Possible "reasons" for the Second Amendment

[g5000]

An armed population was vital to protect against both foreign threats and the threat of a standing army, which could become an instrument of governmental tyranny."

So, your conclusion is that the Supreme Court was trying to ward off the possible "tyranny" from a democratically-elected, representative, 3-tiered government such as ours?

Um. This is awkward...

Excuse me. There was a voltage spike or something in the PRISM program. Would you mind repeating your lack of concern about a tyrannical government? They would like to put a blurb on their promotional material.

"If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about! - nat4900"

 

[thereisnospoon]

Your reasons 1, 2 and 3 boil down to the same reason we need it today, Self Defense,

Meaning that we still fear the Brits invading, Indian uprising and slave revolts, correct???

Fear is the exclusive province of the left.

 

[nat4900]

The thread was NOT meant to change the minds of right wing, gun-lovers; rather, it was offered (as the title implies) some OTHER possible reasons for the second amendment.

I know that right wingers use these threads to show off their "extensive knowledge" of guns (some have in their homes more guns than books) .....So, carry on and for some (maybe just a handful) they well know that it is THEY who make it a hell of a lot easier for terrorists and crazies to just walk into a gun show and arm themselves to just slaughter whomever and whenever they want.

 

[g5000]

Fear is the exclusive province of the left.

EEK! A MUSLIM!

EEK! A MEXICAN!

EEK! ISIS!

EEK! EBOLA!

EEK! HOMOS!

 

[Chuz Life]

If the weapon of choice were a home made bomb similar to the ones used by the Boston Marathon bombers, none of these threads would be in existence.

Well, I for one, have not forgotten that "little incident" in CT where 20 BABIES were cut into pieces from the kind of rifle that you morons consider your god-given right for EVERYBODY to own....(as instructed by the NRA)

Yes! Lets do explore how much libtards care about the defense of children and their rights as human beings.

 

[Chuz Life]

The thread was NOT meant to change the minds of right wing, gun-lovers; rather, it was offered (as the title implies) some OTHER possible reasons for the second amendment.

I know that right wingers use these threads to show off their "extensive knowledge" of guns (some have in their homes more guns than books) .....So, carry on and for some (maybe just a handful) they well know that it is THEY who make it a hell of a lot easier for terrorists and crazies to just walk into a gun show and arm themselves to just slaughter whomever and whenever they want.

I knew i smelled butthurt.

Pwned in your own thread. Just like I called it.

 

[nat4900]

I knew i smelled butthurt.

Pwned in your own thread. Just like I called it.

You know what they say about wrestling with pigs (that's you, BTW)......

 

[thereisnospoon]

If the weapon of choice were a home made bomb similar to the ones used by the Boston Marathon bombers, none of these threads would be in existence.

Well, I for one, have not forgotten that "little incident" in CT where 20 BABIES were cut into pieces from the kind of rifle that you morons consider your god-given right for EVERYBODY to own....(as instructed by the NRA)

You are forgetting one important item. The gun did not jump off a table and shoot those people. It took the mind of an evil individual to use the weapon....
This is the issue your side has created. You believe that the gun makes the mind do things. So you want to ban the weapon.
It is actually the other way around. The weapon is immaterial. An evil mind will do evil things no matter what. That is the essence of evil

 

[thereisnospoon]

ok the well regulated militia in the first half,we know what that means.....so who were the "people" mentioned in the second half?....because they are the ones mentioned who the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....

The semantics for this poorly phrased amendment boils down to this....A "militia" is not a lifeless entity...it is indeed comprised of "people".

The intent of the O/P was not to deride the 2nd amendment....but only to offer some plausible other explanation for its inclusion, rather than having the NRA define it for us.

The NRA does not define the Second Amendment. It defines itself.
The wording is 100% unambiguous. There is nothing to be interpreted from "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"....

 

[nat4900]

This is the issue your side has created. You believe that the gun makes the mind do things. So you want to ban the weapon

Well, since we CANNOT ban the "evil mind"....the ONLY thing left to do is to curtail the ways that evil mind can do harm........Right wingers have, instead, made it VERY easy to purchase the means for that evil mind to do what it does....and actually made the exercise of evil even easier.

 

[Chuz Life]

This is the issue your side has created. You believe that the gun makes the mind do things. So you want to ban the weapon

Well, since we CANNOT ban the "evil mind"....the ONLY thing left to do is to curtail the ways that evil mind can do harm........Right wingers have, instead, made it VERY easy to purchase the means for that evil mind to do what it does....and actually made the exercise of evil even easier.

It's so easy to expose how asinine your logic(sic) really is.

Most Republicans and Conservatives are anti-recreational drugs. We think drugs destroy lives on a much larger scale than guns do. So, we support drug laws and even bans on recreational drugs. Yet, banned or not, those with "evil minds" can still get their hands on their drugs of choice in any town and on any given day. And we who support the bans don't pretend otherwise.

