Confusion: The wording of the Second Amendment

[Lakhota]

"Shall not be infringed..."

Excellent wording by our wise forefathers

Oh, are you in a "well regulated militia"...?

No requirement to belong to a militia

Then why does the Second Amendment say so?

 

[kaz]

"Shall not be infringed..."

Excellent wording by our wise forefathers

Oh, are you in a "well regulated militia"...?

No requirement to belong to a militia

Then why does the Second Amendment say so?

It doesn't say so. You have just been failed by the government educational system.

"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."

If you had mastered the English language, you would read that and know that the militia is an explanation, not a restriction. Sad you want inflict the same crappy government education on your children as was done to you.

And here's another tidbit for you. The militia is defined by the people, not the government. That's the answer to your question why they used a lower case "m"

 

[80zephyr]

I was down on the reservations a couple of weeks ago. Virtually every nation from 4 corners to canyon de chelly were selling these shirts:

Well, sparky, times have changed. Today, if the government doesn't look out for Native American rights - who will?

Bwhahahahha. Really? The government is looking out for native American rights? The black man has NOTHING on the indians when it comes to bad treatment by our country. The only reason the indians get anything from our government is when they hire lawyers to fight for their rights.

Mark

Funny? When has the government fought for your rights?

Mark

 

[Auld Phart]

"Shall not be infringed..."

Excellent wording by our wise forefathers

Oh, are you in a "well regulated militia"...?

No requirement to belong to a militia

Then why does the Second Amendment say so?

It doesn't.

it says the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

Not the right of the Militia

 

[Lakhota]

I was down on the reservations a couple of weeks ago. Virtually every nation from 4 corners to canyon de chelly were selling these shirts:

Well, sparky, times have changed. Today, if the government doesn't look out for Native American rights - who will?

Bwhahahahha. Really? The government is looking out for native American rights? The black man has NOTHING on the indians when it comes to bad treatment by our country. The only reason the indians get anything from our government is when they hire lawyers to fight for their rights.

Mark

Funny? When has the government fought for your rights?

Mark

Many times. Don't you follow legislation? Democrats fight FOR Native Americans - Republicans fight AGAINST Native Americans.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I was down on the reservations a couple of weeks ago. Virtually every nation from 4 corners to canyon de chelly were selling these shirts:

Well, sparky, times have changed. Today, if the government doesn't look out for Native American rights - who will?

Bwhahahahha. Really? The government is looking out for native American rights? The black man has NOTHING on the indians when it comes to bad treatment by our country. The only reason the indians get anything from our government is when they hire lawyers to fight for their rights.

Mark

Funny? When has the government fought for your rights?

Mark

Many times. Don't you follow legislation? Democrats fight FOR Native Americans - Republicans fight AGAINST Native Americans.

Native Americans is not a key issue this election...now go mind your casinos...and lay off the firewater

 

[80zephyr]

I was down on the reservations a couple of weeks ago. Virtually every nation from 4 corners to canyon de chelly were selling these shirts:

Well, sparky, times have changed. Today, if the government doesn't look out for Native American rights - who will?

Bwhahahahha. Really? The government is looking out for native American rights? The black man has NOTHING on the indians when it comes to bad treatment by our country. The only reason the indians get anything from our government is when they hire lawyers to fight for their rights.

Mark

Funny? When has the government fought for your rights?

Mark

Many times. Don't you follow legislation? Democrats fight FOR Native Americans - Republicans fight AGAINST Native Americans.

If some lawyer hadn't figured out that the treaties were still the law, no one would have cared. The government has fucked you much more than they have helped you. If living on a reservation and having a demoralized population is "help", you'd fit right in at Auschwitz.

Mark

 

[tyroneweaver]

I was down on the reservations a couple of weeks ago. Virtually every nation from 4 corners to canyon de chelly were selling these shirts:

Well, sparky, times have changed. Today, if the government doesn't look out for Native American rights - who will?

Bwhahahahha. Really? The government is looking out for native American rights? The black man has NOTHING on the indians when it comes to bad treatment by our country. The only reason the indians get anything from our government is when they hire lawyers to fight for their rights.

