President Obama!

[Overpaid Union Thug]

here we go again by making a sentence out of fragments to change the meaning of the second amendments.

YOU do realize there is a COMMA in between " the right of the people to keep and bear arms" , "shall not be infringed"..... RIGHT?

You, like every other gun owner in this country, make a STAND ALONE sentence to give it a meaning it doesnt have.

We have already covered this subject many times, yet, the same people put this sentence in, as if thats how it reads in the second amendment.

Lets cover it again.

The second amendment contains a PREAMBLE, or in simple terms, a SUBJECT.

The preamble ( subject) is : "A well regulated militia , "

Then, that preamble (subject) is then QUALIFIED. Each qualification that applies to the preamble is separated by a comma. This is SIMPLE ENGLISH 101.

The first qualification to the preamble is : " , being necessary for the security of the state , "

The second qualifier is: " , the right of the people to bear and keep arms , "

The last qualifier is : ", shall not be infringed."

Where you people get a STAND alone sentence that reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is beyond reality.

But, GUN owners, like the NRA, argue, that the comma CONNECTS the third fragment and the fourth fragment only, and the two previous commas dont have anything to do with the last two fragments.

Thats not how english works.

the subject discussed in the second amendment is A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

Everything else applies to the militia, upto and including the militia act of 1792 in the second congress, as the second amendment was written in the first congress in 1791.

Clearly, in the militia act, the militia was WELL REGULATED and controlled by the president of the United States, and militias were NEVER allowed to control themselves.

They took orders from commanding officers who took orders from the president.

For now, you get to have your beloved weapons of death. We get it, you live in fear, you need your safety blankets.

Dont worry though, the only people who dont want stricter gun control laws, are the people who couldnt pass background checks in the first place, or gun sellers who sell guns to gang members that end up in multiple homocides.

There are no good gun owners in my book.

TOS.

The problem with your whacky theory (if one pretends it is sound) is that that would mean the amendment requires that in order for us to keep and bear arms we must join a militia. LOL! LOL! LOL! Well then Slappy......did the framers just forget to put that part in there? Does the basics of the English language dictate that if you merely mention a militia at the beginning of a sentence (that also states you have the right to keep and bear arms) then it must mean that keeping and bearing arms is only permitted if we are in a militia? Or do you really think that they would leave such a big gaping hole in the amendment? But like I said....that is only if we pretend your theory is sound. LOL!

And I've told you before that it's impossible for us to keep and bear arms if they are under lock and key on a military base, which, is exactly what the national guard bases are.

Man you are incapable of rational thought.

We have Putin doing his best to undermine/destroy NATO, North Korea supposedly popping off nukes underground, ISIS and their "refugees" spreading into our allies lands, we're being invaded by every filth and scum you can think of through our southern border, China is thumbing their nose at us while building stationary aircraft carriers in international waters, and we have an aging infrastructure here that is ripe for an EMP attack by those same players. And what is Obama and the rest of his emotional wreck of a political party doing? Literally crying about guns.


Emotional wrecks I tell ya. Liberals shouldn't be permitted to control anything. Nothing at all.

 

[realbrown1]

Hahahaha oh man Obama really must drive you nuts morelock......You must be screaming his name in your sleep.

Well, Obama's decisions do drive most Americans nuts.

 

[The Other Side]

The problem with your whacky theory (if one pretends it is sound) is that that would mean the amendment requires that in order for us to keep and bear arms we must join a militia. LOL! LOL! LOL! Well then Slappy......did the framers just forget to put that part in there? Does the basics of the English language dictate that if you merely mention a militia at the beginning of a sentence (that also states you have the right to keep and bear arms) then it must mean that keeping and bearing arms is only permitted if we are in a militia? Or do you really think that they would leave such a big gaping hole in the amendment? But like I said....that is only if we pretend your theory is sound. LOL!

And I've told you before that it's impossible for us to keep and bear arms if they are under lock and key on a military base, which, is exactly what the national guard bases are.

Man you are incapable of rational thought.

