Break Down Of The 2nd Amendment...

[Treasure_Hunter]

Break down of the 2nd Amendment...

A -self explanatory

WELL -In a good or proper manner

REGULATED -To bring order, method, or uniformity to

MILITIA -An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers

BEING -The totality of all things that exist

NECESSARY -Absolutely essential

TO -Towards

THE

SECURITY -Freedom from risk or danger; safety

OF A

FREE -Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty

STATE -A body politic, especially one constituting a nation

THE

RIGHT -According to law, morality, or justice

OF THE

PEOPLE -The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate

TO

KEEP -To retain possession of

AND -Together with or along with; in addition to; as well as

BEAR -To be equipped or furnished with

ARMS -A weapon, especially a firearm

SHALL -To have to; must

NOT -In no way; to no degree

BE -To take place; occur

INFRINGED -To take place; occur infringed-To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate


The grammar of the 2nd Amendment needs to be read as two distinct clauses.

The first clause is a statement of fact: “The prefatory clause” Whereas,*"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state ..."[That means: A well-equipped, organized and disciplined militia (all able-bodied men over the age of 16) is A NECESSITY for the security of A FREE STATE] ...

The second clause is the conclusion: "The operative” clause"


... therefore,*"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."*[That means ... the RIGHT of the each person to keep (possess, own, hold) and bear (carry, wear and use) arms (weapons capable of defending people, their families, property and state) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.]








Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk now Free

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Treasure_Hunter]

Breaking Down The Second Amendment

One short, two-clause sentence. That’s all the 2nd amendment is.

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.

Pretty simple, right? Well, apparently not. Few parts of the Constitution are as willfully misunderstood as this one. Granted, that misunderstanding is well-intentioned, but that doesn’t make it right. Let’s break it down, shall we?

First of all, the 2nd amendment is obviously one of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution – the part that is commonly referred to (even back in 1789) as “The Bill of Rights“. The whole point of The Bill of Rights – the reason the*Anti-Federalists insisted on creating it – was to secure individual rights against a tyrannical government that might be possible under the Constitution. So it would be pretty nonsensical to read one of those 10 amendments in a way that doesn’t secure an individual right, doesn’t it? But this is exactly what these (admittedly well-intentioned) people do. They tell us that your right to “keep and bear arms” relies on you being part of a “militia” – you gain the right only collectively. But now, I’m getting ahead of myself.

I mentioned before that there are two clauses. These are generally referred to as the “prefatory” and the “operative” clauses. The prefatory clause sets the table and lays out the driving purpose, and the operative clause gets the actual work done. We’ll begin the analysis with the operative clause since it is the easiest to understand (and where the real work of the amendment gets done anyway):

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

“the right”*– The important word here is “the”. We aren’t talking about “a” right, but “the” right. Think about it this way: if I ask for “a” book off the shelf, that could be any of them. If I ask for “the” book, I’m talking about a specific one – one that definitely already exists. I’m not creating it out of thin air; it’s already here and pre-defined. We aren’t*making*a right with this amendment – we’re talking about one that is already firmly in existence.

“of the people”*– So who does this right belong to? “the people”. Everywhere else in the Constitution where this phrase is used, it refers to everyone – not some nebulous subset like “the militia”. So, this right already exists, and*everyone*already has it.Madison*himself reinforces this reading in*Federalist #46, where he talks about the American people as a whole being armed. He sees this as an advantage that we have against tyranny as opposed to the people in the European countries whose governments don’t trust them with weapons. It’s also helpful to remember that Federalist #46 was published in January of 1788 – almost*4 years before*the 2nd amendment was ratified. Further proof that this right was not “made” by the 2nd amendment.

“to keep and bear arms”*– The right that the people have is to possess, carry, train with, and use (if needed) weapons. They don’t just have to keep them locked up in a display case.

“shall not be infringed.”*– No one can take away or limit this right in any way. There is no exception given for “reasonable” restrictions or limitations. There is not a provision for “unless most people think it’s OK”. There is no distinction between hunting or defense uses. These rights shall not be infringed. Period.

Now to look at the first clause:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

“A well regulated”*– These days, people think that “regulations” is just a fancy word for whatever rules the government wants to come up with. Of course, this clause doesn’t talk about “regulations” per se, but about a thing that ends up being “well regulated” in the end. What does that mean? Think about it this way: if you put a flow*regulator*on a shower head, what does that do? It makes the flow*regular*– another way to say that would be*consistent, or*normalized. The whole point of having a well regulated flow of water is to make sure that that water pressure is consistent – the same every time you turn it on. The same sense of “well regulated” is used by the founders here. We need to have a militia capability that is consistently available and of reliable quality across the country, so people need to be familiar and proficient with weapons. They can’t have that level of comfort or availability for defense if they don’t have ready access to those weapons by owning them. It’s as simple as that. This reading is backed up by*Hamilton’s*argument inFederalist #29:

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the*character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

It isn’t about them being members of something, or having a bunch of rules to follow – it’s about achieving a state of proficiency in the use of weapons, especially around others.

