This is a guest post by reader A LAWYER. It’s a forensic analysis of the words, and their meaning, in the 2nd amendment. It’s a fisking, in a good way.
Send it to morons like Rob Reiner and his ilk.
~~~~~~~~~~~
The Second Amendment
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.
“Militia”.
In 18th-century parlance, this word meant “the men of the population who
are capable of bearing arms.” It does not mean some kind of particularly
organized or supervised group, army or police force made up of individuals
granted superior “rights” or privileges. It means ALL of “the people”
capable of coming out of their houses and businesses and fields and
churches to stand, armed, against a threat to the “security of the free
State” (hunting not mentioned.)
“Well regulated”.
Again, in 18-century parlance, this does not mean “subject to some kinds
of laws or bureaucratic administrative rules”. “Well regulated” means the
same thing vis a vis firearms (or any other kinds of “arms”) as it does as
an adjective to “student”, “conscience”, “habits”, “character”, “skills”,
“conduct”, “business” or “mode of speaking”. (Get the idea?) It refers to a
person or system that is reliable, functional, self-operating, responsible,
practiced and competent. And the only way to be a well-regulated
militiaman, a carrier of arms, is to have them, and be comfortable and
familiar with using them.
“Being necessary to the security of a free State”.
In the new United States government, the populations were that of each
state. In the event of an invasion, which was high in the minds of people
who had just thrown off the shackles of the English king, their militia,
their men, all should be armed and ready immediately to stand and fight.
A concern in connection with the new constitution was that the new federal
government — formed for the limited purposes of facilitating commerce
between the states, printing money, and organizing the 13 states into a
common defense — not itself keep a standing federal army (the people in
the former colonies were afraid of the possibility of a federal government
turning into a group of corrupt dictators).
“The right of the people”.
A “right” is that which exists in the absence of government, whether you
choose to believe that it is “God-given” or just something that exists in
the absence of someone telling you what you can or cannot do. Rights are
not granted by any government; they just exist, predating control by an
overlord power, or any “social contract” of a consensual government. The
U.S. Constitution recognizes certain rights.
As already implicit in the first line of the new constitution, echoing the
concept of individual rights in the Declaration of Independence, “the
people” meant a collective of individuals retaining their individuality —
not any group or government entity. “The people” — each and all of them,
jointly and severally — were the new government. “The people” in the
Second Amendment means exactly what it does in the First Amendment —
INDIVIDUALS.
“To keep and bear arms”.
There is no restriction on these arms. Certainly there is no restriction
on arms that would be efficacious to be used in the event of an invasion,
whether from England, the Barbary pirates, or any other hostile force —
INCLUDING a corrupted group of officials in the federal government who
fancied themselves to be carrying on the unconstitutional dictates of an
elite overlord or sovereign.
“Shall not be infringed”.
The inherent right is recognized and acknowledged as one not to be
infringed upon by the government. This does not mean that a state cannot
pass laws against dangerous acts, define what is criminal, and restrain
people — individuals — who infringe upon or threaten the rights of
others. (“Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose.”) But no
government, and certainly not the federal government, prospectively can
infringe on the right itself. “Infringe” means to hinder it, block it,
denigrate it, diminish it.
A “well regulated militia” is “the right of the people [each individual]
to keep and bear arms”, and vice versa. These are one and the same. “The
people” are “the militia”. There is no grammatical error.
If there is a problem now that too many people in this country no longer
share American values, and too many are of cruel, dishonest or apathetic
character, or are mentally unstable, or hold their highest allegiences to
other countries or codes or identities, or are just ignorant fools, then
it’s time to address seriously the causes of these maladies.
Nailed it!
like I’ve always said, ” … shall not be infringed.” what part of that don’t you understand?
“…too many are of cruel, dishonest or apathetic character, or are mentally unstable”…same as it always was and always will be. No, we can’t all just get along. There will never be utopia.
The founding fathers forgot to add: except for the individual jurisdictions of each state, this is the only amendment which can be regulated by individual states. Like cuckoofornia!
Fine, now tell me why I must have government approval and pay a permit fee to exercise my right to bear arms uninfringed?
Thank you, A LAWYER.
Democrats want to ban weapons so criminal democrats can commit crimes against conservatives without fear of being stopped.
I’m saving and will use again. Thank you for posting.
Every American has had ample time to exercise this right. If you have not, don’t be stupid.
Especially when they are openly expressing their desire to infringe on your God-given right!
Beans, batteries, bottled water, cash…. SELF-DEFENSE! duh!
“Well-regulated” means, “SELF-governed, well-PRACTICED,” and “CRACK shots.”
I qualify. 😎
The fools wont recognize their mistake until a dictator tyrant lines them up against a wall and offers them a blindfold.
They think, “This is America, it couldn’t happen here”.
They hate Trump but want him to take away guns.
Wait until they get the preezy who will.
Stupid sheep
Our Founding Fathers had good reason for the 2-A:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/08/12/how-the-british-gun-control-program-precipitated-the-american-revolution/
I’ve never met anyone, when the subject came up, who was at all confused by what was meant. I’ve never met anyone, when the subject came up, who didn’t support just ignoring it.
Why doesn’t anyone use Cesare Beccaria quotes? (The unofficial writer from the Enlightenment for our 2nd Amendment)
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/05/nra-memberships-surge-wake-of-anti-nra-protests-media-bias/
I have the right to protect myself, defend my family and stand my ground……as long as I’m on my property.
But if I cross the street with a concealed firearm with no permit, I’ll be arrested, indicted, prosecuted and convicted.
I choose to be judged by 12 -versus- carried by six.
But, I’ll still be convicted.
The constitution doesn’t protect me or you.
Grammatically, the primary statement of the 2nd Amendment is, “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The rest of the gobbldy-gook are supporting secondary statements, showing potential needs of the primary statement.
The writers of the 2A were just too friggin overeducated.
Writing the supporting statements before the primary statement was the way they wrote 200+ years ago. The Federalist Papers read the same way.
Whenever some libtard tries to tell me the 2A just says that “militias” (aka the national guard) have the right to weapons, I always ask the following:
A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
Who has the right to food?
A well-balanced breakfast? Or the people?
I was taught that 2A was really two separate thoughts, separated by a very important comma:
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 Left tries to tie the thoughts of the second phrase to the thoughts of the first phrase. Unnecessary, and most probably, in error.
Good analysis. Now chase that down with Federalist 46, and the Second Militia Act of 1792. Any remaining doubters would be traitors to our Constitution.
“Well regulated”: Well practiced and maintained; as a well regulated clock or well regulated bowels.
“Militia”: The entire body of citizens subject to call to defend the nation. Traditionally defined as every able-bodied male 16 thru 60. Since discrimination on the basis of sex, age, or disability is no longer permitted, nearly everyone is a member of the militia.
“A free state”: The state of being free.
To me, the key phrase illuminating the intent of the founders in constructing the Second Amendment is “The right of the People…”
It does not say “The right of the militia…”, nor “The right of those citizens trained and led by the Government…”, nor “The right of the Police…”, nor “The right of the Military…”, etc.
It plainly says “The right of the People…”, a term that, in every other occurrence in the Constitution, unambiguously includes every single person entitled to all the other rights of American citizenship.