We have Putin doing his best to undermine/destroy NATO, North Korea supposedly popping off nukes underground, ISIS and their "refugees" spreading into our allies lands, we're being invaded by every filth and scum you can think of through our southern border, China is thumbing their nose at us while building stationary aircraft carriers in international waters, and we have an aging infrastructure here that is ripe for an EMP attack by those same players. And what is Obama and the rest of his emotional wreck of a political party doing? Literally crying about guns.


Emotional wrecks I tell ya. Liberals shouldn't be permitted to control anything. Nothing at all.

I get it bro, you failed English in high school.

The ELIMINATION of the comma in the second amendment is what the gun freaks want to do to make the second amendment sound like something it isnt.

Lets try it your way.

Lets say that the framers wanted you to CONNECT the third fragment and the fourth fragment together, and eliminate the comma in between to make a stand alone sentence giving you the right to bear arms.

So, what happens to the rest of the second amendment??

"a well regulated militia"... : What is that suppose to mean "standing alone" in the sentence?? A well regulated what" How were they to be regulated? Who was to regulate them? Why were they to be regulated? Without further explanation or definition in the second amendment, "a well regulated militia" means nothing.

What about the second part?

"being necessary for the security of the state"... : what security of the state? Who was to secure the state? Why were they to secure the state? How were they to secure the state?

Without the entire sentence including the commas, the SUBJECT "a well regulated militia", means absolutely nothing.

The qualifiers that follow the subject by COMMAS, tell you in simple english, that the entire sentence and structure of the second amendment is a military phrasing and not a civilian phrasing.

Why would the founders spell out each individual right in the first amendment, and then in the second amendment, construct a convoluted sentence that makes no sense?

If the second amendment wasnt designed to address state militias, then why the need for the militia act of 1792??

If the founders wanted yahoos with guns protecting the country, why then, were the militias regulated by the militia act??

What is it about the COMMAS in the sentence that cause you to ignore them? Why, if the last two fragments that are separated by a comma are designed (in your mind) to be connected together, are they then separated from the first two commas that preceed them?

How do you reconcile this though process?

You gun freaks will do and say anything to hang on to your guns. You couldnt live your lives in peace without them. You are so empty deep inside, that your guns provide you with the courage you so badly desire.

But my friend, guns dont give you courage, they just empower you to feel in a superior position to an unarmed person, and that my friend isnt courage.

TOS.

 

[newfie]

Hahahaha oh man Obama really must drive you nuts morelock......You must be screaming his name in your sleep.

as opposed to liberals who scream it while in the act?

 

[Babagounj]

I get it bro, you failed English in high school.

The ELIMINATION of the comma in the second amendment is what the gun freaks want to do to make the second amendment sound like something it isnt.

Lets try it your way.

Lets say that the framers wanted you to CONNECT the third fragment and the fourth fragment together, and eliminate the comma in between to make a stand alone sentence giving you the right to bear arms.

So, what happens to the rest of the second amendment??

"a well regulated militia"... : What is that suppose to mean "standing alone" in the sentence?? A well regulated what" How were they to be regulated? Who was to regulate them? Why were they to be regulated? Without further explanation or definition in the second amendment, "a well regulated militia" means nothing.

What about the second part?

"being necessary for the security of the state"... : what security of the state? Who was to secure the state? Why were they to secure the state? How were they to secure the state?

Without the entire sentence including the commas, the SUBJECT "a well regulated militia", means absolutely nothing.

The qualifiers that follow the subject by COMMAS, tell you in simple english, that the entire sentence and structure of the second amendment is a military phrasing and not a civilian phrasing.

Why would the founders spell out each individual right in the first amendment, and then in the second amendment, construct a convoluted sentence that makes no sense?

If the second amendment wasnt designed to address state militias, then why the need for the militia act of 1792??

If the founders wanted yahoos with guns protecting the country, why then, were the militias regulated by the militia act??

What is it about the COMMAS in the sentence that cause you to ignore them? Why, if the last two fragments that are separated by a comma are designed (in your mind) to be connected together, are they then separated from the first two commas that preceed them?

