2nd Amendment What the heck does it say?

[wild eyed willy]

2nd Amendment: The right to keep and bear arms.

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 the devil does this mean? The language is Vague to say the least, so vague that the Supreme Court has been struggling among themselves for generations and still can’t all agree on its intended meaning.

I read it and I don’t quite understand it, is it any wonder that our LEO’s have trouble with its meaning.

Instead of fighting for our 2nd amendment right, we should be fighting for a rewrite of the 2nd amendment. One that clarifies its intention and our specific rights; such that it eliminates any possible confusion as to its meaning. It should also make clear an understanding that it be upheld by both the Federal and State Governments.

What say ye to that my fellow citizens.

 

[eXGee11]

If you open it up to revision all it takes is one pen to erase all of our rights. What part of the right to keep and bare arms shall not be enfringed is vague? Sounds pretty clear cut to me. Don't touch my *********g guns.

Have a nice day now

 

[Nightmare45]

Militia at the time of writing refered to free men gathered for a common goal, not a military unit, the important part "the right of the people (free men), shall not be infringed. Remember when written we were a colony (British) where the common person was not allowed to have firearms, our founding fathers wanted us to be free from control of an opressive government, at that time the British Empire, the amendment is more important than ever as any government can and has been opressive in the past, out current leadership is trying every thing they can to become England (Polite way of saying what I really think)

 

[R Shackleford]

I wouldn't jump to quickly to have ANYTHING "clarified". In this current environment, a whole lot of harm could be done. Like "fundamentally" changing everything we have been founded on. This would be the opening the current admin would be waiting for to make huge changes. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean we need to rewrite it....it's very clear to me what the intent is....

 

[RobertSlaughter]

I think it's clear -- just not being followed as the founders intended (see also 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th)

As I said on my blog:
The Second Amendment reads as follows:
"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."

Now, by modern standards the wording is a tiny bit ‘irregular’. But if we add just one word, and change another to more modern usage, I believe the clarity of the amendment is greatly enhanced:
"Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I don't think it needs anything actually changed -- just the insistence of "We the People" that it be followed. That wording works just fine. The important thing is that the first phrase before the comma is just clarification of why the second phrase is there. if you read anything else written by the Founders, you gain both exposure to the language at the time (let us all be honest -- our modern usage is pretty sloppy compared to theirs), and to the thoughts and actual statements about the Second Amendment. The intent was simple -- "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period.

 

[Doc Mustang]

Remember when written we were a colony (British) where the common person was not allowed to have firearms,

Not quite true. Part of the debate surrounding the American Revolution was if the colonists enjoyed all the rights of Englishman. At the time there was a longstanding tradition that all freeborn Englishman enjoyed the right to bear arms and the right to be represented in parlement. The key point of disagreement was that the Crown disagreed that the colonists were, in fact, Englishman instead thinking of them as subjects to the crown, and therefore the rights of Englishmen did not apply. Lexington and Concord occured because the crown was attempting to sieze the weapons of the Colonial Militia.

It was not until much later that the English would relieve themselves of their rights to keep and bear arms. One of the reasons that this occured was because the United Kingdom does not have a document equivalent to our constitution. Their "rights" are what the government says they are and can be changed with a parlamentary stroke of a pen. Our constitution operates differently. Its genius lies in that it clearly states that rights flow from the people which are then ceded to the states who in turn cede a portion of their rights to the federal government for 18 very specific and limited powers. The Bill of Rights are 10 amendments which function as appendecies further limiting the power of the federal government and through the 14th the powers of the several states.

The amendment process is intentionally obstructive and tedious. This is to prevent rash changes to our governing compact. This is one reason the courts, who by long (and possibly unconstitutional) convention enjoy the sole power of interpreting the constitution, have become such a battleground of our rights, including the second amendment. (For those interested I believe that the power of constitutional review should be divided among the separate but equal powers of government with the same checks and ballences as exists for other powers, currently there is not enough of a check on the judicial branch. I would add that any federal judge whose rulings were found unconstitutional by the supreme court would be forced to leave the bench and be unable to recieve another appointment to the federal bench. I would also add that the president should have the power to initiate impeachment proceedings against sitting federal judges and constitutionally limit the number of supreme court judges to 9)

The other method by which our constitution can be changed is through convention. Some may advocate this but it is a very dangerous prospect. The last constitutional convention resulted in our current document. Which was a radical departure from the articles of confederation which preceeded it. Anything could come out of a constitutional convention.

 

[billwot]

2nd Amendment: The right to keep and bear arms.

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 the devil does this mean? The language is Vague to say the least, so vague that the Supreme Court has been struggling among themselves for generations and still can’t all agree on its intended meaning.

I read it and I don’t quite understand it, is it any wonder that our LEO’s have trouble with its meaning.


What say ye to that my fellow citizens.

Well, the SCOTUS has made a landmark interpretion of its meaning in the Heller v. DC ruling, and to a lesser extent in the McDonald v. Chicago ruling. I suggest you read the full text of the court's majority opininion in both of these cases.

The significance of Heller is 1) it guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, and 2) that right is not contingent on a citizens participation in any kind of milita.

Here's a brief wikki summary, but as I said, I suggest you real the full text of both the Heller and McDonald rulings.



"The court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", saying that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."


