Literal meaning of 2nd amendment

This is a discussion on Literal meaning of 2nd amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; "I don't want to start a flame war but I think this is interesting. " Yes you did....

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 87
Like Tree163Likes

Thread: Literal meaning of 2nd amendment

  1. #16
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    15,716
    "I don't want to start a flame war but I think this is interesting. "

    Yes you did.
    40Bob, oneshot, Tzadik and 2 others like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Remember: You're being watched!
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Member Array cayman_shen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    "I don't want to start a flame war but I think this is interesting. "

    Yes you did.
    I know, right? The OP reminds me of Bruce Willis in Harlem in Die Hard 3 lol.
    aceakarick and Spirit51 like this.

  4. #18
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    15,716
    Quote Originally Posted by OD* View Post
    Find a copy of;

    97th Congress
    2d Session COMMITTEE PRINT

    The Right to Keep and Bear Arms:
    Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session


    You'll find the 2ND Amendment means exactly what 99% of American gun owners believe it means.



    Or read it here.
    That should be required reading for our grand representatives, if they could focus attention long enough.
    Retired USAF E-8. Remember: You're being watched!
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by DaGunny View Post
    In your scenario, the the town would be keeping the weapons, not the individual. Your town has apparently set criteria in order for you to get your weapon. So, when I need to protect my family from a home invasion I would have to contact a town official...he/she would schedule a town counsel meeting at which I would present my case for drawing my weapon from the town armory...they would then vote...if approved, I would then have to wait for normal business hours at the armory...fill out the prerequisite forms...get issued my weapon...go to the store & buy ammunition (if they have it in stock)...rush home & load my weapon (can't carry a loaded weapon within the town limits)...and THEN protect my family.

    Might I suggest looking up the definition of: "keep"?...Just Sayin'
    Noun: the innermost and strongest structure or central tower of a medieval castle.

    There... cleared that up.
    d2jlking likes this.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

  6. #20
    Member Array sauerpuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by DaGunny View Post
    In your scenario, the the town would be keeping the weapons, not the individual. Your town has apparently set criteria in order for you to get your weapon. So, when I need to protect my family from a home invasion I would have to contact a town official...he/she would schedule a town counsel meeting at which I would present my case for drawing my weapon from the town armory...they would then vote...if approved, I would then have to wait for normal business hours at the armory...fill out the prerequisite forms...get issued my weapon...go to the store & buy ammunition (if they have it in stock)...rush home & load my weapon (can't carry a loaded weapon within the town limits)...and THEN protect my family.

    Might I suggest looking up the definition of: "keep"?...Just Sayin'
    Yikes! Sounds like just exactly what our government wants- let's let them decide when protection of our families is important enough, or god forbid, WHO is important enough to receive protection. Yes, keep, keep, keep!!!

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array pipedream's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Exacto View Post
    I don't want to start a flame war either,but I know liberal propaganda when I see it.
    This......................
    NRA Patron Member
    GOA Life Member
    Never look down on anybody, unless you're helping them up.

  8. #22
    Senior Member Array bklynboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    567
    OP, welcome to the forum. The issue you raise was partially litigated in the Heller case and the remaining part of hte issue will likely be resolved when Moore, et al. v. Madigan, from the 7th Circuit reaches the SC.

    In Heller, Justice Stevens in his dissent claimed that the 2A only applied to official militia activities (which presumably could limit the right to guns stored in an armory). This argument was refuted by Justice Scalia in the majority opinion wherein the court found that the 2A included a right to self defense and that right required that citizens be permitted to maintain loaded firearms at home to accomplish this. In the Moore case, just decided by the 7th Circuit in December, the court held that a right to self defense includes the right to defend oneself in places outside the home, so it found a constitutional right to carry. The Moore case will undoubtedly end up in the Supreme Court.

    The point of this is that if you have a right to defend yourself , that right is effectively eliminated if you must first go to an armory to get your weapon. So even though the right to buy a weapon and store it at home or carry it is not explicitly stated in the 2A, it is impossible to be able to defend oneself without first buying a firearm and them being able to keep it loaded at home and outside the home. There is a strong precept in law that requires laws to be given a 'natural' rather than an 'artificial' reading. This means that if a law is construed to prohibit its natural function, that construction is invalid. So for example, you cannot give people the right to vote and then effectively prohibit them from voting by requiring the payment of a poll tax. THe same principle applies to the question of the purchase and carrying of firearms. BTW, the issue of the poll tax is also applicable to the issue of taxes on firearms and ammunition. You cannot have a right to keep and bear arms be subject to a punitive tax on guns and ammo that effectively bars citizens from owning guns and ammo to which they are entitled under the 2A.

    Hope that answers your question
    Hopyard likes this.

  9. #23
    Member Array loach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19
    No question - individual right, recognized as pre-existing by 2A.

