No permit needed to carry concealed
- Thread starter cluznar
- Start date
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
bofh
Banned
And I have to read such nonsense on Patriots' Day.
After the recent ammo and rifle shortage, I think we are slowly catching up on that "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment. "Well regulated" means "well supplied and functioning", and not "well restricted". A right that is "well restricted" is, by definition, infringed upon.
Fallschirmjäger
New member
B
Bikenut
Guest
if you would read the information at the following link perhaps some light will be shed on that "well regulated" part... but I'll give just a snippet of it here:
The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions
-snip-
The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.
This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day).
-snip-
Please do some research... all it takes is to google the words and/or phrase(s) you would like to know more about.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
For any gun-grabber lite, Honorary Mommies who still don't know what the words in the Second Amendment actually mean, here's your sign.......
[TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 800"]
[TR]
[TD]
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][Copperud] The words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 25, 1991, constitute a present participle rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall" . The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to a "well regulated militia"?
[Copperud: (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Sculman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the 2nd. A., or does the 2nd. A assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and mere state that such right "shall not be infringed"?
[Copperid: (2) 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.
[Schulman: (3) 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: (3) 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. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?
[Copperud: The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia mean: "well-equipped", "well-organized", "well-drilled", "well-educated", or "subject to the regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud: (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.
[Copperud: to the best of my knowledge thare has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put:
"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 abridged."
[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the 2nd A. to the following 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."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the 2nd. A. sentence; and
(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" - e.g. registered voters w/ a high school diploma?
[Copperud: (1) your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure;
(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
The complete text of this book is available online at www.Pulpless.com.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Please refrain from spewing such obvious and blatant ignorance from now on for the new-comers and youngins' who might unwittingly fall prey to such an egregiously tyrannical bit of anti-2nd Amendment propaganda as that that was promulgated a few posts back. Thanks from the true 2nd Amendment-supporting membership of USA Carry.
Blues
[TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 800"]
[TR]
[TD]
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][Copperud] The words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 25, 1991, constitute a present participle rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall" . The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to a "well regulated militia"?
[Copperud: (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Sculman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the 2nd. A., or does the 2nd. A assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and mere state that such right "shall not be infringed"?
[Copperid: (2) 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.
[Schulman: (3) 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: (3) 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. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?
[Copperud: The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia mean: "well-equipped", "well-organized", "well-drilled", "well-educated", or "subject to the regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud: (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.
[Copperud: to the best of my knowledge thare has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put:
"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 abridged."
[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the 2nd A. to the following 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."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the 2nd. A. sentence; and
(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" - e.g. registered voters w/ a high school diploma?
[Copperud: (1) your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure;
(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
The complete text of this book is available online at www.Pulpless.com.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Please refrain from spewing such obvious and blatant ignorance from now on for the new-comers and youngins' who might unwittingly fall prey to such an egregiously tyrannical bit of anti-2nd Amendment propaganda as that that was promulgated a few posts back. Thanks from the true 2nd Amendment-supporting membership of USA Carry.
Blues
DavidWhite
Banned
Really? Well, hell, let's just analyze the whole declaration and a little bit of the operative phrase, shall we?
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.
So, you like to claim well regulated means the government gets to say who gets to carry what firearms, by what method, and where. Wrong. The much more common meaning of regulated in the time the 2nd Amendment was written meant functioning correctly for the intended purpose. For example a well regulated clock could be counted on to display the correct time 24 hrs/day. That's what regulated means in the 2nd amendment. 1 million armed men going in 1 million different directions for 1 million different goals is next to useless. But 1 million armed men well regulated for the same purpose - maintaining a free state - is much more effective. It has absolutely nothing to do with government getting to say who gets to carry what firearms, where and how.
Now some people like to say the "militia" means the 2nd Amendment is limited only to military service. Well, for one, the US Supreme Court ruled in DC v. Heller that assumption was wrong. Even if you want to go that way, the definition of the militia in Federal law is in 10 USC 311, "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. " How about that - a person doesn't even have to be a citizen of the militia!
Then we get those people who like to claim that arms means only muskets because that is what they had when the 2nd Amendment was written. That is actually partially correct. The men who wrote the 2nd Amendment possessed the exact same arms that the government had that they had just finished overthrowing by force. That is what they meant by arms in the 2nd Amendment - the ability for the people to keep and bear the exact same arms as the government - which is necessary in order to guarantee the state remains free - free from government tyranny.
