Lingusitics What Does the 2nd Amendment Really Allow Regarding Gun Ownership?

[GENIERE]

For the English language experts:

This thread is intended only to determine what right the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution gives to it’s citizens. Some believe it to mean that if your in a militia you’re entitled to bear arms when necessary. Others believe it to mean any citizen can own a weapon without limitations. Restrict opinions to the proper parsing of the sentence and not render opinions as to which of above you prefer.

* Note comma placement.

“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.”



Regards

 

[Zero]

I'm confused by the English in it, myself...it doesn't feel like a complete sentence.

I have always thought the 2nd Amendment was nonsense, anyways. I read it in context of the late 18th century, where men often did battle with their personal firearms. Lats time I checked, this was the 21st century, and the idea of a militia is so outdated as to make the Amendment completely invalid.

 

[amp]

Methinks you have the right of it Zero,

It may serve a purpose in todays climate should the constitution become totally usurped by a dictitorial executive branch.

 

[kyleb]

you would, you pinko commie ...




seriously though, it is not proper english by any means, but best i can tell they intend the right to bear arms not to be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; not that a well regulated milia should be the only ones allowed to bare arms.


and i could care less how wars are fought, if someone wants to oppress me all it takes is a gun in their face to show them that it is not going to happen.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
I'm confused by the English in it, myself...it doesn't feel like a complete sentence.

I have always thought the 2nd Amendment was nonsense, anyways. I read it in context of the late 18th century, where men often did battle with their personal firearms. Lats time I checked, this was the 21st century, and the idea of a militia is so outdated as to make the Amendment completely invalid.

It isn't and I agree with your interpretation of the context.

 

[Zero]

I don't know if there should be a new amendment, if people feel so strongly about it, but right now I just don't see the 2nd Amendment being relevant. If you want proof, take into account that no one regularly quotes the ENTIRE thing in support of gun rights. Why not? Because you have to take it out of context in order to support teh NRA's position.

 

[FZ+]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Yeah, it is pretty confusing. I don't suppose there will be another amendment to clarify this wording? Because this statement seems to also support a totalitarian state - one solution is that the people are armed and incorporated into a citizen's militia, "regulated" by the state.

 

[Dissident Dan]

It's about cruel and unusual punishment...no one should have an arm or two chopped off.

To be serious, one should note that it doesn't say anything about protecting your family from intruders or hunting.

 

[GENIERE]

"A well educated public, being necessary to the progress of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

Most readers of that sentence would conclude that people may keep and read books.

The next sentence is grammatically identical to the first:

"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."

Personal bias by some likely obfuscates the meaning of the second sentence.

The un-amended constitution dealt with the powers of the Federal government. The addition of the "Bill of Rights", wherein the 2nd amendment was included, dealt with the rights of the individual and the "several states".

States rights were vitally important to the founding fathers. A state militia was deemed necessary, not just to defend the country against foriegn invaders, but to defend the "several states" against a possible tyranical Federal government.

Regards

 

[climbhi]

Originally posted by Zero
I have always thought the 2nd Amendment was nonsense, anyways. I read it in context of the late 18th century, where men often did battle with their personal firearms. Lats time I checked, this was the 21st century, and the idea of a militia is so outdated as to make the Amendment completely invalid.

This doesn't hold water. First, it does not matter how old the constitution is or when it was written, it is the governing document of our country and must be followed unless proper steps are taken through the legislature to ammend it. Arguing that becuase society has changed certain parts of the constitution have become invalid makes no sense. One would hope that society has changed to a degree where it is no longer necessary for the government to secure the rights of freedom of speech, religion, etc... but that does not mean that we ought to go about trying to dismiss these parts of the constitution as irrelevant in the 21st century. So how on Earth do you justify doing this for other parts of the constitution? Second, even if society has changed to such a degree know that it is no longer necessary to secure the right to bear arms, this right still serves a serious and symbollic purpose in our country.