Mark

Funny? When has the government fought for your rights?

Mark

Many times. Don't you follow legislation? Democrats fight FOR Native Americans - Republicans fight AGAINST Native Americans.

when it involves helping people I'm for any legislation.
But if it involves a bigger monetary handout. Not so sure.

 

[Lakhota]

I was down on the reservations a couple of weeks ago. Virtually every nation from 4 corners to canyon de chelly were selling these shirts:

Well, sparky, times have changed. Today, if the government doesn't look out for Native American rights - who will?

Bwhahahahha. Really? The government is looking out for native American rights? The black man has NOTHING on the indians when it comes to bad treatment by our country. The only reason the indians get anything from our government is when they hire lawyers to fight for their rights.

Mark

Funny? When has the government fought for your rights?

Mark

Many times. Don't you follow legislation? Democrats fight FOR Native Americans - Republicans fight AGAINST Native Americans.

If some lawyer hadn't figured out that the treaties were still the law, no one would have cared. The government has fucked you much more than they have helped you. If living on a reservation and having a demoralized population is "help", you'd fit right in at Auschwitz.

Mark

Well, sparky, not all of us live on reservations. Democrats help us. Republicans hurt us.

 

[deltex1]

There is no confusion about Islamist hatred of gays...to the point of killing them dead. When will we start killing the Islamists dead?

 

[Lakhota]

There is no confusion about Islamist hatred of gays...to the point of killing them dead. When will we start killing the Islamists dead?

Maybe when we start killing the "homegrown" gay haters dead.

 

[chikenwing]

One of the primary arguments of gun advocates in that the Second Amendment guarantees the right for citizens to own and carry guns. Their argument has been repeated so many times that many progressives or moderates parrot the same line. Then they offer arguments as to why there should be limitations on gun ownership, such as bans on assault weapons.

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and asimple comma.

The version passed by Congress is:

• 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.

The version ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson reads:

• 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’s difficult to determine the difference between having a capital M and a lower-case m in the word militia. Generally, a capital letter means a proper noun. In that case, the upper case M, as in the Congressional version, references a particular militia, that being the armed forces of the United States. The lower-case m in the second version would refer to a group of individuals who form an ad hoc army, most likely to oppose the armed forces of the United States. Therefore, it would be okay to keep and bear arms only as part of the official armed forces of the United States. This argument supports a limited version of the right to bear arms; only when serving in the official armed forces of the United States.

The comma in the first version (between the words Arms and shall) also changes the meaning of the amendment. The first version with the comma maintains the reference to the official armed forces of the United States. That is further evidence that the right to bear arms is limited to serving in the official military of the United States. The lack of a comma (between arms and shall) in the second version, implies that there is equality or parity between bearing arms for the official forces of the United States and for personal use of firearms. This supports the N.R.A. position on the Second Amendment. as does the lower case m.

The provision for passing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires ratification of the same language by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress, and the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, as described in Article V of the Constitution. It states:

[shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;]​

But in the case of the Second Amendment, the language between the Congressional and state versions have different meanings.

What this does is to throw out either meaning of the Second Amendment. It puts the definition of the right to bear arms in the same category as other items not mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, such as the right to privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, the right to gay marriage.

Bearing arms is then a legislative issue. It may be that the policy desired by Congress, the states of the U.S., and most importantly the people, is to permit individuals to own assault weapons. It also may be to prohibit them. In any case, the decision should be made on wise policy, without constitutional reference to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment should be null and void, because its ratification did not follow the prescribed method for passing an amendment. This makes it blatantly confusing.

More: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment

Undoubtedly, the latest gun massacre in Orlando, Florida will prompt another round of gun debates - including the Second Amendment.

Only if your an idiot,the 2nd had zip to do with this tragic thing.

 

[Rustic]

One of the primary arguments of gun advocates in that the Second Amendment guarantees the right for citizens to own and carry guns. Their argument has been repeated so many times that many progressives or moderates parrot the same line. Then they offer arguments as to why there should be limitations on gun ownership, such as bans on assault weapons.

