My interpretation of the Second Amendment.

A

AlongCameJones

Moderator
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.


This amendment has not one but two purposes.

1. prohibits the federal government of the United States of America from denying each and every one the Several States the right to establish and maintain militias for the purpose of the State's own security

AND

2. prohibits any government, person or entity in the world from denying the right of each and every law-abiding individual person on American soil to have in his or her possession (or on or about his or her person) one or more weapons
 
Last edited:
PS - Above and beyond the Second Amendment, I believe it is the natural and inalienable human right to be armed for self-preservation. I believe America's Founding Fathers understood this very well.
 
This was pretty much backed up by DC v. Heller.

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
Click to expand...
 
Here is what troubles me:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

What is a 'dangerous' or 'unusual' weapon?

How does the 2nd A not protect the right to carry a concealed gun? Look at the "keep and bear" clause. The BEAR part means to carry on one's person. Items commonly carried on one's person as wallets and watches are often kept in pockets out of plain sight. I agree with those Constitutional Carry states which affirm that concealed carry is indeed protected under 2nd A. Those "long-standing" prohibitions have only been around since 1968 under the infamous Gun Control Act of 1968. What makes a school a "sensitive" place? "Gun-free zones" serve only as magnets for armed criminals with intent to harm the innocent. In the Old West, when a person was released from jail, his horses and his guns were returned to him. I don't ever agree with lifelong prohibitions on gun rights. If a formerly-mentally-ill person has been successfully treated and deemed safe to return to the streets, there is no reason under the sun for deprivation of gun rights for life. Mental illness is a disease like a fever, a common cold or the mumps and makes no person guilty of any crime. If a person is so dangerous, such a menace to society, so as not to be trusted with a gun, he/she should not even be free on the streets anyway.
 
Last edited:
Can someone provide for me an example of a well-regulated militia participating in the security of a free State in modern times? How about a "militia" that did not fantasize about destroying a unit of government? The language of the 2nd Amendment no longer applies. The State provides for us a well-funded security apparatus.

I am not going to cognitively tinker with the prospect of societal breakdown and armed political engagements. I am not going to allow self-serving and emotionally weak politicians convince me that a political civil war is looming. I am better than this. We all are.

I really don't think our current gun culture is what the Founding Fathers intended. I don't think they would giggle and high-five when politicians suggest an armed "solution" to tech companies and competing political parties or when members of Congress get shot playing recreational softball.

But, here we are. Modern America. Politicians using the 2nd to scare us and people believing it. What was it Roosevelt said?, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". Politicians dabble in fear, not reality. But, but, what if, but so... you reply - We have our freedom because of our guns! If things were different they may not be the same. I concede this point because it cannot be proven false. But, if things were different they may be better, too.

I drift, back to the 2nd Amendment and Heller:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment needs modernized. A lot has changed since 1791. We can keep our guns for appropriate self-defense, hunting and recreation -> and <- (we can do both) not be tempted by ridiculous politicians to emotionally and materially prepare for political violence. That "well-regulated militia" nonsense needs to go. It is antiquated and it only contributes to the de-stabilization of a free and secure State.

Perhaps this should be added to our 2nd Amendment:
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
Click to expand...
 
The 2nd Amendment needs modernized. A lot has changed since 1791. We can keep our guns for appropriate self-defense, hunting and recreation -> and <- (we can do both) not be tempted by ridiculous politicians to emotionally and materially prepare for political violence. That "well-regulated militia" nonsense needs to go. It is antiquated and it only contributes to the de-stabilization of a free and secure State.
Click to expand...
I like to tell my friends that lecture me on the seriousness of maintaining a citizen's militia that when they get a few armored divisions, a squadron or two of F22's and an SSBN or two--sign me up--otherwise count me out.;)
 
I like to tell my friends that lecture me on the seriousness of maintaining a citizen's militia that when they get a few armored divisions, a squadron or two of F22's and an SSBN or two--sign me up--otherwise count me out.
Click to expand...
;)

I know right. It’s not like a bunch of Stone Age goat hearding opium farmers with third rate weaponry spanning wars going back to the late 1800s could ever fight much less beat a modern well funded and equipped army…….wait a minute….. ok so they beat a couple or three modern well funded and equipped army’s but that’s surely a fluke amiright???? :rolleyes:

The fact is I would not want to be involved in putting down an insurrection in Appalachia much less one involving any of the major gangs in the U.S. History has shown what small groups of dedicated and or crazy folks can accomplish.

Do I want any part of any of that. HEELLLLL NOOOOO but it certainly has happened many times.

Just saying.
 
"Can someone provide for me an example of a well-regulated militia participating in the security of a free State in modern times? How about a "militia" that did not fantasize about destroying a unit of government? The language of the 2nd Amendment no longer applies. The State provides for us a well-funded security apparatus. "

I'm not sure if the Battle of Athens qualifies as a 'militia' action, but citizens taking control over corruption is serious business.
 