How do you reconcile this though process?

You gun freaks will do and say anything to hang on to your guns. You couldnt live your lives in peace without them. You are so empty deep inside, that your guns provide you with the courage you so badly desire.

But my friend, guns dont give you courage, they just empower you to feel in a superior position to an unarmed person, and that my friend isnt courage.

TOS.

How can anyone take what you post as a real discussion when you keep adding insults ?

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

I get it bro, you failed English in high school.

The ELIMINATION of the comma in the second amendment is what the gun freaks want to do to make the second amendment sound like something it isnt.

Lets try it your way.

Lets say that the framers wanted you to CONNECT the third fragment and the fourth fragment together, and eliminate the comma in between to make a stand alone sentence giving you the right to bear arms.

So, what happens to the rest of the second amendment??

"a well regulated militia"... : What is that suppose to mean "standing alone" in the sentence?? A well regulated what" How were they to be regulated? Who was to regulate them? Why were they to be regulated? Without further explanation or definition in the second amendment, "a well regulated militia" means nothing.

What about the second part?

"being necessary for the security of the state"... : what security of the state? Who was to secure the state? Why were they to secure the state? How were they to secure the state?

Without the entire sentence including the commas, the SUBJECT "a well regulated militia", means absolutely nothing.

The qualifiers that follow the subject by COMMAS, tell you in simple english, that the entire sentence and structure of the second amendment is a military phrasing and not a civilian phrasing.

Why would the founders spell out each individual right in the first amendment, and then in the second amendment, construct a convoluted sentence that makes no sense?

If the second amendment wasnt designed to address state militias, then why the need for the militia act of 1792??

If the founders wanted yahoos with guns protecting the country, why then, were the militias regulated by the militia act??

What is it about the COMMAS in the sentence that cause you to ignore them? Why, if the last two fragments that are separated by a comma are designed (in your mind) to be connected together, are they then separated from the first two commas that preceed them?

How do you reconcile this though process?

You gun freaks will do and say anything to hang on to your guns. You couldnt live your lives in peace without them. You are so empty deep inside, that your guns provide you with the courage you so badly desire.

But my friend, guns dont give you courage, they just empower you to feel in a superior position to an unarmed person, and that my friend isnt courage.

TOS.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html?referer=&_r=0


Now I'll ask you again...... how the hell are people supposed to keep and bear arms if they are locked up in a National Guard Armory? And before you attempt to concoct your usual illogical liberal BS consider this too......

Army and Air National Guard bases (mitias) are under de facto control of the active duty military (which should be a concern of every US citizen as well). Therefore... They can be federalized rather swiftly should our government, specifically the president, decide to. If you can't see the danger in that, and connect that danger with what you are saying about the Second Amendment, then not only are you incapable of simple rational thought, but not worthy of US citizenship as well.

Now go cry in your safe space and leave the freedoms, and defense of those freedoms, to the real Americans of this country.

 

[realbrown1]

I get it bro, you failed English in high school.

The ELIMINATION of the comma in the second amendment is what the gun freaks want to do to make the second amendment sound like something it isnt.

Lets try it your way.

Lets say that the framers wanted you to CONNECT the third fragment and the fourth fragment together, and eliminate the comma in between to make a stand alone sentence giving you the right to bear arms.

So, what happens to the rest of the second amendment??

"a well regulated militia"... : What is that suppose to mean "standing alone" in the sentence?? A well regulated what" How were they to be regulated? Who was to regulate them? Why were they to be regulated? Without further explanation or definition in the second amendment, "a well regulated militia" means nothing.

What about the second part?

"being necessary for the security of the state"... : what security of the state? Who was to secure the state? Why were they to secure the state? How were they to secure the state?

Without the entire sentence including the commas, the SUBJECT "a well regulated militia", means absolutely nothing.

The qualifiers that follow the subject by COMMAS, tell you in simple english, that the entire sentence and structure of the second amendment is a military phrasing and not a civilian phrasing.

