The Second Amendment

[MODU]

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 Amendment is comprised of two clauses; both should be read in pari materia. The second clause defines the right; the first describes why it should be protected.

Madison's original draft of the Second Amendment read as follows: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country." The right to keep and bear arms was seen as necessary for maintaining a free state.

The original draft might have been two clauses, but what was approved is just one.  There is no semi-colon nor "and" between what you have bolded and what is left unbolded.  It specifically says that the right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of providing a well regulated militia.  Again, it's one of the few poorly written sentances in the Constitution, but it is clear as to what it says.

[opebo]

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 Amendment is comprised of two clauses; both should be read in pari materia. The second clause defines the right; the first describes why it should be protected.

Madison's original draft of the Second Amendment read as follows: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country." The right to keep and bear arms was seen as necessary for maintaining a free state.

The original draft might have been two clauses, but what was approved is just one.  There is no semi-colon nor "and" between what you have bolded and what is left unbolded.  It specifically says that the right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of providing a well regulated militia.  Again, it's one of the few poorly written sentances in the Constitution, but it is clear as to what it says.

Yes, it obviously implied that any bearing of arms that is to be done should be carefully regulated, and only allowed within the context of a 'militia'.  This amendment in no way suggests that individuals have a right to bear arms personally.

[MODU]

Yes, it obviously implied that any bearing of arms that is to be done should be carefully regulated, and only allowed within the context of a 'militia'.  This amendment in no way suggests that individuals have a right to bear arms personally.

Man, you scare me when you say things I agree with.  HAHAHA

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

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 Amendment is comprised of two clauses; both should be read in pari materia. The second clause defines the right; the first describes why it should be protected.

Madison's original draft of the Second Amendment read as follows: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country." The right to keep and bear arms was seen as necessary for maintaining a free state.

The original draft might have been two clauses, but what was approved is just one.  There is no semi-colon nor "and" between what you have bolded and what is left unbolded.  It specifically says that the right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of providing a well regulated militia.  Again, it's one of the few poorly written sentances in the Constitution, but it is clear as to what it says.

Yes, it obviously implied that any bearing of arms that is to be done should be carefully regulated, and only allowed within the context of a 'militia'.  This amendment in no way suggests that individuals have a right to bear arms personally.

Yeah, that only contradicts the opinions of the people who wrote the constitution - they obviously had no idea what they were talking about.

[MODU]

Yeah, that only contradicts the opinions of the people who wrote the constitution - they obviously had no idea what they were talking about.

But we can't go by what their opinions were, but by what was approved in the Amendment and by what the Supreme Court has ruled.  Like Liberty provided for us, there were many various bills and laws on this issue before the Amendment was approved.  That's why I've been a proponent for having the second amendment "revised."  People from both sides of the argument can look at the one sentance and see two different things.

[opebo]

Yeah, that only contradicts the opinions of the people who wrote the constitution - they obviously had no idea what they were talking about.

No, you're clearly misinterpreting them, as they mentioned a 'militia'.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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 Amendment is comprised of two clauses; both should be read in pari materia. The second clause defines the right; the first describes why it should be protected.

Madison's original draft of the Second Amendment read as follows: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country." The right to keep and bear arms was seen as necessary for maintaining a free state.

The original draft might have been two clauses, but what was approved is just one.  There is no semi-colon nor "and" between what you have bolded and what is left unbolded.  It specifically says that the right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of providing a well regulated militia.  Again, it's one of the few poorly written sentances in the Constitution, but it is clear as to what it says.

Modu

I suggest you read Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2.

You will find that the militia was already recognized in the Constitution.

So, the question is what does the Second Amendment add to those provisions?

The answer is simply that the founding fathers wanted to make it clear that the right to keep and bear arms was one of "the people." not simply a 'select' militia.

If they meant what you alledge, then there would have been no need for the Second Amendment (it would have been superflous) and the inclusion of the wording about being necessary for "a free state" and "the right of the people" would be nonsensical in your misinterpretation.

If you look elsewhere in the Amendments you will see that "the right of the people" (try the First Amendment) is NOT some 'corporate' term, but rather a recognition of the right of individuals.

Also, as I have noted elswhere on previous discussions on this board, the founding fathers were generally rather learned men who understood that national defense could be accomplished without a militia, but that maintenance of a FREE state necessitated an armed people.

[opebo]

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 Amendment is comprised of two clauses; both should be read in pari materia. The second clause defines the right; the first describes why it should be protected.

Madison's original draft of the Second Amendment read as follows: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country." The right to keep and bear arms was seen as necessary for maintaining a free state.

The original draft might have been two clauses, but what was approved is just one.  There is no semi-colon nor "and" between what you have bolded and what is left unbolded.  It specifically says that the right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of providing a well regulated militia.  Again, it's one of the few poorly written sentances in the Constitution, but it is clear as to what it says.

Modu

I suggest you read Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2.

You will find that the militia was already recognized in the Constitution.

So, the question is what does the Second Amendment add to those provisions?

Repetition for emphasis, Carlhadan, repetition for emphasis.  They really liked militias.  Besides, is it really appropriate to interpret clauses using extraneous materials like other parts of the constitution?  Shouldn't the meaning of the clause be derived from the orginalist intent and natural meaning of the clause itself?