Now, you're going to say, does that mean that the citizen should be able to possess nuclear missiles? The answer is, yes, that is what the 2nd Amendment means, as written, exactly. My personal belief is that there did become a time when it became too dangerous for every citizen to have the ability to keep and bear arms as the 2nd Amendment was written, IE: Bill Gates using his money to build himself a nuclear missile. When it became too dangerous for every citizen to freely exercise the 2nd Amendment right, the correct course of action would have been to amend the Constitution (just like prohibition and the repeal thereof) to repeal the 2nd Amendment and replace it with an amendment that would guarantee the peoples' right to be armed for self-defense. But, of course, the government took the easy (and unconstitutional) way out and simply piled pn one infringement upon another - whatever they could get the US Supreme Court (another branch of the Federal government) to buy off on.
There is no "Constitutional carry" in any state of the US - and part of the problem, I believe, is what we accept being falsely termed "Constitutional carry" in states like Vermont and Arizona.
Fallschirmjäger
New member
Do you think we should all just let SR9 conveniently 'forget' that he posted what he did?
Fallschirmjäger
New member
Well.... SR9's been back a few times and made a few posts.
Shall we just assume he has no answer to the question and is conveniently forgetting he made the post?
Shall we just assume he has no answer to the question and is conveniently forgetting he made the post?
SR9
New member
Apparently you have never heard of "States Rights" either. A good example of this is the fact that using/growing/smoking marijuana is against Federal Law, but has been declared legal in some states. I was watching a episode of a LEO show on TV the other day and the officer stopped a lady who reeked of marijuana and she said she had a doctors prescription to use weed, and she did, but she was in a National Park and Federal law does not recognize legal use of marijuana. She got a citation.
Fallschirmjäger
New member
So are you saying that "The States should have the authority to have whatever laws they want" is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they declared ".... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
You'd probably have a better chance saying the First Amendment prohibited Congress from making any law respecting the establishment of religion while leaving it free for the States to establish a State religion. Good luck explaining why an amendment specifically written to apply to one specific establishment (Congress) applies to everyone and why an amendment written to apply to everyone without limitation somehow exempts the States.
But, go on... explain it to us.
You'd probably have a better chance saying the First Amendment prohibited Congress from making any law respecting the establishment of religion while leaving it free for the States to establish a State religion. Good luck explaining why an amendment specifically written to apply to one specific establishment (Congress) applies to everyone and why an amendment written to apply to everyone without limitation somehow exempts the States.
But, go on... explain it to us.
Really? Think so?
Eric Holder Says DOJ Will Let Washington, Colorado Marijuana Laws Go Into Effect
US Department of Justice memo regarding "legalized" marijuana:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/160507622/DAGMemo8-29-13
Doesn't sound like states' rights at all regarding Marijuana and is all about Federal government regulation - just like the Federal concealed carry reciprocity bills you like to blindly support.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
He says apparently we haven't heard of states' rights *either*, meaning that we also had "...never heard of the well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment. The fact is that many of us completely decimated that argument with everything from professors and major newspaper editors parsing the language used in the 2A strictly from an English language perspective, to Supreme Court decisions, to quotes from Founders, and SR9 is still sticking to the notion that it is *we* who are misunderstanding the words, not him. He cares no more about incorporation via the 14th Amendment than he does about the words, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." He loves government. He'll never get enough of it. He'll never trust his fellow citizens to run their own lives without government controlling some part of every decision they make. He's "heard of" the 14th Amendment and the McDonald case, but since they both contradict his blind acceptance of anything and everything government does re: gun regulations and restrictions, he will refuse to hear/accept/acknowledge/admit the truth of either the meaning of the amendment or of the settled law that McDonald established nationwide.
I could easily demonstrate that SR9 has always held this exact view on these boards if his user name wasn't just three characters with a number as one of the characters. The search engine here doesn't search on number strings or character strings fewer than four (maybe five). I have tried to explain the truth to him about constitutional issues, betrayals of gun owners by the N R A and OC issues. It's always the same; he comes down on the side least favorable to liberty and/or gun owners' interests and rights.
Blues