Why would the founders spell out each individual right in the first amendment, and then in the second amendment, construct a convoluted sentence that makes no sense?

If the second amendment wasnt designed to address state militias, then why the need for the militia act of 1792??

If the founders wanted yahoos with guns protecting the country, why then, were the militias regulated by the militia act??

What is it about the COMMAS in the sentence that cause you to ignore them? Why, if the last two fragments that are separated by a comma are designed (in your mind) to be connected together, are they then separated from the first two commas that preceed them?

How do you reconcile this though process?

You gun freaks will do and say anything to hang on to your guns. You couldnt live your lives in peace without them. You are so empty deep inside, that your guns provide you with the courage you so badly desire.

But my friend, guns dont give you courage, they just empower you to feel in a superior position to an unarmed person, and that my friend isnt courage.

TOS.

You are crazy.

The Bill of Rights are ALL about civilian rights and limits on government power.

The 2nd Amendment is not about the military.

It's about the CITIZEN'S right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

But you keep talking about commas and qualifiers if you wish to keep babbling on.

But NO ONE is taking you seriously.

 

[The Other Side]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html?referer=&_r=0


Now I'll ask you again...... how the hell are people supposed to keep and bear arms if they are locked up in a National Guard Armory? And before you attempt to concoct your usual illogical liberal BS consider this too......

Army and Air National Guard bases (mitias) are under de facto control of the active duty military (which should be a concern of every US citizen as well). Therefore... They can be federalized rather swiftly should our government, specifically the president, decide to. If you can't see the danger in that, and connect that danger with what you are saying about the Second Amendment, then not only are you incapable of simple rational thought, but not worthy of US citizenship as well.

Now go cry in your safe space and leave the freedoms, and defense of those freedoms, to the real Americans of this country.

YOU, as a historical revisionist (as most typical republicans are), dont understand the circumstances of our constitution, the disscussions, and the bills that followed the creation of the second amendment in 1791 in the first congress.

In 1791, there were no national guard in the states, and when THEY were created for STATE protections, the need for MILITIAS went out the window.

In 1903, the National Guard was officially the protectors for the state.

"We recognize December 13th as the birthday of the National Guard. On this date in 1636, the first militia regiments in North America were organized in Massachusetts. Based upon an order of the Massachusetts Bay Colony's General Court, the colony's militia was organized into three permanent regiments to better defend the colony. Today, the descendants of these first regiments - the 181st Infantry, the 182nd Infantry, the 101st Field Artillery, and the 101st Engineer Battalion of the Massachusetts Army National Guard – share the distinction of being the oldest units in the U.S. military. December 13, 1636, thus marks the beginning of the organized militia, and the birth of the National Guard's oldest organized units is symbolic of the founding of all the state, territory, and District of Columbia militias that collectively make up today's National Guard."


At NO TIME in our history, were militias UNREGULATED, or occupying forces against the USA or the State.

The concept that MILITIAS were just a bunch of yahoos with guns with "hate the government" as a motto is a laughable at best.

Quote:
"Citizen-soldiers" have come a long way since the American Revolution. The Army National Guard has fought in every major war in which the United States has been involved, from the American Revolution to the vietnam war and the 2003 war in Iraq. Since the end of the Vietnam War, the Guard has been engaged in all U.S. national defense missions. Not only is the National Guard devoted to the defense of the United States and its allies, it is also involved in a number of other activities, such as dealing with emergencies like civil disturbances, riots, and natural disasters, and helping law enforcement agencies to keep illegal drugs off the streets."

Keeping and bearing arms, is something that the military does. Since its inception, the Militias, regulated by the US GOVERNMENT, have always mandated keeping GUNS in an armory.

You on the other hand, want to distract away from the original conversation about the structure of the second amendment itself and the placement of the commas which affect the meaning of the second amendment.

NO matter how many times you repeat it the way you want it to read, just remember, you are CHANGING how it is written, and once you do that, you change its meaning.

TOS.

 

[The Other Side]

You are crazy.

The Bill of Rights are ALL about civilian rights and limits on government power.

