The Right To Bear Arms

[ChrisL]

As for the right to bear arms, that's a right to be in the militia.

(sigh)

Liberals seem to keep bringing up this lie, no matter how many times it's debunked. Maybe they think enough people have forgotten how the liberals have been proven wrong, and that enough time has passed that they can now tart re-statig it as though it had become the truth.

OK, for the 2258th time:


J. Neil Schulman 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 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 test 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 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 tot he 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 be 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 fortuned, and our sacred honor?

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

(C) 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.

Well, the simple fact that it is in the Bill of Rights says that it is about the PEOPLE and not the government. The Bill of Rights was written to outline OUR rights, not the rights of the government to limit those rights. Lol. This is just common sense stuff and why it is silly when the left tries to argue about the "definition" of the 2nd amendment. The founders did not want a centralized government controlled military. They wanted WE THE PEOPLE to be the military or the "militia."

 

[frigidweirdo]

As for the right to bear arms, that's a right to be in the militia.

(sigh)

Liberals seem to keep bringing up this lie, no matter how many times it's debunked. Maybe they think enough people have forgotten how the liberals have been proven wrong, and that enough time has passed that they can now tart re-statig it as though it had become the truth.

OK, for the 2258th time:


J. Neil Schulman 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 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 test 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 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 tot he 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 be 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 fortuned, and our sacred honor?

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

(C) 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.

It's funny. You have posted a lot, but only from one source. Nothing you have said actually deals with the issues here.

I'll look at what has been said, then I'll present my own stuff later on.

Firstly, I've pulled this quote from the first paragraph:

"The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia."

I agree with this. You'll see why later.

"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.""

Totally agree. You'll see later.

"The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed."

Totally agree. You'll see later.

"The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

Well.... I don't totally agree with this statement. From an English language point of view it might appear like that, however based on Human Rights, ALL rights can be infringed upon after due process, and also have limitations. So, you have an issue where this guy is ignoring the meaning of rights and how they function and using his blinkers just to look at the language.

However, we'll see later why it doesn't even matter so much.

Lastly, it's funny. The guy not once says what the right to bear arms is. Not once. You've said I'm wrong that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, and you've backed it up with a document which does not, in any single way, refute what I've said. I'm a little confused as to why you posted this.


Well, let's get on to my stuff, seeing as your stuff has ended rather disappointingly.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

Firstly I'm presenting the most ignored document that people with an agenda that the right to bear arms should mean the right to walk around with a gun as they choose ignore.

This document is from the Founding Fathers, it shows the progress of the 2A through the House (Senate debates were secret).

The first part of the document they're discussing the future 2A as it stood at that time. It read:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

The last part is the part they were discussing. I've put it in bold for you.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So we're clearly talking about the last part here. Not anything that comes before this.

Mr Gerry then said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

So Mr Gerry seems to be saying that "bear arms" is "militia duty". Seems as clear as day to me. "Exclude those from militia duty" is "prevent them from bearing arms"

Mr Jackson wanted the clause to read: "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

Clearly here Mr Jackson is using the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service".

Mr Sherman said: "It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent."

Now, imagine if "bear arms" were carry arms. Mr Sherman would just have said "It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of carrying arms around, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent".

This begs the question of why the Founding Fathers would want people to pay a substitute if they were unwilling to carry guns around with them on a daily basis. Seems a little bizarre. Nowhere in US history, or British history, has anyone ever had to pay money in order to no carry arms around with them on a daily basis.
The view that "bear arms" means "carry arms" here is just ridiculous.

He even goes on to mention the militia: "We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect,"
This implies that he's talking about people being called up into "actual service".

Mr Vining said "he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight."
In other words "bear arms" means turning "out to fight" and NOT carry arms.

So, this first document alone proves that the Founding Fathers saw "bear arms" as a right of individuals to be in the militia.

Now let's have a look at another document from the time. This one written by a certain George Washington. Apparently he was a Founding Father too.

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"


"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

The first quote uses the term "borne on the Militia Rolls", borne be the past participle of the verb "to bear".

The second is far more conclusive. Why would it be disgraceful to decline to walk around with a gun? Wait, he continues and it says "share in the performance of Military duties".

Seems Washington was also in agreement that "bear arms" was "militia duty".

Anyway, enough of the Founding Fathers. Let's go look at the Supreme Court.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

This from 1886, before the right to bear arms was a politicised issue. When the Supreme Court passing judgement on it was neither here nor there. No agendas on it meaning "carry arms" or things like that.

