Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 5/16/2003 7:16:07 PM EDT
"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." - Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

I'm all for the right to keep and bear arms. Personally, I own a few. However, I had an English teacher in college who told us that the 2nd Amendment as backing for the right to personally own guns was inaccurate because of grammar. Go figure. According to how the sentence reads, the subject of the amendment is "A well-regulated militia". The next two clauses refer back to the subject. So... she said that really this statement says only a well-regulated militia's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not necessarily normal citizens.

Now, I believe that the original writers of the constitituion meant for us to be able to defend ourselves (especially from the British as when this was written). Leave it to a grammar teacher, who must also be a anti-gun person.

Just thought I would stir the pot! :)
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 7:20:42 PM EDT
Now I'm going from memory and a poor memory at that but I believe the militia was formed six months after the Second Amendment was written. If so I believe the writers were clearly speaking of we-the-people.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 7:24:42 PM EDT
What that English teacher said was too confusing for me. Damn, I'm glad I'm done with college English. By the way, I bet that English teacher was a liberal.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 7:31:28 PM EDT
Your teacher was in error. Probably a biased, anti-gun Democrat. The primary clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The other clause pertaining to the militia is secondary and subordinate to the primary clause. Incidentally, the primary clause has two separate and distinct meanings. To keep arms and to bear arms are two different things. To bear arms may be considered to mean to use them in service to a militia or army. Even if it means exactly that, and conveys no individual right to bear arms outside of that service, the phrase 'to keep arms' is a catch-all phrase that verifies the right for the people to have arms for any purpose outside of any militia or military duties. Between the two phrases, the right to arms is confirmed under any circumstances. CJ
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 7:32:15 PM EDT
Why does it have to be "the militia" or "the people" ? Why can't it be one in the same, a militia consisting of the people ?
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 10:11:16 PM EDT
You teacher has no idea what she's talking about. The well regulated militia fragment gives the writer's reasoning, but does not solely justify the bearing of arms. If it did, the next part would read "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.."
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 5:09:28 AM EDT
When asked who the militia consists of didnt the founding fathers say "Any able bodied male between 18 and 45?" THis consisted of the organised and unorganised militia. The well regulated part gives the right to regulate the individuals who use firearms in the unorganised militia to the govt. That means only men (white men) between 18 and 45 can own guns. Old people have no right nor do women or colored men. Since we amended the constitution this now includes women, colored, etc. but still you lose the right to keep and bear at 45. Or was it 55? I cant remember... It was a tool for the people to be able to overthrow the govt once it became corrupt. Our founding fathers knew all governments have a life cycle be it 50 years or 500 years. At some point the govt becomes corrupted and dies and a new better govt. is born. The right of the people the keep and bear arms is ONLY for defense and overthrowing the government, not hunting.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 5:41:38 AM EDT
Also: regulate SYLLABICATION: reg·u·late PRONUNCIATION: rgy-lt TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates 1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law. 2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature. 3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning. [b]4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.[/b] In this case number 4 applies. The militia, or people need to be well regulated i.e., well disciplined and trained in the use of arms.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 6:04:48 AM EDT
[url=http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html]READ THIS![/url]
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 6:55:13 AM EDT
Your English teacher is wrong. Does anyone have the link or story about the person (a progunner) who sent a request to an English professor at a top rated university (the prof. has top credentials as well) for an interpretation of the Second Amendment. The author didn't say whether he was was pro- or anti- and just wanted an accurate interpretation according to the rules of the English language. The prof came back and said, through a detailed summery that it was defiantly a personal right. I had it once but lost it. [:(]
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 7:07:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Grock: [url=http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html]READ THIS![/url]
View Quote
That pretty much covered it! That should give us plenty of ammunition to answer those people that think the 2cnd only applies to organized militia!