The 2nd Amendment is not about the military.

It's about the CITIZEN'S right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

But you keep talking about commas and qualifiers if you wish to keep babbling on.

But NO ONE is taking you seriously.

You can lead a man to knowledge, but you cant make them think, intelligence is earned and not simply repeated.

See where you fit into that equation.

Also, check out how many commas I used in the first sentence, and see if I was talking about 4 different things, or just you.

TOS.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

YOU, as a historical revisionist (as most typical republicans are), dont understand the circumstances of our constitution, the disscussions, and the bills that followed the creation of the second amendment in 1791 in the first congress.

In 1791, there were no national guard in the states, and when THEY were created for STATE protections, the need for MILITIAS went out the window.

In 1903, the National Guard was officially the protectors for the state.

"We recognize December 13th as the birthday of the National Guard. On this date in 1636, the first militia regiments in North America were organized in Massachusetts. Based upon an order of the Massachusetts Bay Colony's General Court, the colony's militia was organized into three permanent regiments to better defend the colony. Today, the descendants of these first regiments - the 181st Infantry, the 182nd Infantry, the 101st Field Artillery, and the 101st Engineer Battalion of the Massachusetts Army National Guard – share the distinction of being the oldest units in the U.S. military. December 13, 1636, thus marks the beginning of the organized militia, and the birth of the National Guard's oldest organized units is symbolic of the founding of all the state, territory, and District of Columbia militias that collectively make up today's National Guard."


At NO TIME in our history, were militias UNREGULATED, or occupying forces against the USA or the State.

The concept that MILITIAS were just a bunch of yahoos with guns with "hate the government" as a motto is a laughable at best.

Quote:
"Citizen-soldiers" have come a long way since the American Revolution. The Army National Guard has fought in every major war in which the United States has been involved, from the American Revolution to the vietnam war and the 2003 war in Iraq. Since the end of the Vietnam War, the Guard has been engaged in all U.S. national defense missions. Not only is the National Guard devoted to the defense of the United States and its allies, it is also involved in a number of other activities, such as dealing with emergencies like civil disturbances, riots, and natural disasters, and helping law enforcement agencies to keep illegal drugs off the streets."

Keeping and bearing arms, is something that the military does. Since its inception, the Militias, regulated by the US GOVERNMENT, have always mandated keeping GUNS in an armory.

You on the other hand, want to distract away from the original conversation about the structure of the second amendment itself and the placement of the commas which affect the meaning of the second amendment.

NO matter how many times you repeat it the way you want it to read, just remember, you are CHANGING how it is written, and once you do that, you change its meaning.

TOS.

You can lead a man to knowledge, but you cant make them think, intelligence is earned and not simply repeated.

See where you fit into that equation.

Also, check out how many commas I used in the first sentence, and see if I was talking about 4 different things, or just you.

TOS.

You REALLY need to read this. It's an excerpt of one of the greatest pieces written on The Second Amendment.

Second Amendment
More
In 1776, America's Founders came together in Philadelphia to draw up a "Declaration of Independence," ending political ties to Great Britain. Written by Thomas Jefferson, it is the fundamental statement of people's rights and what government is and from what source it derives its powers:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

The Founders were declaring that we are all equal, and that we are defined by rights that we are born with, not given to us by government. Among those rights is the right to pursue happiness--to live our lives as we think best, as long as we respect the right of all other individuals to do the same. The Founders also declared that governments are created by people to secure their rights. Whatever powers government has are not "just" unless they come from us, the people.



Eleven years later, after the war for independence had been won, our Founders assembled once again to draw up a plan for governing the new nation. That plan would be ratified two years later as the Constitution of the United States of America.

