"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."


Dictionary Source - Dictionary of the English Language - 1790 Volume 2
Volume 1

(note: Roman Numeral Date Converter at: http://www.onlineconversion.com/roman_numerals_advanced.htm

"well regulated"  - Meaning - to adjust by rule or method, to direct - Orderly - Methodical - Regular - According to Established Methods





"Militia" - part of the community trained to martial excersise (Trainband), the Trainbands (the standing force of a nation) (Militia Man - a Man who serves in the Militia) also see Militia Act of 1792 for legal definition of the Militia and Types of Milita in particular note Section 1 of the Act passed on May 8, 1792 which defines who is in the Militia (Essentially - All Men 18-45 are required to have a Rifle or Musket, a field kit, and Ammunition (Ball and Powder))



and



"Security" - ...protection, defence, (Safe) - free from danger or hurt conferring security



and



"free State" - the commonwealth



"Right" - that which justly belongs to one...power...perogative,...immunity...privilege...



"to Keep" - to retain, keep in custody....



"Bear" - To Carry....



"Arms" - Weapons



"Infringed" - to violate, to hinder, to destroy, to break laws or contracts, breach

And?

ETA - Shouldn't your 1st lookup have been for regulated, not orderly? I don't see where orderly is in the 2A.

We all know this. Send it to the Congress and the USSC if you must.

The Second Amendment only applies to muskets. The Founding Fathers never intended for us to have AR-47 Assault Rifles.

Thought you knew that.

The police are the militia. We should depend on them rather than owning our own guns. DO IT!

Attention Choir!!!
Prepare to hear a sermon preached.

And shove it up the right persons ass too while you are at it!!!

Arms ---> Weapons (the 1792 militia act only specified what type of arms a person was expected to own which were at the time considered to be modern arms suitable for performing military duty. In today's world - that would be an M4 Carbine or an M16 Rifle or a Sawed Off Shotgun, or a Sub Machine Gun - since all of these weapons are individual weapons (not crewserved), and oh yes...Grenade launchers attached to the Assault Rifles to be included as weapons to be carried and owned by citizens)

and yes...I knew that...everyone here on the board knows what the 2nd Amendment means....and Gun Banners keep playing games with word definitions and semantics

A dictionary from 1790 combined with the Militia Act of 1792 puts to rest the argument of "we don't know the intent of the founding fathers..."

it puts to rest using modern definitions of "militia", "regulated", "arms", "bear", "infringe" (note: it means both destroy - ie. Ban, as well as hinder ie. background checks, waiting periods, 1 gun per month)

Using the above 2 sources...makes the entire meaning of the 2nd Amendment as plain as day....and kills the different arguments put forth by Gun Control Nutjobs...

QFT

Sorry, it's not John Roberts' job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices

I didn't know milk was liquor for the young. Hmmmm...

 

Yep. The First Amendment only applies to the hand operated Gutenberg printing press, not TV, Radio or the Internet. Likewise the right to stand in a public place and announce your grievances without the aid of electronic amplification or electronic re-transmission.  


</sarcasm>

Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people. The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Damn beat by seconds.

You know...just for the sake of argument substitute BOOKS...instead of arms...change the amendment a little so it reads...

A well educated electorate being necessary for a free state, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed...

I say that to point out two things...

One...congress would NEVER consider using the commerce clause to regulate books across state lines or in any manner what so ever...they view the First Amendment as sacred, holy...and would never think of regulating it as such...

and two...one of my academic highlights...

During the debate and leading up to the 1994 AWB I was a Pol Sc major at a small southern university. A senior non traditional student 36 years old a wife and 4 kids going to school full time and working as a cop...I was selected to lead the Pro Second Amendment side (3 students)of the AWB debate at the university against the Pro AWB side (3 Liberal Profs)...as the debate wore down with the largely liberal crowd asking questions of the debators I posed the following question to the other side...should we then ban books?

Preposterous said the other side...

I said OK...lets substitute books for arms..."A well educated electorate being necessary for a free state, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed..."

One of the more liberal Professors stood up like a lighting bolt screaming BUT A BOOK HAS NEVER KILLED ANYONE!

No? I said...stand there and tell that to six adn a half million Jews with a copy of Mien Kampf in your hands...

The audience roars like I had just scored the winning touch down at the Super Bowl...

The right to keep bare shoulder things that go up

Did they not believe in the letter S back then

Fafe
Foldier
Eftablifhed
Ftanding force

WAT the actual fuck is that?

It's the typescript used, it's an S

It's a good try, until someone points out that dictionaries of that era weren't the definitive resources that they are today.

I hope you're just being funny, otherwise massive facepalm.

They all had lisps back then.  Little known fact.

Books can be dangerous....this book will teach you how to do stuff with house hold chemicals



Improvised Munitions

and...in an indirect way...Ghostrunner


Neither Books nor Arms of any kind should be banned or infringed in anyway through regulation and licensing
both are Constitutionally protected items. At least that is what the founding father's intended....

The 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA and the Hughes amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection, the Brady Bill requiring background checks act, as well
as all laws requiring a permit or license to own and/or carry any type of firearm are all blatantly Unconstitutional