A more accurate second ammendment interpretation

D

Dangus

New member
People have been looking at the Second Ammendment the wrong way I think.

The first sentence simply states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free society. Then the second sentence states the the people have a right to bear arms.

Well then, the first sentence merely states that there is a militia, that it is to be well regulated(though it doesn't say by whom), and that it is vital to the security of a free state(it doesn't state which one). What I gather from this then is that the first sentence of the second ammendment merely gives legal grounds for the existance of the militia, and it only uses the term well-regulated directly in reference to the milita.

Second sentence. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is extremely clear. The right of the people. It doesn't mention any exceptions, nor any loopholes. It says this right shall not be infringed, period. Doesn't say the government is excepted, it says plain as day, shall not be infringed.

Why are these two in the same ammendment? Because it is stating that for the purpose of the militia being armed and ready, the right of the people(not limited to the militia) to bear arms shall not be infringed.

If they had meant only the army and the cops, or only males in the right age group they would have said, "The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

What we need to do though, is come up with an unbiased and totally historically accurate definition of the word "arms" because any of us who have an ounce of sanity should know full well that the right of joe citizen does not include privately owned nuclear weapons. Any historians here capable of coming up with a concise definition of arms?

------------------
The Alcove

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
Dangus, the word "Regulated" as used in those days, means well equipped and trained. It does NOT mean controlled by anyone or any govt. entity.
 
Dangus...

Shotgun has it right...

In the late 18th century, the term "Regulated" in this reference had nothing to do with creating government restrictions.

Regulated during that period referred to the organization, drilling, and practice.

It really meant to bring order, method, or uniformity to a militia (the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service).
http://www.m-w.com/home.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
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.
[/quote]

I see the 2nd as simply one sentence.

They state that the "Security of a free State" can only be maintained by having a "Well Regulated (organized, and uniform) Militia (All able-body males subject to call to military service). In order to maintain this, and have ready, a Militia to provide security for the State, the People's Right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

So many people have broken down the comma's, and tried to interpret more into this, but it is quite simple. I only wish our forefathers had the foresight to picture a liberal society that felt disarmament was the way to secure a "Free State", they would have been more specific in the wording to ensure it could never be interpreted any other way, the problem is, the 2nd Amendment is perfectly written.

Had I been in Phily, I would have tried to add the words "Above all, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not ever be infringed. ;)
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Dangus, the word "Regulated" as used in those days, means well equipped and trained. It does NOT mean controlled by anyone or any govt. entity.[/quote]

I know that, and you know that, but the gun grabbers don't know that, nor do they even want to listen. What I'm saying is even if we use their interpretation of well-regulated, that still only states that the militia should be well-regulated, it says nothing about any regulation regarding private arms ownership.

------------------
The Alcove

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
Don't use their interpretation.

The only reason these people get away with this crap is because we allow them to. Don't argue the fine points of 'regulated' as if it means what they, mistakenly, say it means. The entire argument is in the wrong, and null and void as such. They bring it up as if regulated refers to controlled, call them on it. Make them look like the unschooled knuckleheads they are. Try this: "I'm sorry, you're falling into a common misunderstanding of the semantics here...let me put you straight before we continue with the finer points, as you apparently don't quite understand the basics."

Don't dumb yourself down to their level. They're wrong, 2+2=4, and if they say 5, you can't start trying to convince them it's 6.

- gabe
 
haha, I like that math analogy. True enough.

------------------
The Alcove

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
Reviewing my original post though, I still think I'm on the right track with it. Look at the third paragraph. I'm just saying it's supposed to be a well-regulated militia. That just means to keep in good order, or to keep organized. Well, obviously someone has to do that, but since it doesn't state who, then it doesn't expressly isolate that responsibility to the government.

The fourth paragraph, I also state absolutely, that the right to bear arms of the people, all the people, is absolute.

I don't think I contradict the original interpretation of the second at all with this post.

------------------
The Alcove

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
Part 1) the militia is regulated under the National Defense Act of 1916. Quoting tihs act instantly destroys any debate about who is allowed to own guns. Use it in your debates and make them look like fools. To whit:

Created the NATIONAL Guard as a FEDERAL agency, using federal weapons and federal pay.
Defines the militia as "All able-bodied males between 17 and 45, and anyone else who wishes sto declare so." Anyone with a center-fire rifle, since shotguns and handguns are sporting and defensive arms and need no 2nd Amendment protection, being covered under the 9th and common law.
Created the National Matches to "encourage civilian marksmanship," and
created the CMP to sell SURPLUS MILITARY WEAPONS to civilians. see their current incarnation at http://www.odcmp.com

It defines the militia, equips and trains the militia. Military regs provide for military personnel to recall the militia when unable to reach their chain of command in an emergency.

THEN: look down your nose at them and say "The fact that you and many others are as derelict in this duty as the million of people who neglect to vote does not invalidate the duty AND RIGHT to own arms."

They'll flap their jaws and look stupid.

part 2) in Switzerland, private citizens commonly own artillery. High explosives, formerly used only as weapons are now used for construction. The speculative development on asteroind mining suggests the best way to shape orbits is a series of nuclear explosions. I expect upon developing space industries that nukes will be handled as any other explosive or large magazine (meaning storage of munition)--required to store disarmed, with a warning sign, and a clear zone.
I state it this way, because:
1) would a law really stop Bill Gates or any other billionaire (HI, Ross!) from getting a nuke?
2) give the antis a nuke and they'll take a rifle. The ONLY way to take a position is an absolute position--they'll call you an extremist, but can't argue you in circles. Besides which, nuke weapons are built by gov't contractors, and so are ALL other weapons. Civilians do, in fact, handle them.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Part 1) the militia is regulated under the National Defense Act of 1916. Quoting tihs act instantly destroys any debate about who is allowed to own guns. Use it in your debates and make them look like fools.[/quote]

This act is a clear violation of the constitution, so I don't really regard it as a valid part of the argument.

------------------
The Alcove

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
Interesting...I thought it was very supportive of the 2nd Amendment. Why do you find it unconstitutional? And what better argument can you use against them? I'm always looking for more firepower.

------------------
“It is criminal not to teach a man to defend himself when he is the
constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a
shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law.”--Malcolm X
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top