Posted: 11/29/2006 2:26:00 PM EDT
|
For years, I've been quick to slam anti's and Fudd's alike regarding the 2nd Ammendment. To me, it's SOLE purpose is to guarantee my legal right to own firearms that might be useful in revolt against a government that's become tyrannical and adopted police state tactics against law-abiding citizens. When I think of what the Founding Father's went through and my impression of their desires in establishing this government, that's the conclusion that I come to. But... When I actually READ the 2nd Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution, I am left with questions. Amendment II 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 first part seems to be pointing to the intent for the citizens to be able to repel FOREIGN threats (because of a non-standing military in those days?), while the second part guarantees that those citizens will be able to be armed to do so. This just occured to me this morning, after standing on my soap box for years regarding this -- it just occured to me this way this very day. *** Don't call me a DU troll or any such thing. I'm just curious about any supporting documents written by the Founding Fathers regarding my long-held belief about this Ammendment. If all one does is read the actuall Ammendment, then I can see where the anti's get their ammo. One claim of their's is that since we have the military, we don't need to be armed as a military would. In that sense, I wish the framers of the Constitution would have been a little more clear. Perhaps, a BETTER way to have written the 2nd Ammendment would have been simply to have left-off the first part and said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Granted, even when presented with CLEAR evidence, most libs and anti's continue to parrot their party line and/or suggest that the Constitution should be overhauled or thrown-out entirely. |
No. I agree, that's an angle for sure. But the way it's worded leaves room for conjecture. Had they left that part out, there'd be NO conjecture as to what they meant. |
|
The state can not be free because of a tryanical domestic government.... www.weaponforums.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=521541 Here is a thread on rewritting the second amendment that is related to your topic... My version of the 2A would read: The inalienable right of any person to own, keep, bear, carry and use all forms of sport and combat arms and like equipment shall not be regulated, taxed, registered or otherwise infringed by any government, treaty or court ruling |
| Totally agree... but the anti's seem to want to ignore that part. Had that part not been included, it would be very hard for anyone to argue what the framers intended (that our right to bear arms not be infringed for ANY reason). They might disagree with the Founding Fathers' viewpoint, but they could not argue what they meant. |
This is the REASON why we need guns. It was written this way to serve as a reminder for our gov't to not get out of hand or it can be overthrown. As well as repelling a foreign army. The DUmmies see the word "militia" and stop, saying we don't need guns since we don't need militias.
This is the right itself. Plain and simple as it can be. |
But WHO is "well-regulated"? I'm not. Acutally... with all the current firearms laws... I guess that I really am WELL REGULATED!  Understand that I'm not arguing against the 2nd Ammendment here. Just trying to understand WHY they worded it the way they did. |
|
Another amendment in addition to my own version of the 2A would be.... A well trained, both regulated and unregulated, militia, being for the common good, requires the Federal government shall give each adult, upon turning 18, one standard, up to date service arm, and each state government shall give each adult, upon turning 18, one standard, up to date, side arm as well as appropriate equipment for their maintenance and use |
|
These two files delve into the precise mechanics and history: secondamendment2.pdf Subcomttee.Constitution.Report.pdf
|
Very good. Seems to not leave any loopholes for the lawyers and anti's. |
If you are not "well regulated" in the sense of the term when the Constitution was written, you need to go to the range more. 
|
That's where I disagree with you. I'd just as soon let the buffoons who are scared of firearms run around scared. Keeps me warm at night knowing that some liberal's panties are in a wad over something. |
I'm not well-regulated at all regarding my passion for firearms. Yeah, I work at my "craft" and take it seriously. But the only person regulating my acitivies is ME, and that's the way I like it. Had I wanted to be "regulated", I'd have joined the military.
|
Thanks for the links! I will check them out. |
|
There is a pause for a reason. "The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." is so clearly written it makes me sick that some people say that it's not clear enough. The thought that some people would disarm their own people also makes me sick. |
Works for a lot of countries, like the swiss. Could be coupled with mandatory national military service at 18 for everyone. We'd still use all volunteer active duty for most things, but all able bodied military age citizens would have some training for SHTF. Besides crime would be FAR FAR lower
|
If it were clear, we wouldn't have all these gun laws. It is not clear. It doesn't address a lot of potential areas, and for that reason it isn't clear. |
I was thinking about this earlier today and that is exactly the conclusion that I came to. The founders could have said "The moon, being made of green cheese," for the first part and the second part would have just as much validity. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." |
Agreed. Hence, this thread. |
You are supposed to be regulated. If you look at Article I section 8 you will see "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;". But as we all know they don't really follow the document much anymore. ETA: The quote from Article I section 8 above was supposed to define well regulated in Amendment II. |
|
i was taught there was a specific reason for the wording. <don't know if it's true or not> during the revolutionary war General Washington was appalled by the lack of equipment the "militiamen" reported for duty with. many did not have firearms or proper gear. this hindered the formation of a formal army. one of the reasons it was stated that way was to insure that people would be properly equiped well called for milita service. The PEOPLE must be allowed to be adequalty armed and geared in order to be an effective militia. don't know if it's true but it did make sense. |
| The 2nd amendment as it is written is perfect. Also look up the word MILITIA, it refers to citizens of the state who are not members of the regular army, so the Armed Forces were already taken into account. Who do you think a tyrannical government would employ to do their dirty work ? Do you think our entire Armed Forces would turn against us ?, NO, but a small percentage will. Therefore an Armed law abiding Citizenry balances things out. My take on this subject is worth 2 cents. |
|
unfortunatly, the last suppreme court ruling countered our beliefs. that was Miller. i prefer to battle my teachers and classmates from the point, 1. the founding fathers definition of a militia was vastly diff from the nat Guard 2. Guns serve a useful purpose 3. if you lose all your rights, number two will get them all back i myself need to do more reading into the founding fathers original thoughts. the constitution should be able to be amended as i believe in the living documents. but the bill of rights are not the constitution, they are its changes, and i believe the first 10 are the "untouchables" |
To make as eloquent and intelligent an argument as possible (against antis), it always help to spell correctly. 
|
|
www.saf.org/default.asp?p=gunrights_faq#3 3. What was the intent of the Second Amendment? The intent of these amendments was to protect individuals from government powers. They were meant as a guarantee to the individual state governments as well as the American citizens that the Federal government would not try to take away the freedoms which many of them had so recently fought for. Senator William Grayson wrote to Patrick Henry; "Last Monday, a string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty…" (p. 76). "To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, and member of the first Continental Congress, which passed the Bill of Rights) 4. Who should have the "right to keep and bear arms." We believe that the Second Amendment right to self-protection and defense of liberty should be granted to all those eligible including everyone of legal age, and those who are not violent criminals. 5. What is the militia? The "militia" was provided for in Section 10 of the United States Code (often abbreviated USC). The Code is the list of all the laws that are written by the federal government. Section 10 USC 311 reads: "All able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…and under 45 years of age who are or have made a declaration to become a citizen of the United States." Additionally, another provision allows for a "reserve militia" (as opposed to the "ready militia" described above), that includes women, children and the elderly. |