National The 2nd Amendment Is Clear.

[Xaevian]

What do you mean old school? 16th Century wasn't THAT long ago!

Well, to be honest, it is a pretty obscure reference. There has probably been more "google" searches for that name since I posted it than in the last year total. Lol.

 

[OldBroad44]

I've never met a gun control law I liked. And I think we would be better off without all those that have been passed. And I don't like any of those currently proposed either. And since "common-sense," is in the eye of the beholder thus subjective, it's inherently meaningless in the phrase "common-sense gun laws."

However, I don't think 2A is clear. The clause about the need for militias sounds like a justification for the right to keep and bear arms. To our ears now, it sounds weird that they said nothing about the right to self defense in the same place. I strongly suspect that 2A was written only to protect militias, because the people having the right to militias and arms for them was very much in their minds in particular. And that the right to arms for self defense, hunting, and protection from tyranny were so obvious that it didn't occur to the founders to mention that. In which case, in accordance with a statement elsewhere in the bill of rights, all rights not mentioned are also not to be infringed. I really wish the 2A clearly stated the right to individual self defense but I don't think it does. I think the founding fathers were very sensitive about the issue of arms for militias, and 2A is about exactly what they said--arms for militias.

The British, like most other conquerors and colonizers, confiscated and outlawed weapons of conquered people or people they intended to conquer. In February 1775 the British declared Massachussetts a state in rebellion. Their first move in trying to reduce the Americans to a conquered people was to head toward Lexington and Concord to seize the arms of the local militias, especially those of Concord, where many military supplies were rumored to be. Fortunately, the Patriots had moved the arms some weeks before. And on April 18, 1775, two lanterns blazed from the tower of Old North Church in Boston, and Paul Revere and many others rode through the night to warn the countryside. On the following day, April 19, 1775, the Patriots in Concord were ready.

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag in April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I've never met a gun control law I liked. And I think we would be better off without all those that have been passed. And I don't like any of those currently proposed either. And since "common-sense," is in the eye of the beholder thus subjective, it's inherently meaningless in the phrase "common-sense gun laws."

However, I don't think 2A is clear. The clause about the need for militias sounds like a justification for the right to keep and bear arms. To our ears now, it sounds weird that they said nothing about the right to self defense in the same place. I strongly suspect that 2A was written only to protect militias, because the people having the right to militias and arms for them was very much in their minds in particular. And that the right to arms for self defense, hunting, and protection from tyranny were so obvious that it didn't occur to the founders to mention that. In which case, in accordance with a statement elsewhere in the bill of rights, all rights not mentioned are also not to be infringed. I really wish the 2A clearly stated the right to individual self defense but I don't think it does. I think the founding fathers were very sensitive about the issue of arms for militias, and 2A is about exactly what they said--arms for militias.

The British, like most other conquerors and colonizers, confiscated and outlawed weapons of conquered people or people they intended to conquer. In February 1775 the British declared Massachussetts a state in rebellion. Their first move in trying to reduce the Americans to a conquered people was to head toward Lexington and Concord to seize the arms of the local militias, especially those of Concord, where many military supplies were rumored to be. Fortunately, the Patriots had moved the arms some weeks before. And on April 18, 1775, two lanterns blazed from the tower of Old North Church in Boston, and Paul Revere and many others rode through the night to warn the countryside. On the following day, April 19, 1775, the Patriots in Concord were ready.

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag in April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.

I agree, however, I point you to the statement, "Necessary for the Security of a Free State" which would imply not only that of the Several States, but one's own personal State, as in, a vested member of society, an citizen of these Several States! What Price Freedom, the security of arms as a deterrent against a Standing Army, A Treasonous Government, and any personal violation of any of the other B.o.R!

 

[rhollister71]

I take the context of the 2nd as a 4 phrase sentence explaining its purpose and meaning hence the comma's:
"A well armed militia", "being necessary to the security of a free state", "the right to keep and bare arms", "shall not be infringed"

1)you cant have a well armed militia without citizens having and keeping these arms!!
2)being necessary to the security of a free state. (either USA as a whole or the state itself(my case Oregon)
3)the "right" key word to keep and bare arms. meaning in home or outside in public visibly
4) Absolute part... "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

These founders were all about the right words, context and punctuation. These guys are known the world over for some of the great pieces of literature of all time. Wordsmiths if you will. It was worded purposely not to be interrupted or to the meaning. It was a Fact statement with no doubt about it. Thats it!

