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.
What is it about, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" that is so incredibly difficult to understand?
If they meant militia members, they would have written militia members.
Furthermore, since the various militia were under the control of the states, why would anyone belonging to a militia need a specific right to keep and bear arms?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY
If you actually read the 2nd, it DOES state militia, not the general public.
If it meant the general public, why did it not say the general public?
The framers knew a militia was the way for states to protect themselves.
What was important was that "people" who made up a militia be armed, regulated, that was the purpose of the 2nd, regardless of how it has been mis used over the generations.
One other important fact to consider.
Of all the amendments in the constitution, the 2nd is the most being argued, since it's inception.
Why is that?
The rest of the amendments seem to stand on their own, but the 2nd obviously was not written clearly enough to the point it would never be argued.
In all the pages in this thread, my original question still goes un answered.
Why were the words "a well regulated militia" put into the amendment as the beginning of the amendment, if the amendment was not directed at a militia?
The people mentioned in the amendment are the people who comprise a militia.
Read the first four words of the amendment.
Oh!
It's so clear now!
"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 militia peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
"The right of the militia to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the militia."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the militia."
Yes, I can answer that very easily and clearly. In the days when the Constitution and Amendments were written, there was no standing army of full time professional soldiers. The common citizens gathered in time of need for defense of their community, which is the actual definition of a ‘militia’ (non-professional soldiers).
The language used, such as in the beginning of the amendment …. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state….” is simply the preamble or a qualifying statement … with “well regulated” in the understood context of the time, meant “to be well equipped, and well coordinated). The final portion of the text defines the substance “…… the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed”.
We can also define other terms commonly used in those days to their more modern counterparts …
“To keep”=possess/own “to bare” carry openly in plain sight …. and finally … “infringe” means to limit or restrict.
Therefore, a more modern version would read , “the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be limited or restricted”.
Only those who disagree with this 2nd Amendment right, are the ones distorting the actual meaning of these words …. distorting terms like “well regulated” as to falsely allow government to “regulate” personal ownership of firearms, which to do so would obviously violate the “shall not be infringed” portion of the text. Another common distortion is to falsely claim that the “militia” isn’t referring to common citizens, but only organized groups like the National Guard. Obviously, at the time written, there was no National Guard, only common citizens which formed a militia in time of need, then disbanded when no longer needed, returning to regular life. So the “… the right of the people…” does absolutely refer to common citizens, because there was no one, and no other group that existed …. just ordinary citizens of the community.
Does that answer your question?
It answered the question as to what your own interpretation of the 2nd amendment is.
Common people did indeed make up a militia, , but it was these people of a militia that the 2nd gave rights to, concerning arms, not the general public.
First off the amendment speaks of a free State, not a free nation.
It was expected the states would form a militia, and people from that state would join a militia.
They would be well regulated by the state, and begiven the right to carry weapons, and that right could not be taken away.
Why would the states who would rely on a militia, limit the right of the militia to carry weapons?
Those of you who believe the general population was the reason for the 2nd, are completely wrong.
At the time, states needed militias, and to make sure these militias would be ready when called upon, the 2nd amendment granted these people who make up a militia, the right to have arms, and that right would never be infringed upon.
THAT is the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.
The founders never showed any intention, or need for the populous to be armed, just those who would join a militia.
One point some in other threads dealing with the 2nd have stated is, the preamble to the constitution, where it states, "We the people".
They argue the people means all the people, and I am sure it does, but i also think that people were separate, but equal.
By that I mean, people represented in the second amendment were people of the militia, separate from the whole by definition, but were part of the whole mentioned in we the people.
The militias would stand behind every facet of the preamble, and the states they represent, and the 2nd amendment made sure they would be at the ready if called upon, by having them well regulated(trained) and armed, without infringement.
I do believe if the words "a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state" had not been included in the 2nd amendment, it would be possible to believe the general public had the right to bear arms un infringed, but that is not how it was written.
So, please explain why the word "militia" was put into the amendment, if it wasn't the people who make up a militia who have the right to bear arms.
Sure.... since you asked.
