Posted on 10/29/2014 7:43:34 AM PDT by HammerT
Over at the Constitution Society, author J. Neil Schulman conducted a remarkable exercise. He sent the text of the Second Amendment not to a lawyer but to an expert on the English Language: Roy Copperud taught Journalism at USC for 17 years and served on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary. Mirriam Webster’s dictionary frequently cites him as an expert on American English usage.
Copperud: The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”
Shulman: ”Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”
Copperud: “No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia…The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”
Shulman concludes with an example even a Progressive could understand. He sent Mr. Copperud a precisely grammatically identical sentence: “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
Does that mean, he asked, that only a well-schooled electorate — high school graduates, say — are the only ones with the right to keep and read books?
To which Mr. Copperud replied, “There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at truthrevolt.org ...
YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FOwy9OWfnAM
The expert made some excellent points in demolishing Gun Grabber talking points [Lies]
Bill Whittle would make a terrific candidate for “high office”.
Anyone would make a better candidate for most of the current crop we have – with a few exceptions.
I remember using this same argument, either from this source or one like it, in a college paper ten years ago.
I’ve found that we need to keep these sorts of counter points to Leftist-Socialist talking points handy.
Because the lefts loves recycling their lies in the hope that they will be accepted as the truth.
A varying & powerful take on RKBA, in light of the above:
The Founding Fathers were very clear they disliked standing armies, which could also be termed “well-regulated militia” (satisfying the application as insisted on by “anti’s” today). The 2nd’s preamble grudgingly recognizes (as the Founding Fathers did) that a standing army still is, for most practical purposes, still necessary to the nation’s security. Faced with the inevitable argument (as insisted on by “anti’s” today) that the existence of a standing army obviates the need for a seriously armed populace, the remainder of the 2nd states in no uncertain terms that the argument is outright rejected by the Constitution’s authors, signers & adherents, and that citizens retain that right regardless of whether a “standing army”/”well-regulated militia” exists.
BULLSHT
The Second Amendment is written in blood and saltpeter, not ink.
My family has had firearms above the mantel since 1644 and in the longhouses since 1621.
The Constitutional ink is a re-affirmation of the 400 year old written right [1609,1621-1775] to have guns, the practice of that right, and the unfettered usage of guns by the people and the Mohawks [sic] under the Dutch , Abenaki under the French, and English colonial laws and treaties, resp., which said Constitutional rights were never changed until illegally in 1922 [against machine guns], 1934, 1946 and 1968 against all types of weapons. My gggrandfather had a 12 pounder cannon and a blunderbuss besides his muskets.
Look behind the ink for the blood of the people- that`s where the smell of powder tells you what is the truth, not some language expert, because my family has lived the precendential rights found in the Second Amendment since 1621 [N.A. treaty] and 1644.
Well argued and easy to remember.
bump for later
If you go ahead and read the article the expert on the language affirms that the Preexisting Commonsense Civil Right .
The gun grabbers are very pernicious in their incessant attacks on liberty – those of us on the Pro-Liberty side need to be ready to argue against their lies and talking points whenever they are brought up
Sorry but the Constitutional language is only stating what HAD BEEN ACTUALLY PRACTICED EVERY DAY by the people for 180 years up 1780`S. Thus it is not a present tense statement but a HISTORICAL STATEMENT OF FACT of the bearing and keeping any kind of weapons by the people- IT IS CALLED PRECEDENT which in LAW is stronger than any present tense sense of wording interpretation.
viz “He is saying that the right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right of the people “ should read “
“ that the right to keep and bear arms HAS BEEN from the foundation of America in 1609 an absolute right of the people.”
viz 2- my ancestor in 1644 had a musket which he gave to his son who still had it in 1666. My grandfather had a civil War musket which he was given by his father, which I have shot. My uncle had a English sniper rifle, an MI carbine and a BAR which he gave to his son, now in possession of his grandson. My grandfather had an Italian pistol which same grandson has. My cousins have ak47`s from Vietnam handed down from their fathers.
POSSESSION IS 9/10 of the LAW.
Second Amendment IS THE LAW.
Words have no meaning unless you have indisputable historical possession
of the item described by the words.
If you have an unbroken chain of possession of guns, then the Second Amendment is a historical record of FACTS of the past, pointing to the present and the future.
Thus the Second Amendment can be supported by historical facts, requiring no defense for so-called” interpretation” of the words therein.
Gimme a break
Before drivers` licenses were invented people drove cars all over the place WITH NO LICENCES!!=HISTORICAL FACT-
FACTS are stronger than the piece of paper because the paper is supported by cold steel bloodied by my ancestors for 400 years.