To understand the true meaning of the Second Amendment, it is important to understand the men who wrote and ratified it, and the issues they faced in creating the Constitution. During the debate over the ratification of the Constitution, there was significant concern that a strong federal government would trample on the individual rights of citizens--as had happened under British rule. To protect the basic rights of Americans--rights which each person possesses and that are guaranteed, but not granted, by any government--the framers added the first ten amendments to the Constitution as a package. Those amendments have come to be known as the Bill of Rights. They represent the fundamental freedoms that are at the heart of our society, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The History of Our Rights
The British people did not have a written constitution as we have in the United States. However, they did have a tradition of protecting individual rights from government. Those rights were set forth in a number of documents, including the Magna Carta and the English Declaration of Rights. The Founders who wrote the Bill of Rights drew many of their ideas from the traditions of English "common law," which is the body of legal tradition and court decisions that acted as an unwritten constitution and as a balance to the power of English kings. The Founders believed in the basic rights of men as described in written legal documents and in unwritten legal traditions. One of these was the right of the common people to bear arms, which was specifically recognized in the English Declaration of Rights of 1689.

However, the Founders also recognized that without a blueprint for what powers government could exercise, the rights of the people would always be subject to being violated. The Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, was created to specifically describe the powers of government and the rights of individuals government was not allowed to infringe.

1. Does the Second Amendment Describe An Individual Right?
Some people claim that there is no individual right to own firearms. However, anyone familiar with the principles upon which this country was founded will recognize this claim`s most glaring flaw: in America, rights--by definition--belong to individuals.

The Founding Fathers created the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of individuals. The freedoms of religion, speech, association, and the rest all refer to individual liberties. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is no different. When the first Congress penned the Second Amendment in 1789, it took the wording, with some style changes, from a list of rights introduced by James Madison of Virginia. Congressman Madison had promised the Virginia ratifying convention that he would sponsor a Bill of Rights if the Constitution were ratified. The amendments he wrote would not change anything in the original Constitution. Madison repeatedly insisted that nothing in the original Constitution empowered the federal government to infringe on the rights of the people, specifically including the right of individuals to have guns.

In constructing the Bill of Rights, Madison followed the recommendations of the state ratifying conventions. Though they ratified the Constitution, several of those conventions had recommended adding provisions about specific rights. Five conventions recommended adding a right to arms; by comparison, only three conventions mentioned free speech.
Members of Congress had no doubt as to the amendment`s meaning. They and their contemporaries were firearm owners, hunters and in some cases gun collectors (George Washington and Thomas Jefferson exchanged letters about their collections). They had just finished winning their freedoms with gun in hand, and would, in their next session, pass legislation requiring most male citizens to buy and own at least one firearm and 30 rounds of ammunition.

The only reason there is a controversy about the Second Amendment is that on this subject many highly vocal and influential 21st Century Americans reject what seemed elementary common sense--and basic principle--to our Founding Fathers. The words of the founders make clear they believed the individual right to own firearms was very important:
Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms."

Patrick Henry said, "The great object is, that every man be armed."

Richard Henry Lee wrote that, "to preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms."

Thomas Paine noted, "[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property."

Samuel Adams warned that: "The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

The Constitution and Bill of Rights repeatedly refer to the "rights" of the people and to the "powers" of government. The Supreme Court has recognized that the phrase "the people," which is used in numerous parts of the Constitution, including the Preamble, the Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to people as individuals. In each case, rights belonging to "the people" are without question the rights of individuals.

Dozens of essays have been written by the nation`s foremost authorities on the Constitution, supporting the traditional understanding of the right to arms as an individual right, protected by the Second Amendment.

2. Isn't the "well regulated militia" the National Guard?
Gun control supporters insist that "the right of the people" really means the "right of the state" to maintain the "militia," and that this "militia" is the National Guard. This is not only inconsistent with the statements of America`s Founders and the concept of individual rights, it also wrongly defines the term "militia."

Centuries before the Second Amendment was drafted, European political writers used the term "well regulated militia" to refer to all the people, armed with their own firearms or swords, bows or spears, led by officers they chose.

America`s Founders defined the militia the same way. Richard Henry Lee wrote, "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . ." Making the same point, Tench Coxe wrote that the militia "are in fact the effective part of the people at large." George Mason asked, "[W]ho are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

The Militia Act of 1792, adopted the year after the Second Amendment was ratified, declared that the Militia of the United States (members of the militia who had to serve if called upon by the government) included all able-bodied adult males. The National Guard was not established until 1903. In 1920 it was designated one part of the "Militia of the United States." The other part included other able-bodied adult men, plus some other men and women.

