The 2nd amendment, my view.

This is a discussion on The 2nd amendment, my view. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; If any of you who are reading this are from Florida, go and buy the book called "Florida Firearms: Law, Use & Ownership." Get the ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
Like Tree14Likes

Thread: The 2nd amendment, my view.

  1. #1
    Member Array hwarang54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Panama City
    Posts
    470

    The 2nd amendment, my view.

    If any of you who are reading this are from Florida, go and buy the book called "Florida Firearms: Law, Use & Ownership." Get the 7th edition. It is the most recent and updated version the author, Jon H. Gutmacher, has written. I will buy the 8th when he finishes it. Some of these are quotes directly from the book, some are not. Obviously, quotation marks will be used when necessary.

    The Second Amendment, as written by our Founders, reads thus: "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."

    Most of us, if not ALL of us know this. We know it is the rights our Founders gave us to protect ourselves. We argue this point daily, in our current political climate. To KNOW it is one thing, to UNDERSTAND it is something totally different.

    Now, let us break this down to understand what 2A is actually saying.

    1) A well regulated....: Regulation, in this term, means trained and organized, NOT ruled and governed. To be regulated means that you drilled, practiced, trained, and did it all over again.

    2)militia: " A militia is a group of FREEMEN. By Freemen, this means independent citizens under no governmental controls. The leadership was elected within the group. They would practice, drill, and train together. "These militia were compromised of freemen from all walks of life, who were locally organized, SELF-ARMED, and who trained an drilled under locally elected leaders."

    3)being necessary to the security......: At the time " regular or 'standing armies' were though by many of the free populace to be instruments of tyranny." The government controlled them, fed them, paid them, and armed them. The government told them where they had to go and what they had to do. It is these regular armies that our Founders fought against to gain independence.

    4)of a free State: In 16th century English, a "State" was nation, not necessarily what we call a state today. The original colonies were the "state". Our militias needed to be well regulated to ensure the independence from tyrannical and despotic government(s).

    5)the right of the people to keep and bear arms: Note the wording carefully... It is not the "privilege" to keep and bear arms, but the "RIGHT" to keep and bear arms. This is something not granted, but something inborn. It also does NOT restrict what kind of arms.

    6)shall not be infringed: It means what it says. You don't mess with it, touch it, or alter it. You don't try and "reinterpret" it. You leave it alone.



    So... now MY interpretation of what 2A actually says, in English everyone can understand

    " Trained individuals, free from governmental controls, have a right to acquire, retain and carry, without restriction, firearms to protect ourselves from tyranny and despotism. You WILL NOT MESS IT WITH."

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Member Array SigPapa226's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    588
    You will not mess with it either.

    Essentially correct.

    The "militia" (the people) were supposed to have arms, and, I believe' the same types of arms as any military mighty have at that time.

    Remember, the founders did NOT want to have a standing army, because they feared the army would be controlled by the state & used against the people (like in England).

    Hope we do not get that far, hopefully, the Military will balk when martial law is declared & Obummer declares himself president for life.

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Florida
    Posts
    9,369
    Only thing I would add, I see "keep" as to possess and "bear" as to carry or take forward. I feel they specifically used both words to convey two different sentiments rather than to be repetitive.
    shooterX and zacii like this.
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.


    Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,358

    Re: The 2nd amendment, my view.

    The anti gun historian would explain it differently...

    Commencing with George Washington Wanting A Professional Army. And he got it, btw.

    And we've had one since... And we don't need a militia, by your definition, we've got the NG.

    History, depends on who is telling his story.
    Ghost1958 likes this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  6. #5
    Member Array hwarang54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Panama City
    Posts
    470

    Re: The 2nd amendment, my view.

    Quote Originally Posted by BugDude View Post
    Only thing I would add, I see "keep" as to possess and "bear" as to carry or take forward. I feel they specifically used both words to convey two different sentiments rather than to be repetitive.
    I forgot about the "bear" part. It was a long post..... It is equally important however. Thanks for the catch

    Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,967
    And who is the NG controlled by? The very entity that 2a is supposed to protect us or give us the means to protect ourselves from? The government. That lil dog there wont hunt.

  8. #7
    Member Array hwarang54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Panama City
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    The anti gun historian would explain it differently...

    Commencing with George Washington Wanting A Professional Army. And he got it, btw.