 

[OldBroad44]

I spent two years in Massachusetts in 4th and 5th grade. Still remember family weekend sightseeing, and seeing Old North Church. Then I spent another 4 years much later as a grad student in Cambridge. My major prof lived in Lexington. Every Thanksgiving he invited all his grad students and others in his lab to dinner at his house. But the morning always started with a walk around Walden Pond to work up an appetite and a visit to the bridge where the plaque now stands that bears the words of Emerson's dedication. Hard to imagine a more American way to celebrate Thanksgiving.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I take the context of the 2nd as a 4 phrase sentence explaining its purpose and meaning hence the comma's:
"A well armed militia", "being necessary to the security of a free state", "the right to keep and bare arms", "shall not be infringed"

Indeed.

1)you cant have a well armed militia without citizens having and keeping these arms!!

Mental gymnasts says "The People=The Government/Military" "but its a collective Right, not individual!" Yeah, is the Right to Vote a collective right? the Right to (peacably) assemble, a collective right?

So why would 1 right be collective, yet the 9 others are individual, with much the same terminology used? (The People, etc)

2)being necessary to the security of a free state. (either USA as a whole or the state itself(my case Oregon)

-"see! It refers to the National Guard! Collective right!" except, the NG is under State control, not controlled by the private citizens.

3)the "right" key word to keep and bare arms. meaning in home or outside in public visibly

"Bear arms, yeah but you gotta get a permit or license to conceal... after all, only criminals and assassins conceal carry without permits/licenses!" yeah, no. It didn't differentiate between openly bearing arms and bearing arms concealed...

4) Absolute part... "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Thank you. "But no rights are absolute...reasonable limits exists for everything, why not arms?"(except, there isn't such limits on 1A, else we wouldn't have so much p*rn and gory images)

These founders were all about the right words, context and punctuation. it was worded not to be interrupted or to the meaning. It was a Fact statement with no doubt about it. Thats it!

Yep. Totally agreed.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Regardless of everything else that is written in the 2nd Amendment...

This part seems the most clear to me at least :
"...,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed."

Again to me at least , this part clearly states that "the people" can own Arms and those Arms , as well as that right won't be mucked around with.
Andy

 

[Ura-Ki]

Regardless of everything else that is written in the 2nd Amendment...

This part seems the most clear to me at least :
"...,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed."

Again to me at least , this part clearly states that "the people" can own Arms and those Arms , as well as that right won't be mucked around with.
Andy

Yup, and it doesn't state who is or isn't "The People"

It could be argued, even Non Citizens could be armed, which opens up a whole nother debate!
We had ( And still do) have an awful big number of Immigrants here, both then as now, do our rights extend to those people as well?

Now, Personally, I believe a legal immigrant should be entitled to the full rights we all enjoy, while the illegals not so much, BUT, when ( Or IF) did that become an issue?

Just my thoughts on this subject, who is "The People?"

 

[CamoDeafie]

Yup, and it doesn't state who is or isn't "The People"

It could be argued, even Non Citizens could be armed, which opens up a whole nother debate!
We had ( And still do) have an awful big number of Immigrants here, both then as now, do our rights extend to those people as well?

Now, Personally, I believe a legal immigrant should be entitled to the full rights we all enjoy, while the illegals not so much, BUT, when ( Or IF) did that become an issue?

Just my thoughts on this subject, who is "The People?"

There have been cases, at least 1, where the Fed govt recognized a non-citizen have the same protection of 2A as a citizen does... with 1 rather noticable caveat at that time that it wasn't unlimited...

Non-Citizens Have a Right to Bear Arms -- With 1 Major Catch - FindLaw

Non-citizens have a right to bear arms, even if they are in the country illegally, the Seventh Circuit ruled late in August. The ruling overturns a district court finding that the Second Amendment doesn't protect unauthorized aliens. In so holding, the Seventh created a split with the Fourth...

www.findlaw.com

 

[sobo]

...the Constitution is and should be a living document, and should change with the times

It is not, nor should it be. That's why it's called a constitution, i.e., something that is fundamental and regular, something solid upon which people can count to be unwavering. A "living document" can hardly be called that. One need only to compare our "rigid" Constitution to the "squishy" British constitution, which is based on traditions and unwritten rules by elites, to see the folly of basing a nation's system of laws on a living document.