District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[wild eyed willy]

Well, the SCOTUS has made a landmark interpretion of its meaning in the Heller v. DC ruling, and to a lesser extent in the McDonald v. Chicago ruling. I suggest you read the full text of the court's majority opininion in both of these cases.

The significance of Heller is 1) it guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, and 2) that right is not contingent on a citizens participation in any kind of milita.

Here's a brief wikki summary, but as I said, I suggest you real the full text of both the Heller and McDonald rulings.



"The court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", saying that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."


District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I read all of this and that is why I wrote the post, It looks to me that the Judges could actually over turn their descision with a majority of votes from new judges... Descisions have been overturned in the past.. That worries me.

 

[wild eyed willy]

If you open it up to revision all it takes is one pen to erase all of our rights. What part of the right to keep and bare arms shall not be enfringed is vague? Sounds pretty clear cut to me. Don't touch my *********g guns.

Have a nice day now

That is not the vague part, it is the first part that worries me, in its current context it can and has been interprited several different ways, we have a number of judges to thank for the current president, but that could change one day. all that is needed is a majority of judges with a different opinion.

 

[wild eyed willy]

I wouldn't jump to quickly to have ANYTHING "clarified". In this current environment, a whole lot of harm could be done. Like "fundamentally" changing everything we have been founded on. This would be the opening the current admin would be waiting for to make huge changes. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean we need to rewrite it....it's very clear to me what the intent is....

It was just a thought, wanted to see what others thought about the idea... thats all.....just asking.

 

[fuhr52]

I say leave it alone. If we start rewriting our Constitution with the current spin who knows what you will get. The courts, in my opinion, have already trampled the US Constitution to death. They continue to legislate law from the bench as it is. Why give them the chance to give themselves even more power. The House and Senate are the only two branches that have the Constitutional athority to legislate laws. Not the President nor the courts. It's time to put the power back were it belongs, with the people.

 

[Nightmare45]

Doc Mustang, you said it better than I did I ment us colonial America.

What worries me is this America hating president and his band of traitors, hate mongers and terriorst, will do more than he has already done to destroy America, he and his wife have suckeled off the American T their entire lives and they hate America. (My Opinion)

 

[Tucker's Mom]

2nd Amendment: The right to keep and bear arms.

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.[]

snipped for brevity...

Instead of fighting for our 2nd amendment right, we should be fighting for a rewrite of the 2nd amendment. One that clarifies its intention and our specific rights; such that it eliminates any possible confusion as to its meaning. It should also make clear an understanding that it be upheld by both the Federal and State Governments.

What say ye to that my fellow citizens.

NOT at this time when who he is at the WH is there...we should vote for someone who we can trust to protect our rights first before even thinking of rewriting the Constitution. Period.

 

[Firefighterchen]

What's confusing about this? It says we have the right to keep and bear arms...or more so the government doesn't have the right to take away our arms...only an idiot can misinterpret that...and we all ready know who they are from all the other bat **** crazy stuff they say

 

[disneyr]

"the people" in the 2nd Amendment is the same "the people" found in the 1st, 4th and 10th Amendments. The primary purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the powers of the Federal Government. There is nothing vague about the intent of the 2nd Amendment that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[LS-208]

Penn& Teller

Penn and Teller break it down pretty simple. It's the best explanation of the 2nd Amendment I personally have ever heard. You can look it up on YouTube somewhere. I believe it is under 'Penn and Teller on the 2nd amendment '

 

[wild eyed willy]

What's confusing about this? It says we have the right to keep and bear arms...or more so the government doesn't have the right to take away our arms...only an idiot can misinterpret that...and we all ready know who they are from all the other bat **** crazy stuff they say

Again, I stress it is not the last part of 2A that is questionable. It is the first part.. It lends itself to interpretation. If it was so clear as you put it "only an idiot can misinterpret that" than there would be total agreement among the 12 SCJs as to its meaning. Actually if it were clear, there would have been no reason for the SCJs to debate its meaning, because there would be no court case, because no legal action would have been brought before the courts, because no legal issue would have needed to be questioned, (it would have been CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD).
You chose to attach you own meaning to what you read, however others can also chose to attach there own meaning to the same words...

That is why this IDOT feels it might be better to require clairification, to eliminate the possibility or need to have the question debated by any one....

Just one Idiot's opinion

 

[Unfettered Might]

Personally, I didnt need DC vs Hellers ruling. Petsonally, I dont care which way they "interpret" a document that needs no intepretation. I can read and comprehend the written word and I know what rights are affirmed by the US Constitution. Even if they reversed their decision, do you think theyre going to convince 80+ million people to give them up? Not on my watch!

 

[CapGun]

Hey WEW, At first I thought you were being cynical but I read more of your posts. Maybe this will help and maybe we just need to interpret it with the vocabulary of the day. Webster's Dictionary was declared the book to use by the Congress early on as the official dictionary.
Try this link.Link Removed
Here is just one of many on Sir William Blackstone on Natural Law. Link Removed
or just "google" him. Should help.

 

[wild eyed willy]

Hey WEW, At first I thought you were being cynical but I read more of your posts. Maybe this will help and maybe we just need to interpret it with the vocabulary of the day. Webster's Dictionary was declared the book to use by the Congress early on as the official dictionary.
Try this link.Link Removed
Here is just one of many on Sir William Blackstone on Natural Law. Link Removed
or just "google" him. Should help.

I will look up your referances, and thanks for the reply, glad someone can see this from my stand point..