Posted: 7/26/2007 10:21:36 AM EDT
|
what do you think? "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." a lot of people seem to think this is speaking of the right of a state militia. this would be true if the rest of the bill of rights did not describe individual rights. the states rights are not included in the bill of rights. also, it would be true if writings of thomas jefferson, george washington, ben franklin, thomas henry, john adams, and other founding fathers did not speak of the public themselves being armed. this the obvious evidence to what this rather controversial sentence means. the more technical proof that shows the true meaning of this lies in 18th century writing technique. they did not use the same rules in writing that we do now. scholars who specialize in writing form this time period have, from their strictly literary expertese, showed how it was all written and what it means. here is the words of such an expert: "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?" "(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." "(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'?" "(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." "(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?" "(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." "(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?" "(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." "(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'?" "(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." "(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." "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.' now that is about as broken down as it gets. he eeven gives a modern day literary version of the sentence in question. the one who gave this nice analysis of our most important right is roy copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of SoCal and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus." yup thats right, a proffesor from one of the most liberal err socialist states in the union. how much proof do we need? |
|
I have always thought about it that way, contrary to what I hear all the time on this website, whether it be right or wrong. I interpret it as saying: "The states will undoubtably have a militia (maybe because they know states have power and would want to insure that, just like we do our houses and cars), and that in order to not live in a police state (brought on because the militia is strong), people must have the right to bear arms to keep the militia in check (i.e. "regulate" it) This means that "we" are not the "militia," just regular joes keeping the "militia's power" in check. I would imagine most of you do not agree, and that's fine, to each their own, that's just what I think every time I read it...and I like it that way, just thought I would share, maybe someone can point out the error of my ways... |
|
To me, It means I can have a gun because they have guns. When they try to harm me with their guns and it violates my rights as a free American I can stop them from doing that. If they ask for my guns they are taking my right away to have them. I wont mess with the reporters freedom of the press, I wont mess with the right of freedom of speach, you dont mess with my Right to bear arms. ETA: Thats about it, Simple, just like the farmers were. Making so they cant be fucked with. |