Personally I don't care to own a gun myself, nor do I see why so many others insist on having guns. Yes it does bother me to a certain extent that some people do own guns. But still I think it is ridiculous to talk about how we no longer need this right.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by GENIERE
"A well educated public, being necessary to the progress of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

Most readers of that sentence would conclude that people may keep and read books.

The next sentence is grammatically identical to the first:

"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."

So you are saying public = militia? educated = regulated? Could you clarify the definition of "militia" and "regulated" and their implications for the 2nd amendment?

I don't think your analogy fits. Whether it is grammatically correct is not your point.

One would hope that society has changed to a degree where it is no longer necessary for the government to secure the rights of freedom of speech, religion, etc... but that does not mean that we ought to go about trying to dismiss these parts of the constitution as irrelevant in the 21st century. So how on Earth do you justify doing this for other parts of the constitution?

That isn't the same thing, FZ+. Zero was saying that the right itself is obsolete, not its protection.

Just to clarify my position here, I'm not for banning all guns but I do think they should be HEAVILY restricted.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by GENIERE
"A well educated public, being necessary to the progress of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

Most readers of that sentence would conclude that people may keep and read books.

The next sentence is grammatically identical to the first:

"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."

Personal bias by some likely obfuscates the meaning of the second sentence.

The un-amended constitution dealt with the powers of the Federal government. The addition of the "Bill of Rights", wherein the 2nd amendment was included, dealt with the rights of the individual and the "several states".

States rights were vitally important to the founding fathers. A state militia was deemed necessary, not just to defend the country against foriegn invaders, but to defend the "several states" against a possible tyranical Federal government.

Regards

Those two sentences are NOT semantically equivalent. A book is not a gun, and an educated population is not a military force.

The wording refers to the existence of state militias, which do not exist anymore. As I said, the Amendment itself is obsolete. It is the same as any law referring to other people as property could not be enforced today.

I'm a gun owner myself, so I don't believe in a total ban or anything.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by climbhi


Personally I don't care to own a gun myself, nor do I see why so many others insist on having guns. Yes it does bother me to a certain extent that some people do own guns. But still I think it is ridiculous to talk about how we no longer need this right.

You should have read my second post...where I said, "I don't know if there should be a new amendment, if people feel so strongly about it, but right now I just don't see the 2nd Amendment being relevant." I'm not sure about how it would work, but I think a new Amendment is in order...the old one doesn't apply.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by GENIERE

“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.”

A "militia" is a group of citizens who double as soldiers, hence if you remove from them, the right to bear arms, then all of the arms would have been stored in one place, for the purposes of the militia, and that would have been a very dangerous propostion, in those days.

So to ensure that you could muster an ARMED militia, the rights of the citizens to "keep and hold arms" was established.

It is probably becasue of the dualistic nature of the word militia, "citizen/soldiers" that the troubles of interpretation arise.

A simple question would be, did they have a National Armed Forces, when they contemplated this right, cause, if not, then the original intent of it was simply 'self protection' of the nascent nation by protecting the citizens rights.

Does that help?

 

[GENIERE]

Well regulated according to Princeton's Wordnet means: "orderly adj, 4: marked by or adhering to method or system, a well regulated life." “Regulated“ circa 1790, did not mean something controlled by a government. In fact, a militia was deemed necessary to protect the individual from a tyrannical government including the US government. Fear of tyranny exists for many individuals today.

A Google search for “US code”, sub-search “militia” reveals:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
US Code 2000

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-section (2) refers to, and therefore legitimizes, an “unorganized militia”.

A correct parsing of the 2nd amendment finds that “right” is the subject, “shall” is the verb, and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” is the main clause”. Therefore the right is given to the people, not the militia.

As to the relevancy of the amendment in this century, many on the left side of the political aisle believe the US Constitution is a living document that may be interpreted differently today than it was in the past. Those on the right side (no pun intended) believe it should be interpreted strictly as written.

Regards

 

[Dissident Dan]

Obviously, it is saying that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Of course that brings into question what constitues infringement.

The only other thing that could be possible is that it is supposed to say "A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.", which just doesn't make semantical sense. So I think that we can rule that out.