    And we've had one since... And we don't need a militia, by your definition, we've got the NG.

    History, depends on who is telling his story.
    I think the lower quotation is the best way to respond here..

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    And who is the NG controlled by? The very entity that 2a is supposed to protect us or give us the means to protect ourselves from? The government. That lil dog there wont hunt.
    The National Guard should not be confused with a "regular" army. A "regular" army implies that they are full-time soldiers. It is their job to be soldiers. The government pays, so FEEDS, CLOTHES, and HOUSES them, as well as arms and organizes them. The government also gives them the orders.

    The National Guard is best described as a "temporary regular" army. In this, they are still paid, armed organized and ordered by the government, just not as often as our regular military. THEY ARE NOT A MILITIA.

    A militia are regular citizens who organize THEMSELVES with SELF-ELECTED leaders, are individually armed and train THEMSELVES, for the most part. They are not paid, armed, organized, or armed by the government.

    Before this gets too crazy, I have the GREAtest respect for our men and women who serve. Because of you, and those who came before you, we are able to have discussions such as this about subjects such as this. I thank all of you who serve, or have served.

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,358

    Re: The 2nd amendment, my view.

    You're missing my point...

    Yes, we have a regular army, etc.

    The states don't need militias... They have NG.

    And, since I fall outside the age requirements for the militia (based on the militia act), what about me? Do I lose the right, since I can't participate in "regular" drills?

    BTW, you and I are on the same side... I'm merely playing the other side so you can become "regulated" in the discipline of debate...
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,967
    The states have the NG right up to the point that the Feds activate them send them overseas as regular army, or as U.S history has proven orders them to enforce federal law within their state which they have done in opposition to that states wishes or orders. In any practical sense the NG is federal army if the feds want them to be.
    I respect our military and suspect that if push came to shove a lot of militia would be riding side saddle on revolting Abrams tanks but that isnt the argument being made here. Sorry Ole Yeller still dont hunt worth a hill of beans
    hwarang54 likes this.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,358

    Re: The 2nd amendment, my view.

    Ol' yeller's been dead long time now.

    Tell an anti "that dog don't hunt" is not a response.

    "You must have a hole in your glove, boy, a hole I say... I'ma pitchin' but you ain't catchin'."

    Foghorn Leghorn
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  12. #11
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,060
    The federalists got their standing army and in the same generation as the founders and framers of the BOR because reality found that summer soldiers do not fill the billet in time of war. This is something that the founders agreed upon privately while publicly praising the militiamen and minute men of the War for Independence. Point being that they raised a standing army from zero but didn't see the need to amend 2A.
    Neither should we.
    Doghandler and oakchas like this.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,358

    Re: The 2nd amendment, my view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    The federalists got their standing army and in the same generation as the founders and framers of the BOR because reality found that summer soldiers do not fill the billet in time of war. This is something that the founders agreed upon privately while publicly praising the militiamen and minute men of the War for Independence. Point being that they raised a standing army from zero but didn't see the need to amend 2A.
    Neither should we.
    There you go... And you can find the documentation to back it up
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  14. #13
    Member Array hwarang54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Panama City
    Posts
    470

    Re: The 2nd amendment, my view.

    We don't need people to tell us whether we need any amendment or not. It is not their job to "clarify" an amendment for us. The Founders wrote them to mean exactly what they say.

    Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2

  15. #14
    Member Array BuckNekkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mississippi Coast
    Posts
    91
    I've always viewed it a little differently because of the comma after the word "state."

    "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."

    2A says to me that since the security of a free state requires a well regulated militia, and said militia must be held in check by a fully armed populace.

  16. #15
    Member Array hwarang54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Panama City
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by BuckNekkid View Post
    I've always viewed it a little differently because of the comma after the word "state."

    "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."

    2A says to me that since the security of a free state requires a well regulated militia, and said militia must be held in check by a fully armed populace.
    The militia was basically a group of "us." By us, I mean individuals not ordered by the government. In this case, I can see where that interpretation could come from. If that were the case, this amendment would say that we are supposed to protect ourselves FROM ourselves. This, in fact, my happen if said militia becomes corrupt, like all other organizations can be. In it's truest sense, a militia would be "The People's Army."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment my take defensive carry

,

my view on the second amendment

,

my views on the preservation of the second amendment

,

you wont take my second amendment right

Click on a term to search for related topics.