Someone help me, here!

S

Spectre

Staff Alumnus
My brother and I have a disagreement. He claims that the 2nd Amendment is not an acknowledgement of the individual's right to keep and bear arms. His argument appears to be based on the "well regulated" portion of the 2nd Amendment. He also seems to have a belief that one is not a militia member, unless is one is active on the field of battle!

I have been known to get a bit heated over this issue, so I would appreciate some measured feedback in this regard from other forum members. I would actually like to pretty much sit this one out. :)

[This message has been edited by Spectre (edited May 24, 1999).]
 
I strongly suggest you pick up a copy of the Second Amendment Primer by Les Adams. In it you'll find quotes, newspaper articles from the times, and personal writings by the Founding Fathers. It leaves no doubt that the Second Amendment is an individual Right.
Also, a federal district judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the 2nd Amendment was for the individual. I believe his entire writing on the matter can be found at the TEXAS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION web site. (www.tsra@tsra.com) In it, he details out why this is so from the present all the way back through English common law. Hope this is of use.
 
Check out, www.wolf1.com for some good quotes by the characters who wrote the disputed words, a good 2nd Amendment analysis (The Embarassing Second Amendment), and various related stuff. Check out http://www.rkba.net/ also.

All able-bodied adults are part of the militia and is supported by writings of the framers. To Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right as is Free Speech, protection against illegal search and seizure, etc.

I know there is much more (tons at that web site), but I don't want to rewrite a best seller.
 
Spectre,

It is a real uphill battle to win the "literal interpretation" argument in a modern context. Previous posters are correct that you have to go back to the context which the amendment was written under to have it make sense as we see it. Out of that context, I wouldn't even be convinced that the 2nd Amendment applied to individuals.

"The Primer" noted above is a great resource.
 
I won't bother with references:

Before you see him again and debate the issue...consider these points:
1) The founders wrote the Constitution....it needs to get ratified...there is resistence to replacing the Crown with another central government...why? Because the Crown was tyrannical and there were no provisions for an individual's rights. Remember that these guys were the best educated people in the Americas...they were classically schooled and had a well founded grasp of history...these guys could read and speak Latin and Greek. They knew how governments evolved and they knew human nature. So, the concerns had to be addressed in order to get the Constitution ratified. Hence the Bill of Rights. It does not grant rights, it affirms inherent rights. It says what the government can not do. (corroborating references in the Federalist papers...on my site)
2) The Bill of Rights affirms individual rights and even liberals agree that except for the 2ndA all the others refer to individual rights, not collective.....it is illogical to put a collective right there when the Constitution addresses collective rights. Further, it makes no sense for a government to specifically grant itself the right to keep and bear arms...that is a given
3) Following the flavor of the times (suspicion of a central government and a standing army), the States were the primary allegience. Accepting for the moment the Liberal view...(arms belong to the militia)...the Federal government is still violating the 2nd amendment because the Federal military has annexed the state National Guards...there are no independent State militias anymore.