Regarding "changing with the times", there is an explicit process for doing that. Problem is, Leftists and other reprobates refuse to follow that process. They would rather litigate from the bench, as it were. Hopefully, NYSPA v. Bruen put an end to that bullshiit, although I'm not holding my breath.

- so, if the second amendment actually is repealed by vote of the majority of our nations citizenry, I would respect that decision.

An Amendment to the Constitution is not repealed by a vote of the majority of our nation's citizenry. This is precisely why learned men such as John Adams, James Madison (Federalist #10), and Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America) warned of the tyranny of the majority. It's precisely why we have an Electoral College and a representative democracy, among other things, to protect the minority's opinions and desires. Suggest you read such works as Federalist #10 and Democracy in America, and study up on concepts like representative democracy and republican government.

 

[Ura-Ki]

It is not, nor should it be. That's why it's called a constitution, i.e., something that is fundamental and regular, something solid upon which people can count to be unwavering. A "living document" can hardly be called that.

Regarding "changing with the times", there is an explicit process for doing that. Problem is, Leftists and other reprobates refuse to follow that process. They would rather litigate from the bench, as it were. Hopefully, NYSPA v. Bruen put an end to that bullshiit, although I'm not holding my breath.

It's not done by a vote of the majority of our nation's citizenry. This is precisely why learned men such as John Adams, James Madison (Federalist #10), and Alexis de Tocqueville warned of the tyranny of the majority. It's precisely why we have an Electoral College and a representative democracy, among other things to protect a minority opinion/desire. Suggest you read such works as Federalist #10 and Democracy in America, and study up on concepts like representative democracy and republican government.

Absolutely agree here! The Concept of a Living document by it's very nature means NOTHING is permanent, so those rights enshrined within can only last as long as it takes to legislate them away and install new rights, which are not rights at all!

I get the concept, and so did our founders, its why they created a method for doing just that, BUT, they also knew that a simple task would be abused at will, so they made it as hard as it needed to be, to ensure the people were fully vested in any changes to the collective, for good or Ill! The very fact the Founders included the mechanism of change suggested they understood the need for change, but they also understood the nefarious nature of men with an agenda and lust for power and control, so they provided us with protections against such things!

 

[MichaelH]

We do know for sure, there are many writings about what the founders believed about the importance of an armed citizenry - there are quoted attributed to them about it.

They had crime back then… they had cannons, black powder, "weapons of war."

It's really narcissistic to think that the people who lived then didn't consider these things.

Is it narccistic? Really? I wonder if they meant Cannons, or if those were part of the well regulated militia. This getting into the minds of the founders and looking at history (as written by who) to glean what they knew is only one tool to interpret the constitution, and Justices' various historical sources make that doctrine as ripe for judicial activism as those methods that lean toward the spirit of the document.

To be clear, I want my semi-autos and high capacity magazines, and furniture that improves shooting ergonomics and success, but II'm pretty sure there are ways to regulate my ownership of those things that don't violate the 2A, whether I like it or not. We all seem to become con law scholars on this topic though probably none of us are. I know just enough con law to know I don't really know it.

 

[American123]

Is it narccistic? Really? I wonder if they meant Cannons, or if those were part of the well regulated militia. This getting into the minds of the founders and looking at history (as written by who) to glean what they knew is only one tool to interpret the constitution, and Justices' various historical sources make that doctrine as ripe for judicial activism as those methods that lean toward the spirit of the document.

To be clear, I want my semi-autos and high capacity magazines, and furniture that improves shooting ergonomics and success, but II'm pretty sure there are ways to regulate my ownership of those things that don't violate the 2A, whether I like it or not. We all seem to become con law scholars on this topic though probably none of us are. I know just enough con law to know I don't really know it.

You sound uninformed right off the bat. Well regulated meant and still means in that context "in proper working order."

 

[Ura-Ki]

Is it narccistic? Really? I wonder if they meant Cannons, or if those were part of the well regulated militia. This getting into the minds of the founders and looking at history (as written by who) to glean what they knew is only one tool to interpret the constitution, and Justices' various historical sources make that doctrine as ripe for judicial activism as those methods that lean toward the spirit of the document.

