How would you interpret the second amendment?
All though out history literal interpretation of laws never worked.  A good example is the Ten Commandments “Thou shall not kill”, this has been mutually accepted as “Thou shall not murder”.  In our own constitution we say we have “Freedom of Religion” which we do, however we do not have freedom of practice.

With this in mind, how should the second amendment have been interpreted?

“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.”

I feel that any responsible citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for the protection of them themselves, their family and their state.  It would be a valuable asset to any community if law-abiding citizens that were well trained and discipline in the using of firearms carried a firearm for the benefit of them selves and other citizens that they would protect.  That’s my interpretation of the second amendment.

The problem is that we have tried to interpret these laws.  Just read them.  They mean exactly what they say.  No more, no less.  And certainly nothing different.

As to kill vs. murder.  In the original Hebrew, the best translation to English is "murder."  "Kill" came from a poor translation.

Quoted: How would you interpret the second amendment? All though out history literal interpretation of laws never worked.  A good example is the Ten Commandments “Thou shall not kill”, this has been mutually accepted as “Thou shall not murder”.  In our own constitution we say we have “Freedom of Religion” which we do, however we do not have freedom of practice.

when was the last time you were banned from practicing your religion, whatever it may be?  you can still pray in a public place.  and so can our children.  an institution of public nature is the only beast that has limits on religious practices.  but the individuals within them have always been allowed to practice their religions.

Quoted: The problem is that we have tried to interpret these laws.  Just read them.  They mean exactly what they say.  No more, no less.  And certainly nothing different. As to kill vs. murder.  In the original Hebrew, the best translation to English is "murder."  "Kill" came from a poor translation.

Ok Mr. "what it says is what it says", where does it mention guns or firearms?? It says arms, you know them things between your shoulders and wrists.

And it's not a "LAW" it's an Amendement to the Constitution, little more important than a law.

"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. "

Its meaning is perfectly clear as currently written

Quoted: "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. " Its meaning is perfectly clear as currently written

agree, though it could have been made even clearer:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I interpret it like it's written.  Basically, the first part of it is "why we're bringing this up" and the last part is "what we're specifically enumerating for protection"

The first part is IRRELEVANT to the right that is enumerated for protection.  If anyone thinks otherwise, I tell them this:  "A well educated electorate, being neccessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed"  Then ask them to think about that.  Does that mean that ONLY the 'well educated electorate' has the 'right to keep and read books'?   It most obviously does not.  The PEOPLE have the right, and the first part is IRRELEVANT to that right.  

Apparently some here don't understand that you must interpret everything you read in order for it to have any meaning.

You interpret symbols, those represent sounds, several sounds together represent a word, words represent a person, place, thing, action, or descriptive term. And as I attempted to point out, a single word can have multiple meanings.....According to my strict interpretation of "Arms" the Constitution guarantees that you can't have limbs amputated.... Others would point out that is not what that word meant in that sentence, their interpretation that "Arms" means some type of weapon completely changes the meaning of what was written.

"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.”

Here is one interpretation, someone else posted it on another website indicating the interpretation was based on the Federalist Papers.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,....."

This is a lament. Meaning the Founding Fathers recognized that the United States would need a military to be viable as a nation. It refers to the USN, USA, USMC, and all the reserve and National Guard troops.

Those forces represent a lot of power in the hands of government.

The Founding Fathers knew that, and if you read the Constitution you will notice that they are interested in "check and balances" to keep one branch of government from becoming to powerful.

To balance the military power that the US needs as a nation the Founding Fathers put in a check to make sure the government wouldn't use the military to overpower the citizenry.

"........the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That explanation makes sense to me.

Of course then you will have to define what constitutes an "Arm". What exactly does "People" mean, is this a collective Right, not an individual Right. (How can you have a collective Right, if the individuals that make up the collective don't have that Right??)

Ah, ya see my point?

Interpretation of the 2nd?   It should hardly be necessary.  It's pretty straightforward.

