Understanding of 2A RKBA verbiage
This is a discussion on Understanding of 2A RKBA verbiage within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right ...
July 30th, 2012 04:46 PM
Understanding of 2A RKBA verbiage
What is your understanding of the Second Amendment's language, piece by piece? (Not some robed Supreme's opinion. Yours, given all you've read and learned in this life.)
Originally Posted by The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
For example ...
- Militia: the armed citizenry; the government's standing army; or ...
- Well-regulated: smoothly operating; statutorily restricted; or ...
- Arms: fighting weapons, anything and everything; pea shooters and squirrel guns only; or ...
- Infringement: any manner of curtailment or limitation; or ...
- The whole phrase: Such as ... In order for a smoothly-functioning armed citizenry to exist that provides capable defense of us all, the right of each citizen to keep and bear weapons shall not be infringed.
July 30th, 2012 05:06 PM
Militia: It meant the citizens of the individual States. In fact it was defined as all able bodied citizens except certain public officials. There was no organized militia at the time do I do not see how it could have meant a government controlled one.
Well regulated: Regulated at the time meant to make regular. To make it smooth functioning. In effect to enhance it not to control or restrict it.
Arms: This meant all arms. The proof of this intent was that while the individual States might have regulated the use of weapons the Federal Government never did.
Infringement: Any thing that impedes, makes difficult or restricts.
July 30th, 2012 05:18 PM
It always seemed kind of obvious to me. I find it odd why people are constantly debating its meaning.
July 30th, 2012 05:30 PM
Well Regulated - Organized prior to or during a time of need. Which would require some preplaning and/or at minimum already being supplied nessecary equipment.
Militia - Private citizens organized as a paramilitary force
Arms - Weapons that are effcient for security, deffensive and if nessecarry offensive purposes.
Infringed - Impair, stop, prevent.
My overal interpritation - In the event that private citizens must, for the security of their home, state and/or nation, form together shall have unrestriced access to the nessecarry arms.
This militia may be nessecary in case of the absense of a formal military (if fighting elsewhere or stretched thin in multiple theaters. The militia may also be nessecary to combat a formal military under tyranical control. As such events could happen suddenly the people shal be able to keep and bear arms so that they are prepared in advance.
"The thing about quotes on the internet is that you can not confirm their validity."
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky. dangerous animals."
July 30th, 2012 05:51 PM
Read the excellent book - "The Second Amendment Primer" by Les Adams.
A well regulated [trained] militia [the whole body of citizens capable of bearing arms], being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people [same definition as "militia"] to keep [own] and bear [carry; use for self defense] arms [individual firearms], shall not be infringed.
In many cases, citizens in the colonial era were required to keep individual (fire)arms and ammunition, in order to be able to muster in case of need. They were also required to turn out for drill and training at regular intervals. As far as I can tell, there was no requirement for individuals to own crew served weapons (such as artillery) - these were usually owned by the government at various levels. Thus, I can see the 2A covering individual weapons, but I do not see a strong case for crew served heavy weapons.
The number of people killed because they didn't have "enough gun" is dwarfed by those who had none at all.
July 30th, 2012 06:15 PM
I'd say this again but it would be redundant. To me the 2A is an affirmation of a specific category of privately owned property that no despotic government allows its people to have. It is clearly an individual right, and it does not include any language that would suggest any "controls" on it are permitted. The only thing not allowable, then as now, is for you to turn your arms on others as an offensive act.
Originally Posted by mlr1m
July 30th, 2012 07:13 PM
The fact that many of the Founders felt that the 2nd Amendment and for that matter all of the Bill of Rights were unnecessary should say something about their intent. Those opposed to the Bill of Rights felt that the simple fact that those rights mentioned in the document were never given up to the Federal Government to begin with. That the Government was never given the power to restrict any of the rights was all the protection needed.
The proof of the right to bear arms is not in the 2nd Amendment. The proof of that right is that it was not one of the enumerated powers given to the Federal Government.
July 30th, 2012 07:14 PM
We need to look at the reason the founding fathers put the right of the people to keep and bear arms. From all I have heard over the years it was so that the people could defend themselves from a tyrannical government (at that time England). Given that we should be able to have whatever arms necessary to accomplish that. Someone mentioned in a post that we should have at least the weapons available to basic infantry. Sounds fair but we may also need a bit more.
I firmly believe that when the founding fathers stated "shall not be infringed" that it was in the literal sense. Not surprising that Scalia is wrong when he said "..........the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons."