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

So, going around town CARRYING ARMS is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.

Also I'll bring in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

So, it upheld Presser.

It also said:
"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

Ie, the right to bear arms is NOT the right to carry arms.

Back to some points you made:

"The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia."

Yes, the right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons, so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.
The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia, so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons.

I'm struggle to think up of something sensible for the view that "bear arms" means "carry arms"/

"The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to carry arms, so the militia has people walking around in their daily lives defending themselves".

Doesn't work, does it?

"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.""

This one. There is no restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep arms is the right to own arms. It's not the right to own EVERY type of weapons, it's the right to own arms which are considered normal for militia duty (which in itself is debatable what that means). If you can own one type of gun, you are not having your right infringed upon. Actually the view of this is that not only should there be a variety of types of guns that you can buy, but also they should be at an affordable price (again, whatever that means).
The right to bear arms is unrestricted, unless due process has been carried out. Every adult, more or less, before due process, has the right to be in the militia. Hence the Dick Act where they made the "unorganized militia" and put all males 18-45 in it so they were automatically carrying out their right to bear arms from their 18th birthday. Ie, they can't go to court and complain the govt is restricting their right to bear arms by not allowing them to join the National Guard. Because the National Guard is more professional than the normal militia, they wanted to have discipline that would otherwise be impossible if all riff raff were claiming their right to bear arms in the militia.

"The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed."

And the right is still assume to exist. The reality is that the right to keep arms as stated in the 2A merely prevents the US Federal govt (and now states) from stopping people from not having arms. Ie, if they can have one gun, the govt hasn't stopped them from keeping arms. Also, the US Federal govt can't stop people being in the militia. As stated before, the reasons for the Dick Act are clear when you see that "bear arms" means "render military service", "Militia Duty", "turn out to fight" and the like.

So...."Liberals seem to keep bringing up this lie, ", I'm sorry, what lie? I've backed up EVERYTHING I've said in detail, compared to what you posted which didn't even deal with the meaning of the term "bear arms".

 

[frigidweirdo]

As for the right to bear arms, that's a right to be in the militia.

(sigh)
Liberals seem to keep bringing up this lie...

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Anyone who argues otherwise is lying.

I'm I disagreeing with you?

No I'm not.

Firstly. The right to possess a firearm is the right to keep arms. I was talking about the right to bear arms.

The reason individuals have this right is because the founders wanted to protect the supply of arms for the militia.
So, an individual can own a gun, without being in the militia, because that gun could potentially be used by the militia at a later date. Even the individual could join the militia at a later date. Why? Because the right to bear arms protects (see previous post) their right to be in the militia.

The use of that weapon for "traditionally lawful purposes" is just an obvious.
If something is legal, why shouldn't they do it? You don't need the 2A to tell you that you can hunt. Hunting has NOTHING to do with the 2A. The fact that you CAN hunt with a gun (but you can hunt with many different things, like bow and arrow, bare hands (or possible bear hands if you manage to find a useful manner in using them), traps and many other things, and the fact that the 2A has the term "arms" doesn't mean they have a connection here.
The 2A says "bear", doesn't mean bears have their right to own weapons protected, does it? That'd be silly, just as it's silly to suggest that the 2A protects hunting, or self defence or whatever.

Self defense is protected by the constitution. It's not explicit, nor is the right to privacy, but nonetheless they're protected. But neither are protected by the 2A.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, the simple fact that it is in the Bill of Rights says that it is about the PEOPLE and not the government. The Bill of Rights was written to outline OUR rights, not the rights of the government to limit those rights. Lol. This is just common sense stuff and why it is silly when the left tries to argue about the "definition" of the 2nd amendment. The founders did not want a centralized government controlled military. They wanted WE THE PEOPLE to be the military or the "militia."

No, you're wrong, sort of.

The rights in the BoRs were assumed to exist. They didn't need the govt to outline them at all.

The amendments were introduced to PROTECT the rights from government power.

If you look at the rights they're all political.

The right to free speech was put in the constitution so people could talk about politics, for the purpose of making good decisions when voting. The right to protest is protected so they could tell the govt what they have come up with. The right to bear arms is protected in case the govt goes bad, and so on. So, something like a supposed right to hunt would never be put in because it doesn't have anything to do with politics.

But yes, the militia was a people army and this is what they wanted, hence why the 2A is....

The right to keep arms so the militia has a ready supply of arms.
The right to bear arms so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those arms.

 

[Ernie S.]