The Militia thing is brought into provide some background and justification. I don't think that what the United States defines as a "militia" today is relevant, Geniere. If you really want to look up documentation about the definition of "Militia", you should look it up in the writings of the drafters of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

It says that the right is protected in order for a militia (or militias--one for each State) to operate. It does not provide any other justification for this right.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by GENIERE


A correct parsing of the 2nd amendment finds that “right” is the subject, “shall” is the verb, and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” is the main clause”. Therefore the right is given to the people, not the militia.

As to the relevancy of the amendment in this century, many on the left side of the political aisle believe the US Constitution is a living document that may be interpreted differently today than it was in the past. Those on the right side (no pun intended) believe it should be interpreted strictly as written.

Regards

You are ignoring the part that is relevant, to suit your political stance? SHAME! The PURPOSE of the right to bear arms is in the interest of maintaining a militia. Right or left, you aren't allowed to pick and choose only the part that suits you.

And, of course, laws need to change with the times...unless you are some sort of Luddite?

 

[Tog_Neve]

Zero -

The wording refers to the existence of state militias, which do not exist anymore.

How wrong you are. State militias still exist. Several states have them. And in a sense the national guard can be considered a state militia. They are under direct control of the state and not the fed.

The sentence is not a complex one.
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 can actually remove the "being necessary to the security of a free state" because that is a statement that is only giving reason behind the need for a militia. So you get:
"A well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
Now we find that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" becomes a descriptive statement which defines what the milita is...it is the people bearing arms...which even incontext of our founding fathers that waswhat the militia was...common people bearing arms for protection of State and government.

So A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.
A well regulated militia is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated militia shall not be infringed upon by the gment.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Tog, I don't understand how you can say that a militia is a right. A militia is group of people. A right is not a physical entity.

 

[Tog_Neve]

Dan
Not stating that at all.
Let me clarify a little more
Militia-
Purpose- Necessary for the security of a free state.
Made up of: people in this case bearing arms.
Thusly: In order to ensure the security of a free state the right of the people that make up the militia to bear arms should not be infringed upon. Since it is the people that make up the militia that is there to protect the security of the state (and fed) then the fed cannot take away the right to bear arms, or else the security of the state is at jeopardy.

 

[FZ+]

Thusly: In order to ensure the security of a free state the right of the people that make up the militia to bear arms should not be infringed upon. Since it is the people that make up the militia that is there to protect the security of the state (and fed) then the fed cannot take away the right to bear arms, or else the security of the state is at jeopardy.

“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.”

Who does the regulating?

If it is the state as the statement suggests, then it is well within the duty of the regulating body, if they decide that the militia is in fact impeding security, to use their powers of regulation, and either withdraw or severely limit arms possession. In fact, it is downright unconstitutional for there not to be gun control.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by FZ+
“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.”

Who does the regulating?

If it is the state as the statement suggests, then it is well within the duty of the regulating body, if they decide that the militia is in fact impeding security, to use their powers of regulation, and either withdraw or severely limit arms possession. In fact, it is downright unconstitutional for there not to be gun control.

Agreed, but how?

Further, the "regulated" is probably the voluntary adherence to the law, by responsible citizens, who have had some 'pre-training' at being a "Well Regulated Militia", hence trusted, in those local communities, to have arms in their homes.

Otherwise, all the arms would be in a cache, and I alone, could dis-arm your protection, with nothing more then a match. Not a safe proposition back in those days, or even in these days.

"Don't keep all of your eggs in one basket" as applied in a principal of self protection

 

[GENIERE]

I'll repeat from my previous post. Regulated, circa 1790, addressed the functionality of some-thing/person. It absolutely did not refer to a regulating body other then the members themselves. The right (bear arms) is given to the people and as such none of "several states" can enact "infringing" laws. Several states have passed such laws, the last of which (appealed to the 5th circuit) had a ruling favorable to the political right. Many before that had rulings favorable to the left. The only one to reach the Supreme Court (1937 I think) was ruled somewhat favoring the left. That ruling was too narrow in finding only that a sawed-off shotgun was not a defensive weapon. In truth, neither side is willing to push appeals to the Supreme Court level, not being sure of the outcome. The Supreme Court, at this time is almost evenly divided, 3 liberals, 2 who don't know what they are, and 4 conservatives. You can bet that if the court swings to one side or the other, several of these state laws will be tested.