Sorry THE SECOND AMENDMENT DID NOT COME INTO BEING OUT OF THIN AIR-
but the several states individual`s right to keep and bear arms were “written as the definitive authority on the matter, in order to protect that preexisting right” of the citizens in those states because states rights preceded and preempted the Second Amendement because the states` citizens` right to keep and bear arms in their constitutional clauses preceded the US Constitution and were the basis of the Second Amendment, in some cases the STATE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WAS COPIED WORD FOR WORD INTO THE SECOND AMENDMENT>.
Pre-Constitution Practices and Several Precedent State Constitutions
THE SECOND AMENDMENT DID NOT COME INTO BEING OUT OF THIN AIR-
THE SEVERAL STATES EXISTED FIRST BEFORE THE UNITED STATES EXISTED-
The States Constitutional Rights Came First before the USA or the U.S. Constitution Existed
The GUN RIGHTS advocates should file also for states` rights in Obama`s and other states`violation of their respective state constitutions which have more explicit right-to-bear-arms- freedom clauses language than the U.S. Constitution and have precedent used as the basis for the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment appears merely to have synopsized the explicit language in the States` Constitutions, because that is where the 13 original colonies/states spelled out their states` citizens` constitutional rights and they knew that this is where the Second Amendment originated.
The Second Amendment did not originate out of thin air but was born out of the states` constitutions` explicit right-to-bears-arms freedom clauses language.
PRECEDENT:
State constitutions had the right to keep and bear arms in them before the U.S. Constitution was written.
NY 1777 NH 1784 MA 1780 NC 1776 PA 1776
For example:
`XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of EVERY MAN who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service.`-— www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ny-1777.htm [NY 1777 Constitution] (my caps)
Vermont Constitution `Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State
MILITIA
“ 59. Militia
The inhabitants of this State shall be trained and armed for its defense, under such regulations, restrictions, and exceptions, as Congress, agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, and the Legislature of this State, shall direct.`
New Hampshire Constitution of 1784
`PART I. - THE BILL OF RIGHTS
II. All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights. among which are —the enjoying and defending life and liberty —acquiring, possessing and protecting property —and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness`
“Pubic Records of Connecticut” apr 1775 already show the right of householders to keep and bear arms
1775 April 19? Connecticut do. do.
[431]” And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That each inhabitant so inlisted shall be furnished with good fire-arms, and that the fire-arms belonging to this Colony, wherever they are, shall be collected and put into the hands of such inlisted inhabitants as have not arms of their own ; and that each inlisted inhabitant that shall provide arms for himself, well fixed with a good bayonet and cartouch box, shall be paid a premium of ten shillings ; and in case such arms are lost by inevitable casualty, such inhabitant providing himself as aforesaid shall be allowed and paid the just value of such arms and implements so lost, deducting only said sum of ten shillings allowed as aforesaid: said premum of ten shillings to be paid as soon as such inhabitant shall provide such arms as aforesaid. That where the aforesaid provision fails, sufficient arms shall be impress’d, compleatly to arm and equip said inhabitants:
the said impress to be limited only to the arms belonging to house-holders and other persons not on the militia roll; and in case any householder or other person shall voluntarily furnish any inlisted inhabitant, not able to procure arms for himself, with a good, gun,
well fixed with a good bayonet and cartouch box, shall have and receive a premium of ten shillings, and in case of loss shall receive the value thereof, deducting the said ten shillings as aforesaid ; and also that every person from whom any gun shiill be impress’d, as aforesaid, shall be paid for the use of such gun the sum of four shillings, and in case of loss shall be paid the just value of such gun, deducting the sum of four shillings aforesaid ; and that a particular account be taken of the arms that may be used, and the same be all apprized by indifferent judges; and that if any inlisted inhabitant through negligence shall lose or damage the arms found for him, as aforesaid, such loss or damage shall be deducted out of his wages.” “The public records of the colony of Connecticut [1636-1776”,p.418
Sorry but “Provincial Papers of New Hampshire” Jan 1776 shows the RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO MANUFACTURE GUNS
“Jan 20, 1776
“that it lay for further consideration The Committee to draw a Plan for Providing fire arms for a Colony Stock Report as follows viz
That for every good firearm Manufactured in this Colony made after the following manner viz
a Barrell three feet nine Inches long to carry an ounce ball; a good Bayonet with blade Eighteen inches long; Iron ramrod with a Spring to retain the Same; the makers name Engraved on the Lock which Shall be delivered at Exeter to Nicholas Gilmnn Esq receiver General on or before the first of May next.
The owner of Such firearms receive Three pounds for Each of said receiver General after having Tryed said gun in the Presence of the said receiver General.