The difference is that we don't fool ourselves into thinking that laws will rid the world of drug use and availability. We understand that drug use will always continue - even if it is totally banned. YOU and your ilk on the other hand actually believe that you can rid the world of guns and prevent murderers from MURDERING people with laws alone. As if the laws against MURDER were not enough of a deterrent already.

If you actually believe that illegal guns will be any less prevalent after a gun ban than drugs have been in the decades since drugs were banned? You are a fucking fool.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[Q

An ar15 is just a sporting rifle just like any other. Shithead
Barry is no friend to this country...

Hussein is a friend to the Muslims and a friend to the welfare queens and illegals and other despicable elements in the US but no friend to America. He has done more damage to this country than any foreign enemy.

Translation. Obama is interested in upholding the US Constitution, for example, the freedom of religion.

Islam is the enemy of America's major religion, which is Christianity. So why Obama's rush to import as many muslims, and no christians, into this country as possible, under the refugee program?

But American isn't a Christian country officially. America has freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution.

So, many people are Christians and hate Muslims. So what? Some Christians are also tolerant and don't hate all Muslims.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[Q


Translation. Obama is interested in upholding the US Constitution, for example, the freedom of religion.

Shit for Bains got overturned by the Supreme Court on a couple of his decrees limiting the freedom of religion, didn't he?

That sonofabitch has never read the Constitution of the US and probably wouldn't know it from a roll of toilet paper.

Yeah, sure.

He graduated from Harvard Law School, was president of the Harvard Law Review, and you think he knows nothing about the Constitution..... right, so, what do you have that is better than what he has?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Possible "reasons" for the Second Amendment


When all else fails, read the directions.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."

That's the reason they put the 2nd amendment into the Constitution.

Because the best way to get security and freedom, was to let every able-bodied citizen arm himself as he wanted to.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Going back to their original writings, what did they mean by "well-regulated"?

(sigh)

Time for another reprint.

From Taking On Gun Control - The Unabridged Second Amendment

The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The 'to keep and bear arms' is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account of the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since 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 abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to 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.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

------------------------------------------

©1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved

 

[Flash]

[Q



So, many people are Christians and hate Muslims. So what? Some Christians are also tolerant and don't hate all Muslims.

We just don't like the assholes that try to kill us in the name of Allah.

 

[Flash]

[QU

Yeah, sure.

He graduated from Harvard Law School, was president of the Harvard Law Review, and you think he knows nothing about the Constitution..... right, so, what do you have that is better than what he has?

Given his blatant stupidity as President and the fact that he is constantly overturned by the courts on Constitutional matters it is clear that he is an affirmative action Negro that was promoted because of his race and not his knowledge.

He is the worst President ever had and he has disregarded the First and Second Amendments and he hates that one having to do with due process.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[Q



So, many people are Christians and hate Muslims. So what? Some Christians are also tolerant and don't hate all Muslims.

We just don't like the assholes that try to kill us in the name of Allah.

Do you like other assholes that try and kill you, but not in the name of Allah then?

 

[Chuz Life]

Well, I didn't say the people only have the right to assemble to petition the government. I said this was the reason it was in the Constitution. Just because something isn't protected by a constitutional right, doesn't mean you can't do it.


The point being that the STATES appoint the officers, not the Federal government. Thereby stating that if the Feds have overreached their position, that the States are the ones who are basically going to organize the militias.

And what about when the State and the Federal Governments are (tyrannically) in collusion with each other against the "people?"

What then?

Well then you're fucked, aren't you.

If you've managed to sit idly by and have done nothing up until this point, then there's a problem anyway.

Then the people can take up arms against the govt. Even with state governments appointing officers it's still ILLEGAL to fight against the Federal Government. So, if it's you v. state and federal governments, it's still illegal and doesn't really matter anyway.

What happens is, like the Civil War, the strongest wins.

The 2nd amendment was the founder's way to insure the people's rights as individuals to keep and to bear arms so that if and when the time comes for us to "unfuck" ourselves against a tyrannical government. . . We can.

Yes, I know.

.

Great.

Now explain how allowing the "bad government " to appoint the officers of the militia and dictate which weapons can and can not be used is a reasonable means to that end.

BUMPED

 

[frigidweirdo]

[QU

Yeah, sure.

He graduated from Harvard Law School, was president of the Harvard Law Review, and you think he knows nothing about the Constitution..... right, so, what do you have that is better than what he has?

Given his blatant stupidity as President and the fact that he is constantly overturned by the courts on Constitutional matters it is clear that he is an affirmative action Negro that was promoted because of his race and not his knowledge.

He is the worst President ever had and he has disregarded the First and Second Amendments and he hates that one having to do with due process.

Blatant stupidity as president? Did you have a problem with Bush starting the next war, having Muslims hate the US and attack constantly putting your life in danger far more? No? So what did Obama do that was anywhere near as stupid as not only invading Iraq, but messing up the post war period so badly the world won't recover from decades at the very least?

Also, I notice you didn't reply to my question about how you're better.

How has Obama disregarded the 1st and 2nd Amendments any more than anyone else? He's a politician, they often have their own interests at heart, those of the major parties are as bad as each other.