Posted on 07/16/2004 8:59:00 AM PDT by neverdem
"...,the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
It does not say state...it says PEOPLE.
Like ya said....their Argument does not hold water.
It also reads "...keep and bear Arms,<"
Does not say that we are limited to certain Arms.
I guess it depends on what you believe can be used to overthrow! ;-)
My gut reaction - no, you are not wrong.
But I'm afraid you think we could use just our firearms to actually overthrow a gov!
BTW, no disrespect meant here. Partly I'm getting confused as to who said what! Always good to find another RevWar "fan"!
You mean it doesnt have to do with the hunting sports?
Collective-right ping! ;-)
Excellent question. One that the Bill of Rights mentions in the 10th Amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Each State's own Constitution (or I should say, the majority of the States) contains a clause similiar to the Federal Bill of Rights. Some are even more permissive.
With our arms pulling the vote lever and voices, we could. But I am afraid America has become to "dumbed down for that". People do not know what liberty or Freedom are. Both different, but go hand in hand. People now want the government to take care of them, not to fend for themselves.
On the "arms" issue.
I believe we haven't been attacked by terrorist like the rest of the world, is because we are an "armed" populace. We have more civilins with guns than any other country, besides Switzerland and Isreal(the exception).
This would be pretty much the same thing as the FedGov hiring bounty hunters to go after Osama.
Pretty much, although different in mission, to temporarily deputizing civilians to help with a county law enforcement effort.
Excellent question. One that the Bill of Rights mentions in the 10th Amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Each State's own Constitution (or I should say, the majority of the States) contains a clause similiar to the Federal Bill of Rights. Some are even more permissive.
Are you saying that State and local governments are bound by the Second Amendment or not bound by it?
And on the RKBA Rights issue, some are non-existant. This does not mean that those living in those States are not covered by the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution.
Doesn't "arms" have a military connotation?
For example, a military person would say that he heard "small-arms fire". A civilian would say he heard "gunfire".
Very specific language, indeed.
I guess it could by todays standards.
In the 18th century, "Arms" were any weapon for defense.
Pole-Arms, Side Arms...etc.
In the words of Paul Revere on his famous ride, "to arms, to arms, the British are coming!"...He was speaking, nay, yelling to the common citizen.
Right. It says right there: ' . . . the right to bear arms, but not concealed, shall not be infringed.'
That clears that up.
Actually, it says ' . . . the right to bear arms, but not concealed or ugly-looking, shall not be infringed.'
Which was amended again to read, '. . . the right to bear arms, but not concealed or ugly-looking, or exceeding 49 caliber, shall not be infringed.'
Again, amemded to read, ' . . . the right to bear arms, except on Monday, but not concealed or ugly-looking, or exceeding 49 caliber, shall not be infringed.'
Later amended to read: ' . . . the right to bear arms, except during the month of December, but not concealed or ugly-looking, or exceeding 49 caliber, shall not be infringed.'
Amended again to read: ' . . . the right to bear arms, except during years ending with an even number and all months which are spelled with an a,e,i,o, or u; but not concealed or ugly-looking, or exceeding 49 caliber, shall not be infringed.
I forgot to mention, in todays newspapers, we see "intruder 'armed' with (you add your weapon of choice)...killed...." and so on...
I think we are getting side-tracked. The intent of the 2nd Amendment (as I read it) was to 1) provide a necessary institution (the militia) for national security and 2) to prevent the government from disarming the people (who make up the militia). What does a militia do from a constitutional perspective? 1) It defends us from foreign invasion 2) it ensures the enforcement of our laws and 3) provides an offsetting power to the government's army in the event that the government should endanger our liberties. Whatever weapons needed to perform those missions are what is protected (simple analysis, I know, but logical and I believe faithful to the historical meaning of the BOR).
arm (2) - "weapon," 1300, from O.Fr. armes (pl.), from L. arma "weapons," lit. "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE base *ar- "fit, join." The notion seems to be "that which is fitted together." Meaning "heraldic insignia" (in coat of arms, etc.) is 1330; originally they were borne on shields of fully armed knights or barons. The verb meaning "to furnish with weapons" is from 1205. Arms race first attested 1936.
Excellent summation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.