, they wanted blanket protection for a “bill or rights” we could all point to regardless of State of residency as our Rights.
Don’t take my word for it. I put a link to the debates upthread. Takes a bit of reading to get through them all, but they prove my point.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration [essentially, parade permitting laws] do not have this effect.
Unfortunately, the US Federal Courts have read the Presser case for the opposite proposition; that the states are free to prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.
One should conclude, quite reasonably, that the Federal Courts are not intellectually honest. I think of them as intellectually corrupt, on issues that touch on the right to keep and bear arms.
“I think “well regulated” means directly controlled by the federal government”
The word ‘regulated’ when written didn’t have that meaning of ‘controlled’. It meant more of ‘functional’ or ‘capable’, just like the word ‘militia’ didn’t mean a formal army but meant the body of men useful for defense, but not necessarily a formal army of any sort.
So, your conclusion that we have arms to defend against the federal government is true but that is only one part of the 2nd. The first part is that We the People are the primary force for national defense, to be called upon by governors and the President alike, to be trained and equipped if necessary, but, as you concluded, to also be part of a force that could resist an out of control federal army.
The 2nd has that dual purpose as I read it and read the words of the founders that wrote it.
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.