So food for thought the state hasn’t overstepped its bounds. Doesn’t mean it could never happen. I’ve never had a fire. I have 4 fire extinguishers.

Also keep in mind kicking around with the constitution opens up a convention and opens the hood up on everything. Do you want a 50/50 divided populace clamoring to dork around with any number of other amendments to “massage them” the way they see fit??? I don’t.

Also why is the Battle of Athens off the table. How about the times black folks in the 50s banded together to defend hearth and home from racism.

I mean we’ve never had an invading military force on our shores either so do you want to scrap all domestic military assets?
 
Ok there was the Aleutians but they are so cold and inhospitable the Japanese were like “screw this I’m going home”. :)
 
It appears to me that the founders realized that "a well regulated militia" necessary to the security of a free state would be under control of the government. In order to guard against tyranny, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" would guarantee the people some recourse to keep the government in line with the will of the people.

Bob
WB8NQW
 
gbclarkson said:
Can someone provide for me an example of a well-regulated militia participating in the security of a free State in modern times? How about a "militia" that did not fantasize about destroying a unit of government? The language of the 2nd Amendment no longer applies. The State provides for us a well-funded security apparatus.
Click to expand...
I can't tell you when any of them were recently utilized, but many states today have official state militias.

https://www.heritage.org/homeland-s...ia-state-defense-forces-and-homeland-security

Aside from that, the organized state militias are only part of the militia. Are you aware that the United States still recognizes the militia -- officially, in federal law? Depending on your age, you may even be a member of it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

(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.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree when you say that the 2nd Amendment no longer applies. Not only that, your statement equates the 2A with service in the militia. Antonin Scalia put that notion to rest in the Heller decision. He specifically wrote that the RKBA is not predicated on being a member of the militia.
 
I don't think they would giggle and high-five when politicians suggest an armed "solution" to tech companies and competing political parties or when members of Congress get shot playing recreational softball.
Click to expand...

You don't know your founders very well. Jefferson advocated for a revolution once a generation.
 
Ok there was the Aleutians but they are so cold and inhospitable the Japanese were like “screw this I’m going home”.
Click to expand...

I'm sure many felt that way, I would. But, they didn't go home.

And, if you think the 2nd Amendment no longer applies, what about the other Amendments? DO you think the govt should be able to censor your speech unless its printed on a hand operated printing press or shouted by the town crier? I don't.

people these days seem to almost always jump to the most extreme, worst case scenario, and then, if that isn't plausible TODAY, decide that the laws covering that aren't needed.

The beauty of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment is that by having it as a poetental check on govt tryanny, it won't be needed. So far, that's pretty much worked. I'm afraid I'm in the group that says "if it ain't broke, don't FIX it!
 
The operative clause in the 2nd A is "shall not be infringed." Enumerated between commas (,), a punctuation mark used in separating items in a list or an enumeration, and also separating a subject from a modifying clause, are the items the operative clause protects or pertains to:

1. a well-regulated militia followed by its purpose (a modifier), being necessary to the security of a free State
2. the right of the people to keep and bear arms

1. pertains to the States' right to establish and maintain militias
2. is an individual right

1. and 2. are disjointed, not dependent upon one or the other, the use of commas keeps these two subject matters separated

Notice the period following INFRINGED. The punctuation mark, period (.), represents finality or absoluteness. It's like AMEN or SO BE IT concluding a prayer. "Shall not be infringed." means shall not be violated.(period) It doesn't say "shall not be infringed BY (whomever)". It doesn't matter "who" or "what" the forbidden infringer is be it the federal government, any of the several States, any local jurisdiction, any foreign nation, any alien from another planet, any animal, any god or deity, any church, any institution, any person, any business or any other entity in this world or universe whatsoever.

When interpreting the Constitution, one must carefully note the punctuation and the grammatical structure to determine the true meaning and true intent of the framers. Punctuation is a significant thing in a written language as English.

It is true that an armed citizenry helps the cause of maintaining a militia but the right of an individual to be armed does not depend upon militia membership.

Notice the term "free State". This meant historically that only States prohibiting slavery were protected by the 2nd A in their right to maintain a militia.
 
Last edited:
AlongCameJones said:
Notice the term "free State". This meant historically that only States prohibiting slavery were protected by the 2nd A in their right to maintain a militia.
Click to expand...
No. Just ... no.

If only the states prohibiting slavery (if there were any at the time) were protected by the 2A, why did the other states have to ratify it before it became part of the Constitution?
 
. And, if you think the 2nd Amendment no longer applies,
Click to expand...

Whoa back the truck up. :) :P. I am FIRMLY in the Constitution/2nd amendment if it ain’t broke camp. I think you may have confused me with somebody else.
 
Thanks, free state meaning FREE COUNTRY as in:

Likewise, consider James Madison's original proposal: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country.

Still under Madison's proposal, the right of individuals to be armed does not depend at all upon militia membership. It suggests that an armed citizenry is still needed to make a militia effective. It seems like militias depend upon armed citizens and not the other way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top