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and asimple comma.

The version passed by Congress is:

• 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.

The version ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson reads:

• 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’s difficult to determine the difference between having a capital M and a lower-case m in the word militia. Generally, a capital letter means a proper noun. In that case, the upper case M, as in the Congressional version, references a particular militia, that being the armed forces of the United States. The lower-case m in the second version would refer to a group of individuals who form an ad hoc army, most likely to oppose the armed forces of the United States. Therefore, it would be okay to keep and bear arms only as part of the official armed forces of the United States. This argument supports a limited version of the right to bear arms; only when serving in the official armed forces of the United States.

The comma in the first version (between the words Arms and shall) also changes the meaning of the amendment. The first version with the comma maintains the reference to the official armed forces of the United States. That is further evidence that the right to bear arms is limited to serving in the official military of the United States. The lack of a comma (between arms and shall) in the second version, implies that there is equality or parity between bearing arms for the official forces of the United States and for personal use of firearms. This supports the N.R.A. position on the Second Amendment. as does the lower case m.

The provision for passing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires ratification of the same language by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress, and the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, as described in Article V of the Constitution. It states:

[shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;]​

But in the case of the Second Amendment, the language between the Congressional and state versions have different meanings.

What this does is to throw out either meaning of the Second Amendment. It puts the definition of the right to bear arms in the same category as other items not mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, such as the right to privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, the right to gay marriage.

Bearing arms is then a legislative issue. It may be that the policy desired by Congress, the states of the U.S., and most importantly the people, is to permit individuals to own assault weapons. It also may be to prohibit them. In any case, the decision should be made on wise policy, without constitutional reference to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment should be null and void, because its ratification did not follow the prescribed method for passing an amendment. This makes it blatantly confusing.

More: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment

Undoubtedly, the latest gun massacre in Orlando, Florida will prompt another round of gun debates - including the Second Amendment.

Buy more guns and ammo... It's the American thing to do.
That's the real meaning of the Second Amendment…

 

[Rustic]

There is no confusion about Islamist hatred of gays...to the point of killing them dead. When will we start killing the Islamists dead?

Maybe when we start killing the "homegrown" gay haters dead.

There's already plenty of Muslims here…

 

[SassyIrishLass]

There is no confusion about Islamist hatred of gays...to the point of killing them dead. When will we start killing the Islamists dead?

We did under Bush (salute J!!!), thousands of them and the whines and wails from the left still rings in my ears.

 

[80zephyr]

Well, sparky, times have changed. Today, if the government doesn't look out for Native American rights - who will?

Bwhahahahha. Really? The government is looking out for native American rights? The black man has NOTHING on the indians when it comes to bad treatment by our country. The only reason the indians get anything from our government is when they hire lawyers to fight for their rights.

Mark

Funny? When has the government fought for your rights?

Mark

Many times. Don't you follow legislation? Democrats fight FOR Native Americans - Republicans fight AGAINST Native Americans.

If some lawyer hadn't figured out that the treaties were still the law, no one would have cared. The government has fucked you much more than they have helped you. If living on a reservation and having a demoralized population is "help", you'd fit right in at Auschwitz.

Mark

Well, sparky, not all of us live on reservations. Democrats help us. Republicans hurt us.

I fear you have Stockholm syndrome.

Mark

 

[deltex1]

There is no confusion about Islamist hatred of gays...to the point of killing them dead. When will we start killing the Islamists dead?

Maybe when we start killing the "homegrown" gay haters dead.

The shooter was homegrown, dufus.

 

[Lakhota]

Hillary wants to reinstate the assault weapons ban. I agree. Go Hillary!!!!!

 

[hadit]

Hillary wants to reinstate the assault weapons ban. I agree. Go Hillary!!!!!

Define "assault weapon", and make it more substantive than "big scary looking black gun".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no confusion about Islamist hatred of gays...to the point of killing them dead. When will we start killing the Islamists dead?

Maybe when we start killing the "homegrown" gay haters dead.

The shooter was homegrown, dufus.

I guess no muzzie is a safe muzzie.