ISIS is conservative, I guess,

ISIS believes in small government, freedom, personal responsibility,and the right to do pretty much anything you want except violate the rights of others?

And they PRACTICE that???

Not even close to correct.

Only in their religious views. I think I made a clear distinction.

So in their religious views, they believe in small government, freedom, personal responsibility, and your right to do pretty much anything you want except violate the rights of others?

That's preposterous.

They chop off the heads of people who don't believe in their Islamic religious views.

Read back I made a clear distinction. You chop out one line of my response without context and run with it.
What I said was "ISIS is conservative, I guess, but shares nothing of substance with Conservatives in the US."
What I clearly meant was ISIS is religiously conservative, but pretty damned totalitarian in every other way. More like Democrats in their devotion to Pope AlGore.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

There are those (including some late not so great but highly over-rated SCOTUS Justices) who maintain that the First Amendment guarantee of the Freedom of Speech is an absolute.

It isn't.

And on that basis, I am willing to admit that the Second Amendment guarantee of the Right to Bear Arms is also subject to rational and reasonable limitations.

But such a limitation is never supposed to erase the very right to which it applies.

And what is that right?

The reality of the 2A is that it's a restriction on the US govt, rather than giving a right.

It prevents the US govt from stopping individuals having arms. If you have a gun, then the US govt hasn't stopped you from getting arms. Beyond that it doesn't stop much.

As for the right to bear arms, that's a right to be in the militia. Most people are automatically in the militia anyway, due to the Dick Act. So, it's hardly worth much now anyway in terms of fighting over. People can't claim the US govt is taking away their right to bear arms, as it specifically made an unorganised militia to deal with this issue.

The government lacks legal authority to enact laws to take away folks' guns.

What the government might have a rational ability to do is impose certain restrictions on the eligibility of felons or mentally-impaired individuals from getting a license (and thereby maybe preventing them from legally obtaining arms).

And no.

The right to bear arms is a personal right which is explicitly guaranteed under the Constitution as two recent SCOTUS decisions made clear. It was drafted in a way that invoked militias, but that preface does not (and was never intended to) subsume the right. It is a right that is not dependent on the Government for its existence. It was a right that predated the Constitution, in fact.

Your preferred spin on the Second Amendment is not controlling and it is flatly wrong.

 

[Grizz]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

Did you want to try and grab my guns Sobbing Brave?

You just lay awake at nights worrying about this. And make sure you buy more ammo.

Na, I do so love to shove shit in Sobbing Brave's ass though....and if you are as ignorant as he we can include you in the show son.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The government lacks legal authority to enact laws to take away folks' guns.

What the government might have a rational ability to do is impose certain restrictions on the eligibility of felons or mentally-impaired individuals from getting a license (and thereby maybe preventing them from legally obtaining arms).

And no.

The right to bear arms is a personal right which is explicitly guaranteed under the Constitution as two recent SCOTUS decisions made clear. It was drafted in a way that invoked militias, but that preface does not (and was never intended to) subsume the right. It is a right that is not dependent on the Government for its existence. It was a right that predated the Constitution, in fact.

Your preferred spin on the Second Amendment is not controlling and it is flatly wrong.

Firstly. The govt has plenty of powers to restrict what types of guns you can get. It has the ability to ban certain guns for many reasons, like they're not safe or whatever (in the sense that the gun doesn't do what it's supposed to).

The govt can infringe on rights AFTER DUE PROCESS. Hopefully you understand what this means.

Secondly, the 2A is not "explicitly guaranteed" under the Constitution. At the time it was written state govts could, if they had the power, take away your right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution is a document which gives and takes powers from the US govt. It now also takes powers from state govts too.
However, I could stop you from keeping arms. There's nothing that says I have to abide by the constitution. There might just happen to be laws in place that stop me from doing this, however this isn't the 2A. So, the 2A doesn't explicitly guarantee your right. It merely protects it from the government.

And there you have your last part in which you say it predates the govt. Yeah, supposedly it does. Rights exist because we make them so. Often in reality they need to be written down for them to actually turn into a right. So the right of privacy only became when a right when the Supreme Court decided it was one and not before. When it was written down it became one.

However the fundamental principles of the constitution say that it doesn't guarantee, it protects.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Some of the amendments were written to restrict only the Federal government but not the states' governments. Amendment 1 is an example, saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." etc. This was done since, at the time it was adopted, most states had official state religions, and the Framers didn't want to mess with that. (This restriction to the Fed only, was later changed by the 14th amendment.)