Dissident Dan is incorrect in stating that states had only one militia. In 1790, each of the states had several militias. Some still do.

I'm glad that Zero agrees that the purpose of the amendment was for the citizens to have the right to bear arms and form a militia. I don't believe I've stated differently.

The founding fathers also assumed citizens had rights and needs so obvious and prevalent that they saw no need to include them in the Constitution. One assumption was that people would hunt and have arms for that purpose. What the founding fathers assumed is a whole other issue.

I also agree with Zero in that laws (at least many laws) must change with the times. A means to alter the Constitution was provided for, that being the amendment process. It was not intended that the Constition be loosely interpreted. As all but one state's laws are based on English Common Law, laws tend to evolve naturally with the times. That’s why lawyers search for precedents. When necessary, appellate courts rule as to a given laws constitutionality. Louisiana's laws are based on the Napoleonic Code, but are still subject to being constitutional.

Regards

 

[Zero]

I own a rather large rifle...and I don't mind if the government knows it and wants to keep track of it.

 

[GENIERE]

Zero:

I tend to agree with that providing use of the data is very restricted. One restriction would be that a search warrent could not be issued simply beacuse one has a gun of the type used in a crime.

Regards

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Why not try it is this light, a 'Militia' is the Military equivalent of the Marshals 'posse'.

One acts with civil right, the Marshal, (insert tin star) and their posse, (immediate 'volontary conscription') and from the (sorta) 'criminal law' side of it, the General, and their Militia, come into being from the 'Military' side of the law, hence the differentiation of the rights that are assigned, but using the same manner of 'aquisition' as to establish the body of people that are needed.

The differentiation of rights deals with rights to 'attack', for the militia, (Warriors) and only right to defend (seize and control) for the posse (Peace officers). Restrictions upon the rights of action differentiate the two positions, but they are very similar in the rest of the 'meaning'.

As for the right to 'Bear arms', well, I am not adverse to sleeve-less-ness, Tee Hee, hee hee hee hee hee!

 

[GENIERE]

I am not adverse to sleeve-less-ness but ‘bear arms’ are hairy and ugly.

I can’t accept any form of civil regulation i.e., as in a marshal/posse scenario. As you know there exists, in the USA, what many describe as extreme right wing militias. Just for the record, I’m not a member of any and do not own a gun. I do believe these groups have a right to exist. They’re acknowledged to be legal, as their existence is well known to the state and federal government. Although watched very carefully, I don’t believe that any of these groups have been jailed unless it was for unrelated criminal acts.

Some of these groups have acted no differently from Osama BL. Nothing can condone the Oklahoma bomber’s attack or any other act of terrorism. Militia groups proved to sponsor such activities must be eliminated.

Some have a real fear that a state, or federal government plans to take away their inalienable rights. These groups exist not to fight crime, not to provide vigilante justice, and not to commit acts of terrorism. They exist to defend against any oppressive government, foreign or native.

It is these groups that I believe are protected by the Constitution.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by GENIERE
Zero:

I tend to agree with that providing use of the data is very restricted. One restriction would be that a search warrent could not be issued simply beacuse one has a gun of the type used in a crime.

Regards

And, I think, it should be rather difficult to get a weapon in the first place. My reasoning is that, in keeping with the Amendment, people should have to prove their skill with a weapon, and their ability to use and keep it safely. We do it with cars, after all, because there is a risk of bodily harm if misused, and the same standards should be held for weapons.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Geniere

Some have a real fear that a state, or federal government plans to take away their inalienable rights. These groups exist not to fight crime, not to provide vigilante justice, and not to commit acts of terrorism. They exist to defend against any oppressive government, foreign or native.

It is these groups that I believe are protected by the Constitution.

