October 22nd, 2008 07:09 PM
Text of the 2A Broken Down...
2nd Amendment to the US Constitution:
"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."
I've been reading a lot about this lately and wanted to know what you all think. What follows is my re-write of the 2A, based on the founders' understanding of words lost on much of modern America:
"A well-trained body of defenders being necessary to protect against the loss of freedom, the right of the people to keep and carry arms will not be violated."
Obviously, my clarification is mostly based on further definition of the words:
secure - to protect against loss or theft
bear - to carry
October 22nd, 2008 09:17 PM
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage
GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself
October 22nd, 2008 09:28 PM
I've always thought of "Well-Regulated" as also meaning (not instead of) "Civic-Minded," "Well-Mannered," "Educated/Informed," "Responsible," "Moral," "Law-Abiding," etc.; - the American Citizenry with all it's best attributes.
The authors of our Founding Documents were too accomplished as wordsmiths to have only meant "trained," but certainly that was a major point.
(Can you tell? - I admire them, and their efforts, and their legacy....)
October 22nd, 2008 11:56 PM
Excellent, and bookmarked. Thanks for the link.
Originally Posted by P7fanatic
Get the U.N. out of the U.S.
Get the U.S. out of the U.N.
October 23rd, 2008 06:55 AM
Even in the Dred Scott case,before the 14th amendment, the court acknowledges if Scott were considered a "citizen" he would have the right to keep and carry arms.
Originally Posted by agentmel
They didn't mention anything about the 2A not applying to the states.
"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
Nunn v. State GA 1848
October 23rd, 2008 09:18 AM
2A -- "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 elements broken down: freedom, security, arms, no infringement. There really is little else, other than the common sense and understanding of the times. I believe a whole pile of things was left unstated, but that these were understood and assumed the reader would know these things were true. Sadly, that was before there were more lawyers than upstanding citizens.
Since a free state of free individuals crucial to the security of all people, it is recognized that all people have the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms of their choosing, without restriction or infringement of any kind from anyone. Period. This shall be the policy and law of the land, to apply to all people at all times, and this shall be a specific prescription against government interference, restriction and infringement for all time.
To my way of thinking, each of these points is really what was in the minds of the framers at the time that the bearing of arms was cast into stone. Much of the historical material about discussions, musings, published writings in newspapers, memoirs and documents describing the deliberations of the continental congress bear out this thinking. I am not a meddling wordsmith, trying to debate the placement of a comma, and what weight the prefatory elements have over the core statements. I simply believe that the statement had a fairly simple meaning and was based on common sense and commonly-recognized basic truths of the time, all stated in ways that the average individual would understand. (Though what we can make from all this probably can be boiled down to one thing: common sense ain't so common, anymore.)
A free state cannot exist without free individuals.
Security comes first, as it must for any free people. A critical way to help ensure a given individual's personal security is to allow that person to be armed and working in his/her own best interests to provide for that security. A critical way to ensure a group's security is to have each person be armed and working both on his/her own behalf and on the behalf of the group.
As such, being armed is acknowledged to be a critical pre-condition for having security and freedom.
A free and secure group of people cannot exist without free and secure individuals. Thus, the freedom of all people depends on each and every individual having the freedom to be secure individually.
The right to bear and keep arms is pre-existing. This statement is a statement of policy and law of the land, covering all people at all times in all situations, bar none, short of the commission of overt threats to the security of other free individuals.
This right to bear and keep arms is absolute and shall not be limited, altered, meddled with, infringed or in any other way adulterated such that individuals are deprived the right to choose their own arms.
The right to bear arms specifically covers the actual use and deployment of those arms to resist criminal attack and action against an otherwise upstanding person or group of persons. This specifically disallows the infringement or limiting of what action a person may engage in that protects and guards against such criminal attack and action.
By its lack of restrictions or limitations, this policy and law acknowledges the right of free individuals to resist and repel criminal attack, from whatever quarter it arises, either foreign or domestic, in whatever manner required to stop the attack.
This isn't merely what I wish it meant. I believe that each and every element I describe above was strongly implied and indicated in the basic wording and straightforward indication of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. People may be armed in the protection of themselves and others, without infringement, and that is meant to imply the whole truckload of truths, assumptions and practical realities that comes with that.
What does all this mean, to me? That a person may be armed and use those arms in order to remain safe and secure, in the defense of him/herself and/or others, at all times, using whatever manner of arms is required to maintain that safety and security, without infringement or limitation of any kind from any quarter ... bar none.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
self defense (A.O.J.).
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
By ArmyCop in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: October 18th, 2010, 10:35 AM
By mr.stuart in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: April 10th, 2009, 07:37 AM
By OMEGA2669 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: April 10th, 2009, 12:11 AM
By ccw9mm in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
Last Post: July 7th, 2008, 10:46 PM
By LongRider in forum Bob & Terry's Place
Last Post: November 22nd, 2007, 06:08 PM
Search tags for this page
2nd amendment broken down
2nd amendment broken down and explained
second amendment broken down
the 2nd amendment broken down
the second amendment broken down
the second amentment broken down
us 2nd amendment broken down
us constitution broken down
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors