Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The govt. had to rely on privately owned arms at the time, including artillery (commonly owned by the owners of ships). The govt. had few resources of its own during the revolution. When the Second Amendment was written they understood the wisdom in having a well armed population because of their experiences, besides the fact that it enables tyrants to be overthrown, another reason they had for the Second Amendment.
Well said,
I'd only add that the Gov't really doesnt have or own anything. It is a political mechanism put in place to do the peoples bidding within a small window of power delegated it by the people. It has no real right to even tax us let alone regulate things protected by the constitution.
tricky D shows his ignorance again saying that guns at the time of our founding might have been kept at central locations. On that theres no need for speculations. People kept their guns at home, its a historical fact. Its a fact as well that there were militia storehouses & such but they were not mandated. The PEOPLE decided in their best interest to gather some arms to a secure location. Not always wise as evidenced by the FACT that one of the first things the British attempted to put down the rebelion was confiscation of these arms storage facilities. Kinda negates any right to arms if you need to put them in a convenient place for an enemy to capture & confiscate them.
Lets try some English lessons here.
The amendment says that "A militia, being necesesary for the security of a free state. The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP & BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
The key words in my opinion are "KEEP" & "BEAR", the rest is almost absurd to argue about.
Keep,
That word generally means exactly what one would think. You have a right to keep arms. If you deposit it in a storage facility you havent kept it, you'v given it away. To keep means to retain control over, store on your premisis. That sort of thing.
Bear,
Now heres another simple one. Bear, in this instance means to carry, to bear the burden, so to speak of carrying a weapon on your person.
There is no limiting clause, if there were it would be after "keep & Bear" not before it. Thats how our language works.
They would have said "the right of the people to keep & bear arms unless Tricky D got scared" Or something similar. But they didn't.
They were lawyers almost every one that wrote he constitution. They knew well of how words & meanings can be misconstrued by those bent on subverting our freedom. So they kept it simple.
They stated the right they wanted protected & just to make it clear they put why its so important in there too. Not as a limitation but as a justification. The justification isn't needed for the right to be understood or valid. Its just there to help not too bright folks understand why they should value that right even if they dont shoot or own guns.
My neighbor may not be armed, but by living among armed citizens he benefits because if the need should arise there are armed people around to protect the block, city, state or country should the false sense of security provided by Govt fail.
I & my family are safe regardless of the power of my gov't.
That is freedom, that is liberty, that is just & right. Anything less is tyranny & I wont be a part of it.
The amendment says that "A militia, being necesesary for the security of a free state. The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP & BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
That is not the exact wording of the Second Amendment. If you are going to place such emphasis on the text of the Amendment, you had better use the exact wording.
Here is the exact wording:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Many people seem to only focus on one section of the text. I think you will find that the Court will instead interpret the Amendment as a whole and in relation to the history and intent at the time.
There is a reason they included the words "well regulated" within the Second Amendment. If you are going to ignore that wording, then you can ignore any of the other sections of the Amendment.
Additionally, throughout the Constitution the document capitalizes certain words in order to emphasize those words and draw the reader's attention to their importance. If you look at the text the words "Militia," "State" and "Arms" are capitalized. These words therefore seem to be more important to the original meaning of the Amendment than the words "keep and bear" which are not emphasized.
Also, the wording "shall not be infringed" is not interpreted literally in Constitutional law just as the wording "shall make no law" is not interpreted literally in the First Amendment. There are plenty of laws that limit speech that are Constitutional. Just one example is libel and slander laws.
Finally, I stated earlier about the absurdity of both extremes in this argument. I briefly looked through some of the posts and noticed someone actually advocating the personal ownership of atomic weapons. I standby my comment of "absurdity."
Does it? Where in the Constitution does it make this clear (if we are focusing on the text)?
Regardless, doesn't this give the state the ultimate power to decide when the militia is "well regulated?"
Definitions of words change over time. Look up what regulated meant in a dictionary from that time and you'd have the answer. Justice Scalia pointed this out to the lawyer representing DC during the oral arguments, if you listen to the recording of them.
States are not mentioned anywhere in regards to the Second Amendment.
Definitions of words change over time. Look up what regulated meant in a dictionary from that time and you'd have the answer. Justice Scalia pointed this out to the lawyer representing DC during the oral arguments, if you listen to the recording of them.
States are not mentioned anywhere in regards to the Second Amendment.
State is not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment? That is a pretty interesting interpretation of the Amendment.
I will assume that your definition of regulation is correct (that remains to be seen) but even assuming that, I will repeat my inquiry as to who has the ability to gauge if the "militia" is "well regulated?"
That is the province of governments in our system. This is especially true since the "well regulation" if the said militia is "necessary for the security" of the state. Government's have the ability to create laws to ensure their own security. See the power of the state to wage war, prosecute for treason, general police powers, etc. The government of Washington DC decided that the militia in the District was "well regulated" even with the ban on the private ownership of handguns. They made this decision just as other governments have made similar decisions in banning private ownership of machine guns, tanks, etc. This is a political policy decision for the states to make and not an area the courts normally engage in.
There are plenty of laws that limit speech that are Constitutional. Just one example is libel and slander laws.
Your example is wrong. Libel and slander are civil matters, not penal. If you slander someone, you haven't committed a crime. You can't go to jail for it.
A better example would be yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. That IS a crime and you CAN go to jail for it.
State is not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment? That is a pretty interesting interpretation of the Amendment.
I will assume that your definition of regulation is correct (that remains to be seen) but even assuming that, I will repeat my inquiry as to who has the ability to gauge if the "militia" is "well regulated?"
That is the province of governments in our system. This is especially true since the "well regulation" if the said militia is "necessary for the security" of the state. Government's have the ability to create laws to ensure their own security. See the power of the state to wage war, prosecute for treason, general police powers, etc. The government of Washington DC decided that the militia in the District was "well regulated" even with the ban on the private ownership of handguns. They made this decision just as other governments have made similar decisions in banning private ownership of machine guns, tanks, etc. This is a political policy decision for the states to make and not an area the courts normally engage in.
Not an interesting "interpretation" but fact, given the text:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
States are not mentioned. "Necessary to the security of a free state" means protecting the freedom of the United States as a whole, against foreign enemies or domestic tyrants in the government. "Shall not be infringed" takes away the power of the government to make any infringements upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
It is certainly an area for the courts to be involved in, assuming they do their job. The courts have the ability to stop infringements of rights by the governments in the U.S. and it is their duty to strike down the laws of DC since the issue came to trial, as they infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