------------------------------------------
Reproduced in full with written permission from the author (see below):
J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment
The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J.Neil Schulman
Author, Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns & Self Control Not Gun Control
Webmaster, The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock
The following is reprinted from the September 13, 1991 issue of Gun Week, and also appears under the title "The Text of The Second Amendment" in The Journal on Firearms and Public Policy, Summer 1992, Volume 4, Number 1.
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 seventeen-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 Publishers' 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 on July 26, 1991:
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 to 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, ProfessorCopperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've 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, constitute 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 right to keep and bear arms is asserted as 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 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:] If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to 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 government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
(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.
For decades the 2nd amendment has been argued over and over.
Right here on this forum I have asked before, that someone explain why the "people" have the right to bear arms.
I don't recall anyone answering that question.
It has always been my feeling that the mention of" a well regulated militia", followed by "the people's right to bear arms, has been misinterpreted, even by the courts.
If the people mentioned in the 2nd were the general public, then why was the word "militia" put into the amendment?"
I believe the framers of the constitution were issuing and order that people who make up a militia are the one's who's right to bear arm shall not be infringed.
Why would the framers want the general population armed?
So, please explain why the word "militia" was put into the amendment, if it wasn't the people who make up a militia who have the right to bear arms.
A "well regulated militia" would be a group of people well trained and regulated, should the need arise to have to use them once again to defend the country.
This certainly doesn't mean every Joe Blow from Alamo would be entitled to have a weapon.
"Right here on this forum I have asked before, that someone explain why the "people" have the right to bear arms."
If you have to ask the question, you would NOT understated the answer", as they say!
You are correct. The language more than implies the right of people to keep their guns for participation in organized and trained militiae and nothing else. What's more, the premise that militias are necessary to keep the country free is anachronistic and even preposterous in this day and age and the entire second amendment is therefore moot.
"You are correct"
Yourae INcorrect.
The quotes from the Founding Father's have been post HUNDREDS of times. Look them up.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 06-30-2021 at 05:09 AM..
Reproduced in full with written permission from the author (see below):
J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment
The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J.Neil Schulman
Author, Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns & Self Control Not Gun Control
Webmaster, The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock
The following is reprinted from the September 13, 1991 issue of Gun Week, and also appears under the title "The Text of The Second Amendment" in The Journal on Firearms and Public Policy, Summer 1992, Volume 4, Number 1.
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 seventeen-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 Publishers' 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 on July 26, 1991:
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 to 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, ProfessorCopperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've 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, constitute 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 right to keep and bear arms is asserted as 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 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:] If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to 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 government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
(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.
We don't need an essay from a stranger to tell us what the Founding Father's meant.
Just read what the Founding Fathers ACTUALLY said. Nothing else is needed.
"Gun Quotes From Our Founding Fathers – 2nd Amendment
George Mason Gun Quotes
“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788"
No matter what you say, even when backed up by the SCOTUS ruling on the 2A, the OP and others, simply choices not to believe the current legal interpretation of the 2A.
I put more faith with all the legal minds within the SCOTUS over the emotional feelings of members on this forum.
I’m not saying he or she is right or wrong, but we, as individuals, have a choice…. Either to buy a firearm or don’t, the choice is yours.
Just know that the SCOTUS also stated the the “police” cannot be held responsible for the individual protection of all the citizens AND that individuals are responsible for their own safety and protection until and/or if the police arrive at all. If you live in any major city, you should know that in a crisis, like all of last summer, the chances of an officer responding to a 911 call may or may not happen.
Now with police officers retiring/quitting in record numbers and most major police departments are now officially critically under staffed. So, good luck in getting a cop to show up in time to save you from a bad situation. As an example, here in Seattle, for a Priority One Emergency call, it now takes 9-11 minutes to have an armed officer to show up. But, in a crisis, like rioting and/or mass looting, most cops will be ordered to protect key infrastructure, as the first priority…. You are a second, third or fourth priority in that case.
Plus, now cops are being arrested and charged for doing their duty after being ordered into a riot to gain control or maintain order…. So, you will see more and more cops not in a hurry to put themselves into legal jeopardy or call out sick “OR” quit on the spot.