If he is still not convinced....break his nose and as he gets off the floor, tell him that you represent the Federal government and he is merely an individual subject, one of many.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
I am having second thoughts about posting this. My brother is opposed to me posting some of what I have said, perhaps rightfully so. If I wasn't still a little angry,tired, and if I hadn't spent so much time on this post. I might comply with my brother's requests. I must also add that not everything I say is relevant to this topic, I just wanted to get everything I have to say out of the way. Well, I hope I don't have to many typographical errors. And I hope my inferior intellect to my brother isn't too evident. I also hope that I do not affend any one.
I am very sorry if anyone gets caught in the argument my brother and I are having. I feel that it is inappropriate to have a personal argument over a public forum.
Evidently my brother does not feel the same way. I am responding because he took me out of context and also left out a few things. I assume he was pissed, so I
suppose he was just hoping for someone to supply him with material to use in our argument.
The argument that we had tonight, started when he posted this on a forum concerning the new laws about gun magazines and how one might respond: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>You're serious? I would shoot down every one of my FAMILY if they were willing to accept a job collecting my guns for the government. It would break my heart, but I would feel it to be my duty. In the big picture, though encroachments are encroachments. Outlawing importation of some fabulously expensive, damnably heavy and ugly foreign gun is as much encroachment as knocking on or kicking my door in to take them all. One is just more direct.[/quote]
I took exception to his remarks, and rightfully so,I think, because he was talking about my family which I love dearly and would die for gladly, including my brother.
My response was "If you shoot at me I will aim for your head, so that if I don't kill you will at least have brain damage." He resonded by saying "I feel sorry for you." This coming from someone who just said they were willing to kill all of my family if they attempted to take his gun parafinalia? Quite specifically something as minute as a gun magazine.
He then said, he would kill anyone who tried to infringe on his constitutional rights. I became even more angered and replied that technically the constitution does not give him the right to own a gun. I believe that if the constitution is taken literally, one would have to belong to a well regulated militia.
Here are a few dictionary( The American Heritage Dictionary) definitions that I find most favorable to the opinion that our right to own guns is protected by the Constitution. "Militia:The whole body of physically fit male citizens eligible by law for military service." Now, I suppose only healthy males get to own guns. "Regulate:to adjust for accurate and proper functioning" Now, I must assume someone has to be regulated these healthy male gun owners. "Well:in a good and proper manner" Well, if you are not a healthy male who is well regulated (I must assume someone must be resonsible for the militia's regulization)you do not have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I know my brother is not a member of a well regulated militia. Therefore he does not have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
I also fail to see where he reached the conclusion that I said "one is not a militia member, unless is one is active on the field of battle!". I never said that, I only said that a militia as specified in the Constitution had to be well regulated. I assumed that there would have to be some external force acting upon the militia members to insure the fact that they were well regulated. Why else would the 2nd Ammendment specify that the militia be well regulated?
Now, I hope everyone reads what I am about to say before they reply. I believe it should be everyones right to own any gun they want. Although I wouldn't kill any member of my family if they attempted to take my weapons. I do not think gun owners should have to use the 2nd Ammendment as a crutch. American citizens should not allow there freedom to be infringed upon. We should try our best to make our voice heard. If all the conservatives ever do is just sit and whine about our "Constitutionaly rights being taken away", and making idle threats about killing anyone who attempt to take them away. I don't see any of you threatining to kill a gun store owner if he won't sell you a handgun without the 7 day waiting period. Stop talking about it and do something! Get off your butt and vote for the right politicions. Remember, it doesn't matter whether you like the canidates or not, someone is going to win. So, I would suggest that you vote for the best candidate. Actively participating in a political campaign is also an excellent way to help the right canditate get into office. I have spent many hours working with a few political candidates, have you?

------------------
63.66.136.26/532/

[This message has been edited by JHolmes (edited May 25, 1999).]
 
sir,

I read your closing comments, and I agree with you there. Too many people cry "2nd Amendment" and think that is enough.. it is not.

But, I think you failed to read my post above. Modern Dictionaries are not going to help you decipher the constitution. Even contemporary dictionaries won't. If that were the case, we wouldn't need to have Judges "interpret" it. Each statement in the constitution must be looked at with the proper backdrop. The backdrop at the time of the 2nd amendment was the reent war with England.. who was the ruling power at the beginning of the war. I whileheartedly believe that the 2nd amendment was put inthe constitution to allow for citizens to offer armed resistance to an oppressive government. I have no doubt. If I had a duty (self imposed or not) to fight and/or kill on that belief, I'd've killed and been killed a long time ago. That ability has been infringed, IMO, since the first Sheriff told a citizen he couldn't carry a gun in "his town" and he wasn't shot.

If you don't want Spectre to shoot you, don't take his stuff. If you don't want me to shoot you, don't take my stuff. If the gov't doesn't want a shooting war with its citizens, they shouldn't try to take our stuff.

------------------
-Essayons
 
Mr Holmes...