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 2:40:35 PM EDT
Your English teacher did not pass Sentence Diagramming 101. The subject is RIGHT, the predicate is SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Which right? The right OF THE PEOPLE. The clause "A well regulated militia... " is just that, a clause that explains the why of the rest of the sentence.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 3:02:34 PM EDT
I've heard this argument before - about a bizillion times (forgive me if I don't bother too much with sentence structure here). Consider this: The Constitution forms the basis for our law, correct? Of course it follows that we have agencies to enforce the law. How many farmers with rifles were arrested after the signing of the document? How many were told they couldn't have a bayonet lug on their rifle? How many were drafted into or volunteered for militia duty? Exactly. I know it was a movie, but the line was right "This is NOT regular army...". Militia is different from the army, they are citizen soldiers, moreso than the Guard and Reservists (no, I'm not detracting from them here). They are not bound by oath to defend anything, mostly they're not even paid to be there - they just are. So, if they want to tell me I can't have guns because I'm not militia, then I guess I'll have to start one. The last statement is what the Dem's really fear. OK, so we ARE a militia, we DO keep guns and we DO enforce the law. The Constitution says we can. Cryps and Bloods vs Michigan Militia? There's something most in Washington don't want to think about.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 7:05:00 PM EDT
Good discussion so far. My question is how do you define "arms." I take it that "arms" does not imply RPGs, surface-to-air missles, and nuclear weapons. But does the 2nd amendment protect rifles with collapsible stocks, magazitnes that hold more than 10 rounds, and flash suppressors? Can't the argument be made that 'arms" means single shot .22 LR or black powder rifles? Can the feds place restrictions on the types and characteristic of arms and no violate the 2nd amendment? I know that I have to right to keep and own "arms," but where does it say that I have the right to a machine gun?
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 7:37:27 PM EDT
Where does it say that you do not have the ritht to own a rifle with a flash suppressor? Where does it put any limitations on the arms?
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 7:59:22 PM EDT
"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training". U.S. v. Emmerson, 270 RF.3d 203 (2001 U.S.App.). I think the Justices sitting on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals my be a little more educated on the history of the Constitution than your engilsh teacher.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 8:32:16 PM EDT
[url]http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/unabridged.2nd.html[/url] Thell her to: "Take this Bitch!"
THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT by J. Neil Schulman 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 a distinguished 17-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 Publisher's 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: "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 for 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 test 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, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have 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, constitutes 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 to keep and bear arms is asserted as an 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 a 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."
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 8:32:54 PM EDT
[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not 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 tot he 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 governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right. As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power. And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution. And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing. it seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. no one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak ? Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor ? (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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About the Author J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the CBS "Twilight Zone" episode in which a time-traveling historian prevents the JFK assassination. He's also the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing, the first publishing company to distribute "paperless books" via personal computers and modems. Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's right to keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal to those afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments. J. Neil Schulman may be reached through: The SoftServ Paperless Bookstore, 24-hour bbs: 213-827-3160 (up to 9600 baud). Mail address: J. Neil Schulman PO Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094. GEnie address: SOFTSERV softserv@genie.geis.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- World-Wide-Web html format by Scott Ostrander: scotto@cica.indiana.edu
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 1:49:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Grock: [url=http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html]READ THIS![/url]
View Quote
That, and I am not shitting you, has got to be THE MOST interesting thing I HAVE EVER READ!!! Absolutley blew my mind. Great post....
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 2:26:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Grock: [url=http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html]READ THIS![/url]
View Quote
I wonder if any human alive has the patience to explain that to somebody like Dianne Feinstein.
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 3:40:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2003 3:55:25 AM EDT by M4C]
My Kudos to cmjohnson for his analysis. To add my own view, I always thought that the word [i]Militia[/i] as incorporated into the Second Amendment's definition has been troubling. Perhaps--just a tad careless by the forefathers; if only they could have known that this (word [i]Militia[/i]) would be the word by which a great underhanded fraud would be perpetrated when discussing the clear authority of the Second Amendment. The fraud being the equating of [i]Militia[/i] as intended in the 2nd, to our modern [i]National Guard[/i], which didn't even exist in Revolutionary days. From the forefather's perspective, wouldn't it have been a safer bet to omit any reference to [i]militia[/i] in the sentence and just mention [i]the people[/i], "just in case"? Then again, how could have they known of the perversion of the word that would take place and causing so much dispute which has diminished the very clear intent of the Second Amendment 200+ years later. Just so you know, the intent is crystal clear to [b]me[/b]. But as we all know, there are so many other Americans that refuse to see it and by the seemingly ambiguous wording, have a "legal" pretext to misinform yet more Americans for generations to come. QUESTION OF THE CENTURY: [b]When and how in hell did the militia become the National Guard???[/b] [furious] It makes one wonder if the National Guard was later created specifically for the purpose of assuming the primary role mentioned in the Second Amendment, thereby "bumping" the [i]people[/i] out (i.e. usurping the privilege) and relegating them to a mere 'symbolic gesture' status--if that much...