There exists another duality in the statement, inasmuch as the protection of the state serves in a dualistic role as per the existence of both the States individually, and the collective STATE, that is being an American, in itself. (not a New Yorker, or Californian, etc.)

The protection of the Individual States, by Militias that are termed "Well Regulated", means that a person of the communal/community authority must be "In Knowledge" of the actions, and practises, of the Militia's, as to ensure the volontary adherance to the conditions, that you so elequently state, as NOT being the "Raison D'etre" of the Militia's.

That brings in a standardizational ability through an a overview of the functions that are Constitutionally protected, and also protects the individual citizens, from the possiblities of "Un-Regulated" activities.

As for the 'rights' to "bear arms" (Ursus?) after that, well, that's up to Americans to decide, not me.

 

[GENIERE]

Zero:

“I own a rather large rifle...and I don't mind if the government knows it and wants to keep track of it.”

“And, I think, it should be rather difficult to get a weapon in the first place. My reasoning is that, in keeping with the Amendment, people should have to prove their skill with a weapon, and their ability to use and keep it safely. We do it with cars, after all, because there is a risk of bodily harm if misused, and the same standards should be held for weapons.”

In substance I agree with your 2 statements above, in principle I cannot. Let’s assume both of your restrictions on gun ownership were enacted as law; each a reasonable restriction. Other reasonable people add reasonable restrictions. Eventually we have a multitude of reasonable restrictions; the total of which combine to negate our right to have a weapon.

Conservatives regard any regulation as a bite out of our inalienable rights. We reluctantly agree some regulations are a practical necessity. The first regulation opens the door to other regulation. That door must be sealed but not airtight.

Regards

 

[GENIERE]

Yes Mr. Parsons:

Arguments I’ve made in principle are diminished through years of enacted laws and regulations addressing the practicality of the issue. States Rights are almost non-existent. Prior to our Civil War, a sentence might have been written like this:

“The United States are[/size] dismayed by the actions of the French government.”

After the Civil War it’s written like this:

“The United States is[/size] dismayed by the actions of the French government.”

Can't think of any 'bear arms' puns, but if anyone has a "bear (as in ursa) arms" avatar, I'd like to have it.

Regards

 

[Dissident Dan]

I've seen a bumper sticker before that says something like "Protect your right to arm bears."

Geniere, As far as the slippery slope argument goes, I don't think that no regulation at all is the answer. We have all kinds of rules in our societies, and I don't see why firearms of all things should be a special case excluded from having rules.

 

[GENIERE]

Yo Dan:

I'm not an anarchist. I recogognize the need for some general regulation. Each regulation must be sent through a grinding mill, weakened, twisted and made ambiguious before it's enacted.

I like that bumper sticker. I almost missed the transposition of the words as I tend to scan down the center of a page when I'm reading.

Regards

 

[Zero]

GENIERE,


Conservatives regard any regulation as a bite out of our inalienable rights. This is simply not true.

'Conservatives' today want to restrict rights they don't think they need, and keep the rights they are told to by the politicians and media sources they support.(This is true of 'liberals' as well) 'Conservatives' don't care about the 4th Amendment, for instance, because they only assume that criminals have something to fear from illegal searches. On teh other hand, they think guns should be exempt. Your argument is similar to the one I'm using about the administrations stipping of privacy rights, except that I don't think there should be NO regulation in either case. Let the government, on the other hand, use teh lightest touch possible in each case. There will always be people watching, to make sure they don't go too far, but zero regulation is no answer either.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by GENIERE
Each regulation must be sent through a grinding mill, weakened, twisted and made ambiguious before it's enacted.

Thats why the NRA writes most of our gun laws.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats why the NRA writes most of our gun laws.

Hmmm...they might, but it is a good thing they can't get all of them passed. Look at a law in Texas from a few years back, which does NOT allow private organizations to restrict guns on theoir property without going through a big ordeal.

 

[LURCH]

The language of the document seems fairly clear to me. The amendment states, within its own text, what its purpose is. It exists to make sure "the militia" will be properly armed. The only question remaining, then, is "who is 'the militia'?".