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
--Thomas B. Reed, American AttorneySecond Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791
and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."
July 30th, 2012 09:20 PM
Here is the link to a copy of James Madison speech to congress were he introduced the frame work for the "Bill of Rights". It is a great read!
Originally Posted by Crowman
James Madison speech to Congress - June 8, 1789
As for Justice Scalia, in listening to his verbaliztion and not the commentators, he is open to regulations that follow the Constitution as it reads.
“It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men!”
Samuel Adams"In an insane society a sane man must appear insane." Spock & Movie "Serial"
July 30th, 2012 09:28 PM
To make a law that hinders or makes difficult the owning of weapons.
Paying a gun registration fee, or require a Firearms Owner ID card or asking permission from some liberal police cheif that hates guns is an infringement.
Registration is an infringement. Any law that says you cant have flash suppressor, a bayonet, a magazine with more than x number of rounds, or a pistol grip, collapsible stock...all of it is an infringement. Any law that says the barell has to be at least this long or the gun has to have this length is an infringememt. Or you can pay this 200 dollar fee and we wont infringe you anymore.
Every single law on the books is an infringment. Its all a bunch of crap.
hecks...the next step towards registration and confiscation.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/
July 30th, 2012 10:50 PM
Militia means armed citizens. Well-regulated means smooth operating and able to defend the state. Arms means anything that shoots, fires, or propels any kind of object. That should include everything from slingshots to machine guns to RPG's. Infringement means ANY type of regulation on arms.
By my definition our government has not only stepped on the 2A, they jumped up and down stomping it into the dirt.
July 30th, 2012 11:07 PM
Not bad, at all. One of many good ones, verbose though he was. (A man after my own heart, in that regard. )
Originally Posted by onacoma
The Federalist Papers 24-29 were fairly great, too, regarding some of the original intent:
- FEDERALIST No. 24 The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered
- FEDERALIST No. 25 The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered (con't)
- FEDERALIST No. 26 The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered
- FEDERALIST No. 27 The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered (con't)
- FEDERALIST No. 28 The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered (con't)
- FEDERALIST No. 29 Concerning the Militia
July 30th, 2012 11:52 PM
The second Amendment was written solely as a reminder to the new Federal Government that they did not have the power to create laws affecting ones right to bear arms. People mistakenly read into the bill of rights that somehow we get our rights from it.
Originally Posted by Crowman
Look at it again, It does not say you have a right. What it says is that the Government cannot infringe on the right. Does that not imply that the right preexisted the document? The First Amendments works the same way. It does not say you have a right to free speech. It does say the Government shall pass no laws affecting it. Affecting what you were in effect born with.
The Bill of rights does not grant rights. What it does is place further restrictions on the feds.
July 30th, 2012 11:56 PM
Originally Posted by mlr1m
Review the reasoning of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers #28:
Originally Posted by Quoted in part, FP #28
July 31st, 2012 12:07 AM
If we think about why the Second Amendment was passed in the first place, it was three-fold: 1, to protect against marauding Indians/Native Americans, of which there were plenty at the time, 2, to protect against a tyrannical government (i.e., King George's monarchy) from placing its subjects in a stranglehold, and 3, to feed one's family. So, in essence, to defend oneself, to feed one's family, and to ensure one's civil rights. Clearly, there's no King George, and no marauding Indians anymore, but there are parallels: over-reaching federal governments that border on socialism/communism, and home invasions. Feeding one's family still stands.
Additionally, if my understanding was correct, in the early days of the nation immediately following the Revolutionary War, the nation's military was in its infant stages. When a battalion of regular infantry would head west from the 13 colonies to clear land for settlers, their numbers were usually bolstered 1:1 by 'militia' from outlying territories, i.e., farmers and settlers with a good rifle. It would have been impossible to expand westward without a well-armed militia ready and able to aid federal troops when needed. Were our regular troops ever to rebel against a government that turned to socialism, you can bet I would snatch up my weapons and be at the nearest recruiting post in a heartbeat.
So in essence, while the exact specifics of who we are defending ourselves against has changed, what we are defending has not: our right to protect ourselves. I believe the Second Amendment is as important today as it was in 1776.
Search tags for this page
2a & rkba
example american colonial verbiage
proper verbiage for crew served weapons
regulate handheld laser pistols as right to bear arms
rkba without 2a
Click on a term to search for related topics.