    "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
    - George Washington

    GunCite-Second Amendment-Original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment

    (much more in the link than just this snip below...,and if you really want to get froggy, do a search on Dick Act 1902)

    Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment
    Introduction

    The Second Amendment:

    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 original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

    The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

    There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.
    oneshot and Tzadik like this.

  10. #24
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,767
    The armory is exactly what the founding fathers were against.

    The British first went for the weapon's stores, and ammo stores, because prior to the Revolutionary War many towns did exactly that -- stored things for a fight in a central location.

    The fallacy of this thinking became apparent during the occupation years, 1768 - 1769, when citizens began to be alarmed by the presence of troops and they realized they had no means to defend themselves. After the King Street massacre -- and massacre is exactly the correct word, troops fired on citizens that were not armed with firearms -- in 1770, the end of the central, local armory was sealed.

    This event was referred to in the drafting of the Bill of Rights, and in my opinion is exactly why there is a comma in the 2A. A militia yes, and also each individual free person, has the right to bear arms. The literal meaning of the 2A is that the government cannot disarm the people.

    A central lock-up is a very bad idea.
    loach and Pistology like this.
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,731
    Quote Originally Posted by tuft View Post
    I read the full text of the 2nd amendment and nowhere does it state that we have the right to privately buy, own, and possess guns at our homes for an indefinite period of time.
    I suggest that you need to re-read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers.

    While you're at it, you'd do well to pick up a copy of the following book by David Young: The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms. It's a short (but dense) book on the history of the RKBA, from the Founders' point of view, the first systematic evaluation of period documents from the years between the Declaration of Independence and the ratification votes in the several states for the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by tuft View Post
    It (the 2A) says we have the right to keep and bear arms. Couldn't that mean that all the guns could be kept in a central location in every town and people could have access to them during war or tyrannical govt takeover?
    No, it couldn't (and doesn't) mean that.

    Yes, citizens could each opt to determine that a given location/manner of storage was preferable, assuming it's voluntarily agreed to by each citizen.

    But the primary and obvious detriment to such a thing would be that such a single, centralized spot would be astoundingly more easily attacked and taken over by opposing forces in time of war or tyrannical threat, to say nothing of the fact that in time of rapidly-moving threats (such as every other instance of threat beyond war that could be somewhat predicted) each citizen would be bereft of his arms until he could travel to that central spot and become armed again. That's tantamount to asking a robber for a time-out sufficiently long to call 911 and await arrival of the cavalry. Ain't gonna happen, in practice.

    Which is THE WHOLE POINT of leaving it up to each citizen to determine for himself how he's going to keep his arms and bear (carry/use) his arms. THAT is the true meaning of "shall not be infringed."


    Quote Originally Posted by tuft View Post
    I don't want to start a flame war but I think this is interesting.
    I think it's dangerous.

    The Second Amendment is an extremely broadly protected right of the People. It says, basically, that given having a capable and effective armed citizenry is important in order for us to remain secure as a People the right to both keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (adulterated, watered-down, limited, impeded, gotten in the way of, eviscerated or whatever other euphemism you choose to use).

    Beyond which, the mere idea of questioning it presupposes that the People did not actually believe it their right to remain armed against threats, that the people did not reserve this right to themselves as preexisting and inviolable. That just isn't so.

    IMHO.
    Last edited by ccw9mm; January 27th, 2013 at 05:02 PM.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    5,826
    Quote Originally Posted by tuft View Post
    Hey everyone, first time poster but long time reader.

    I read the full text of the 2nd amendment and nowhere does it state that we have the right to privately buy, own, and possess guns at our homes for an indefinite period of time. It says we have the right to keep and bear arms. Couldn't that mean that all the guns could be kept in a central location in every town and people could have access to them during war or tyrannical govt takeover? It talks about a militia bearing arms, but it doesn't actually state that everyone has the right to buy a gun and privately keep it in their home forever.

    I don't want to start a flame war but I think this is interesting.
    To answer your question, NO!

    For reference (just so you are clear on what we are discussing):
    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.
    You said:
    ...but it doesn't actually state that everyone has the right to buy a gun and privately keep it in their home forever...
    Actually it does: ",the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"

    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.
    Every single one of these words^^^^^^have one and only one specific meaning and the commas are there for a reason. You cannot redefine words or substitute improper meanings of the words nor can you ignore commas in an effort to imply that the 2nd amendment agrees with your uneducated interpretation of its meaning.

    You may have read the words but you failed to understand the collective meaning of the words and punctuation.

    By the way, welcome to the forum. I hope you learn a few things while you are here.
    loach, cmdrdredd, oneshot and 3 others like this.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  13. #27
    Member Array loach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by bigmacque View Post
    The armory is exactly what the founding fathers were against.

    A central lock-up is a very bad idea.
    This.

    "Central lock-up" is no different than Registration and Confiscation.