Perhaps a look at the fifth amendment may help to clarify. This amendment states that a person accused of a serious crime has the right to stand before a grand jury. However, there are some exceptions to this rule which are listed within the amendment. The exceptions are cases "arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia". It would seem obvious that, if cases involving "the militia" are listed as an exception to the right being guaranteed to "the people", then these two entities cannot be one and the same. "The militia" is not "the people".

I am not saying that I favor stronger gun control laws. I am not saying that I oppose them. I am only saying that if there are good reasons for granting citizens the right to bear arms, then these reasons should be presented. The argument for the right of citizens to bear arms must stand on these reasons alone. The Constitution does not say anything about the matter one way or the other.

However, if Congress does try to pass some law prohibiting the National Guard from owning weapons, I will be the first to protest.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

IN the Ca(u)se of the “Right to Arm Bears”

2003-04-29

Speaking on behalf of the (Wild) Bears, their legal counsel, this (i)D(i)ot Typistsss…s

IN seeking justice and fairness in defense of the law, the Bears would be seeking that the Hunters, of said ‘Wild’ bears, would be restricted in their rights to use either, “Baiting” technique, or the alternative “Dog Chase” technique, Such that, if it is that a ‘Hunter’ should be wanting to hunt a Bear, then they must use only the advantage that is afforded by their armament of a Weapon of Distal Destruction. (WDD’s)

It is of note that the bears would, upon such a venture of the said ‘Hunter”, have the acknowledged right to defence, to the point of aggressive attack as it is VERY Clearly seen that the Bear IS in FULL DEFENCE OF IT’S VERY LIFE, Hence all (wild) Bear have Full authorization to use any, and all, means possible, in the defense of the lives.

This is a 500 lbs animal that has lived it’s entire life in a Forest, knows only that, and how to move through that forest silently, at either, rapid speeds, or at a slowness of step that belies it’s clearly remarkable muscle tone. It can Burst speed at ~25 mph, the fastest human(s) do(es) ~less then half that.

As I have had privilege to know persons who conduct such ventures, I can certainly appraise you of their testimony to the fact that if you go ‘Hunting’ a bear, the Bear WILL end up hunting you.

On behalf of the (Wild) Bears, it would be a much more respectful association if, the ideal is to just leave them alone, the second, (Plan “B”) is to know that the best way possible, to shoot a Bear, is with a Camera, from a safe distance. (never more then One third of the path to safety)

Now, if you should wish to challenge my right to speak on behalf of the (Wild) Bear, well then, follow the trail of ‘bells and pepper’, when you find one, you must press you ear to their lips, (preferably left ear) and then push hard against them with your head, and, if they decide you do it properly, then they will let you in on the “INternational Secret” (It’s only just a conspiracy and this is dis-information) that is the fact of “me” being their lawyer.

BTW, don’t expect to hear it is phonetic English, they speak in Bear.


If they decide not to trust you with the secret, well, look where you are with your ear pressed up against a Bears Head, pushing, And the bear has some “Rights!” too, Ya KNoW!


This just in, they just contacted me “telepathically”, they have agreed to a ‘tacit’ agreement on the telling of my name, you must now obtain it, from them, in writing.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by GENIERE
“A well regulated Militia,

A group of locally organized and trained people with adequate discipline.

being necessary to the security of a free State,

Without a strong fighting force representing and drawn from the common people, they are prone to be oppressed or conquered.

These first two lines are essentially window dressing. They detail the thinking of the authors, but have no force.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

In the 18th century, Arms meant military regalia, not guns. Bearing arms meant donning some symbol identifying you as a combatant for one side in a cause. The crime of bearing arms against the crown did not mean shooting at the king, but being part of an organised military action to depose the king. The people had a right to form fighting forces and to bear the Arms of those fighting forces. The term "Arms" being a simplified version of "Coat of Arms".

shall not be infringed.”

