Skip to comments.A new perspective on the 2nd Amendment - clarity
Posted on 12/03/2015 3:59:22 AM PST by j.argese
"Chatting" with a FB friend and discussing the 2nd. Send me to wikipedia for a quick view and noticed the following:
"There are actually two different versions: As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert: (p)
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:
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.
Notice the difference? You should. The first has that nasty "double comma" that makes it so difficult for Constitutional scholars to interpret. The second, a single comma, that provides clarity. It takes away the cudgel the Progressive Left has beaten the American citizenry over the head with for decades.
I went to the footnote 30 link to find this:
If someone else knows better how to post the image of the page, that would be great.
(Excerpt) Read more at memory.loc.gov ...
I obviously wasn’t the author of either the document in question or the book. Just wanted to make that clear before somebody gets a wild hair across.
My interpretation of it in either forms is that it acknowledges the need for a regulated Militia which by its own right would necessitate citizens arming themselves.
That notwithstanding, under no circumstances should the INDIVIDUAL’s right to bear arms be infringed for any purpose.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Ummmm, that is not a “new” discussion point. Been in my 2A knowledge base for 30 years, maybe more.
Clearer is the first version submitted for approval, which was much more verbose and made it very clear it was a right of the people.
As important are all the supplimentary texts by authors of the time along with at least one state consitution. All these make it crystal clear what the intent was. So, for ‘scholars’ to have difficulty understanding its meaning is disingenuous at best.
It’s also important to remember that natural rights exist apart from the bill of rights. Self defense is seen in nature and is essential to the maintenance of personal freedom. I don’t need a piece of paper, even one so lofty as the constitution, to tell me that.
“A well educated Public, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Books, shall not be infringed.”
also note that “bear” is not qualified as concealed or not.
But a quick question, why was I not able to separate the image from the text to post?
The other comma makes no difference at all in the meaning of the amendment.. It doesn’t matter what is on the left side of the comma or the second comma, the right side is the operative clause. Either way, the left side merely sets forth the reason for the right side. It could say Oreos, being bad for the health of the people, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The status of the Oreos in any way you break it down has no bearing on the words after the comma. Even if Oreos are proven to be good for the health of the people, the RKBA is still the operant clause. It does not matter what rationale is given for the RKBA. The RKBA is unaffected. That’s the English of it.
Regulate, as in well-regulated, means equipped, not restricted.
I don’t care what it means, as written only the militia is subject to regulating, not arms.
The other parts are an introduction for the last part that makes it quite clear what the FF meant.......
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
It doesn’t change the meaning if there is a comma after people. They are saying the people. Not martians, not animals, not fish, not insects, but people, their right shall NOT be infringed, but is infringed anyway because we have traitors who are allowed to stay in office even though they took an oath to protect and defend the constitution.
So true, as Ted Nugent would say it’s “blindingly obvious”. The only reason the treasonists put it under a microscope is that they are looking for that “a-ha” moment where they can come up with an excuse to infringe upon it or even repeal it which they are frothing at the mouth to do. And then they get into these arguments about “militia” trying to say it means only the military can be armed, but then that pesky “people” thing at the end trips them up.