Thanks! Bookmarked.
Not bad, but I don’t know about this “carried in a coat” business. Certain very wealthy individuals owned their own cannon at the time of the Revolution. Nor were they carried in coats!!
Pray hard this decision gets made soon = and made right.
Interesting, if this interpretation is correct the second amendment not only guarantees the right to own firearms but knives, swords, crossbows, bulletproof vests and just about any other handheld weapon or body armor you could think of. I know some cities and states have banned knives over a certain length and bulletproof vests. If the upcoming supreme court decision goes our way it might have much farther reaching ramifications than firearms.
PING!
bookmarkarooskie
yes, that’s a word...and if you looked i your cop of Noah’s dictionary...ok...it became a word a bit after his time.
Seriously though, the Noah Webster dictionary is a fabulous read!
Great post. Thank you neverdem!
Not for much longer they don't. If anyone thinks this decision will come down on the side of the citizenry and not the gov't apparatchiks, they're smoking crack.
Even if the SCOTUS overturns the law in DC, the other large cities that effectively prohibit gun ownership, like Chicago, will never rescind their draconian laws. It's over, man.
I hate to say this because I believe all Americans should be allowed to keep and bear arms.... But even using an older Websters, there is still enough grey area in the second to suggest that you must be a member of a well regulated militia in order to have the right. On the other hand you could argue that a well regulated militia could be formed from the armed citizenry. The problem is the vague and pointless militia comment which was inserted. The constitution is imperfect because it was based on linguistic compromise, which deprived us of the clairity which should have been there. I’m pretty sure that the Democrats did it... @ssmunches.. LOL
Seems to me that “to bear arms in a coat” would mean “to have a coat of arms.”
I have HEARD that “regulated” meant “equipped,” and thus, the keeping and bearing of arms by the members of the militia (adult men) would result in their being well-equipped at those times when they formed themselves into a militia.
I also think that the first clause is irrelevant. The amendment says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
That is the imperative in the amendment. It is permanent. It is what the people legislated through their representatives. It was put there so that the people could resist the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to protect the freedom of their states. That is a permanent need and right of the people.
Nope, this would be useless were I granted a letter of Marque and Reprisal.
Fedgov determined in 1934 that I didn't have the unfettered right to own a machinegun, cannon, bomb, or other Article of War. Before that, we all had the right. We still do, but fedgov won't let us exercise it.
I think this interpretation of “keep and bear arms” pertaining only to arms that could be carried by an individual must be disputed. The Constitution also authorizes the Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal, which authorize privately-owned warships to act as military resources of the U.S. government. A warship is hardly something that an individual could carry. Also, most of the cannons used by the Continental Army during the revolution were privately owned and borrowed for the conflict. So the idea that only arms able to be carried by an individual would be covered by the 2nd Amendment seems to be contradicted by history and other portions of the Constitution.
Well reasoned.
jw
All one really needs to do though, is remember why the Bill of Right was amended to the Constitution to begin with. The original drafts were rejected by various state delegates because the body of the Constitution did not clearly and unequivocally enumerate and protect the individual rights of the citizens. For ten years, delegates of the various colonies rejected the whole thing until these protections were finally embodied in the Bill of Rights.
Even the name "Bill of Rights" tells you they were referring to individual rights. Why bother to name it that if they were only protecting government rights? Nor did they call it the "Bill of Some Rights", that might indicate that not all the rights therein were reserved to "The People" rather than the government.
If our Supreme Court Jesters can't remember that much, then no argument and elucidation by Webster will help. The Second Amendment - Commentaries
The Clinton-Obama Battle Continues
Does the Second Amendment Provide the Right to Bear Arms? U.S. Adults Think So
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Does that mean my PDW (personal defense weapon) isn't covered?
BM`d
Another Great Thread on our Nation’s greatest Heirloom!
free State has always meant to me, not the condition of a body politic, but the nature of man being FREE... and not enslaved... read that way would mean that an armed man is a free man...
security of a free State...
an individual right and reward... lose the right and one loses his freedom...
teeman