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 3:52:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2003 3:53:55 AM EDT by tl511]
Where does it say that you do not have the ritht to own a rifle with a flash suppressor? Where does it put any limitations on the arms? ------------------------------------------------- I'm with you D348 on that one. I wish there were stats showing how people are more likely to commit terrible crimes with flash surpressors or other "evils" as given by the BATF. I can shoot you, just not using a flash surpressor (unless I have had my gun for a decade or more). Where is the logic in that one??
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 4:10:04 AM EDT
I may be wrong here, but the Federalist Papers is where we find just what is defined as 'arms for the people'. It gives us the right to have the same 'small arms' as the regular military, but gives the military the advantage with cannons and heavy weopons. So that gives us the right to have any military small arm we choose (i.e. M-16). The GCA '34 (then '68, '86 and finally to where were at today with '94) limited this by licensing, full auto guns, but still allowed the semi-auto versions of those weapons (i.e. AR-15). Not until GCA '94 was this taken away from us, and done so AGAINST the Constitution and Bill of Rights and therfore illegal. The National Guard issue brings up something Ive been arguing for years. The National Guard is just that NATIONAL GUARD, an arm of the U.S. Military. Since the Guard is subsidizied by the U.S. Government it CAN NOT be considered a militia. A militia by definition is unpaid and utilizes arms OWNED by the individuals as opposed to ISSUED by a government entity. Now heres somthing else to chew on. Every American male is AUTOMATICALLY a member of the U.S. military. This is done by requiring us to register for the Selecive Service at 18. We can be called up to serve at the whim of Congress and the President. If we do not report then we are in violation of Federal law.
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 5:40:47 AM EDT
I found the book offered by the NRA titled "The Second Amemdment Primer" to be an excellant source of info on the second amendment. It contains a lot of history and quotes from the writers of the constitution. It is well worth the cost to anyone who has an interest in the second amendment.
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 7:07:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By tl511: However, I had an English teacher in college who told us that the 2nd Amendment as backing for the right to personally own guns was inaccurate because of grammar. Go figure.
View Quote
I am an aspiring Student of English (my BA comes next spring) and there is something to be said for (and possibly against) your teacher's statement. Like our sacred yet trounced upon Constitution, the English language is living and evolving entity. the meaning, spelling, and proper usage of words gradually change over time. A good example is the word "decimate" which originally refered to the punishment meted out by Roman officers to deserters. They would kill every tenth man (10%) to serve an example to future cowards. Today you might hear someone say "the cluster bombs decimated the population", which would only be accurate in its original meaning if 10% of the people were destroyed. The constant misuse of the word however has led to an official (believe it or not) recognition of its change in meaning. "Judgement" and "Judgment" is another example. Therefore, it may be possible that your teacher is right by today's standards but wrong by the standards of our founding fathers. I can't say for sure myself, as I don't have the passion for etymology.
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 8:59:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By pulpsmack: ....Therefore, it may be possible that your teacher is right by today's standards but wrong by the standards of our founding fathers. I can't say for sure myself, as I don't have the passion for etymology.
View Quote
You need to get a double major in history. It is impossible for her to be correct by any standard. Her interpretation is incorrect.
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 10:15:44 AM EDT
As luck would have it, I am double majoring in history. I was going along strictly on the merits of grammer, not the CLEAR CUT interpretration of what it means.
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 10:42:08 AM EDT
Your teacher is not right by any standard, yesterday or today's. Our Founding Fathers were not idiots. Forget the wording (though the militia line is a preamble to the subject), the first 10 amendments to the Constitution were called "The Bill of Rights." Everyone (except wacky Liberals) agrees that the words "The People" in each amendment refers to the individual. You cannot have nine of the ten amendments refer to and individual right, then twist one around to refer to some bizarre idea of a "collective right." Even big time Liberals like Lawrence Tribe of Harvard agree that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Famous conservative, George Will (who is no friend of gun owners) states often that the only way to solve the "problem" is to amend the Constitution to remove the Second Amendment.
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 1:04:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GerryN: Everyone (except wacky Liberals) agrees that the words "The People" in each amendment refers to the individual.
