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.
Just want to poll faithful posters of P&OC to see if YOU feel that the wording of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution matches the intent of the framers.
the first part "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" this indicates that the framers did want a large standing army to protect the country. in fact if you back up in to the constitution itself, you will find in article one section 8, these passages;
Quote:
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
as you can see the ONLY constitutional requirement for the congress to regularly support is a navy. it was up to the states to raise a militia which the feds could call up as needed to use as an army, but only for two years.
its the second part of the amendment that puts the teeth into the amendment itself "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
this indicates that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a states right, not a right only if the person is part of a militia, or what ever else the gun grabbers like to suggest. it also does not limit the firearms that the individual is allowed to own either.
The right to bear arms does not exist to provide the means of forming the militia, it exists in addition to the right to form a militia.
1. A well regulated Militia, 2. being necessary to the security of a free State, 3. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, 4. shall not be infringed.
1 is an item, 2 is a qualifier for that item, 3 is another item, 4 is the status of those items. Items 1 and 3 shall not be infringed, and 2 is an explanation for why 1 was included. 3 needs no explanation as its purpose is self evident.
If they were two separate things they would have put them in two separate amendments. Something like:
Amendment 2. A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
Amendment 3. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The Constitution was essentially the Articles of Confederation 2.0 and in the Articles of Confederation it spells out what the Founding Fathers intended.
every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage
Articles of Confederation, arts. 6, 9
Its very clear they intended each state to have a well provided, structured militia and not just random citizens with firearms.
Then we have the 2nd Amendment.
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.
Since the initial intention for the Constitution was to simply update the Articles of Confederation, I believe the drafters of the Constitution figured why have all of the detailed wording in Articles concerning provisions for the militias when they can just say "Well Regulated" and everyone at that time would understand its context. I don't believe what we have now is anything close to what they initially envisioned.
Reading all the written essays and speech transcripts pertaining to the 2A and larger bill of rights as a whole, it is worded fine for the Framers' intentions.
Is it worded properly to avoid the mischief Hamilton warned about in Federalist #84? No, but nothing could be worded properly enough to avoid all future mischief by a government evolving towards tyranny.
The 2nd Amendment does not grant rights. It expressly forbids the government from infringing upon the people's inherent, preexisting, natural right t keep and bear arms. The preface clause explains the reason to include mention of that particular natural right that cannot be infringed, which is the armed citizen being necessary for the existence of the free state, but the independent clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is absolute.
Notice that nowhere else in the US Constitution is the government granted any enumerated power over keeping and bearing arms, which was Hamilton's point in Federalist #84, which is why include a specific protection over any of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, when the government has been granted no enumerated, specific power over any of those rights or areas of citizen life? heir lack of enumerated power is the protection, so says Hamilton, and te mention of specific rights would later on (as we see everywhere around us now) lead to government grabbing power by the implication that if they weren't meant to have power over something that was not enumerated, the bill of rights would have listed that thing as well.
The government has no enumerated power over keeping and bearing arms. The 2nd Amendment specifically says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the 10th Amendment makes clear that if the Constitution does not specifically authorize a power to the fed.gov or prohibit that power for the people and the states, then the people and states retain that power, not fed.gov, and again, no enumerated power over keeping and bearings is granted to fed.gov, nor is there any specific prohibition on the people and states.
If they were two separate things they would have put them in two separate amendments. Something like:
Amendment 2. A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
Amendment 3. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
wrong, if you read the amendment, you will note that the first half indicates the recognition of the founders that there needs to be a militia to secure the freedom of the states. its the second part of the amendment that puts the teeth into the amendment as a whole. the people have the individual right to keep and bear arms. otherwise you cant create the militia in the state, and thus you have no militia with which to create a standing army to protect the country as a whole.
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.
