What Does the Second Amendment Mean?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

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.

If you believe there is no indiviual right recognized by the second amendment, why not? Militia clause precludes citizens? "the people" are states, not citizens? You believe the Supreme Court has said there isn't?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mnealtx 0]

This sums it up for me....

From The Firing Line

"Metal and Wood"
by Dennis Bateman

The following essay was originally published at www.TheFiringLine.com

It is a rare person who does not attach some sort of value or emotion to some physical object or to an event. A home becomes more than a building. A statue of the Virgin Mary, a crucifix, a flag or a song, or even a photograph can stir emotions greater than the value of the material item.

I have a piece of paper showing I served in the military until I was discharged honorably. But, oh, the memories that piece of paper conjures up. The friends, the fun times. The bad times. The times when we were bound closer to strangers than to our own families and, in frightening chaos, our lives hung by a thread.

Many of our friends died far from home. Ask us about the feeling of "American soil" upon returning to the land we loved. Ask those returning soldiers about America.

Remember the old, faintly humorous band of American Legionnaires, wearing out-dated military uniforms straining at the buttons. But, God how proudly they marched. Grinning, waving to friends and families, and always, always "The Flag!" Ask them if the flag is mere cloth, I dare you.

See the elderly lady sitting in a lawn chair watching the fourth of July parade. Three flags carefully folded some forty years ago into triangles now rest in her lap - one for each lost son. Ask her if those flags are mere cloth, I dare you.

Look at the old man quietly crying, leaning against the Iwo Jiima Memorial at Arlington Cemetery. As he turns to you, smiles with some embarrassment, and says in a choked whisper, "I was there." Ask him, "Is it just metal and clay?" Ask him. I dare you.

The Wall. My God, the Wall. See the young man lightly tracing the name of his father there inscribed. Ask him if its just rock. Ask him. I dare you.

My guns? They’re of little real value compared to my family and my home. They are toys, or tools, or both. But what those guns represent to me is greater than all of us, greater than myself, my family, indeed greater than our entire generation. What could be of such value?

The freedom of man to live within civil, self-imposed limitations rather than under restrictions placed upon him by a ruler or a ruling class.

Imagine the daring, the bravery of a few men to declare they intended to create a new country, independent of the burden of their established Rulers!

Those men we call our forefathers were brilliant men. They could have maneuvered themselves into positions of influence within the structure of the times, but they did not. They struggled to free themselves from tyranny. They wrote the Declaration of Independence. And they backed up their words and ideals with metal and wood.

They knew the dangers of such dreams and actions. They knew it was a frightening and dangerous venture into the unknown when they dared reach beyond their grasp for a vision - for an ideal. But they dared to dedicate themselves to achieve Liberty and Freedom for their children, and their children’s children, through the generations.

Imagine the dreams and yearnings of centuries finally being reduced to the written word. The Rights of "We the People!" instead of the "Powers of the Monarchy."

Our forefathers dared to create a new government - a new form of government. And they knew that any organization has, as its first and foremost goal, its continued existence. Second only to that it strives to increase its power. It plots, it devises, it maneuvers to achieve control over its environment - over its subjects.

Our Forefathers decided to make America different from any country, anywhere, at any time in the entire history of the entire world. This country, this new nation of immigrants, would be based upon the concept that people could rule themselves better than any single person or small group of persons could rule them.

Other countries have had outstanding documents with guarantees for its citizens - but the citizens have become enslaved. How, these great men pondered, can we ensure this new government will remain subject to the will of the People?

They wanted limits upon this new government. Therefore, our forefathers wrote limitations into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And one of those Rights was that metal and wood, as the final power of the people, would secure this country for the future generations.

Metal and wood were the means by which we won our freedom.

Metal and wood were the means by which we kept our freedom.

Metal and wood may be the means by which we regain our freedom.

Metal and wood are the final power of the people. Take away the metal and wood and the people become powerless - they can only beg, they supplicate for favors.

