Gary Conner
New member
If you want to truly understand the meaning of the second amendment you have to put on a pair of 18th century glasses and read 18th century dictionaries for definitions
It is important though to make clear to him for the purposes of his speech or debate, that the meaning of the word "right" was the exact same then, as it is now. The word "arms" in that day, meant sword, knife, rifle, handgun, just as the word "arms" means sword, knife, rifle, handgun today.
Eric does need to realize and make clear to his fellow students (since the schools don't) that confusion comes in only when people try to convolute the sentence itself, to convince us that the words "people" and "right" in the context used, meant something different then than they do today. They do not.
The sentence does not now refer (nor back then did it refer) to a "well regulated firearm" or a "well regulated People" so one has to consider if the words "the people" mean what they did today, as they did back then.
We'd all agree, a dictionary is not necessary to establish that "people" means "people" and the words "the right of" means "the right of" today, just as they did back in 1789.
Eric, the 2nd reads..."A well regulated militia..." meaning well trained and supervised as set out in ARTICLE II (where the method of formation of a militia is described)
and goes on to say the words "...being necessary to the security of a free state" (meaning in order to preserve the People's freedoms, a militia is necessary to secure them)
and then states quite clearly "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (meaning "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms sall not be infringed in any manner at all)
The Bill of Rights is a PORTION of the Constitution itself, ALONG WITH THE Articles. Article VI is very short, but one of the most important ones in the entire Constitution. (Go read it, you'll love it and it is VERY important to the 2nd Amendment debate)
Article VI makes it clear that any STATE OR FEDERAL LAW which is NOT "in pursuance of" "this" Constitution is invalidated by the Constitution itself.
It states clearly, that "this Constitution" is the SUPREME law of the land, any other law or State Constitution's Articles "not in pursuance of this Constituion" notwithstanding.
The Constitution itslelf (the 2nd Amendment and Article VI being equal parts and of equal importance) bars the Federal AND any State government from "infringing" on the "right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms."
(Now a well read "leglal scholar" or one of their victims, will disagree and argue the 2nd Amendment has yet to be "incorporated" by the Supreme Court, however, it is a specious and silly argument. The Supreme Court is not necessary in order for Article VI to be valid. It just is, because it says it is, and Congress voted to ratify it in 1789)
The fact is, REGARDLESS of what anyone says, the Supreme Court's job back then, as it is now, was to interpret NEW laws for the SOLE purpose of verifying if the new law was in "pursuance of" the Constitution, and not the other way around.
The only individuals charged with the responsibility of changing the Constitution are the ones we elect to Congress. And Article VI has not been repealed, nor has the 2nd Amendment.
So since Article VI sets forth that the 2nd Amendment supercedes any State law, Federal Law, or any Articles within any State Constitution, it is hard to imagine that a Supreme Court ruling is needed, or any "interpretation" is necessary to see that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what they wrote, and that they intended for States to be bound thereby.
So I will leave you the following idea (for what it's worth) for you to consider when giving your speech or debating on this assignment.
When one reads the following sentence "...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", ask yourself what makes more common sense? Does the idea that the Founders by this sentence were meaning something along the lines of? "....Gee, you know a well trained militia, in a Representative Republic like the one we are establishing, is an absolute necessity if we are to secure our freedoms from an oppressive government. So from now on, we all agree, that OUR right to keep and carry guns and swords, can't be taken away, because it was granted to us by God. And we will also write in here, an Article that says this shall be the Supreme law, any other law doesn't supercede it."
Or, does it make better sense they sat down and said:
"...You know, based on the history of England, Germany, and France, a disarmed populace's freedoms are always respected by Governments since the very dawn of time. So from now on, let's all agree, that God intended that only those guys who work for the Federalist Government we are establishing can keep and carry guns. Now lets all vote on it."
So Eric, it IS NOT really necessary to try and interpret the Constitution, it is only necessary to realize it says what it says, and not let people convince you that lengthy studies of case law is necessary, or that ONLY the definitions utilized in "legal dictionaries" can reveal the secret meaning behind a simply worded, easily understandable, twenty seven word sentence.
The 2nd Amendment can ONLY be "MIS-interpreted" if one is intentionally misled to believe it does not say "the right of the people" but instead, says "the power of only employees of either the Federal or a State Government."