Posted on 08/16/2019 10:43:45 PM PDT by familyop
Which is precisely what I stated.
The 2nd Amendment is a hedge against a tyrannical government.
Only, I said it more succinctly.
California gun rights groups? I thought they had all been shipped out to temporary work camps.
A Well Regulated Militia?
Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an “AMENDMENT”. No “Articles in Amendment” to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until “further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added” “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers”. (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.
In this Light: “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.” What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to “amended”? THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE “MILITIA”. The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the “militia” as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. “(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)
What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the “Militia” that was so offensive to the States?
First understand that the word “militia” was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the “Militia” was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word “militia” as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of “Militia” that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend “People” today: “Militia” in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power: “To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions.” Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress: “To provide for the 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, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” Any “patriot” out there still want to be called a member of the “MILITIA” as defined by the original Constitution? Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;” The only way the States would accept the “MILITIA” as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”.
The States realized that “THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE” required that the “MILITIA” as originally created in the Constitution be “WELL REGULATED” by a “restrictive clause.” How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”? By demanding that “restrictive clause two” better know as the “Second Amendment” be added to the original Constitution providing: “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” The States knew that “PEOPLE” with “ARMS” would “WELL REGULATE” the Federal “MILITIA”! Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth: “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.” For those still overcome by propaganda: The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the “MILITIA” is not “WELL REGULATED” by “PEOPLE” keeping and bearing arms, the “MILITIA” becomes a threat to the “SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.” The “MILITIA” has no “RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” in the Second Amendment, rather it is only “THE RIGHT OF THE “”PEOPLE”” TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
10th. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States...
14th. Privileges and Immunities.
USC Title 18 Section 242. Deprivation of Rights under color of Law. It's a Felony that can carry the death penalty.
Heller. 2A is an Individual Right.
The hell with Kalifornistan and EVERY politician who pushed "gun control". From Schumer to Crenshaw. Party matters NOTHING.
Violate the 2A and you are a FELON. And I for one will treat you as such...
As Creepy Joe opined, they want their "Truth" and not facts.
5 times as many hammers are used to kill than rifles... are they assault hammers
I tried to to donate my AR-15 to the Army.
They rejected it. Said it was not an “assault weapon”.
So we can all stop using that phrase now.
You said that the 2nd had nothing to do with the military and it’s weapo, and that is the part of what you said with which I disagree. Of COURSE the 2nd is a hedge against tyranny, but the militia was intended to be MORE powerful than the standing army. Hard to do if weaponry used by the standing army is leagues ahead of what citizens own - what if civilians were restricted to 18th Century weapons while the .mil continually modernized?
Close. Well-regulated has nothing to do with regulation in any modern sense. Well-regulated, when written in the amendment, meant properly trained and equipped. The training and equipment is only possible when people keep and bear arms. That's why we keep and bear arms: so we can be properly equipped and trained to be an effective militia.
Incorrect, as the last paragraph points out in conclusion that the amendment as ratified by the states has nothing to do with either training of the people as a Militia, or any affect on the individual person. The amendments are all directed at the control of government and limiting government power, not individual rights. The sole intent is simply for the people to be armed with no restrictions or infringements at all. Thus the people being armed is the best way to REGULATE (control or prevent any state or federal Militia from ruling over the people). The Militia either federal or state which trains as an army and answers to the President directly or when called up from the states, is best controlled and regulated by an armed populous which far out numbers the government controlled military forces. That is the sole purpose for the Second Amendment. Not hunting sports, not personal safety, not right of self defense, even though those are indirectly the rights of the people already. But with regard to bearing arms the people themselves have no restrictions by the government and therefore cannot be subjugated or coerced by any armed force from any governmental agency or militia, period!
Good 2A info... Bookmarked
They need to get rid of the ridiculous regulations about fixed magazines. The law has changed several times, and has probably caused hundreds of thousands of gun owners to become instant felons for not having their long guns smithed (2 times!) over the last several years.