Where you make your mistake in interpretation is by "assuming" after you took two definitions, synthesized them together and then "assumed" a meaning. The 2nd does not say only a militia. Its an exhortation, a statement of fact & observation that a militia is necessary. Very much like "a full tank of gas is necessary to get you from point A to point B"

Had the founders wished limitations on arms they would have said only active members of the militia may keep and bear arms....since there was no gun control and no governmental limitations on arms ownership any arguement interpreting such exclusivity is specious, fallacious and both intellectualy and morally dishonest, not to mention, bankrupt.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"



[This message has been edited by DC (edited May 25, 1999).]
 
A while back DC posted a response to a very similar question in which an English professor broke down the wording of the 2nd Amendment in a round about way. Search for the name "Brocki" to see it. I second the motion for you both to get the Second Amendment Primer (Paladium Press), it gets to the heart of interpreting the amendment by very knowledgeable people.
 
ENGLISH USAGE EXPERT INTERPRETS 2ND AMENDMENT

by J. Neil Schulman

I just had a conversation with Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial
Coordinator for the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles
Unified School District. Mr. Brocki taught Advanced Placement
English for several years at Van Nuys High School, as well as
having been a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin. I was referred
to Mr. Brocki by Sherryl Broyles of the Office of Instruction of
the LA Unified School District, who described Mr. Brocki as the
foremost expert in grammar in the Los Angeles Unified School
District -- the person she and others go to when they need a
definitive answer on English grammar.

I gave Mr. Brocki my name, told him Sherryl Broyles referred me,
then asked him to parse the following sentence:

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall
not be infringed."

Mr. Brocki informed me that the sentence was overpunctuated,
but
that the meaning could be extracted anyway.

"A well-schooled electorate" is a nominative absolute.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a
participial phrase modifying "electorate"

The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of
the people"

"shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an
adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed"

"to keep and read books" is an infinitive phrase modifying
"right"

I then asked him if he could rephrase the sentence to make it
clearer. Mr. Brocki said, "Because a well-schooled electorate is
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to
keep and read books to a well-schooled electorate -- say,
registered voters with a high-school diploma?" He said, "No."

I then identified my purpose in calling him, and read him the
Second Amendment in full:

"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."

He said he thought the sentence had sounded familiar, but that
he hadn't recognized it.

I asked, "Is the structure and meaning of this sentence the same
as the sentence I first quoted you?" He said, "yes." I asked
him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer. He transformed
it the same way as the first sentence: "Because a well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I asked him whether the meaning could have changed in two
hundred
years. He said, "No."

I asked him whether this sentence could be interpreted to
restrict the right to keep and bear arms to "a well-regulated
militia." He said, "no." According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence
means that the people \are\ the militia, and that the people
have the right which is mentioned.

I asked him again to make sure:

Schulman: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the
right
can be restricted to "a well-regulated militia?"

Brocki: "No, I can't see that."

Schulman: "Could another, professional in English grammar or
linguistics interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?"

Brocki: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation."

I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his
professional reputation on this opinion, and be quoted on this.
He said, "Yes."

At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr. Brocki his opinion
on the Second Amendment, gun control, or the right to keep and
bear arms.

J. Neil Schulman
July 17, 1991

http://www.wwnet.net/~jcsiler/document/SECOND.TXT

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Mr. Holmes,

Here is a better definition of militia for you. It is Title 10, chapter 13, sec. 311 of the United States Code. In plane english the legal definition.

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(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.

A few notes the "able bodied men" part
includes females also.

Jason
 
Let's step back and look at the Bill of Rights as a whole. It was not drafted by our forefathers to be used by our elected officials to govern us, the people. It was drafted to be used by the people to govern the elected officials.

Gunslinger
 
You are right dead center there Gunslinger

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Mr. Holmes, I am in complete agreement with Spectre in this. If a member of my family decides to become an enemy of freedom then they decide to become my enemy. But I was taught by my father not to hold friends and family to a lower standard of conduct than one holds strangers but rather to hold friends and family to a much higher standard of conduct. Your mileage may vary.