Also, like I talked about above, the word “a” is used here, as opposed to “the“. The other place in the Constitution where “militia” is mentioned ( Article 1, Section 8 ), refers to “the*militia”, and that Congress can make rules about it. So you see, the 2nd amendment isn’t talking about a specific group, but only laying out a theoretical scenario that would apply to any “free state”, further cementing this initial clause as being prefatory in nature.

“militia”*– This is the word that causes the most confusion. This word makes people think that the right discussed above isn’t held by the people, but only by members of “militia” units (what people today think of as the National Guard, though this isn’t accurate in the historical context). If you aren’t a member, then you don’t have the right to have weapons. This is of course nonsense, as most gun control advocates insist that they don’t want to take hunting rifles away and hunting has nothing to do with militia membership. Luckily, the founders left us with a definition of “militia”. Less than 6 months after the 2nd amendment was ratified, Congress passed*The Militia Act of 1792, which included this definition:

…each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…

All white males aged 18 – 45, who were healthy and not in jail. That’s what the militia was. Mind you, this is not worded aseligibility*for service, but these qualifications make you an immediate member in the militia, whether you like it or not.

“being necessary to the security of a free state,”*– Everyone listed above had to be a member of the militia, and that militia had to be consistently available in all the states (“well regulated”) because we didn’t have a standing army (since we were a “free state”, not a police state) to provide security in the case of an invasion or domestic uprising. We may not have time to raise an army in a crisis and we need to have enough people who are able to defend themselves until we can.

So, taken all together, the amendment means basically this:

Since we need to have a competent militia that is available nationwide to defend us in case of an immediate crisis, everyone needs to have the right to keep and train with weapons so they may join in that militia effort if needed.

That’s all there is to it.

As an addendum: Gun control advocates will say that machine guns and other “assault weapons” have no place in modern society and shouldn’t be counted as “arms” because the founders couldn’t have envisioned them. There are two responses to this argument:

1) The founders couldn’t have imagined cell phones, Internet, 24-hour worldwide cable news, satellite communications, nationwide newspapers, radio, or even telegraphs. Should the 1st amendment speech protections not apply to those forms of technologically-advanced media as a result? Should 4th amendment search protections not apply to wiretaps, or email systems? Is there*ANY*other part of the Constitution that we interpret as being technologically-limited to 1791?

2) Yes, the founders allowed citizens to own smoothbore, single-shot, muzzle-loading long guns, and these seem weak to us today in the context of machine guns, grenade launchers, and the like. But these were THE MOST technologically-advanced personal weapons available at the time (along with being the standard issue weapon of the military in those days). The founders certainly could have limited the people to lesser weapons (bow-and-arrow, swords, knives, clubs) but they did not. They chose to allow the people the same weapons that the military had. Why shouldn’t that principle endure?

Opponents of the 2nd amendment are clear on the 1791 definition of arms, and want that one to be used. As demonstrated above, I don’t think they would be quite so happy living with the rest of that sentence as if it were 1791, though.

Commas have a purpose in the English language, and I don’t think it is to say “read the rest of this sentence like it’s 200 years ago”.

The Constitution lays out a set of principles that should be followed. It isn’t about living in the past – it’s about figuring out what the founders were trying to accomplish and applying that same thinking about principles to today. Freedom of speech applies just as much to your blog as it applies to your quill pen – it should be a concept that is technologically-neutral. The founders didn’t literally want us to be equipped with smoothbores – they*wanted*us to be as well equipped as the military. They didn’t want weapons limited to the militia, but weapons to be freely available so that anyone could join and be useful in the militia.

A sentence taken out of context (“for our own good”) can be a dangerous thing for liberty.*

http://pete.skilmnet.net/2013/03/the-second-amendment/



Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk now Free

 

[Dave44]

I think many citizens owned cannons and gatlin guns privately too. As a matter of fact, fully auto weapons were allowed until the dictator in chief, Roosevelt, put out a bunch of propaganda to persuade Americans they were evil.

