Results 1 to 10 of 13
-
January 4th, 2010, 06:04 PM #1
New (to me) interpretation of the 2A
I was just reading through the comments section of a firearms-related article and came across a post with an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that I had not heard before but makes complete sense. It looks like a great argument to use against the 2A "collectivists".
Take a look and give me your thoughts...
An unarmed militia is essentially just a "committee". An armed militia can be regulated by an unarmed populace, but only so far as they are willing to be regulated. They can never be well-regulated, except by a populace with the means to overthrow them by force, should the need arise. The armed populace are not the militia, they are the regulators thereof. In this view, the prefatory clause makes perfect sense, explains why it was considered necessary, and never restricts gun ownership to those in the militia. The militia doesn't need an explicit right to keep and bear arms. They already have arms, else they're not a militia.
It gives maximum rights to "the people", and gives them another tool to restrict the power of a potentially corrupt government, which is in tune with the rest of the Bill of Rights. Arguments about the meaning of the Constitution can almost always be traced to someone trying to introduce some clever interpretation of language that was intentionally designed not to be clever. Phrases such as "shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" are not clever.Let them take arms
-
January 4th, 2010, 06:18 PM #2Grand Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Location
-
PA,
Pennsylvania
(Delaware County) - Posts
- 3,604
- Rep Power
- 1246703
-
January 4th, 2010, 07:13 PM #3
Re: New (to me) interpretation of the 2A
Interesting, but it ignores the 18th century meaning of "well regulated." Most modern gun grabbers use it the same way, whereas it's original meaning was more along the lines of "well trained."
..and the Constitution doesn't GIVE rights to anyone.
-
January 4th, 2010, 07:37 PM #4
Re: New (to me) interpretation of the 2A
Right.
And, We the People, the creators of the Constitution(see Preamble) reserved the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to ourselves. If we wanted the States to be able to regulate our abilities to own or possess arms we would have written the Second Amendment to say the following like we did the 10th Amendment to share the Rights-
1. "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, except in subordination to the States."
However, since We the People didn't write the Second Amendment as above - the Right is strictly reserved to the People.RIP: SFN, 1861, twoeggsup, Lambo, jamesjo, JayBell, 32 Magnum, Pro2A, mrwildroot, dregan, Frenchy, Fragger, ungawa, Mtn Jack, Grapeshot, R.W.J., PennsyPlinker, Statkowski, Deanimator, roland, aubie515
Don't end up in my signature!
-
January 4th, 2010, 07:37 PM #5
Re: New (to me) interpretation of the 2A
There were two main schools of thought in the early days of the republic; yours is along the lines of 'A well-regulated militia being required...', 'the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed...'
In other words, a sovereign state has need of a militia, but the armed populace can keep the militia (and by extension, the government) in check.
The other school of thought, probably more accurate, is that THE PEOPLE 'ARE' the militia.
The end result is more or less the same; the ultimate power of firearms should rest in the hands of THE PEOPLE."...a REPUBLIC, if you can keep it."
-
January 7th, 2010, 01:07 AM #6Super Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
-
Witless Protection Program,
Wisconsin
- Posts
- 811
- Rep Power
- 2804760
Re: New (to me) interpretation of the 2A
Well, back in the day, it was common to require militia participants to provide their own weapons. Furthermore, you can't have a militia without an armed citizenry. So naturally, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a prerequisite for any function of the militia.
-
January 7th, 2010, 08:30 PM #7Super Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
-
Eagleville,
Pennsylvania
(Montgomery County) - Posts
- 902
- Rep Power
- 235917
Re: New (to me) interpretation of the 2A
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom ... go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels nor arms. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams
-
January 7th, 2010, 10:39 PM #8
Re: New (to me) interpretation of the 2A
Actually, "well-regulated" meant equipped according to a standard.
regulation - prescribed by or according to regulation; "regulation army equipment"NRA, IDPA, Tactical Pistol Instructor
-
January 8th, 2010, 12:05 AM #9Super Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
-
Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania
(Delaware County) - Posts
- 896
- Rep Power
- 8683
-
January 8th, 2010, 12:11 AM #10Super Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
-
Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania
(Delaware County) - Posts
- 896
- Rep Power
- 8683
Re: New (to me) interpretation of the 2A
Not according to this fairly well researched argument.
Similar Threads
-
Supreme Court ready to rule on 2nd ammendment interpretation
By Slotimus in forum GeneralReplies: 0Last Post: March 18th, 2008, 06:44 PM -
Need interpretation of PA UFA
By jerkin in forum GeneralReplies: 13Last Post: December 13th, 2007, 12:46 PM -
Your Law Interpretation?
By sjl127 in forum GeneralReplies: 8Last Post: September 2nd, 2007, 06:23 PM
Bookmarks