Literal meaning of 2nd amendment

[Ghost1958]

I was referring to the mentioned outlawing of guns in Texas for a 100 years by another poster. If that is in fact the case it was as unconstitutional then as it would be now end of freaking story. The Constitution says what it says period its not hard to understand until some over educated officials with less common sense than paper degrees start trying to "improve" it.

Historically the federal government as done one thing semi well and only one and that is field the most powerful military force on earth to protect this country. Beyond that EVERY move they have made as far as regulating anything has been a dismal failure from prohibition to the war on drugs.

Now we are supposed to blindly accept what they interpret out of our founding documents in order to regulate one of our inalienable rights such as 2a? Forget the fact that gun regulation has failed in this country everyplace its been done to do anything other than cause higher violent crime rates. Make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens and move us one step closer to being a dictatorship.

Every nation and I mean every last one through history has been disarmed by its government before becoming a dictatorship ruled thru fear of the government. And quite a few after suffering under that rule have risen up in the past 20 years and overthrown that yoke government be hanged.


As much as it seems a ragged few here would accept even welcome this blind bleating herding of sheep the majority in fly over country as its known will not accept it, will resist it as is being done now as we speak. The high minded members of academia who hide behind security forces for their protection once they have gotten into office, exempt themselves from the laws they pass or uphold, and likely the majority of never saw anything of the actual world we live in other than the inside of a college, government building or courthouse can through their arrogance push to much in their effort gut the constitution.


And likely have their dainty sensibilities shocked when the majority of the country tells them pound sand and refuses to allow our founding document bought and defended with the blood of Americans since our founding to be done away by some fancy devious rewording and some strokes of a pen. They can all go review case law together I guess.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[bmcgilvray]

Move along folks. No defense of the Constitution seen here.

Or the exact opposite; that things change with the times, and hence Hue Hefner and Larry Flint are not in jail.
No one in that post colonial period could have imagined their material being published, and they would surely have punished
them severely, 1A or not, moreover the straight laced Supremes of the day would have found a way to make such punishment lawful. That they don't today, reflects the value of a living interpretation.

So, once you concede that things change with the times you tear apart any underpinning for a "let's look at
what it was like in 1789" solution. We are here, today, with 200 + years of laws regulating possession of firearms; like it or not.
Indeed Texas has regulated heavily in the past, making the carrying of handguns almost totally illegal, for well more than 100 years-- until times and minds were changed.

But of course! The First Amendment at all cost! Nothing may be censored or banned, no matter if it has any socially redeeming value or not. It must be free to be published. The First Amendment must run unfettered, hence we have the likes of Flint and Hefner and the floodgate that was opened after them.

Not so with the Second Amendment. It may be restricted or reconstrued on a whim. After all, that is the value of a "living interpretation." And 200 years of regulation? Why that is constraining precedent which must be acknowledged and valued over constitutional intent, "like it or not." After all, times and minds change.

The First and Second Amendments have exchanged places if the above quote is to be believed. With the First, what was once restrained is now loosed. With the Second, what was once loosed is now restrained.

Ah, nothing like the old principle of shifting principles to get one out of a jam when redefining our Constitution. As a nation we cannot define morality; would not know morality if it bit us on the toe! The ol' toothless Constitution, so warm and fuzzy, which makes us feel all cozy but is no longer effectual. Much like the present day British monarchy. Just so much window dressing!

The summation of the 21st century relationship of the United States of America to its Constitution may be found here.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

[phreddy]

Keep:to hold or retain in one's possession; hold as one's own:

[GunsAndViolince]

Oh, jeez, there he goes again, GunsAndViolince talkin' 'bout Switzerland...

But, I offer this for the OP's consideration, because I think he or she might find it interesting:

Let's consider Switzerland. A country famous for it's neutrality, the site for all kinds of nice, friendly feel-good international conferences and such. It's in EUROPE so it must be better, right? After all, they make the chocolate! If we are looking for wisdom, who better to examine than the neutral, friendly Swiss right?

