Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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:
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.
- 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 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.
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:
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.
- 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 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.
And I have 2nd amendment rights, so call it a wash.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?
Americans ...regarding Orlando tragedy....you have a tough choice to make
either believe that the police will be there within 4 minutes to protect your life
or
CONCEAL CARRY
Why not OPEN CARRY?
"Shall not be infringed..."
Excellent wording by our wise forefathers
Oh, are you in a "well regulated militia"...?
"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?
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:
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.
- 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 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.
There is an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense.
Miller. Possession of a weapon in common use by the military is constitutionally protected due to the opening clause."Confusion: The wording of the Second Amendment"
Actually there is no ‘confusion.’
Second Amendment jurisprudence is settled, accepted and beyond dispute:
There is an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense.
Like most rights the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute.’ “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” (DC v. Heller).
Consequently, the Second Amendment right is subject to reasonable restrictions by government, where “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.” ibid
Current Second Amendment jurisprudence also holds that restrictions on AR and AK platform rifles are Constitutional, and to advocate for such measures is not to seek to ‘violate’ the rights of gun owners, nor ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.
A Maryland measure placing restrictions on AR and AK platform rifles is currently under review, and should that law be invalidated and upheld on appeal, the Supreme Court will likely make a final decision regarding whether possessing AR and AK platform rifles is entitled to Constitutional protections, or laws placing restrictions on such weapons manifests as a reasonable restriction consistent with the Second Amendment.
Until the Supreme Court rules, however, restrictions on AR and AK platform rifles are Constitutional – as are prohibitions of large capacity magazines and universal background checks.
Miller. Possession of a weapon in common use by the military is constitutionally protected due to the opening clause."Confusion: The wording of the Second Amendment"
Actually there is no ‘confusion.’
Second Amendment jurisprudence is settled, accepted and beyond dispute:
There is an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense.
Like most rights the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute.’ “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” (DC v. Heller).
Consequently, the Second Amendment right is subject to reasonable restrictions by government, where “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.” ibid
Current Second Amendment jurisprudence also holds that restrictions on AR and AK platform rifles are Constitutional, and to advocate for such measures is not to seek to ‘violate’ the rights of gun owners, nor ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.
A Maryland measure placing restrictions on AR and AK platform rifles is currently under review, and should that law be invalidated and upheld on appeal, the Supreme Court will likely make a final decision regarding whether possessing AR and AK platform rifles is entitled to Constitutional protections, or laws placing restrictions on such weapons manifests as a reasonable restriction consistent with the Second Amendment.
Until the Supreme Court rules, however, restrictions on AR and AK platform rifles are Constitutional – as are prohibitions of large capacity magazines and universal background checks.
And for the most part I ignore post like yours cause guns aren't going to be banned anyway.
There's no confusion.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:
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.
- 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 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.
I whacked my brother on his knee with my Red Ryder. I used my Red Ryder as an assault weapon.Define "assault weapon", and make it more substantive than "big scary looking black gun".Hillary wants to reinstate the assault weapons ban. I agree. Go Hillary!!!!!
