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:[29] (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:[30]
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:
memory.loc.gov
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 love these discussions about the 2nd Amendment wording, because words mean absolutely nothing. Nothing in the US Constitution gives the federal government the right to do a whole slew of things it’s currently doing. You’d think people would realize these word games are meaningless, because the Supreme Court of the United States will make the US Constitution mean whatever five of the super legislators want. That, my FRiends, is exactly how it works—constitutional text notwithstanding!
In the case of using two commas to separate the two phrases, the commas merely provide a pause for the reader or speaker of the clause. Neither version changes the meaning.
"Regulate" in those days did not mean "control over," but rather it meant "well-functioning," such as a "well-regulated clock."
In the late 18th century, there were no hard and fast rules about punctuation. Commas were inserted and dropped at the writer’s whim, often inconsistently in any given document. Our right to self defense should not turn on so fragile a pivot. Nor does it.
The rules of English grammar explain the meaning.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” — an introductory subordinating clause that introduces and explains the main, independent, stand-alone clause —
“... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“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.”
that thought would subject males 18-45 to regulation by the government... and i do care, because that is not what is the intent.
giving in to incremental mistakes will lead to a major catastrophe.
My apologies people but it is important. Every day. Everyday our rights just fall grain by grain through the glass of eternity. It is for that reason, every day, we must be prepared to defend those rights. We may feel secure in our minds but no man is an island. We live in a culture of whim.
Oh come on man, you missed the obvious. The amendment says that Congress will make no laws. It doesn’t say that the President can’t rule by executive fiat. Mr. Obama, being a brilliant professor of constitutional law, has picked up on this “loophole” and will make the 2nd Amendment history. At the same time, he’ll rule that the NRA is no longer protected under the 1st Amendment, free speech. Do I need to say this is (/sarc)?
I like the way Charlie Reese reinterpreted it years ago.
“’A well educated elite, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to become educated shall not be infringed’. Does NOT give just the elite the right to be educated!”
I guess I’ve got to use smaller words. Litigate the meaning of “regulate” all you want. NOTHING in the second amendment connects the word “regulate” to arms. The second amendment clearly debars the government from infringing on the right to bear arms.
Militia regulation is a whole separate issue from the right to bear arms.
you concede regulation to militia that subjects everyone to being defined as the militia, then you subject everyone to regulation...
your little words, not mine.
I simply can’t find any way to get across to you that the object of regulation, as the amendment is written, is the militia. I don’t favor any but that’s beside the present point. Nothing in the amentment grants the government the power to regulate arms. That is the sole point I am making. Discussion of regulating the militia or what constitutes the militia is a wholly other discussion. Have a grown up read this to you and explain it.
I concede nothing, I simply can’t find any way to get across to you that the object of any putative regulation, as the amendment is written, is the militia, not arms. I don’t favor any but that’s beside the present point. Nothing in the amentment grants the government the power to regulate arms. That is the sole point I am making. Discussion of regulating the militia or what constitutes the militia is a wholly other discussion. Have a grown up read this to you and explain it.
I offer a new perspective worthy of an in-depth discussion. The discussion will be productive when conducted with informed Americans. This perspective requires that you pretend or imagine that there is no 2nd amendment.
Fix in your mind, the Bill of Rights no longer prohibits the government from interfering with the individuals’ right to own a means of defense. Also, fix in your mind that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
The new perspective ask that you consider what powers of legislation the Constitution granted Congress allows them to prohibit, control, or regulate individual gun ownership.
A well regulated militia Internet being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms Modems shall not be infringed.
It’s funny how changing a word or two can clear things up.
First, the founding fathers were geniouses. However, they made one mistake in the 2nd amendment. They left out what should have been the first word, “Because”. The founding fathers were scared to death of a standing army. Look at some of the state constitutions, such as
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).
The point is, the second part of the 2nd amendment is not to provide for an army, but to protect the citizens from a standing army. The second amendment should have read “Because 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.
you are delusional... you link regulation to militia and are ok with that, because the government cannot regulate arms... but by linking the militia to regulation, you allow them to do just that... grow a pair and stop demeaning my arguments by name calling and inferring my immaturity, when it is you, ignoramus, who misses the entire point. the militia is the populace, dipstick, and by accepting that point, that the militia can be regulated, you damn us all.
moron.
you forgot the hyphen in well-regulated
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.