No limits may be placed on this right. This is pretty drastic. Most rights have caveats linked to some form of due process. This means that no militia can ever be banned, no matter their activities. No adverse action may be taken against anyone simply because they are in a militia.



There are some people who claim "Arms" means weapons. That is nonsense. If that were so, anyone would have the right to stockpile nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. You could keep heroin if you promised only to use it in a dart gun as a weapon. The fact that this right may not be infringed means that incarcerated criminals could not be denied weapons. While prisoners can lose other rights, this one can "not be infringed". No state could function this way, even in the 1790's. It is obvios the founders did not equate arms and weapons.

Njorl

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

YEAH NJORL!

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Njorl



In the 18th century, Arms meant military regalia, not guns. Bearing arms meant donning some symbol identifying you as a combatant for one side in a cause. The crime of bearing arms against the crown did not mean shooting at the king, but being part of an organised military action to depose the king. The people had a right to form fighting forces and to bear the Arms of those fighting forces. The term "Arms" being a simplified version of "Coat of Arms"...


There are some people who claim "Arms" means weapons...


No state could function this way, even in the 1790's. It is obvios the founders did not equate arms and weapons.

Njorl

I'm sorry Njorl, but I think your stretching it a bit. Arms is derived from Old French armes and that from the Latin arma meanig "weapons, tools, implements. Arms has meant weaponry for a very long time. It'd be nice if you gave some reference for your claims.

 

[FZ+]

On the subject of semantics, I guess it wouldn't work to just withdraw all the guns and issue people with clubs and rocks instead? I don't think there was a clause to require that the citizens had "state of the art" weapons...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
On the subject of semantics, I guess it wouldn't work to just withdraw all the guns and issue people with clubs and rocks instead? I don't think there was a clause to require that the citizens had "state of the art" weapons...

There are indeed some people who interpret the second Amendment to mean ALL arms, ie. tanks, jet fighters, and even nuclear weapons. Bill Gates could buy himself a carrier battle group.

 

[megashawn]

is the problem the second ammendment or an ancient constitution?

See, Dennis Miller made a good point the other night saying that we in America are living by a several hundred year old doctrine.

One that, during the time of writing, was influenced by people who believed slavery was fine, and other such atrocitys.

Really, it seems it is time to "redesign" the constitution. It is getting old, its concepts outdated, and in some cases useless. Back when the constitution was written, we did not have much of the technology we have now. Maybe there is ammendments, but no original part of the doctrine about a automobile drivers rights.

But really, I don't understand what gives any man the right to have power over any other man. Unfortunatly, it seems that we're all born into this position.

But I say, if the translation is to confusing, junk it and start righting a new one.

 

[GENIERE]

Njouri is incorrect as these writings obviously refer to weapons.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776,

...that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possesses over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed…
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possesses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion...
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.
---Zacharia Johnson arguing that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression.

And my favorite!

The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


Regards

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

So what you are saying is that your country has Swallowed a "Poison Pill", and that that is to protect you?

Do I have that right?




Ps am awaiting fur'ther contact from the bears, some imminent news awaits this
(i)D(i)ot's Typistsssss...s Ears. Oh ya, if (when) you get it in writing, the 'iconographic' of "Bear", in English, looks/reads like this, * urp'us * (the underlined part!) but that is not what it looks like when they sign it!

So, get the pen firmly into the Bears paw before you give him/her the legal documents to sign. (earl)

 

[Njorl]

Don't have a lot of free time lately, but for starters, since some one likes Noah Webster:

from http://www.potomac-inc.org/noahweb.html

Bear - To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to bear a sword, badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.

Coat - That on which ensigns armorial are portrayed; usually called a coat of arms. Anciently knights wore a habit over their arms, reaching as low as the navel, open at the sides, with short sleeves, on which were the armories of the knights, embroidered in gold and silver, and enameled with beaten tin of various colors. This habit was diversified with bands and fillets of serval colors, placed alternately, and called devises, as being divided and composed of several pieces sewed together. The representation of these is still called a coat of arms.