However, in 1990, the Supreme Court held that the federal government possesses complete power over the National Guard. The Guard is the third part of the United States Army, along with the regular Army and Army Reserve. The Framers` independent "well regulated militia" remains as they intended, America`s armed citizenry.

3. Have the Courts or Congress ever studied the meaning of the Second Amendment?
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the Second Amendment protects a right to possess firearms for individuals, and not just a right to have them as part of a militia or the National Guard. The Court also held that the Second Amendment is not meant to protect a “state’s right” to maintain a militia or National Guard.

The decision struck down the District’s bans on handguns and on having any gun in usable condition as violations of the Second Amendment, and prohibited the District from denying a person a permit to carry a firearm within his home on without cause.

Highlights of the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas, can be found here: /Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=235&issue=010.

The Court ruled that “[T]he operative clause [of the Second Amendment] codifies a ‘right of the people.” And went on to explain: “In all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. . . .’”

Put plainly, the Heller decision says that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for legal purposes, including for sporting use and for self-defense. In coming to this conclusion, the courts examined the meaning of the words in the Second Amendment, including the meaning of “arms” the phrase “to bear arms” and to “keep “ arms. The court also carefully considered the meaning of “militia” and the relationship between the militia and the “right to keep and bear arms.”

In the majority opinion, the court clearly rejected the idea of a “collective" or group right, that is, a right held by the states. The court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms.

The full impact of the Heller decision is still not known. States and cities with restrictive gun laws are now facing challenges to their specific laws and future court cases will continue to define the how the Second Amendment protects individual rights and what types of gun laws will be allowed.

Before the Heller decision, the most thorough examination of the Second Amendment and related issues ever undertaken by a court is the 2001 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in U.S. v. Emerson. In Emerson, the Appeals court devoted dozens of pages of its decision to studying the Second Amendment’s history and text. It began by examining the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Miller (1939), which individual rights opponents claim supports the notion of the Second Amendment protecting only a “collective right” of a state to maintain a militia. The Fifth Circuit disagreed. “We conclude that Miller does not support the collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second Amendment.”

The court then turned to the history and text of the Second Amendment. “There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words ‘the people’ have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the Constitution. In fact, the text of the Constitution, as a whole, strongly suggests that the words ‘the people’ have precisely the same meaning within the Second Amendment as without. And as used throughout the Constitution, ‘the people’ have ‘rights’ and ‘powers,’ but federal and state governments only have ‘powers’ or ‘authority’, never ‘rights.’”

The court concluded, “We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government’s power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans. We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.”

Four times in American history, Congress has enacted legislation declaring its clear understanding of the Second Amendment`s meaning. Congress has never given any support for the newly minted argument that the amendment fails to protect any right of the people, and instead ensures a “collective right” of states to maintain militias. In 1866, 1941, 1986, and 2005, Congress passed laws to reaffirm this guarantee of personal freedom and to adopt specific safeguards to enforce it.

The Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866 was enacted to protect the rights of freed slaves to keep and bear arms following the Civil War and at the outset of the chaotic Reconstruction period. The act declared protection for the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and . . . estate . . . including the constitutional right to bear arms. . . .”

The Property Requisition Act of 1941 was intended to reassure Americans that preparations for war would not include repressive or tyrannical policies against firearms owners. It was passed shortly before the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, which led the United States into World War II. The act declared that it would not “authorize the requisitioning or require the registration of any firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport,” or “to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and bear arms. . . .”

The two more recent laws sought to reverse excesses involving America’s legal system. In the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, Congress reacted to overzealous enforcement policies under the federal firearms law: "The Congress finds that the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the United States Constitution; to security against illegal and unreasonable searches and seizures under the fourth amendment; against uncompensated taking of property, double jeopardy, and assurance of due process of law under the fifth amendment; and against unconstitutional exercise of authority under the ninth and tenth amendments; require additional legislation to correct existing firearms statutes and enforcement policies. . . ."

And in 2005, as a result of lawsuits aiming to destroy America’s firearms industry, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to end this threat to the Second Amendment. The act begins with findings that go to the heart of the matter: "Congress finds the following: (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."

​

So....as you can see you are dead wrong about The Second Amendment. As always.

 

[moreluck]

I don't think there's anyone, 'cept maybe wkmac that will read anything that long!!

 

[newfie]

The ELIMINATION of the comma in the second amendment is what the gun freaks want to do to make the second amendment sound like something it isnt.

Lets try it your way.

Lets say that the framers wanted you to CONNECT the third fragment and the fourth fragment together, and eliminate the comma in between to make a stand alone sentence giving you the right to bear arms.

So, what happens to the rest of the second amendment??

"a well regulated militia"... : What is that suppose to mean "standing alone" in the sentence?? A well regulated what" How were they to be regulated? Who was to regulate them? Why were they to be regulated? Without further explanation or definition in the second amendment, "a well regulated militia" means nothing.

What about the second part?

"being necessary for the security of the state"... : what security of the state? Who was to secure the state? Why were they to secure the state? How were they to secure the state?

Without the entire sentence including the commas, the SUBJECT "a well regulated militia", means absolutely nothing.

The qualifiers that follow the subject by COMMAS, tell you in simple english, that the entire sentence and structure of the second amendment is a military phrasing and not a civilian phrasing.

Why would the founders spell out each individual right in the first amendment, and then in the second amendment, construct a convoluted sentence that makes no sense?

If the second amendment wasnt designed to address state militias, then why the need for the militia act of 1792??

If the founders wanted yahoos with guns protecting the country, why then, were the militias regulated by the militia act??

What is it about the COMMAS in the sentence that cause you to ignore them? Why, if the last two fragments that are separated by a comma are designed (in your mind) to be connected together, are they then separated from the first two commas that preceed them?

How do you reconcile this though process?

You gun freaks will do and say anything to hang on to your guns. You couldnt live your lives in peace without them. You are so empty deep inside, that your guns provide you with the courage you so badly desire.

But my friend, guns dont give you courage, they just empower you to feel in a superior position to an unarmed person, and that my friend isnt courage.

TOS.

How do you figure

 

[BrownArmy]

I don't think there's anyone, 'cept maybe wkmac that will read anything that long!!

So, OUT gives you a history lesson about guns, and you won't read it?

OK, stop posting in any thread related to guns, you're uninformed.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

I don't think there's anyone, 'cept maybe wkmac that will read anything that long!!

That is why we have so many misinformed people out there. It's like having the attention span of a hormone driven 13 year old with ADHD that forgot to take their meds, are sitting next to the hot cheerleader in class, and just saw something shiny trying to read anything longer than one sentence.

 

[moreluck]

Everybody reads long stuff in books or newspapers, but not in Brown Café.

 

[newfie]

So, OUT gives you a history lesson about guns, and you won't read it?

OK, stop posting in any thread related to guns, you're uninformed.

Some do tend to get long winded, brevity can be a feature that adds to a post and makes it more likely to be read. Some day they will possibly be able to add a feature to forums of this type that measure the most read posts , would be interesting to see who the most read poster here would be.

 

[moreluck]

So, OUT gives you a history lesson about guns, and you won't read it?

OK, stop posting in any thread related to guns, you're uninformed.

...but armed !!

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Some due tend to get long winded, brevity can be a feature that adds to a post and makes it more likely to be read. Some day they will possibly be able to add a feature to forums of this type that measure the most read posts , would be interesting to see who the most read poster here would be.

The post in question actually only included four sentences by me. The rest was not mine.

 

[newfie]

The post in question actually only included four sentences by me. The rest was not mine.

I have no problem with it, just rambling on the topic of the length of posts...

 

[moreluck]

When there's something that long.....write your words and then provide a link to the rest of it. Someone can go read it if they choose to.