Specific Wording of the 2nd?

J

JestersPlace

New member
I'm not stating anything that TFL'ers don't aready know, but it is worth illustrating again- a call for focus.

The 2nd, as written, states:
"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."

It seems the 1st part of this is what the anti's base their "It doesn't extend to common people" argument from. Let's examine further...

Many people I have talked to have the "common opinion" that a Militia has the same meaning as "State Police" ex: Troopers, Law Enforcemnt- Those regulated by state law, which is further regulated by the Fed gov't.

According to Webster's, Militia is defined as follows:
mi·li·tia (m-lsh)
n. Abbr. mil.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Clearly, a Militia is composed of ORDINARY CITIZENS, which includes, but is NOT LIMITED TO sworn peace officers.

And why do we need a militia- to preserve a FREE State- thus- FREEDOM. Well regulated, ordinary citizens, who's right to remain armed shall not be infringed. "Well Regulated", during the revolutionary war simply means a group of ordinary people, together in a group, with a leader of their choosing, pursuing a common purpose- maintaining the freedom of a state. This was simply a group of farmers, settlers, plantation owners, you name it.

And why was it seen to be an important addition to the original constituion? Because without those arms, they would have NEVER defeated the Red Coats. How then, could anybody of reasonable intelligence suggest that the very same guys who just used thier arms to win freedom, watch thier wives, children, and countrymen die, have meant to say anything other than what they did- "The government that this constitution forms shall never, in anyway, infringe on my abillity to keep my rifle(s) and pistol(s) in case I need them to defend freedom once again" - ????

Notice that the 2nd does NOT say "A well regulated orgainization, being necessary to preserve the sport of wild game hunting and sport shooting, the people shall maintain the arms required only for such an event." No, absolutely NOT. These people were not talking about clay pigeons- they were talking about keeping their arms so they may draw the blood and slay anybody, or anything which sought to strip them of their freedom.

It is my feeling then, that not only do we have a right to bear our arms, but we have a responsibillity, under the constitution to come together as a militia and take them up to fight to maintain freedom if necessary. I am not saying the time is now, but it could be close. The constituion is but a shred of paper, and it is paper thin without the virtue of the people, having the spirit in which it was written to give a $h!t enough to stand up for it.

The other day I watched the movie "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson, it was perfectly fitting. I would recomend it to anyone who needs a fire lit under their tail. I would urge organizations like the NRA and other funded groups to push for a prime-time premier of the movie on broadcast television. Maybe that would spark some interest in why we are really here.

Who else is on board? What are we going to do about this? If, God forbid, it does come down to raids and door-to-door collections for our arms? Individual persons don't have a chance, because the ATF will show up in overwelming force. I do think it calls for some tenative plans and organization of county 'militia'- those who would be called upon, in a state of emergency (the blatent stripping of our freedom) to assembe and give a show of force. If every county accross the country stood up, willing to use force if necessary, it couldn't ever turn into a Waco, TX, show of force. It wouldn't be a "small group of psychos" it would be groups all accross the country, and they would show the gov't just what "popular opinion" means. After enough battles broke out, I'm sure the American people wouldn't stand for it anymore. They would have to declare all out war in thier own streets, or say "Hey, fine, let them keep thier damn guns" and believe me, you wouldn't see any more gun laws passed for QUITE some time.

Feed back?

-Jest
 
Jester,

I agree completely about your take on the second amendment. There is no doubt that it is not about hunting or "sporting use."

Orgainizing a local militia is a fine idea, if that's what you want to do. Just remember that you will no doubt attract a few undercover Feds. As a matter of fact, you probably already have with this post. :)

Regardless of whether or not you decide to formally organize a local militia, please be aware that The Firing Line is not the place to advocate violence or illegal acts.

------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
BluesMan,

I am sorry if I gave the impression I was advocating violence or illegal acts. I am honestly looking for some feedback on how the rest of you all relate events that created this country with the current events of the day.

Again, if, God forbid, the gov't descided to go collecting on firearms, the people would have two distinct choices- they can peacably give up thier arms, or they can draw it out into a long and bloody battle that would change the nation forever. If we are to stand for our beliefs, we must face the reality that some of us may be called to the reallity of the latter choice.