Arms - The ensigns armorial of a family; consisting of figures and colors borne in shields, banners, &c, as marks of dignity and distinction, and descending from father to son.

I never said that arms did not mean weapons. But the phrase "bear arms" was always more commonly referring to wearing a defining military regalia.

The writings of Jefferson have essentially no weight when considering constitutional law. He had nothing to do with it, and showed he did not value it. The writings of Madison are much more troublesome to me. I will have to do some research when I can find the time.

Now, if we did accept that arms means weapons, by what right are incarcerated criminals denied arms? Alone among our rights this one may not be infringed.


Njorl

 

[Alias]

So I have this very important right to wear my family crest?

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard(said).

Why would this right to wear my family's crest be so important that it had to be stated in the BOR?

Gimme a break Njorl. It's like a scene from Monty Python. Imagine a scene where the founding fathers are hashing out the Bill of Rights and John Cleese, while acting rather effeminate, shyly suggests from the back of the room, "And the right to wear a dress."

To say that they didn't mean "guns", they meant "a sign on your clothes" is preposterous.

*********

Oh yeah, "Obey me! For I am the Evil One, George Bush!"

 

[GENIERE]

Njouri:

If you like Madison…

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
— James Madison

Or Washington…

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
---1796 George Washington, Farewell Address,

And even if he doesn’t count…

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson

Some later quotes…

Mahatma Ghandi - Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.

Adolph Hitler - This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future! - April 15, 1935

Josef Stalin - The United States should get rid of its militias. – 1933

Sarah Brady to Howard Metzenbaum - Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed. – 1984

Adolf Hitler - ... History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall. - Edict of 18 March 1939

Back to the founders…

Samuel Adams - The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

George Mason - To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them...

George Washington - The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good

George Washington - Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.

Patrick Henry - Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

Regards

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

A ‘brief’, by the Bea’rep, (moi) (pas toi) (moi)

In the recognition of the existence of the (Wild) Bear, the representation requires a presentation that makes absent the “humanified” usage of an ‘EK 50’ rate that the Bea’rep so irresponcibly used.

(WOW< I think that they are going to withhold payment from me, if I don’t clear it up n’OW!)

In statements of the nature giving Approximations of weights,

As Originally typed by the (i)D(i)ot Typistsss…s

“~500 lbs animal”

(What a yutz I was!)

The proper representation of weight distribution amongst Urp’us (ooooooops) (Wild) Bear is in the range from 200 through 800 Plus/plus, (and Minus/Minus, as in “Mama don’t pass no ’Beach balls’”!) from wherein, the (i)T had derived the usage of the EK 50 rate.

Further misnomered in the advisor of the,

Originally stated/typed by the (i)T

“One third the distance to a safe exit”

FACT OF REALITY! The only true safe distance to your “safe exit”, is 0.0 feet, same in inches, and the reason why I so like the SI SI System, when converting in metric we simply multiply by ‘tens upon tens’ to find all “metrical values”, hence we know that 0.0 meters, in metric, will convert to 0.0 Kilometers as we have simply multiplied it by “tens upon tens”. (as requires, of course)

Further is the simplicity that all (wild) bears would prefer to live in Peace, that is there law, “leave me alone!” (unless you’re a member of the opposite sex, and a Bear too, {Ya, Ya! I know! and “it’s the ‘right time of the year’”, I heard already} then……….Shhhhhh!)


So It’s with the humblest of apologies that this (i)D(i)ot Typistssss….s salutes you! (insert “salute”, in (Wild) Bear) in your patience, awaiting the message from the bears, and bearing up under the bare facts of the ‘borne mis-bearing’ of the Bears tails, that I alone, (well, not really, there telepathic abilities exceed some of the humans I know, you know “That way”, actually really better then most of you, so they too have some responcibilities in all of this, after all they still haven’t even given me my retainer yet, so this is still 'al fresco' a writing, if "ya know what I mean") am responsible for!

Duly sign’ed on this day, (What day is it?) at this place here (right in my mind!) with the witness well thought of (hee hee) and all of the rest…..(insert legalease’s, SVP)

Ta ta.