The construction of the 2nd Amendment is plain. Follow the above discussion with the grammarian. Also the Militia Act of 1792 defined the militia at the same time as the ratification. That definition was all free, trustworthy males from 16 to 45. But to make a long story short- the first clause is a justification of the active clause of the amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The limitation of the militia to free trustworthy males to the ages of 16 to 45 in no manner affects "the right of the people." In every other amendment that mentions "the right of the people", that right has been construed by the courts to mean the right of the individual.

But this is all moot. The Second Amendment enumerates my right to bear arms. It does not grant it. My right to keep and bear arms is derived from my inalienable right to life.
If I have a right to life then I have the right to defend that life. I therefore have the right to obtain tools for the purpose of that defense. Infringe on that right at your peril.

Sir, I know you personally. I hold you in esteem and regard you with respect. If you try to take my weapons I will see you dead in your grave. I will mourn you and place flowers on your grave.
 
Spectre,

Go to <a href="http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html">"THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS"</a>" - Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress.

Down load it and let your brother read it to see what Congress saw, by some of their own, and choose to disregard.


------------------
Schmit, GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
 
Thanks, guys.

Spartacus, I agree with you pretty much to a word. There are a lot of people I would risk my life for, and I would not hesitate to die for any of my family, if there was any chance I could save them in time of need. That said, (in case how I feel is not clear), you can line up all the people I like, like Rob and Spartacus. You can line up all the people I respect, like DC. You can line up the fierce individualists, like CR and Don Rearic, and along with them may stand the interesting characters like good doc WW. Add to the line everyone I've ever met. Send with them anyone I've ever been attracted to. Then send this congregation of people I have like, loved, respected, admired, or valued for my guns...and I will fire until I run out of ammo, or buy the farm.

People who do the right thing when it's easy merit no respect from me. There are some values that I feel are more important than any individual. The 2nd Amendment is, ultimately, a statement of how vital freedom- and the ability to protect it- is to a people. I must agree. In fact, I feel that the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, is rooted upon the potential value of a human. People are important enough to protect. People are valuable enough that they deserve freedom from interference. This is why I feel our Constitution must be protected at all costs...and I may not be able to immediately affect the entire state of the union, but where I am, tyranny will not be, no matter who carries its sorry flag.
 
David,

No need to go back 17 years. I attended a meeting of the subcomittee on the constitution, federalism, and property rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciay last Sptember....

the findings were the same, and the result was obviously the same (in, fact some of the Senators in attendance were the same!!).

I was incredibly impressed by the opinions of many of the senators..and left witha veyr good feeling.. pretty quickly I reazlized that the fact that they "knew" what gun control was all about meant nothing.

I think DC was going to put some of the documents from that hearing on line.. if she hasn't I have hard copy.

------------------
-Essayons
 
spectre, acouple of things ; 1, well regulated as used meant properly equipped. you have to go to older dictionaries, but that meaning is there.
2. why do we suppose that our senators & reprsentatives' knowledge of what gun control is really about will affect what they do? politicians have been shown to have no memory for facts if they are inconvenient .
many people today choose to believe that ignoring a problem will cause it to go away. too many of the people believe that "someone else " will take care of it.
c'mon down to the farm folks, animals dont get fed unless we do it. water buckets don't fill themselves. if we as gunowners wait for someone else to stand up for us, it'll never happen . we'll be like australia, looking at pictures of what we had and wondering how we got there.
i don't care if you agree with the nra or not. they are the gun owners voice the government sees as important. we are3 million strong now , how do you think washington would fell if we had 25 or 50 million as a membership figure? instead of 1 in one hndred we would be 1 in 10!
join now brother and sister alike, let our voice be heard , or listen to the wind whistle where we used to be.
 
cmore,

Thanks for the clarification. It is indeed my understanding that "well regulated" can mean properly equipped. I have attempted to elucidate this to certain parties.
 
I dont have a reference but I read somewhere that "well regulated" meanr "well trained".

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top