View Quote
I really wish this were true but it isn't. Almost every law school teaches that it is a collective right. I have several friends who are lawyers and the only way we get along is to never talk about politics. They know my opinion that the 2nd amendment is an individual right but they make sure I am aware that idea is not taught to law students. Sad, isn't it? Philip
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 7:49:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2003 7:53:13 PM EDT by DeeJay]
I didn't read the other replies so don't know if anyone else came up with this but... Tell him that at that time "well-regulated" was a term used to denote that something was properly organized and running well. Example: One regulated a shotgun for pattern and a well regulated shotgun was one that shot to point of aim. None of the non-Federalist legislators would have EVER felt that regulations as we see them now were good or right. Federalism was itself at odds and war with Jeffersonian Democracy... Historical illiteracy is not an excuse for his improper statement...which would have been anathema to Thomas Jefferson... Read "Treason" (a novel about the Burr/Wilkinson consiracy among other things) or Flexner's excellent life of Washington for some background for the tenor of the times...
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 9:45:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Grock: [url=http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html]READ THIS![/url]
View Quote
w00t. that was rad. I'm saving it so I can use it as ammunition when I need to draw on it.
Link Posted: 5/19/2003 7:05:44 AM EDT
No one has ever been able to show me a quote from the Founding Fathers describing this as a collective right. I, on the other hand, can provide dozens of FF quotes supporting the individual right model. Individuals have "rights" ... the collective has "powers", theoretically granted by us.
Link Posted: 5/19/2003 7:54:10 AM EDT
Arms definitely referred to cannons and such back then, as they were much more susceptible to confiscation and quite a bit harder to hide than long arms. When regular country folk were expected to defend themselves from standing armies of other countries, of course there was no restriction on the meaning of "arms."
Link Posted: 5/19/2003 9:42:52 AM EDT
If your teacher is so smart, did she point out the spelling error in the DOI? It is the only error I know of in the three Major Documents. 2AM makes perfect sense to me.
Link Posted: 5/19/2003 9:51:06 AM EDT
[b]Grock & HeavyMetal[/b] Excellent articles... It never ceases to amaze me that there are people out there that [b]do not want to be confused with the facts[/b], but will argue with you till they are blue in the face that they are right and you are wrong... And get angry about it... There is no such thing as intellectual debate with Liberals... they get vehement, almost rabid about their views... What do you do with a rabid dog??? Put it down, right??? Definitely Lobotomy candidates in my mind... [sniper2]
Link Posted: 5/19/2003 9:52:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By M4C: QUESTION OF THE CENTURY: [b]When and how in hell did the militia become the National Guard???[/b] [furious]
View Quote
Fuel for the fire: [url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html]Militia Definition[/url] It is still the law. So if someone asks if you're in "a militia", take a look at him, judge his age, and say, "Yes, we both are, as mandated by federal law. By the way, you will be expected to show up with your firearm." They usually look dumbfounded.
Link Posted: 5/19/2003 10:03:48 AM EDT
If that is true, then the Founders messed up on the 1st, 4th and other amendments that we consider individual rights. Read the other amendments and see what they say and then tell us if your English teacher is right. I have heard lame excuses before, but grammar is the worst of them...
Link Posted: 5/19/2003 2:33:19 PM EDT
Why does everyone read Militia as the people? We did not have a standing army at that time, so the militia was necessary for the security of the state, but to keep the militia and its leaders in check, the whole people, not just the militia were to be allowed arms. Militia = Army or the State Police (today) And it is we the people that regulate them!
Link Posted: 5/19/2003 4:07:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EKrutz64: Why does everyone read Militia as the people? We did not have a standing army at that time, so the militia was necessary for the security of the state, but to keep the militia and its leaders in check, the whole people, not just the militia were to be allowed arms. Militia = Army or the State Police (today) And it is we the people that regulate them!
View Quote
b/c in the link RLR provided ([url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html[/url]) the United States Code (aka: Federal Law) defines the Militia as:
all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section [url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/32/313.html]313[/url] of title [url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/32/index.html]32[/url], under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
View Quote
which is, effectively, "the People."
Link Posted: 5/19/2003 6:03:40 PM EDT
Yes that is the current definition, but the original is what we are concerned with.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 5:51:29 AM EDT
I don't care if the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is in the Constitution or not... I TAKE that Right as my own NOW! I do NOT relinquish that Right to anyone. I will NOT have it signed away by others, people I do not know, who do not know me. It is my Right under God, and I claim it as mine. So there!