First, the state said that long guns couldn’t have a detachable magazine without using a tool. So gun makers created what became known as the “bullet button”. You couldn’t use a finger to detach the magazine, but any tool shaped like the pointed edge of a bullet would release the magazine. You could literally use a bullet, but many after market devices like rings and key chain attachments were created (it was illegal to attach the release tool to the weapon itself)
Well, after a few years the state decided this was too easy. So they changed the law again to require a “fixed magazine” - basically to change out the mag you need a more complicated tool and it couldn’t be done on the fly.
For many reasons these laws should be set aside. They required every gun owner to alter their legally acquired weapons - twice - at their own expense or at their own risk. And if you are not aware of these changes and just have a long gun in the back of your closet that you haven’t touched in a decade... well, you’re a felon. It’s stupid.
Yes, “well regulated” as in “well regaled”.
Regaled means “lavishly supplied”, or in other words, a well-regulated militia means a militia with an ample supply of weapons and ammunition.
The exact opposite of what they try to tell us it means.
That's not correct. You left off "well". Well-regulated does not mean "regulated"
Citizens were required to possess arms suitable for militia service, and were liable to show up for inspection from time to time to prove that they possessed them and knew how to use them, and to receive training in militia tactics. A "well regulated militia" was thus one that was well-trained and equipped; not one that was "well-regulated" in the modern sense of being subjected to numerous government prohibitions and restrictions.57
https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf
That one that forced the fixed mags, also forced registration of guns with “evil features”. Do not forget that. Only positive to that law is the work arounds to it, while not pleasnt to use or look at, prevent it from registration and allow detachable mags. But yeah, I know people had to spend 600-700 bucks replacing parts to keep it legal.
Well, still incorrect because no citizen was required to be part of or join a state militia, which at the time were all voluntary. The constitution only addressed the authority of the federal militia and any state militia called up for service. In order to regulate those formal militias the right of all people, meaning anyone and everyone could not be prevented from owning and using arms. Those that think it was about everyone being part of any militia are wrong. Wether you had a weapon, trained with it, or did nothing was not the purpose of the second amendment. The amendment was not about who was in the militia or how they were formed or organized. It simply stated there would be no restrictions to anyone owning a weapon.
That is a highly flawed argument. Your local law enforcement has light and medium tactical gun trucks, some have armored personnel carriers, and I bet there's a couple with tanks.
===================================
The two key phrases in the 2nd Amendment are "militia" and "keep and bear" with the word "bear" being a key word with a definite definition in the scope of the Amendment.
My larger point is this: if law enforcement has "light medium tactical gun trucks, some have armored personnel carriers, and I bet there's a couple with tanks"...
then the citizens must be allowed to own those as well (even though, none of that can be carried individually (i.e. bear)).
"Also, back in these days, what was the most destructive type of arms? Cannon. Guess who owned most of he cannon? Not the government - it was private companies that had cannon on their ships"
Who is keeping the arms in that case? private companies (keep), and the ships are, in a way, "bear"ing (or carrying) the arms, not individuals.
While individual citizens may indeed be capable of "keeping" such arms, they most certainly are not able to "bear" them per the definition in the Heller case as well as the known definition from the 18th century forward.
District of Columbia v. Heller
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf...
We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit.
To Bear - to carry, or support or hold up.
Dictionarium Britannicum: Or a More Compleat Universal Etymological English Dictionary Than Any Extant 1730
https://books.google.com/books?id=CoRZAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP95#v=onepage&q=bear&f=false
To Bear - to carry, to hold up
An universal etymological English dictionary, comprehending the derivations of the generality of words in the English tongue 1742
https://archive.org/stream/universaletymol00bail#page/100/mode/2up/search/bear
To Bear - to convey or carry
A dictionary of the English language. 1792
https://books.google.com/books?id=j-UIAAAAQAAJ&q=to+bear#v=snippet&q=to%20bear&f=false
Bear - to support, to carry, to wear
Webster's Dictionary 1828
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/bear.
The 2nd Amendment does in fact have limitations...to what an individual can carry (among other limitations like age).
Now, if any law enforcement is "allowed" to have a main battle tank at their disposal...the citizens must be allowed to own them as well (even though they can NOT bear them) because the point of the 2nd amendment being an "equalizer" on the government.
The "military," is a totally different entity which contains a lot of weaponry that a citizen could never bear and therefore has no bearing within the scope of the 2nd Amendment.
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.