We are unique in our ability to rule ourselves but we are letting it slip away. Today we compromise. We try to appease man’s insatiable appetite for power by throwing him bits of our freedoms. But the insatiable appetite for power can not be appeased. The freedoms we feed him only make us weaker and him stronger. We must conquer him and again ensure the "Blessings of Liberty" won for us by our forefathers.

We must be ready to use metal and wood again, for if we are ready, truly ready, we may be able to conquer the monster with words - for in its heart it is a coward. But if we continue to feed the monster our freedoms, we will become too weak to win, to weak even to fight, and we will become a conquered people. We will have sold ourselves and our future generations into servitude.

If words fail us, we will use metal and wood, we will regain what we have lost, we will achieve what we seek, we will guarantee the America of our forefathers for the future generations.

So you see, our guns are more than metal and wood. They are our heritage of freedom. They are the universally understood symbol that the government, no matter how big and strong it may be, answers to us! They are the tools we will use to prevent tyranny in the land of our forefathers and our children. So, ask me what my guns mean to me. Ask my children what our guns mean to them. Ask us. I dare you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[markd_nscr986 0]

Thanks for sharing..............

Very refreshing in this day of Political Correctness and revisionist history run amok

***
Metal and wood were the means by which we kept our freedom

Except if its a Glock it would be metal and plastic

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[Kennedy 0]

I suppose "plastic, ceramic, and steel" doesn't have the same ring to it, but I agree whole-heartedly.


edit: dang, Mark beat me to it.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Quote

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment is fascinating - such a complexity in so few words.

I suppose it all depends where you put the "accent" on the sentence. The "Gun Control" faction place it on the first part; "A well regulated militia", then point to The Us DoD and say a militia has been fully replaced by a military. The "NRA" Faction place it on the last part; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." and argue that if you want a gun, then that is your right.

BOTH are taking that part of the amendment which suits their purposes. Taking The Second Amendment as a whole, then would a reasonable interpretation be similar to the Swiss or (old?) South African policy whereby at the end of a person's military service then the "retired" soldier would retain his weapons & kit and maintain his currency in weapons competence in order to respond to a threat to his country.

As such, I don't see The Second Amendment as some "automatic" right to own or possess firearms. Nor do I see the US Military as a de-facto reason to refuse citizens such a right. I see it as promoting the formation of a militia comprised of responsible people, proven by service, and available if needed.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Kennedy 0]

Wow, this may be a Speakers Corner beer event: an honest discussion on the second amendment and guns in America.


OK, here's what I have concluded in all my reading and research.

First, according to both original intent and current US law, "the militia" is the entire population. Specifically today, the official definition of the unorganized militia states that is it comprised of all able bodied males aged 18 to 45.

Second, according to Miller and Lewis, only arms suited to a military purpose are protected. So a 28 inch double barrel duck gun is not covered by the second amendment, but bolt actions and other military weapons are covered.
(this leads one to wonder if a ban on burst and full-auto rifles is constitutional, since that is what the average infantry soldier uses in today's army)

Finally, as much as I'd wish otherwise, concealed carry is not protected by the second amendment. It says "keep and bear arms." Keep is fairly simple, it means you can own them/ have them/ keep them. The tirckier part is "to bear." To me this means some sort of carry is protected, but not necessarily concealed, and not universal.

Yes, it says "shall not be infringed," but that doesn't mean there can be no regulation whatsoever. Afterall, ther first says "congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech," but that doesn't mean no speech can be censored. Look at yelling fire, inciting violence, etc.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Jester1833 0]

first off up until the Korean war vets where able to retain their weapons after service to the country and yes that even included automatic weapons, second if the 2nd amnd. doesn't apply to individuals then neither does rest of them, third go read the fedralist papers and you see very clearly why its an individual right. fourthly this has been discussed to nuasea there are just people out there that will never see it as a right and they will argue guns are bad , guns are evil, and thats why they will remain sheeple and rely on someone else to protect them (and their rights) from the wolves of the world.