But, since you asked, analysis via the rules of English grammar and composition reveals the following:

The first phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is a SUBORDINATE phrase, which is subordinate to the DOMINANT phrase following, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The second phrase contains two separate meanings, as well.    The term 'keep and bear arms' actually is a shortened way of saying "the right of the people to keep arms and the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.'

Note, KEEP and BEAR are two different activities.  While it may be argued that to BEAR arms is a concept that may indeed be applicable ONLY to use of arms for a military purpose, it is beyond doubt that to KEEP arms is to retain those arms for any other reason.    Therefore, those who say that 'bear' arms means it's for a militia purpose only may be correct, but since the amendment makes specific reference to 'keep' arms as well, the amendment clearly confirms that the individual people may in fact keep arms privately regardless of any militia obligation or lack thereof.

Any interpretation that doesn't acknowledge this is an interpretation that is flawed and is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

CJ

What part of "shall NOT be infringed " don't you understand?????

Why does "people" mean "people" in the 1st and 3rd - 10th Amendments, but means "state" in the Second Amendment???

In the words of an ancient author - "Much learning doth make thee mad (insane)."

Here's my interpretation. A well regulated militia means a well desciplined and trainned militia. Made of of CITIZENS like you or me. And NOT the Reserve or National Guard. We are all part of the militia.

Since we(an armed militia) are ensential to a free state, our right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. So that ordinary folks have the right to arms.

Quoted: What part of "shall NOT be infringed " don't you understand????? Why does "people" mean "people" in the 1st and 3rd - 10th Amendments, but means "state" in the Second Amendment??? In the words of an ancient author - "Much learning doth make thee mad (insane)."

If you are commenting on my post:
1) I was trying to point out that "interpretation" is required to understand language and thought.
2) I was also pointing out that "Arms" and "People" get interpreted. (if you didn't understand my comment about how ridiculous "people" getting intrerpreted as a "collective" Right is you weren't reading carefully. In other words it was a somewhat rhetorical question.)
3) My "interpretation" has the people bing armed in order to balance the power of the armed parts of the goverment, check and balance..........

OlyM4gery -

I wans't making a specific reference to your post . More general comments.

But, since you asked -

Actually, the word "interpretation" needs "interpretation.

Interpretation means (to me) determining  a meaning given present day circumstances and environments.

As such, the Second should NOT be "interpreted."

It should be assigned the meaning the FF intended - using the words denotative meanings at the time they were written.

well-regulated - trained, ordered, disciplined

Militia - civilians armed for the purpose of deterring abusive Federal and state gov'ts.

arms - weapons of common military useage (at the time, that included civilian ownership of cannons and warships - anything the individual could afford.)

People - civilians

Free state - one independent of Federal gov't abusinve control. Could mean the former colonies, OR the "state" of being free.

Right- NOT something that can be dictated by gov't of ANY sort.

keep  - own, store, psosess

bear - to assemble with as part of their militia unit, train with independently, and carry about their person.

shall NOT be infringed - since infringed means "interfered with," shall NOT be infringed SHOULD be pretty clear.

While we're thinking about it, exactly what arms does/should the second amendment protect? It's pretty obvious that the founding fathters intended for the citizenry to have small arms, but what about what I call "not so small arms"? Should I be allowed to have a 500 Kiloton H-Bomb in my closet? Or mabye a big canister of Ebola or nerve gas? Are these arms protected? If not, exactly where do we draw the line? Crew-served machine guns? Battle tanks? Surfacce-to-air missles? Hmm...

mace -

See the definition of "arms" I gave immediately above your post.

Whadda ya think???

"Arms" DOES in fact mean SMALL arms, since larger equipment has always been referred to as artillery or ordnance.

That being the case, there has still been no time at which there has been a challenge to the right of civilians to own cannon or artillery in one form or another.   You may own as large a black powder muzzle loading cannon as you wish! If it suits you to fire iron bowling ball-sized shot, you may do so provided you have a safe place to shoot.   No one has EVER tried to take that away from us...not that it's really an issue.