Well, Switzerland is an interesting case. Frequently, I find, people mistake Switzerland's Neutrality for Pacifism, and nothing could be further from the truth. The Swiss mercenaries were Europe's go-to "arms for hire" for hundreds of years. So, it wasn't out of respect for their "higher values" that other Europeans didn't squash Switzerland, it was because they were some of the most feared warriors on the continent.

While they have professional officers, etc., their main national defense is a militia in which every man must participate for a number of years. While they do have a barracks where many weapons are kept, as you suggest, they keep their FULL AUTO (the ones we can own are semi-auto and not true military weapons) ZU HAUSE! That's right, AT HOME. Now, recently it was decided that they should keep gov't ammo at the barracks, but they are free to keep their own stash of ammo for their selective fire Sig 550s. (I think it went something like this: "Soldier, where's your ammo? Um, I shot it last week, Sir. Were there invaders? Um, no Sir. Hans and I went to the range. It was really fun. OK, you guys are leaving that stuff here from now on. Go shoot your own ammo for fun.")

The idea behind this is that the men might need to fight their way back to the barracks. Now, I'm not saying the Swiss could repel an invasion by the U.S., but they do have tank traps and all kinds of stuff. I think there's a reason people don't invade Switzerland. I'll say it again, Neutrality does not equal Pacifism.

That being said, you need to understand that behind every sentence in the Constitution, there has grown up a body of law and interpretation. That makes it complicated, and yet it is not a complicated document. It is brilliantly clear. It's people's later "interpretations" of it that make it tricky. If you go back to the thing, and think about these people who just threw off tyranny by force of arms, you begin to understand that it means exactly what it seems to mean.

"HANDS OFF THE PEOPLE'S GUNS!"

[oakchas]

Translation in red:

Hey everyone, first time poster but long time reader.
Hey guys! Troll here, Been on for 10 minutes, and figured I'd waste your time with a 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 can read! Comprehension isn't my strong suit, but I can read! Full texts, no less! Full texts of one sentence in length, even with all those commas!
It says we have the right to keep and bear arms.
Don't know how you get them, but you can keep 'em and bear 'em. Whatever that means
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?
I don't understand all that "bearing" stuff... But you could keep them in like a central location, you know, like city hall, and get them if you needed to, like, stop the government from, like making you put your trash out on certain days only...maybe. And besides, I keep my brain at a central location, far away from my keyboard, you know, in case I need to give someone a piece of my mind, I don't waste using it to post on gun forums and stuff.

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.
Who izzat Supreme Court anyway, and what do they, like, know about what a individual right is?


I don't want to start a flame war but I think this is interesting.
This was fun, you'll never see me again anyway... but I made you waste some brain cells arguing with me... and you weren't doing anything productive, like you know calling your sheriff, or your congressmen or anything...

Yeah... it think that's a pretty reasonable translation of the poster's, like, you know, thought process and all...

[shooterX]

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.

The quote you posted here isn't accurate, George Washington did make a statement similar to this in his first annual address to congress, which is as follows:

"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."

[DontTreadOnI]

Translation in red:



Yeah... it think that's a pretty reasonable translation of the poster's, like, you know, thought process and all...

Oak it is my greatest wish to buy you a beer before the day I die.

[oakchas]

Oak it is my greatest wish to buy you a beer before the day I die.

I'll buy you one in return... If ever I go near Ohio again (closest has been Kentucky or Indiana), I'll make an effort to take a detour... and I'll pm you...

[Brad426]

Oak it is my greatest wish to buy you a beer before the day I die.

I like beer, too. Just sayin'.

[bigmacque]

Beer? Did someone mention beer?

[Rock and Glock]

I think we all agree in unanimity this thread can be closed and we'll all just be peachy happy and have all of our wishes come true. Don't you love it when some 1 Post Miracle stirs up a hornets nest and leaves?

[HotGuns]

Uh huh. About what I figured.

Good Close.