The Right To Bear Arms

[Lakhota]

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

 

[007]

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

Really?

 

[Lakhota]

The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.

Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman

 

[Contumacious]

The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.

Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman

ONLY if your mind has been ENSLAVED by 12 years of government "education".

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?

 

[WillowTree]

The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.

Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman

Oh well, it takes a long time to change an amendment. Best get busy.

 

[Rustic]

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

 

[Kondor3]

No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?

Feral, Democratic-voting inner-city Neanderthals kill more people using guns, than do decent, honest gun-toting people outside such environments...

 

[westwall]

The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.

Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman

Only if you don't understand the English language.

 

[westwall]

No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?

Where is that enumerated?

 

[Little-Acorn]

The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.

Yet another ignoramous who can't read the normal English in the Constitution.

Time for another reprint.

No, no need to thank me. I'm happy to help you figure out what you can't understand.

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

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

 

[Ernie S.]

The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.

Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman

You may be the most fucked up person ever born.

 

[gipper]

The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.

Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman

Only to idiots and statists....

 

[ChrisL]

 

[emilynghiem]

No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?

? frigidweirdo
To kill someone violates their free will, freedom of choice, or free exercise of religion
where they believe they have the right to live. That is against their First Amendment
rights which indirectly protect the right to life as a belief, as well as right to choose,
not to mention their right to assemble in peace and to petition to redress grievances.
If I deny the right to protest and petition for a different outcome they consent to,
I'd also be violating First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection of the laws.

To use arms to defend laws or for defense, there is the Constitutional principle of
"due process of law" -- if we don't violate this by forcing punishments on people or depriving them of liberty "without due process," then we won't have these problems to being with of using force for offense or defense.

If someone is killed or they are raped, robbed, assaulted, "punished or deprived of liberty without due process", or otherwise afflicted with any crime abuse or violation against their will, they are not being "equally protected" as the person inflicting their will on the other person. So that's not equal protection or equal justice. The only way to enforce Equal Protection
or Equal Justice Under Law is to PREVENT all abuses and crimes from violating someone's rights in the first place, i e, respect the CONSENT
of each person and redress ALL grievances and objections to make decisions by CONSENSUS
before carrying them out - by mutual AGREEMENT. I believe the spirit of laws and contracts is based on "consent of the governed" so that is the standard of law I support, personally and publicly, in order to enforce a consistent standard for people and for government for equality sake.

That is why I believe in mediation and conflict resolution to ensure
the highest possible success rate of reaching consensus (I'd say 80-98% agreement is possible in most cases
if you remove the time limit and give full free speech so people can redress all grievances freely and fully).

I am certainly not going to violate the same laws I seek to
enforce for myself and others equally as a Constitutionalist.

To kill someone, they'd have to agree to that, first of all, such as in police situations where the police are otherwise unable to stop the person from killing others. Sometimes they can disable the person without necessarily killing them, so I do prefer the least restrictive means that cause the least damage.

I am not a trained officer, and would likely die at the hand of someone acting that way before I could defend myself.

If they don't want to live they can choose to quit eating and die of starvation, choose to give up their will to live and die of depression etc. Choose not to ask for help, and choose to refuse any offer of help given to them.

It is not my place to hasten the process even if they do consent to die.
I would have them seek spiritual mental and medical counseling if they go down that route
as I believe most lives can be saved. I have found that even criminal illness can be cured if cases are caught early enough where the person receives full therapy and is detained or supervised to avoid harming themselves or others during rehab that can take 10-25 years if it is cureable at all in severe cases.

But if they choose not to listen and cut off all support, I can't force them to live any more than
I can force someone to die. I can offer help, support and better options but can't force people to choose them.

The only thing that can compel people to choose to do things beyond their will is God's will through prayer. So I learned to respect why Christians pray and hold the authority of Christ Jesus in the highest regard, because it has saved lives and healed people of mental, physical and even criminal illnesses that otherwise kill people.

The same prayers for forgiveness and healing that have "miraculously" saved lives from death from addiction, abuse, crime and disease
ALSO heal relationships and allow people to resolve conflicts we didn't think were possible either.

Because I am secular gentile, and most of my friends are more secular than I am,
I support medical research and scientific proof of how spiritual healing works to heal
physical, mental and even criminal illness to solve a lot of our problems with the current
mental health, criminal justice and political systems under govt. We can save more
money and more lives, but the research and development has to be established by
secular and scientific means. Currently the effective methods of spiritual healing that have been proven through limited studies are consistently practiced in faith based circles, but not yet understood by the general public.

 

[candycorn]

The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.

Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman

Only to idiots and statists....

 

[RandallFlagg]

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.

Damn - don't you mean your bow and arrow?

 

[ChrisL]

The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.

Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman

Only to idiots and statists....

This again? Goodness. You must think you are awfully clever, but guess what? NOT.

 

[candycorn]

The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.

Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman

Only to idiots and statists....

This again? Goodness. You must think you are awfully clever, but guess what? NOT.

Yet here you are trying desperately to prop up your messiah….