Also, as I have noted elswhere on previous discussions on this board, the founding fathers were generally rather learned men who understood that national defense could be accomplished without a militia, but that maintenance of a FREE state necessitated an armed people.

Hah, doesn't sound like the opinion of 'learned' men, but rather the viewpoint of the violent redneck.

[MODU]

Modu

I suggest you read Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2.

You will find that the militia was already recognized in the Constitution.

So, the question is what does the Second Amendment add to those provisions?

The answer is simply that the founding fathers wanted to make it clear that the right to keep and bear arms was one of "the people." not simply a 'select' militia.

If they meant what you alledge, then there would have been no need for the Second Amendment (it would have been superflous) and the inclusion of the wording about being necessary for "a free state" and "the right of the people" would be nonsensical in your misinterpretation.

If you look elsewhere in the Amendments you will see that "the right of the people" (try the First Amendment) is NOT some 'corporate' term, but rather a recognition of the right of individuals.

Also, as I have noted elswhere on previous discussions on this board, the founding fathers were generally rather learned men who understood that national defense could be accomplished without a militia, but that maintenance of a FREE state necessitated an armed people.

While that might be true, you also have to look at what the Amendment says:

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.

If it was a clear as you say, then the first half of the Amendment is not necessary, and it should have simply been written as "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."  (Note that the comma between Arms and shall become unnecessary in the revised version of the Amendment.)

However, that is now what is written nor approved by Congress.  So, we go back to what is, and that is the right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of the militia.  And like I said before, no where does it say the general public do not have the right to own guns, and this Amendment does not say that the government does not have the right to limit what kind of guns a person can own.  It merely defends why people have the right.

[A18]

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 Amendment is comprised of two clauses; both should be read in pari materia. The second clause defines the right; the first describes why it should be protected.

Madison's original draft of the Second Amendment read as follows: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country." The right to keep and bear arms was seen as necessary for maintaining a free state.

The original draft might have been two clauses, but what was approved is just one.  There is no semi-colon nor "and" between what you have bolded and what is left unbolded.  It specifically says that the right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of providing a well regulated militia.  Again, it's one of the few poorly written sentances in the Constitution, but it is clear as to what it says.

Okay, you have no idea what a clause is if you think that is relevant.

I just went through the original meaning of militia.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Modu

I suggest you read Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2.

You will find that the militia was already recognized in the Constitution.

So, the question is what does the Second Amendment add to those provisions?

The answer is simply that the founding fathers wanted to make it clear that the right to keep and bear arms was one of "the people." not simply a 'select' militia.

If they meant what you alledge, then there would have been no need for the Second Amendment (it would have been superflous) and the inclusion of the wording about being necessary for "a free state" and "the right of the people" would be nonsensical in your misinterpretation.

If you look elsewhere in the Amendments you will see that "the right of the people" (try the First Amendment) is NOT some 'corporate' term, but rather a recognition of the right of individuals.

Also, as I have noted elswhere on previous discussions on this board, the founding fathers were generally rather learned men who understood that national defense could be accomplished without a militia, but that maintenance of a FREE state necessitated an armed people.

While that might be true, you also have to look at what the Amendment says:

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.

If it was a clear as you say, then the first half of the Amendment is not necessary, and it should have simply been written as "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."  (Note that the comma between Arms and shall become unnecessary in the revised version of the Amendment.)

However, that is now what is written nor approved by Congress.  So, we go back to what is, and that is the right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of the militia.  And like I said before, no where does it say the general public do not have the right to own guns, and this Amendment does not say that the government does not have the right to limit what kind of guns a person can own.  It merely defends why people have the right.

So, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is effectively erased from the Amendment in your misinterpretation since YOU do NOT want others to bear arms since when the people are armed we will have a relatively "free" state.

You keep evading the issue.

What does "the right of the people" mean with respect to the first amendment?

[MODU]

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, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is effectively erased from the Amendment in your misinterpretation since YOU do NOT want others to bear arms since when the people are armed we will have a relatively "free" state.

You keep evading the issue.

What does "the right of the people" mean with respect to the first amendment?

You mean in respect of the second amendment?

Look, I can only say this in so many different ways.  The Second amendment is a singular thought.  In order to have a well regulated militia to protect the country, the citizens had the right to own weapons so when they were needed to be called up, they were ready.  Nowhere in the Amendment does it say that the general public can keep arms for pleasure.  It specifically says it's for the militia.

Now, with that said, and I repeat myself again, the Constitution does not say people cannot own guns for pleasure or for self-defense at home or from a repressive government.  It also doesn't say that the government cannot limit the kind of guns people can own.  This is reinforced by Supreme Court rulings over the years.  No one is going to come by and confiscate your guns and/or throw you in jail, even if the laws were to change.  As in the past, guns purchased before a new law goes into place are grandfathered into the system, and only effects new gun sales.

