2 Points with Respect to the 2nd Amendment

[Tomkat]

I would like to make two points with respect to the 2nd Amendment in the current political debate.

First, the left, at times, might acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment was originally for protection of we citizens against our government should it become tyrannical. They then go on to say that we don't have to worry about that now (disregarding recent 20th Century occurrences to the contrary where citizens felt the same way). I think the response to this should be, O.K., maybe not now, maybe not this decade, but, maybe someday. That "maybe" is enough, it is why the 2nd Amendment was put in place. Should that day occur the government is not going to say: Now, it is time so you can now get weapons, just to make it fair.

Second, the 2nd Amendment should not ever have needed to be written. Your right to protect yourself against all comers; governments, individuals, etc. is a natural right. Someone taking that from you should be unthinkable, irrespective of your political bent or philosophy. Some of our founders argued this point as it was completely absurd and unthinkable to them that other, fellow citizens, would deem it incumbent upon them to take away what was assumed by the founders as much a natural "right" as is taking a breath of air.

I'm telling ya', sometimes I swear I'm in a perpetual episode of Candid Camera (Punked, for you younger members).

 

[cololab]

Thank goodness for the foresight of the Founding Fathers to have specifically enumerated the Bill of Rights. Having lived in a time when rights were granted or retracted at will by a monarch, they realized the need for clearly stating individual rights.

Just look at the belief system held by the left, witness the assault on our rights, and imagine what this country would be like if the Bill of Rights was not in written form. Bad as it is now, I think it would be infinitely worse.

 

[Buffalohunter60]

There is a petition from the left to remove the second amendment from the constitution. I am sure I can find it again and post it but there are those out there that would like to see it all gone...including our freedom.

 

[Shinny]

Let's petition to have the left removed

 

[Cordite]

Another point worthy of mention: The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written in simple terms that could be read and understood by the ordinary voter.

Scalia's quote from Heller?

"'The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings...."

The dissenters in Heller were in fact going for that "secret" meaning. The Second Amendment is very simple, and understandable to voters:

AMENDMENT II

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.

The ordinary meaning in those words is very clear. But that has not stopped the left from trying to twist its words to say it only applies to government controlled militias, does not apply to certain types of weapons, etc.

We have the right to keep and bear arms. Arms that would serve the purposes of a militia or military defense. And that right, shall not be infringed, Period. It does not have any reasonableness standard, such as the Fourth Amendment's restriction on unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not say the govenment cannot unreasonably infringe. It says SHALL NOT INFRINGE.

I mention this because we may one day have a Supreme Court that upholds some level of infringement as acceptable. We already have a Congress and an Executive Branch that believes infringement is acceptable. And if that day ever comes, the Constitution will be officially shredded. That will be the tipping point in terms of repudiating the belief that rights come from the Creator, in favor of rights coming from the state. Once the state is formally substituted for the Creator, we lose our status of citizens and become subjects.

And as voters, we will know it when we see it. And then decide whether to live as subjects. Or not.

 

[MSgt B]

Another point worthy of mention: The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written in simple terms that could be read and understood by the ordinary voter.

Scalia's quote from Heller?






The dissenters in Heller were in fact going for that "secret" meaning. The Second Amendment is very simple, and understandable to voters:



The ordinary meaning in those words is very clear. But that has not stopped the left from trying to twist its words to say it only applies to government controlled militias, does not apply to certain types of weapons, etc.

We have the right to keep and bear arms. Arms that would serve the purposes of a militia or military defense. And that right, shall not be infringed, Period. It does not have any reasonableness standard, such as the Fourth Amendment's restriction on unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not say the govenment cannot unreasonably infringe. It says SHALL NOT INFRINGE.

I mention this because we may one day have a Supreme Court that upholds some level of infringement as acceptable. We already have a Congress and an Executive Branch that believes infringement is acceptable. And if that day ever comes, the Constitution will be officially shredded. That will be the tipping point in terms of repudiating the belief that rights come from the Creator, in favor of rights coming from the state. Once the state is formally substituted for the Creator, we lose our status of citizens and become subjects.

And as voters, we will know it when we see it. And then decide whether to live as subjects. Or not.

Agree 100%, we the people are the militia, that would form to ensure the freedom of the state, so our right to bear arms will not be hindered in any way, because if it was, we would not be an effective militia....simple!!, even this old "Jarhead" understands it...OooRah!

 

[COL Jagdog]

Another point worthy of mention: The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written in simple terms that could be read and understood by the ordinary voter.

Scalia's quote from Heller?







The dissenters in Heller were in fact going for that "secret" meaning. The Second Amendment is very simple, and understandable to voters:



The ordinary meaning in those words is very clear. But that has not stopped the left from trying to twist its words to say it only applies to government controlled militias, does not apply to certain types of weapons, etc.

We have the right to keep and bear arms. Arms that would serve the purposes of a militia or military defense. And that right, shall not be infringed, Period. It does not have any reasonableness standard, such as the Fourth Amendment's restriction on unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not say the govenment cannot unreasonably infringe. It says SHALL NOT INFRINGE.

I mention this because we may one day have a Supreme Court that upholds some level of infringement as acceptable. We already have a Congress and an Executive Branch that believes infringement is acceptable. And if that day ever comes, the Constitution will be officially shredded. That will be the tipping point in terms of repudiating the belief that rights come from the Creator, in favor of rights coming from the state. Once the state is formally substituted for the Creator, we lose our status of citizens and become subjects.

And as voters, we will know it when we see it. And then decide whether to live as subjects. Or not.

You hit this dead center -- it does specifically relate to military-style/paramilitary weapons. Hence, the significance of the militia clause.

As US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote:

"The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers." .... "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in th efirst instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them"

Justice Story had it right 200 years ago: the citizens need to be able to resist and restore the Constitution if usurped by rulers with th esame weapons possessed by the government's standing army (particularly, as he understood that the standing govt forces could be used by "ambitious and unprincipled rulers to subvert the government or trample upon the rights of the people" His words verbatim, not mine.
Truth is, we had a lot of very smart framers and interpreters of the Constitution many years ago and they contemplated events such as what is transpiring today.

Justice Story, a true genius and paragon of the law.

 

[Hobie1]

One point that is overlooked by the general public is this:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311


We all are or were part of the militia by United States Code. Not ambiguous at all. Or is it?

Here's another bit of food for thought: SOF on Militias

Hobie