Mind you, that 9-11 minutes is a long time when you’re being murdered. Again, its your choice to either buy a gun or not to protect yourself. Btw, a whistle is beyond stupid and being a retired law enforcement officer and a retired Army Reservist, I can tell you that I can fight through any pepper spray and fight on, so don’t put all your hopes in pepper sprays since they’re not as effective as shown on TV or in the manufacture’s promotional sales videos.
Since this is the case, even all the liberals in Seattle are now buying firearms in record numbers… The last two remaining retail gun shops in Seattle sold out of everything within days during the “Summer of Love” events of 2020. Sales of firearms in the Metro Seattle area are still breaking records, as of today.
Also, back in the 1700s, the Militia was basically every single able body male, 16 years old and up, that can either volunteer to serve or be “voluntold” to show up armed and ready to fight. The 2A has nothing to do with a National Guard or the Reserves of the Armed Forces, as being the “militia” or even thought of back in the 1700s.
In our earlier years of being a country, the first 50-75 years, plenty of young men from the various States were “voluntold,” at bayonet point, that they were now part of the Army…. There were only THREE qualifications to a member of the militia. The first, being at least 16 y/o. The second, being able to walk. The third and last one, carry a musket or other military supplies.
So basically, every adult male in America is technically a militia member…. And as a clue, that’s why every 18 y/o and older male in the United States IS REQUIRED, BY LAW, TO REGISTER WITH THE SELECTIVE SERVICE.
No matter what you say, even when backed up by the SCOTUS, the OP simply choices to believe what he believes.
I’m not saying he’s right or wrong, but we have a choice…. Either buy a firearm or don’t, the choice is yours.
Just know that the SCOTUS also stated the the “police” cannot be held responsible for the individual protection of all the citizens AND that the individual “IS” responsible for his/her own protection.
With police officers quitting in mass numbers and police departments are critically under staffed, good luck in getting a cop to show up in time to save you. Here in Seattle, for a Priority One Emergency call, it now takes 9-11 minutes to have an arm officer to show up.
Mind you, that 9-11 minutes is a long time when you’re being murdered. Again, its your choice to either buy a gun or not to protect yourself. Btw, a whistle is beyond stupid and being a retired law enforcement officer and a retired Army Reservist, I can tell you that I can fight through any pepper spray and fight on, so don’t put all your hope in pepper sprays.
Since this is the case, even all the liberals in Seattle are now buying firearms in record numbers… The one of the last two remaining retail gun shops in Seattle sold out everything within days during the “Summer of Love” events of 2020. Sales of firearms in the Metro Seattle area is still breaking records.
Also, back in the 1700s, the Militia was basically every single able body make, 16 year old and up, that can either volunteer to serve or be “voluntold” to show up armed and ready to fight. The 2A has nothing to do with a National Guard or Reserves of the Armed Forces, as being the “militia.”
In our earlier year of being a country, the first 50-75 years, plenty of young men from the various States were “voluntold,” at bayonet point, that they were now part of the Army…. There were only THREE qualifications to a member of the militia. The first, being at least 16 y/o. The second, being able to walk. The third and last one, carry a musket or other supplies.
So basically, every adult male in America is technically a militia member…. And as a clue, that’s why every 18 y/o and older male in the United States IS REQUIRED, BY LAW, TO REGISTER WITH THE SELECTIVE SERVICE.
What you posted above is just like we are going through presently.
They are nothing but personal opinions.
Just because a court has interpreted the2nd as they believe it was intended, does in no way make it the correct interpretation.
Once again, if it was not intended to mean the people who make up a militia, the militia would never haver been mentioned in the 2nd.
What would have been gained by adding a well regulated militia to the amendment?
The Supreme Court Heller decision identified a clear and incontrovertible INDIVIDUAL right protected by the Second Amendment. You can scream "militia" all you want, but that ship was sunk by "Heller" a long time ago.
From the ruling:
It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.
Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.
Three important founding-era legal scholars interpreted the Second Amendment in published writings. All three understood it to protect an individual right unconnected with militia service.
What would have been gained by adding a well regulated militia to the amendment?
I will address this one question by quoting from the Heller Decision. If you are genuinely interested in an answer, you can read that entire portion of "Heller" discussing militias.
During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric... John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” 2
Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people... It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.
It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.
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.