As far as forming a militia- I'm not at all suggesting I wish to start taking enistments here. Is it possible that the constitution gives the militia a right to bear arms, but provides no right to actually form a militia? I honestly don't know. Any feedback on this would be appreciated.

I guess the main focus of my post is that I'm quite upset about those on both sides of the equation. On the side of the gov't, there is much talk about a ban, or moving that direction- but when it comes right down to it, would that fly? On the other side, there is much talk from gun owners that "they'll have to pry it out of my cold dead hand"- look at the signatures of that nature all over TFL. Are these guys just blowing smoke? One or both sides is bluffing- this will end in a loss of the battle for one side or the other without violence. On the other hand, if both sides are not bluffing..... are we really able to stomach the reallity of what *could* happen? When relating to the collonists fighting the Red Coats- they were not bluffing. It wasn't a fery-book tail of what "may happen" - it was the cold harsh reality. When gun owners make the statement "we will fight for our rights" they are in effect, vowing to re-live this reality.

It may not be popular opinion, but I'm simply trying to explore, or make known, the reallity we have chosen to side on, and just how bloody that outcome could be. I certainly wouldn't want to start or even participate in such a scenerio, but it seems clear that the anti's have a clear cut plan, and a vast majority of those on the other side may well just be blowing smoke. Is this the case? I think that's why the move toward a ban continues, beause they know, or strongly feel that it is all just smoke on our end. I'm not trying to say that we should "call to arms and show them it's not all just smoke"- but as the collonists prepared to challenge the governemnt, when all other measures failed, this is how they handled it. We don't like to talk about things like that today, but it's in our national anthem, and it happend.

Thanks for your feedback! We all need level headed advice from one another to steer us the right direction. However this thing turns out, we don't need a bunch of indiviual commando's going off half-cocked.

-Jest
 
Nice post. But recall that the second is not limited by the militia clause- ie, nonmilita arms and activities are also protected, ie, self-defense.

If we claim the second ammendment only protects our right to shoot soldiers, we run the risk of having the second declared entirely obsolete, and therefore meaningless.
 
I have recently seen that pro freedom gun owners have started referring to "Article II of the Bill of Rights" rather than the "Second Ammendment". It is factually more correct, in that an ammendment refers to something that has been added, reversed or somehow changed. Article II of the Bill of Rights is original, and spells out one of our inalienable rights, which the government is not supposed to infringe upon.
In addition, this could cause confusion amongst those lackeys who don't understand the Constitution, and thus benefit those of us who do in a debate or arguement. I really like the idea, even though it is longer to say and write than the "Second Ammendment". Protecting freedom requires constant work, however, and we should use every advantage available to us, even if it is a little bit less convenient. Just my $.02 worth.

------------------
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in
peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the
hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may
posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
 
Also regardless of the 2nd we always have the 9th.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[/quote]

Self defense, right to own etc. are all implied. The 9th was added due to the fears of some of the founding fathers who thought some idiots in the future would think our rights are defined by a piece of paper and not inate to all humanity ie. Natural Rights.
Just my opinion,

~bamf
 
"... the right of the PEOPLE.." (my cap's)
It doesn't say the right of the state-appointed militia, the constabulary, or any other group has the right to keep and bear arms. It says that WE THE PEOPLE have the right.

------------------
Those who use arms well cultivate the Way and keep the rules.Thus they can govern in such a way as to prevail over the corrupt- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
 
The militia is in fact any and all members of the populace able and willing to turn out with arms in an emergency.

To be able to turn out with arms, you have to have arms. That's why we have a second amendment.

The founders did not trust governments not to become oppressive, and desired that the people be able to defeat government troops in that event. They included some language on WHY the people need the right to keep and bear arms, in the hopes that there would be no confusion as to what sort of arms they had in mind. The amendment thus explicitly indicates that "arms" will include those appropriate to a well-regulated (effective) militia. Military weapons, in other words. They didn't want anyone pretending in the future that as long as the people were permitted to carry, say, quarterstaffs, the second amendment was being honored.
 
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Stands with or without the militia modifier.

In all other places in the Constitution the term "people" is accepted as meaning ALL and EACH of the people.

Without arms, there is no militia. Without people, there is no militia.

You can have people without having a militia but you cannot have a militia without people.

Simple. The right of everybody who wishes to own and carry arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top