And if for some science-fiction reason the government were suddenly become oppressive (requiring one hell of an infiltration of both the government and the military in order to pull it off), old retired folks like me will once again put on our uniforms for uphold our oaths of protecting this nation from threats, both foreign and domestic.  Just because I'm for limiting the types of weapons available to the general public doesn't mean I have forgotten how to use them (and still do from time to time). 

[opebo]

So, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is effectively erased from the Amendment in your misinterpretation since YOU do NOT want others to bear arms since when the people are armed we will have a relatively "free" state.

No, the right to bear arms is affirmed, but first you have to join the militia.  It is all right there in black and white, Cahlhardon.

And of course there is no connection between a 'free' state and a violenct populous.  Just look at the present day US - highly dangerous, but also very unfree.

What does "the right of the people" mean with respect to the first amendment?

Obviously the first amendment does not mention a militia, Carlhaydense.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Modu,

You keep evading the issue.

According to you, the Second Amendment is meaningless.

However, the founding fathers took a different view.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the phrase, "the right of the people" is an individual right.

Also, you have yet to explain why the founding fathers chose to include the word "free" in the amendment, since everyone is agree that national defense could be maintained against foreign enemies without a militia, and the founding fathers were well aware of that fact.

[MODU]

Modu,

You keep evading the issue.

According to you, the Second Amendment is meaningless.

However, the founding fathers took a different view.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the phrase, "the right of the people" is an individual right.

Also, you have yet to explain why the founding fathers chose to include the word "free" in the amendment, since everyone is agree that national defense could be maintained against foreign enemies without a militia, and the founding fathers were well aware of that fact.

I haven't avoided it, but rather addressed it twice already.  It's just not the answer you are looking for.  The Second Amendment is not meaningless.  It protected the people from having their weapons taken by the local and federal governments by giving them a reason.  The reason being that the people would be the ones to make up the bulk of the defending forces of the new US through the militia.

And "free" is obvious.  Are we now going to define what "is" means too?

[A18]

As I showed earlier, the word 'militia' meant the people as a whole. I wouldn't both arguing with him, Carl, as it's obvious he is simply ignoring the actual meaning to get the result he wants, and making assertions directly contradicted by history.

[MODU]

As I showed earlier, the word 'militia' meant the people as a whole. I wouldn't both arguing with him, Carl, as it's obvious he is simply ignoring the actual meaning to get the result he wants, and making assertions directly contradicted by history.

I had posted what both meanings of militia were (right out of the US codes) in the other thread as well as explained how both have been replaced through history.  I'm sorry that I am going by what the constitution actually says.

[A18]

What the Constitution says is 'militia.' That doesn't tell us what militia means. The federal Bill of Rights is based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which defined militia as the populace, trained in arms, not a select group of citizen-soldiers. This was also the definition of militia entertained by Madison, as well as the Father of the Bill of Rights himself, George Mason.

[MODU]

What the Constitution says is 'militia.' That doesn't tell us what militia means. The federal Bill of Rights is based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which defined militia as the populace, trained in arms, not a select group of citizen-soldiers. This was also the definition of militia entertained by Madison, as well as the Father of the Bill of Rights himself, George Mason.

And last time I checked, the populace wasn't down in Richmond drilling on Saturday, was it? 

[A18]

They don't have to drill. What gave you that absurd idea?

[MODU]

They don't have to drill. What gave you that absurd idea?

If you go back to you posted (and in history), training was a requirement for the militia.  How do you train?  By drilling.  Firing a gun is nothing if you do not know how to do it with those around you.  This was one of the biggest problems initially with the Revolutionary forces at the start of the war. 

[A18]

Training does not have to be formal training. It just means knowing how to yield a weapon.

Well-regulated, by the way, does not mean government regulation.

[??????????]

They don't have to drill. What gave you that absurd idea?

If you go back to you posted (and in history), training was a requirement for the militia.  How do you train?  By drilling.  Firing a gun is nothing if you do not know how to do it with those around you.  This was one of the biggest problems initially with the Revolutionary forces at the start of the war. 

Their would be nothing unconstitutional about "mens clubs" or other type groups forming militias. This was a very common practice up until the civil war. And the reason why it is basically forbidden is because the federal government is afraid of having their power challenged ever again.

[MODU]

Training does not have to be formal training. It just means knowing how to yield a weapon.

Well-regulated, by the way, does not mean government regulation.

*removed my initial sarcastic comment about you standing in front of the line*

No, well-regulated does not mean government regulation.  It does, however, mean TRAINED.  If training to you means just knowing how to hold a gun and pull the trigger, then you would better serve the Revolutionary forces in logistics.  You had to know the motions of loading, standing, firing, kneeling, cleaning, repeat in time, otherwise you would either be shot from the front by your enemy or from the back by your friend.  Now, there is a difference between organized militia (which has become your national guard), and the unorganized militia (which has all but disappeared for the most part).  Yet both require training in order to know how to fight, otherwise you become nothing more than cover for someone to duck behind.

Their would be nothing unconstitutional about "mens clubs" or other type groups forming militias. This was a very common practice up until the civil war.

Note the comment regarding unorganized militia.

[??????????]

The problem I have with the National Guard is that it was a ploy by the federal government to retain their power so they can never be threatened by "insurrection" again.