The National Firearms Act

By the 1920s lightweight fully-automatic firearms were available for sale to the general public. Private ownership of fully-automatic firearms resulted in no particular crime problem, but became an issue after the prohibition of liquor in 1919 by the 18th Amendment, (repealed in 1933 by the 21st Amendment). Prohibition was followed by an increase in organized crime, which anti-gun politicians over-estimated to involve the use of submachineguns, especially the Thompson .45 caliber, nicknamed the "Tommy Gun." Following passage of restrictions on fully-automatic firearms in several states, the administration of the newly-elected president, Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, launched a campaign for a federal restriction. In a style of language copied by President Clinton in his war against semi-automatic firearms, President Roosevelt claimed in 1934 that "Federal men are constantly facing machine-gun fire in the pursuit of gangsters."5 The result of FDR's campaign was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which to this day requires that before a private citizen may take possession of a fully-automatic firearm he must pay a $200 tax to the Internal Revenue Service and be approved by the Treasury Department to own the firearm, which is registered to the owner with the federal government.6

 

[Dave44]

I know TH. You are calmer. But i am trying!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I know TH. You are calmer. But i am trying!

Have to watch my blood pressure...

I went to a gun show this weekend, it was really great to be with so many true American Patriots...

I picked up several good patriotic t-shirts, the cell pal holster and some more ammo....

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk now Free

 

[Dave44]

I haven't had the time in a while. sending a PM.

 

[Mad Machinist]

This is one of the reasons I love being a machinist.

Browning .50 Target Rifle (BMG) - GunMetal Designs - Blueprints

 

[jerseyben]

Have to watch my blood pressure...

I went to a gun show this weekend, it was really great to be with so many true American Patriots...

I picked up several good patriotic t-shirts, the cell pal holster and some more ammo....

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk now Free

Quick question for you: What about all the folks who do not attend gun shows?

 

[Dave44]

Quick question for you: What about all the folks who do not attend gun shows?

You mean, like me? I haven't had time to go to one in a year and a half.
Well I find that there are places to get great tshirts,, and ALL of my freinds are very patriotic. I am sure if you search hard enough you can find a few places and friends. Buck up fella, life aint all bad!

 

[jerseyben]

You mean, like me? I haven't had time to go to one in a year and a half.
Well I find that there are places to get great tshirts,, and ALL of my freinds are very patriotic. I am sure if you search hard enough you can find a few places and friends. Buck up fella, life aint all bad!

Are you implying that I dont have any friends? Who said life was bad?

Dave, although I can easily see right through you, you dont know a THING about me.

 

[Dave44]

Quick question for you: What about all the folks who do not attend gun shows?

Are you implying that I dont have any friends? Who said life was bad?

Dave, although I can easily see right through you, you dont know a THING about me.

I am simply pointing out the expression of a seemingly forlorn solitude that I thought you were referring too.

I know you see through me, gives me a warm cuddly feeling.

 

[XLTer]

Quick question for you: What about all the folks who do not attend gun shows?

That's why there are also Tupperware parties ........

 

[njal]

That's why there are also Tupperware parties ........

Ha Ha HA!!!!!!

 

[TNGUNS]

What blows my mind is the American people have allowed the Government to "Interpret" the meaning of our Constitution. A document that by it's very design was created to limit the power of Government. "Shall not be infringed" leads little room for interpretation but look where that has gotten us. They can't balance a budget yet we allow them to interpret the self explanatory document designed to limit their power. Statistics do not lie. It is glaringly obvious that restricting gun laws creates predators and law abiding citizens become prey. Without fail the restriction of our rights has had an absolute opposite effect as to what the Government would have us believe the laws are meant to achieve. Any rational person who really looks at the abuse of our Second Amendment should see their real intent. The are not the least bit concerned about the needless loss of life due to gun violence because every statistic in the nation shows that it increases with restriction. They fear our guns standing in opposition to their having their way with us.

 

[TheRingFinder]

Are you implying that I dont have any friends? Who said life was bad?

Dave, although I can easily see right through you, you dont know a THING about me.

JB - Why do you jump in with such hatred - If you don't like guns, don't buy one. -

 

[jerseyben]

JB - Why do you jump in with such hatred - If you don't like guns, don't buy one. -

Not sure what my comment or your comment has to do with guns, but ok...

I was simply defending myself against Dave's "disguised" insult against me.

 

[jerseyben]

JB - Why do you jump in with such hatred - If you don't like guns, don't buy one. -

Also, buddy, not sure why you make it a point to pick on me. None of the comments had anything to do with you. Using your own logic, if you don't like my comments, why respond?

 

[TNGUNS]

jerseyben, again look at the statistics and completely leave the politics and personal views out of it. The more you restrict law abiding citizens ability to protect themselves the higher the violent crime rate becomes. A simple undeniable fact. An armed society is a much more polite society.

 

[jerseyben]

jerseyben, again look at the statistics and completely leave the politics and personal views out of it. The more you restrict law abiding citizens ability to protect themselves the higher the violent crime rate becomes. A simple undeniable fact. An armed society is a much more polite society.

AGAIN, when did I say anything against guns or the 2nd?

I didnt!

 

[TheRingFinder]

JB - Take a quick look at the thread your in, might shed some light for you. Also, brother - not picking on you........just trying to help you see the light!!!!