Posted on 01/24/2013 8:02:29 AM PST by Resettozero
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.—Amendment II
Some of the recent attacks on the 2nd Amendment and lawful gun owners by the gun grabbers have focused on the meaning of the words in the Amendment. Particularly, gun grabbers have zeroed in on what the Founding Fathers meant by the words “well regulated Militia.”
So what did the Founders mean when they penned and approved those words? As Thomas Jefferson suggested in a letter to William Johnson, “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
(Excerpt) Read more at personalliberty.com ...
Unfortunately, any appeal to “original intent” is dismissed out of hand by leftists. One of the tenets of their ideology is that the determinations of the elite that are alive today supercede all previous determinations in history.
There is no debate left to win that will prevent disarmament attempts, as we are not dealing with honorable people with a different political point of view. We are dealing with a marxist cabal intent on OUR VERY DEATHS.
I will not disarm and therefore these discussions are irrelevant.
We are now under full blown psychological warfare attack, and this type of talk is the only thing of any effect in this environment.
SGT USMC
My shapely young wife and I homeschooled our two before it was a cool thing to do. Those glorious days are past for us but one of the benefits of our homeschooling remains: We’ve got the American history books and printed copies of many documents that one day may be unavailable on the Internet.
Can you imagine if the his highness and NY gov kkkuomo said “We’re not abotu takign away your right to free speech, However, if tyou fail to register yourself, or if you refuse to take a mental health exam to determien your eligibility to speak freely, you will no logner be allowed to speak freely in public or in NY or in Washinton or wherever we determine’?
Yet that is eactly what htey are doign with hte second amendment and noone apparently cares enough to stop them- the peopel howeveer woudl be screaming bloody murder if they tried that with the freedom of speech- liberal groups would be all up in arms over the ‘aggregious violations to the constitution’
The left is incapable of feelign shame
Now, THAT post does like a lot like Olde English!
It means “don’t f*** with me.”
Excellent.
Hopefully the day does not come when these books must be read in secret.
Be prepared: photograph the pages and load the photos onto memory sticks, just in case that day does come and you need to pass them on to patriots.
Freedom shall not perish.
Semper Fi, Do or Die.
Got your six.
Ooh Rah.
In the 1700’s, the words “well-regulated” meant well trained.
Visions of Fahrenheit 451... each person (subversive) memorized a book since books had been outlawed.
The liberals and many conservatives gasp in horror at this idea- there MUST be some limits. Well, there are- the market. How many of us can afford an H-bomb?
And liberals and many conservatives gasp- But felons shouldn't be allowed t have guns! and crazy people! Well those folks are barred by UNConstitutional laws already. How have those laws worked out? It is already Constitutionally illegal for these people, or any people (except maybe, members of Congress) to do the things we fear they might do if they have arms or if they use other sorts of implements or their bare hands or pens, for that matter.
This is where Hannity and other talk show guys get it wrong and hand the argument over to the gun banners. If you admit of some limits, sensible limits in Hannity's own head, then you have to draw the line somewhere and such lines have always proved easy to move or they get all squiggly and broken up. It is harder to defend an arbitrary line than it is to defend an absolute principle, which is what is written into the actual 2nd Amendment. When you draw arbitrary lines you become Boehner. Lines are always negotiable.
Allow me to Repost from an older Thread:
Penn and Teller did an episode of their Showtime “Bullshit” Show on the Second Amendment.
They even explained how the sentence structure and how the Amendment was worded did NOT mean that The People had to be part of an organized Militia, which is how Liberals argue against Individual Gun Ownership.
Link below to a small clip, and there is a bit of graphic language, which I always expect from Penn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQkM2qhJjkw
I agree about the relevancy of what militia has to do with the basic individual’s rights has to to with owning a gun. However, your interpretation of the forematter is different from my interpretation. Your definitions are interpretations as are mine. I choose to believe We The People, STATES, and then Federal Government (if no objections are present from the prior).
It means “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Pretty darned clear.
The predatory “militia” stuff either means everyone expected to fight for their nation has a right to no less that full military weaponry (as they may not have a source of it once combat commences), or that having a standing army (which the Founding Fathers were reluctant to authorize) did not in any way justify disarming the people.
Either way, the declaratory clause is crystal clear. It’s only not clear to those who WANT to throw mud on it.
You got it!
United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was a famous jurist, and his Commentaries was a very influential treatise on United States
Some background information on Justice Story
See: http://www.belcherfoundation.org/joseph_story_on_church_and_state.htm
United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was a famous jurist, and his Commentaries was a very influential treatise on United States constitutional law. Story, first a Jeffersonian Republican and then (following his appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States by President James Madison), a Federalist, was one of the United States' most influential Supreme Court justices. His tenure on the Supreme Court spanned three decades, from 1811 to 1845. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Story was elected to the Hall of Fame. His views on the Constitution of the United States are still widely respected.
Justice Joseph Story's first wife, Mary Lynde Fitch Oliver (1781-1805), whom he married on December 9, 1804, was a descendant of Governor Jonathan Belcher's sister Elizabeth Belcher Oliver (1678-1736).
4th sentence of § 1890.
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has been justly considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story.
See: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1088728
See Also: http://home.comcast.net/~dsmjd/tux/dsmjd/rkba/story.htm
One of the most influential early commentators on the U.S. Constitution was Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. In his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, vol. 3 at pp. 746-747 (1833), he has the following to say about the Second Amendment:
"§ 1889. The next amendment is "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.
"§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of [st]anding armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facilee means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. [FN1] And yet, thought this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How is it practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. [FN2]
Footnotes:
[FN1]: 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App.300; Rawle on Const. ch.10, p.125; 2 Lloyd's Debates, 219,220.
[FN2]: It would be well for Americans to reflect upon the passage in Tacitus, (Hist.IV ch.74): "Nam neque quies sine armis, neque arma sine stipendis, neque stipendia tributis, haberi queunt." Is there any escape from a large standing army, but in a well disciplined militia? There is much wholesome instruction on this subject in 1. Black.Comm. ch.13, p.408 to 417.
[FN3]: 5 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. p.110; 1 Black.Comm. 143, 144.
And now some commentary from the late 20th Century:
Justice Story's passage on the Second Amendment supports the proposition that the phrase "well regulated" militia does not mean regulated as not mean regulated as we, citizens living under the omnipresent regulation of the post-New Deal federal government understand "regulation." Instead, "well regulated" in this context, means "properly functioning" and "uniformly equipped." Note how Justice Story laments Jacksonian America's growing indifference and hostility to maintaining a well regulated militia -- not on political or philosophical grounds, but rather because Americans were getting lazy! In fact, I'd say he [Justice Story] was prescient, in respect to the last sentence of § 1890. As for § 1891, history repeats itself, as we in the US have allowed our RKBA [Right to Keep and Bear Arms] to become undermined under various pretenses, such as "the war on crime," or the specious argument that of all rights of "the people" enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment alone applies to states, not individuals.
Definition of palladium: noun Chemistry .
A rare metallic element of the platinum group, silver-white, ductile and malleable, harder and fusing more readily than platinum: used chiefly as a catalyst and in dental and other alloys. Symbol: Pd; atomic weight: 106.4; atomic number: 46; specific gravity: 12 at 20°C.the people
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.