    Registration, Confiscation, Extermination - a tried and true recipe for all dictators across the centuries. Take a look at this link:

    Death by "Gun Control"


    You know how you can't withdraw more than $600 at the ATM? Same deal. Your money right? If you don't hold it you don't own it.

    "Sorry sir, you have withdrawn your ammo quota for today. What? Yes I know that it is yours, but we have our rules. It is for the safety of the system. We need to preserve liquidity and orderly controls".

    Not that anything like a "Bank Holiday" ever happened in our history. Not like we'd ever see an "Armory Holiday". You know, kind of like a law that says there is a waiting period related to firearm purchases.
    oneshot likes this.

  14. #28
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,524
    We know what it (2A) means because we were told in the recent Supreme Court Heller ruling.

    Nothing else counts, no more than some convoluted viewpoint that income taxes are unconstitutional
    or Brown v Board of Education isn't the law of the land counts.

    I don't agree with big parts of the Heller decision. From the start I stated here it was the wrong case from the
    wrong jurisdiction, on too narrow an issue, and the results would not be good for us. They weren't.

    The issues argued here have been settled and the ruling is not going to be changed
    even if Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy sit on The Supreme Court till they are each 110 years old. If the
    interpretation supported by most participants here couldn't be sold to Scalia, it can't be sold to the
    population at large.

    So, the smart thing for us is to stop moaning about it, stop pretending there will be widespread civil disobedience
    and law breaking from people who otherwise insist they are law abiding and peaceful.

    A different approach then threats is needed. A smart political strategy is needed. And we won't get that
    from the most vocal activist organizations which have to now harmed gun owners more than helped, by taking
    thoroughly stupid positions. (It goes the same for Brady, and the most ardent anti folks- they won't get what they
    want either).

    Good policy and good law come from smart politics, not a refusal to uphold laws or from threats of violence and
    resistance. (Ask the ghost of Lester Maddox how well that worked out for him.) This latter course produces chaos
    and anarchy and will destroy our " One Nation Indivisible" from within. No sane person should want that.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #29
    Senior Member Array SigPapa226's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    We know what it means because we were told in the recent Supreme Court Heller ruling.

    Nothing else counts, no more than some convoluted viewpoint that income taxes are unconstitutional
    or Brown v Board of Education isn't the law of the land counts.

    I don't agree with big parts of the Heller decision. From the start I stated here it was the wrong case from the
    wrong jurisdiction, on too narrow an issue, and the results would not be good for us. They weren't.

    The issues argued here have been settled and the ruling is not going to be changed
    even if Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy sit on The Supreme Court till they are each 110 years old. If the
    interpretation supported by most participants here couldn't be sold to Scalia, it can't be sold to the
    population at large.

    So, the smart thing for us is to stop moaning about it, stop pretending there will be widespread civil disobedience
    and law breaking from people who otherwise insist they are law abiding and peaceful.

    A different approach then threats is needed. A smart political strategy is needed. And we won't get that
    from the most vocal activist organizations which have to now harmed gun owners more than helped, by taking
    thoroughly stupid positions. (It goes the same for Brady, and the most ardent anti folks- they won't get what they
    want either).

    Good policy and good law come from smart politics, not a refusal to uphold laws or from threats of violence and
    resistance. (Ask the ghost of Lester Maddox how well that worked out for him.) This latter course produces chaos
    and anarchy and will destroy our " One Nation Indivisible" from within. No sane person should want that.
    Hopyard is your real name Neville Chamberlain?
    bmcgilvray and Spirit51 like this.
    Ten Bears: It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men.

  16. #30
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,016
    Quote Originally Posted by tuft View Post
    Hey everyone, first time poster but long time reader.

    I read the full text of the 2nd amendment and nowhere does it state that we have the right to privately buy, own, and possess guns at our homes for an indefinite period of time. It says we have the right to keep and bear arms. Couldn't that mean that all the guns could be kept in a central location in every town and people could have access to them during war or tyrannical govt takeover? It talks about a militia bearing arms, but it doesn't actually state that everyone has the right to buy a gun and privately keep it in their home forever.

    I don't want to start a flame war but I think this is interesting.
    OK, so what part of "keep" is limited as to location and duration?

    Have you done your research to understand that the "militia" as of 1786 was every able-bodied male? (Which we extend to women by modern Constitutional law.)

    Go read both the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. You'll see that what survived in our Constitution is a watered-down version of what a lot of the Founders wanted.
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 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 literal interpretation
,
guncite-second amendment-the supreme court and the second amendment. guncite-second amendment-the supreme court and the
,
literal 2nd amendment
,
literal constitution second amendment
,

literal meaning of amendment 24

,
literal meaning of the 2nd amendment
,

literal meaning of the second amendment

,

literal translation of the 2nd amendment

,

second amendment literal wording

,

second amendment meaning

,
the literal meaning for the 2nd amendment
,
what is the literal interpretation of the second amendment
Click on a term to search for related topics.