CJ

Quoted: In our own constitution we say we have “Freedom of Religion” which we do, however we do not have freedom of practice.

This is not what the first amendment says. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The federal government is restricted from infringing your "free exercise" of religion

Quoted: While we're thinking about it, exactly what arms does/should the second amendment protect? It's pretty obvious that the founding fathters intended for the citizenry to have small arms, but what about what I call "not so small arms"?

The significance of the militia, was that it was composed of civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion. It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense, who, when called for service were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves which were ordinary and common to the kind the regulars [military]use at the time.
Our founding fathers wanted to make sure any militia was equally equipped as the regulars. Rest assured if they had machine guns back during the revolutionary war, the 2nd would of clearly stated no free man would be denied or restricted to the possession of such weapons.

This is what the King outlawed [arms] in fear that the colonist might revolt and he imposed death as a punishment to any one caught bearing arms.
Remember they just finished overthrowing a tryant government and wanted to make sure it would never happen again.

They could'nt have done it with stones or without the help of the avarage peasant with a gun.

You guys need a dose of reality. Take San Mateo County near San Francisco. The public library has meeting rooms that can be reserved by groups. Some years ago, they denied a christian group since they believe it would violate a separation of church and state. However, these people saw no problem with letting NAMBLA continue to use the facilities. The last time I looked, public libraries was just that, public.

Thanks for all the helpful advice.  The only thing that puzzles me is if the second amendment reads so clearly then why do we have firearm laws?    Has it even been challenged in court?

Click herewww.saf.org/journal/4_Schulman.html for a textual analysis of the 2nd. Amendment.

It is a very enlightening read that should forever put to bed all the misguided and malevolent interpretations that the left has fostered in the mind's of the sheeple.


Ahhh... I love the smell of logic in the morning.
It smells like...victory.

Actually, it's pretty scary, if you really think about it, that common sense rights have to be given to us (written down on paper long ago). You wouldn't think writing them out would be necessary, but given world history, I guess we're lucky they were spelled out.

BTW, garandman has it right in his above posts.

Quoted: Quoted: The problem is that we have tried to interpret these laws.  Just read them.  They mean exactly what they say.  No more, no less.  And certainly nothing different. As to kill vs. murder.  In the original Hebrew, the best translation to English is "murder."  "Kill" came from a poor translation. Ok Mr. "what it says is what it says", where does it mention guns or firearms?? It says arms, you know them things between your shoulders and wrists. And it's not a "LAW" it's an Amendement to the Constitution, little more important than a law.

I'll stand by my words.  "Arms"  is quite obviously short for armments without any interpretation needed.  The  Constitution is the supreme law of the land, including its amendmants.  You're trying to pick nits.  

Just read the Constitution as written.  It doesn't need intrepretation.

Quoted: Click herewww.saf.org/journal/4_Schulman.html for a textual analysis of the 2nd. Amendment. It is a very enlightening read that should forever put to bed all the misguided and malevolent interpretations that the left has fostered in the mind's of the sheeple. Ahhh... I love the smell of logic in the morning. It smells like...victory.

You really should go check this out.  It is the best "explanation", not interpretation of the 2nd AM I've seen.

ALL "firearms"....need to be comfiscated.....handguns..longguns....anything.......send them HERE for evaluation and disposal.........blackandgreen......fredonia n.y..................(ammunition also)

I subscribe to idea that the Bill of Rights is written plain english.  The natural right to self defense, defense of family and property, and food gathering is indisputable and as John Adams said is the discretion of the individual.
The neccessity of a militia to the preservation of a free state expands this natural right to political right,and even duty, to possess and carry a militia caliber arm. As government has the propensity to become tyrannical. It may(and has)become necessary for the Citizenry stop a government which exceeds its constitutional jurisdiction. And a Citizen militia should help negate the need for large standing army which may over run the Citizenry and the Nation States(as is happening today).