Such firearms receive Three pounds for Each of said receiver General after having Tryed said gun in the Presence of the said receiver General with four Inches & a half of Powder well wadded at his the owner’s own Risque and that there be appointed one Good man well approved in Each County to receive any firearms so made in said County on the Same Condition as before mentioned for the rec General to receive them and the Persons so appointed to receive the money for the Number of Guns so Delivered”
“Provincial and State Papers, Volume 8 During The Revolution 1776-1783” By New Hampshire “, Nathaniel Bouton
soory but Massachusetts Constitution 1780 already gives that right to keep & bear arms to individuals 9 years before the 2nd Amendment.
Massachusetts Constitution 1780
`Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence”
North Carolina Constitution 1776
17. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defense of the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
EVEN THE BRITISH IN 1794 ATTEST TO THE EXERCISE AND PRACTICE OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS BY AMERICAN KIDS PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR
1775 “Events which served to shew [sic] that if the Americans were yet unacquainted with military discipline they were not destitute of either courage or conduct but knew well and dared to avail themselves of such advantages as they possessed. The people of the colonies are accustomed to the use of fire arms from their earliest youth and are in general good marksmen. Such men placed in a house behind a wall or amongst trees are capable of doing as much execution as regular soldiers. And to these advantages which they possessed during the greatest part of the nineteenth of April we may attribute the inconsiderable loss sustained by them compared with that of our detachments.” Stedman,p.120 [”The History of the Origin, Progress, and Termination of the .American War,” Stedman, C. 1794, Volume 1]
Soory even kids could own weapons before the illegal acts of 1922, 1934, 1946, 1968
“Governor Synder, 1815- Our militia and volunteers were actually engage with the enemy..”p99 ...if we destroyed the militia system, we did not indeed take away the right of the people to bear arms, but we destroyed the inclination, the habit of WEARING ARMS; and such was not his [Gov. Snyder]sentiment as to what ought to be the condition of things in a country like ours. He believed that not only right, but the habit of WEARING ARMS was essential to freemen, and to the preservation of the liberty of freemen.
This was the principle inserted into the Constitution of the United States; and if we did away with this, the effect would be to destroy the principle and the feeling altogether.” .100 p.105.
The terms of the Constitution he need not refer to; and the amendment now under discussion was simply an AFFIRMANCE OF A POWER,-THAT THE RIGHT OF A PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Who fought the Battles, of Lexington,Bunker Hill and Saratoga?
...Who saved Baltimore? ... Who obtained the victory at New Orleans?
These militia, trained and disciplined in their own houses; not practised in the field, but BRINGING THEIR GUNS WHICH THEY WERE TAUGHT TO USE WHEN CHILDREN..”.111
viz [all above from p.168 are sourced from �Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Vol. 4, by the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention, 1837-8
I think you are preaching to the choir
Merely disagreeing with the HALF-TRUTH and omissions of the premise proffered by the author of the study.
viz
1. “whether that right preexisted the Constitution.”
2. “The right of the people to be armed is not granted by the Second Amendment. That right is inherent in the People,”
re 1 should read correctly as “whether that right preexisted the Constitution..” in PRINT as part of a legal document or book
2. 2. “The right of the people to be armed is not granted by the Second Amendment. “That right is inherent in the People,” should read 2. “The right of the people to be armed is not granted by the Second Amendment. That right is inherent in the People,” should read “inherent in the people and written in
Colonial laws and legal documents and State constitutions ALL precedent to the U.S. Constitution.”
It is as if the author was on the Supreme Court bench and was commenting on a case before it and the judge never cites prior cases bearing upon the issue at hand.
Since the Constitution is THE LAW, all laws therein must be searched for precendent legal documents prior to it. ‘
That is why the language of any book as in the front it sometimes says “revised edition” or “compilation’ or “collection of works”- The U.S Constitution is partly a COMPILATION OF LAWS FROM COLONIAL AND STATE legal documents and constitutions, resp.
For, if one regards the US constitution as a BOOK, where above said language expert thusly assumes for discernment, then one must ask where have we seen this language before???- OF COURSE< THIS BOOK IS SYNOPSIZING FROM PRIOR PRINTED WORKS!! Why should the language expert scrutinize the US constitution when at least 6 prior documents have the EXACT LANGUAGE AND MEANING ALMOST WORD FOR WORD??
Why scrutinize the synopsized version when the originals are available for examination- The language expert should be scrutinizing the States` Constitutions and the colonial legal documents wherein lies the precedential declarations of that inherent right.
My history always told me, if you are going to write a history book always go to the PRIMARY SOURCES>
The colonial documents and States` Constitutions are the PRIMARY WRITTEN SOURCES FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT< NOT THE US CONSTITUTION> THE US CONSTITUTION IS A SECONDARY SOURCE FOR LEGAL BASIS FOR THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS>
BTW Choir Practice is Thursday night at 7 pm. Bring your gun.
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.