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.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This tells me they DID know how to construct a grammatically proper sentence composed of strung-together separate thoughts or rights. The fact that they DIDN'T do the same for the very next amendment tells me that next amendment WASN'T composed of separate thoughts or rights, it was all ONE thought.
Exactly, it leads to either two things. They meant both clauses to be related or they were idiots that made an embarrassing grammatical error. Since they did not make a similar mistake in any other part of the document I would agree with you its 99% percent likely both clauses of the 2nd Amendment relate to one another.
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.
That's the part the left hate! They shall never accept being infringed upon infringing on others rights. They no longer follow the laws, they "interpret" them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer
This is looking rather one sided
As it should because it is the right side, as in right and wrong not right or left.
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
We have been over and over this on CD. Liberals, please take the time to read the below post and get educated.
This was a fairly common construction in legislation. For example, here's a sentence from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
Quote:
Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
If the sentence is interpreted the same way gun-controllers interpret the 2nd Amendment, it would restrict education only to those who are religious and moral. //www.city-data.com/forum/polit...law-input.html
The 2nd Amendment is often described as poorly written and nebulous. The real problem is that modern Americans are poor readers. The readers of old understood the grammar, as detailed by Mr. Schulman in the post by roboteer.
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
No... if they'd intended them to be two separate thoughts, they'd still be in one amendment, they'd just be separate sentences, because they are related.
That said, I think that they intended for people to keep and bear arms, even if they were not in a militia, because the idea was that one COULD CHOOSE to be part of a well-regulated militia at any time if one wished to do so.
The "infringed" part is the sticky area. I think it is intentionally vague.
People who think it's literal are concerning to me because if it was TRULY literal, you could own ANY type of arms, and you cannot do that right now.
Instead, it seems like people want "infringed" to mean "any kind of gun that's ever been for sale to civilians."
That is troublesome because we may learn that some guns are extremely unsafe and want to discontinue sales, but people (and arms manufacturers) will whip out "infringed" and say rights are being violated.
You have the right to bear arms and that right cannot be infringed upon... in most cases.
But, if you're a felon, if you are mentally incompetent, if you want to buy a surface-to-air missile to protect your back yard?
Nope.
So, we could apply other restrictions in the name of public safety and the right to bear arms would still not be "infringed," not really.
That, however, is always where the arguments come in for "why can't I have my military-looking fun gun even if it is used most often to kill large groups of people who were minding their own business?"
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Everyone here needs to read the Heller decision. it clearly outlines the two sides.
Yeah... that is pretty much where my thinking on the 2nd was reaffirmed when I read it years ago.
I still think "infringed" is the problematic term because people read it in various ways and Heller didn't rule on "infringed" as in "any type of gun a person wants."
The focus was on whether or not you had to be part of an active militia to own A gun at all.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
The thing that must be remembered is what the Founders understood to be the militia. If you remember your history, the Revolutionary War was fought to a large degree by militia, rather than regular troops. The "militia" conjures up some formal group of people who volunteer to take arms, that has formal structures and officers, etc. That type of thing would have been looked upon as a regular army by the Founders. The militia was simply composed of all the able-bodied men in the area. The militia did not have anything like a quartermaster department to procure supplies for the men. The men were expected to have their OWN firearms (and other supplies). Hence the wording of the Amendment.
The Founders did not have things like hunting or self-defense in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment (not to say that they didn't think people had the right to hunt or defend themselves). The point of the 2nd Amendment was and always has been to provide a check on a government that usurped its legitimate power. After all, that's why they had just fought the Revolutionary War - they believed England had usurped its legitimate power, especially regarding its power to tax citizen who had no representation. The Founders intended to create a government with limited powers, but recognized that humans would invariably be tempted to try to exert power beyond those limits. The 2nd Amendment was intended as a remedy should those in government attempt to do so.
Even today, consider an unlikely scenario. Suppose Donald Trump were to be impeached. However, Trump had the support of a powerful group of military members. Those leaders had the support of the troops that they lead. Trump is found guilty by the Senate, but decides he doesn't want to give up power. He has his military allies arrest all members of Congress, all the SCOTUS judges and just about every other Federal official and proclaims himself dictator. What are you going to do about it? How do you restore the legitimate government, return Congress and SCOTUS to their duties and inaugurate Pence as the new POTUS? THAT is the reason for the 2nd Amendment; an armed populace could fight against the military cabal supporting Trump in this hypothetical and restore legitimate government, at least that was the intent of the Founders.
This was a fairly common construction in legislation. For example, here's a sentence from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
If the sentence is interpreted the same way gun-controllers interpret the 2nd Amendment, it would restrict education only to those who are religious and moral. //www.city-data.com/forum/polit...law-input.html
The 2nd Amendment is often described as poorly written and nebulous. The real problem is that modern Americans are poor readers. The readers of old understood the grammar, as detailed by Mr. Schulman in the post by roboteer.
In the example you provided both clauses are meant to be related to each other. Much like in the 2nd Amendment.
Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
Switch the clauses and the point is the same.
Schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged, because religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind.
We know from the sentence that they see schools are being the educators of religion, morality and knowledge and these are good things. Hence the clauses relate to each other. The same goes for the 2nd Amendment.
Exactly, it leads to either two things. They meant both clauses to be related or they were idiots that made an embarrassing grammatical error. Since they did not make a similar mistake in any other part of the document I would agree with you its 99% percent likely both clauses of the 2nd Amendment relate to one another.
Maybe you are right, but as the Founders understood it, militia was NOT something you joined. You automatically were part of the militia if you were an able-bodied man. EVERYONE was expected to take up arms to defend their homeland against an invader or enemy. The first part of the sentence just suggest that the real reason for an armed populace is defense of the state, rather than self-defense, hunting or some other reason. That does not mean that the Founders didn't believe in your right to defend yourself or to hunt, but just that those rights were not significant enough to mention in the Bill of Rights. The right that WAS significant enough to mention was the right to own guns.
It's quite clear that the Founders recognized an individual right to own firearms. The preliminary clause emphasizes the reason that they considered this right important enough to mention in the Bill of Rights. It does not indicate that they believed that owning firearms so that an effective militia could be formed was the ONLY reason why individuals have the right to own firearms. Without that initial clause, one might wonder why the Founders included the right to own guns as part of the BOR, and not the right to own cattle, clothing, houses or land. It is quite clear (read the Tenth Amendment) that the BOR was never intended to be a comprehensive list of individual rights.
Discussing the intent of dead people is highly subject to personal interpretation and is the gold mine of the spin doctors
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.