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 9:18:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EKrutz64: Militia = Army or the State Police (today)
View Quote
Nope: Militia = The People. Army = The Military. State Police = Police who are granted their power by the people, (See Militia)
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 3:17:14 PM EDT
Okay, at the time of the writting, we did not have a standing "national" army, the only forces fielded were the individual states militia. The militia being made up of that states people, but now we had to think as a country, a country that had a central government. A central government that was incontrol of the "national" Army. To control the "national"army, we had the state militia, this was controled by the state. Who was to keep the state militia in check? Those armed people whom were NOT a member of the militia!! That is why I believe that the second amendment mentions the militia and the people as two different groups not one.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 5:04:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RenegadeX: If your teacher is so smart, did she point out the spelling error in the DOI? It is the only error I know of in the three Major Documents. 2AM makes perfect sense to me.
View Quote
So what is the error in the DOI? Do you mean [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unalienable][b]Unalienable[/b][/url]? That is correct.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 5:31:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EKrutz64: Okay, at the time of the writting, we did not have a standing "national" army, the only forces fielded were the individual states militia. The militia being made up of that states people, but now we had to think as a country, a country that had a central government. A central government that was incontrol of the "national" Army. To control the "national"army, we had the state militia, this was controled by the state. Who was to keep the state militia in check? Those armed people whom were NOT a member of the militia!! That is why I believe that the second amendment mentions the militia and the people as two different groups not one.
View Quote
You miss the point. Lets look at it this way; if at the time of the writing 2+2=4 and the framers meant 2+2=4 then today we can say we think, interpret, etc., 2+2=5 but 2+2=4. As an inalienable right it is a right given by God. So if 2+2=4 in 1789, it will still equal 4 today. So the whole body of people + the ability to use arms = militia! And God granted the right and it cannot be taken away by men.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 7:50:32 PM EDT
"I had an English teacher in college who told us" That says it all dont ya think! he he!
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 9:29:02 PM EDT
"People" refers to individuals, not the individual militia. The dictionary also defines people to mean citizens.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 5:49:28 AM EDT
We are stating the same conclusion, "the people have the right to keep and bear arms", I am only trying to disprove the theory that it only applies to militia. If that was the case then the term "people" would not be in the next line. So why did they use both terms? Well we have to look at how the militia and the government work during that time, not todays. It comes down to the fact, they feared a large(armed) central government. So the states militia was to counter balance the soon to be formed national "standing army". But this left another problem, how to ensure that the state militia would not become an uncontrolable group, after all several of the militia leaders had huge groups of followers, so how would you stop a person from turning the militia into a private army? By allow all people to be armed, not just those who would serve the militia, but everybody in the country.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 8:07:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 8:07:47 AM EDT by Cutter75]
Originally Posted By EKrutz64: We are stating the same conclusion, "the people have the right to keep and bear arms", I am only trying to disprove the theory that it only applies to militia. If that was the case then the term "people" would not be in the next line. So why did they use both terms? Well we have to look at how the militia and the government work during that time, not todays. It comes down to the fact, they feared a large(armed) central government. So the states militia was to counter balance the soon to be formed national "standing army". But this left another problem, how to ensure that the state militia would not become an uncontrolable group, after all several of the militia leaders had huge groups of followers, so how would you stop a person from turning the militia into a private army? By allow all people to be armed, not just those who would serve the militia, but everybody in the country.
View Quote
Very well could have been a "Sub-motive" of the Founding Fathers... They may very well have been paranoid back then having just secured their freedom... However, the [b]Bottom Line is, and remains[/b] the [b][red]RIGHT[/red][/b] of the people shall [b][red]NOT[/red][/b] be infringed... [sniper2]
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 8:21:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 8:23:41 AM EDT by RenegadeX]
Originally Posted By BigIck:
Originally Posted By RenegadeX: If your teacher is so smart, did she point out the spelling error in the DOI? It is the only error I know of in the three Major Documents. 2AM makes perfect sense to me.
View Quote
So what is the error in the DOI? Do you mean [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unalienable][b]Unalienable[/b][/url]? That is correct.
View Quote
British is spelled Brittish. Opening sentence, next to last paragraph: [i]Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren.[/i]
Top Top