Plain-Language reading of the Second Amendment (2A) -- how should it read?

[GunGeezer]

That why I'm reading "The Founders' Second Amendment" pened by Stephen P. Halbrook. It cover the history of what generated the concerns of our founders. Next to the Federalist papers and the anti-Federalist papers some of the most insightful documentation on the 2nd Amendment. Hand her a copy of all!

Sent from my BlackBerry Runtime for Android Apps using Tapatalk 2

This has long been an argument of mine. Over the past decades we have watered down our population with immigrants who have spent a good portion of their lives in countries other than America. They have not had the advantage of the American educational system which makes it imperative that every child learn what led up to the Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights and The Constitution, and what our founding fathers were thinking about when they wrote these radical documents. IMHO it would be like thinking a thought in a foreign language before speaking English, the words might be there but the flavor is different.
The words our founding fathers used, especially in the 2nd Amendment, mean what they mean to me because I know exactly what the hopes and fears of those patriots were all about. For a carpetbagging bureaucrat, foreign-educated usurper or a pin-headed, self-serving lawyer appointed to an elitist judiciary position, to tell me what those men who wrote so eloquently "really" meant, insults me on so many levels.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[chiefleadfoot]

Our forefathers knew what they were doing since they had suffered so much -----leave it alone.

[oakchas]

This has long been an argument of mine. Over the past decades we have watered down our population with immigrants who have spent a good portion of their lives in countries other than America. They have not had the advantage of the American educational system which makes it imperative that every child learn what led up to the Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights and The Constitution, and what our founding fathers were thinking about when they wrote these radical documents. IMHO it would be like thinking a thought in a foreign language before speaking English, the words might be there but the flavor is different.
The words our founding fathers used, especially in the 2nd Amendment, mean what they mean to me because I know exactly what the hopes and fears of those patriots were all about. For a carpetbagging bureaucrat, foreign-educated usurper or a pin-headed, self-serving lawyer appointed to an elitist judiciary position, to tell me what those men who wrote so eloquently "really" meant, insults me on so many levels.

And those eloquent men designed the system which allowed pin-headed, self serving lawyers to be appointed to an elitist judiciary position.

[stanislaskasava]

"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."

Translation: Armed citizens are necessary to the security of a free society. Any law that restricts owning or carrying weapons is unconstitutional and invalid.

[oakchas]

"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."

Translation: Armed citizens are necessary to the security of a free society. Any law that restricts owning or carrying weapons is unconstitutional and invalid.

Well put!

[mlr1m]

I am somewhat in agreement with many of the Founding Fathers who were against mentioning any rights in the Constitution. The correct wording would have been none.

Michael

[oakchas]

I am somewhat in agreement with many of the Founding Fathers who were against mentioning any rights in the Constitution. The correct wording would have been none.

Michael

Where would we be today without that right guaranteed by the BOR?

[mlr1m]

Where would we be today without that right guaranteed by the BOR?

We would probably be in the same place we are right now. With one side saying that the Governments powers are enumerated and therefore limited and the other side claiming the Commerce clause giver the Federal Government the power to regulate, restrict or ban everything not mentioned in the rest of the powers granted them.

Its not the BOR that protects our rights. Its the fact that the power to regulate, restrict or ban guns, drugs, cattle or most everything else is not one of the powers we gave to them.

Michael

[peckman28]

Where would we be today without that right guaranteed by the BOR?

I think the real problem is the Interstate Commerce Clause. I would much rather have that not be in there at all, and just keep the prohibition on barriers to trade between the states. This would strip Congress of most of the powers it exercises overnight, and that includes gun control laws. I think anyone who has read the documents of the time, and combines some critical thinking and pays attention to the enumerated powers will know what that clause is supposed to have meant, but with the prohibition of barriers to trade between the states even by its original meaning it was redundant and just waiting to be abused. I say, in my imaginary perfect world, get rid of it.

[oakchas]

We would probably be in the same place we are right now. With one side saying that the Governments powers are enumerated and therefore limited and the other side claiming the Commerce clause giver the Federal Government the power to regulate, restrict or ban everything not mentioned in the rest of the powers granted them.

Its not the BOR that protects our rights. Its the fact that the power to regulate, restrict or ban guns, drugs, cattle or most everything else is not one of the powers we gave to them.

Michael

I get that...but since it is in the BOR, it makes it difficult for states to interfere with that right... What if, without the BOR, all states decided to emulate IL? Or, worse yet, Chicago? You would have had no Mc Donald case...

[mlr1m]

I get that...but since it is in the BOR, it makes it difficult for states to interfere with that right... What if, without the BOR, all states decided to emulate IL? Or, worse yet, Chicago? You would have had no Mc Donald case...

My opinion is that the Constitution was only written to restrict the powers of the Federal Government, not those of the people or the States. The States only gave up those powers they expressly granted to the Feds. They did not give up the right to regulate weapons to the Feds, and in not doing so they kept that power for themselves.

Michael

[oakchas]

My opinion is that the Constitution was only written to restrict the powers of the Federal Government, not those of the people or the States. The States only gave up those powers they expressly granted to the Feds. They did not give up the right to regulate weapons to the Feds, and in not doing so they kept that power for themselves.

Michael

I agree with the limitations TO the federal gov't. But without the guaranteed rights under the BOR, the states could then emulate Chicago, with no recourse of the people to SCOTUS. As all citizens of the country, no matter their state of residency, are guaranteed those rights in the BOR.

[mlr1m]

I agree with the limitations TO the federal gov't. But without the guaranteed rights under the BOR, the states could then emulate Chicago, with no recourse of the people to SCOTUS. As all citizens of the country, no matter their state of residency, are guaranteed those rights in the BOR.

That would be totally up to the people of that State. The States were meant to regulate the citizens not the Feds. It was never intended for someone outside a State to tell them they could not own, or make machine guns. If Oklahoma wishes to allow its citizens to carry newly manufactured full auto weapons it is their business. It was never intended that California, New York or Illinois be able to impose their will through the Federal Government on Oklahoma.

EDIT: The Feds were meant to regulate trade between the States. Not within it.

Michael

[varob]

I would tell my 7 year old that it means " It gives all adult Americans the right to own a firearm".

[MattInFla]

It's completely clear as written, provided you understand the basic principles of legal interpretation. One of these basic principles is that the meaning of words and phrases is construed to be consistent throughout a legal document.

Consider the phrase "the People" as used in the Bill of Rights. It has a very specific meaning in the First and Fourth Amendments, where it secures an individual right. Clearly, since the meaning of words and phrases must be construed to be consistent through out the document, the phrase "the People" in the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms. A right that is completely free-standing and not dependent on the subordinate clause which mentions a militia.

Had the Founders wanted the Second Amendment to mean that only those in the militia had the right to keep and bear arms, then the Amendment would read "... the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Matt