To be clear, I want my semi-autos and high capacity magazines, and furniture that improves shooting ergonomics and success, but II'm pretty sure there are ways to regulate my ownership of those things that don't violate the 2A, whether I like it or not. We all seem to become con law scholars on this topic though probably none of us are. I know just enough con law to know I don't really know it.

They most certainly meant Cannon, as well as Man-0-War, and even issued ( Still to this day) letters of Marque to those who owned such weapons!

You have always had the right and ability to own lots of serious weapons, you just have to pay the tax and file the paperwork, and be subjected tot eh Back Ground Check, and it's all good! Wanna buy a Tank, or an F-15, or Warship, Sure, no problem, fill out these forms, pay the $200 Tax, and await the result of your BGC, and your done!

 

[Andy54Hawken]

In regards to what one can own...
"..,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed."

It is important to notice that it does not say :
"..., the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , but only certain Arms and only Arms for specific purposes , shall not be infringed."

Arms :
Noun.
Weapons and ammunition , armaments.

Andy

 

[MichaelH]

You sound uninformed right off the bat. Well regulated meant and still means in that context "in proper working order."

I'll lignore your insult, but my point is we really can't know what they'd have said if they had more information. Would they extend the principle beyond swords, bayonets and muskets to machine guns? Maybe, but we're all still guessing at that. I do know that if we want the relative security of government and a stable society at large, few rights granted by the constitution can be absolute. By benefitting from the security of a community governed by the rule of law we surrender rights. Frankly this "The 2nd Amendment is clear...." debate is disingenuous and gets us nowhere in figuring out what government regulation is reasonable that we can live with and what's impermissible and should be opposed.

I'll take my flaming off the air.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I'll lignore your insult, but my point is we really can't know what they'd have said if they had more information. Would they extend the principle beyond swords, bayonets and muskets to machine guns? Maybe, but we're all still guessing at that. I do know that if we want the relative security of government and a stable society at large, few rights granted by the constitution can be absolute. By benefitting from the security of a community governed by the rule of law we surrender rights. Frankly this "The 2nd Amendment is clear...." debate is disingenuous and gets us nowhere in figuring out what government regulation is reasonable that we can live with and what's impermissible and should be opposed.

I'll take my flaming off the air.

And here is where you are so very wrong, you believe that NO Right is Absolute, when the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to shout it loudly as far and wide as time and space would allow, our enumerated rights Shall be Absolute till the end of time, and Shall Not Be Infringed! It is NOT a living document, nor is it subject to the whims and vagaries of the times, it can be changed, but only by the will of the people!

As to what our founding fathers meant and what they might have thought, consider this, they expressly stated that We the People were to be armed EQUALLY to our military, and by their intent, that would continue through history, HARD STOP! You cannot refute this fact, it is written right there in the federalist papers for anyone to read! SO, your argument of "Reasonable Restrictions" is wholly absurd and completely off point! By the Writings of our founders, we know exactly what they thought and what their intent was, there is no doubt, and attempting to obfuscate that with your mental masturbation's of Reasonable Regulation is meaningless, there is no reason what so ever for any of us to sit down and negotiate our freedoms for the sake of reason of safety!

Finally, your assertion of our constitution "Granting us our Rights" is bullsh!t, we are born with those rights as absolutes, that document spells out exactly where those rights begin and end, and serve as a warning to would be tyrants that We the People exercise our rights as granted by our creator, and not our Governance! Your assertion of "Rule of Law" is also bullsh!t, Men write laws, often flawed men, but we answer to a higher authority then the laws of men, that's also something our founding fathers knew and understood, which is why they created the checks and balances of the three branches of government!

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

that We the People exercise our rights as granted by our creator, and not our Governance!

cool and all, but absolutely Begs The Question and not everyone believes in a creator of any type

 

[sobo]

I cannot believe I just read where someone said, "... rights granted by the Constitution..." My mind is blown...

 

[Ura-Ki]

cool and all, but absolutely Begs The Question and not everyone believes in a creator of any type

So, what's your point?
You do have a creator, your mother and father created you, thus giving you life and passing on your birth right, your absolute rights as enumerated by the B.o.R!


And, Lying in the back of a Helicopter on your back with large chunks of your youth shot, burned, crushed, or blowed off, and your life at risk of ending before you were ready, EVERYONE Believes in God!