Other amendments were written to specifically apply to ALL governments within the United States' borders: Federal, state, local. Amendment 2 is an example. Unlike the 1st amendment, the 2nd lacks any language specifying which government(s) it restricts, and so it restricts all of them. This was true from the day it was ratified. A recent "decision" by the Supreme Court "incorporating" the 2nd amendment to apply to all governments, had no effect, since it already applied to them all.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

You are right...and I'll own a 50 caliber when it is.....machine gun.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

First off. I have no problem limiting certain armaments for military use only. However...

Any citizen should be able to purchase any firearms and other equipment that the civil police force and other civil authorities are allowed to carry in their armament.

If they, the civil authorities, think they need that kind of firepower then I must need it also.

*****SMILE*****

 

[frigidweirdo]

Some of the amendments were written to restrict only the Federal government but not the states' governments. Amendment 1 is an example, saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." etc. This was done since, at the time it was adopted, most states had official state religions, and the Framers didn't want to mess with that. (This restriction to the Fed only, was later changed by the 14th amendment.)

Other amendments were written to specifically apply to ALL governments within the United States' borders: Federal, state, local. Amendment 2 is an example. Unlike the 1st amendment, the 2nd lacks any language specifying which government(s) it restricts, and so it restricts all of them. This was true from the day it was ratified. A recent "decision" by the Supreme Court "incorporating" the 2nd amendment to apply to all governments, had no effect, since it already applied to them all.

Er... incorporation didn't happen until after the Civil War. Before that NONE of the amendments were subject to the states and weren't intended to.
If the 2A were intended to be for the states, why did so many states put a RKA or RBA clause in their constitutions?

 

[Ernie S.]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

You are right...and I'll own a 50 caliber when it is.....machine gun.

You can own a machine gun right now. A fully automatic weapon, including Ma Deuce made before 186 is legal to own for the price of the weapon and a $200 dollar transfer stamp. One must get the approval of the chief law enforcement officer of your jurisdiction to get your stamp.
There is a shop a mile and a half from my house that has a Deuce with 1,000 rounds of ammo for $12K.
I REALLY want one, but the price is a bit dear. I may just end up with a Russian belt fed PKM. (around $3,500)

 

[ChrisL]

Well, the simple fact that it is in the Bill of Rights says that it is about the PEOPLE and not the government. The Bill of Rights was written to outline OUR rights, not the rights of the government to limit those rights. Lol. This is just common sense stuff and why it is silly when the left tries to argue about the "definition" of the 2nd amendment. The founders did not want a centralized government controlled military. They wanted WE THE PEOPLE to be the military or the "militia."

No, you're wrong, sort of.

The rights in the BoRs were assumed to exist. They didn't need the govt to outline them at all.

The amendments were introduced to PROTECT the rights from government power.

If you look at the rights they're all political.

The right to free speech was put in the constitution so people could talk about politics, for the purpose of making good decisions when voting. The right to protest is protected so they could tell the govt what they have come up with. The right to bear arms is protected in case the govt goes bad, and so on. So, something like a supposed right to hunt would never be put in because it doesn't have anything to do with politics.

But yes, the militia was a people army and this is what they wanted, hence why the 2A is....

The right to keep arms so the militia has a ready supply of arms.
The right to bear arms so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those arms.

The government did NOT outline them. The founders did and for the reasons I noted. My post is correct. Every able bodied man was expected to own a weapon, maintain that weapon and be prepared to use it at a moment's notice.

 

[ChrisL]

There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings. These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems. That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon. Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.

 

[ChrisL]

There are mass murders every DAY in the ME somewhere and rarely are guns used. What does that tell you?

 

[frigidweirdo]

There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings. These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems. That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon. Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.

Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.

What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?

 

[ChrisL]

There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings. These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems. That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon. Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.

Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.

What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?

Gangs. It's not a fucking mystery.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings. These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems. That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon. Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.

Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.

What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?

Gangs. It's not a fucking mystery.

And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.

Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?

 

[ChrisL]

There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings. These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems. That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon. Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.

Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.

What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?

Gangs. It's not a fucking mystery.

And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.

Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?

Black people have a homicide rate that is 4 TIMES the national average. We have much more diversity than any other country, and our black people are descendants of slaves. Socioeconomic factors play a big role here. Some will tell you that entitlement programs cause people to feel "entitled" to other people's property or what not too. I'm sure if it was THAT easy to just say what the problem is, it would have been solved by now. It's more complicated than "guns" though.