[Nightingale 0]

I think a lot of people's fear of guns comes from a lack of understanding them. My mom is firmly convinced an unloaded gun is going to jump out of the lockbox, load itself, and pull it's own trigger.

[jdhill 0]

The collective right theory runs into problem as soon as you get the words "the people". As soon as you argue "the people" means the collective, you have problems with the rest of the amendments that use the same language (1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th)... If "the people" is a collective right in the 2nd Amendment, than it is in the 1st, meaning no free speech, the 4th, meaning no protection from unreasonable search and seizure, or the 9th and 10th, meaning no right to privacy (since these are the amendments the SCOTUS derived the right to privacy)... The ACLU will cease to have a basis for existence...

from the 1st amendment to the 2nd, the phrase "the people" is only 29 words apart. It appears again only 45 words later in the 4th... All of the amendments were adopted at the same time, so the word must have the same meaning... if it is an idividual right in one, it is an individual right in all.

Its hard to argue both sides of the coin, but the anti-gun folks never seem to stop trying... many of the rights they hold so dear (speech, privacy, abortion even) are all derived from the phrase "the people"... but hey, they want to call the 2nd a collective right... go figure, I guess guns are just that

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[miked10270 0]

Yeah, like I said, there's a lot of complexity in this amendment. And going back to when it was written, there wasn't really such a thing as a "military" or "non-military" firearm. The weapons used by farmers to shoot birds or control vermin were largely the same ones they'd carry when they "Formed Line" to repel invaders.

Yet, since then military equipment & tactics HAVE evolved. In particular, military weaponry is a lot more sophisticated. Also, society's definitions of acceptable behaviour regarding firearms have changed. Once, not all that long ago, it was completely acceptable to drive your wagon into town and carry your Winchester repeater with you while you got your supplies.... Yet try walking through your local shopping mall today with your M-16 slung over your shoulder and see what happens! Yet public carry is acceptable in some places - I lost count of the number of rifles & handguns I saw just carried around in Montana.

My own view is that a militia was to be raised from the netire population. As such, some form of weapons / military training should also be mandatory, perhaps in high school? Sort of a "Drivers Ed." for guns & soldiering?

It is certain that any firearm with a military application must be allowed. Therefore, fully functioning "Modern Military Weapons", and in particular weapons firing the same ammunition as used by the US Military are specifically desired by this Amendment.... Remember that the days of "Your rifle comes with a bullet mould and powder horn" have long gone. For todays infantry, ammunition is something that comes in boxes labelled "5.56mm Ball" and reloading spent cases isn't all that practical in the field.

As far as concealed carry is concerned, then The Second Amendment is silent on this simply because it was never envisaged. You could carry openly at the time & the only reason you'd "conceal" would be to keep the gun dry in the rain! That said, having been given the right to bear arms, how you do so is surely a matter of personal choice.

Finally, there is the interpretation of "Security of a free state" to consider, and it can be argued that a universally well-armed population can ultimately only be governed with their consent and thus the freedom of the people from "enemies, both foreign & domestic" is assured through their enhanced ability to resist DIKTAT should they ever need to do so.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[randomdude 0]

Best I ever heard it explained was that
the concept was much like that of a bucket
brigade, to wit:

Fire breaks out in a building, we all gather
our buckets and stand to, to put the fire out.
This requires that we train, and maintain
equipment and physical readiness.

Something requiring some shooting breaks out.
We all gather our hardware and stand to, to
solve the problem. This requires that we train,
and maintain equipment and physical readiness.

I explained that basic concept to my girlfriend's
super liberal sorority sisters (I'm a little older
than they are and moved from an anti-gun
to pro-gun state) and the lights just came on.
I really got their attention when I explained to
them that the 2nd was additionally another
check and balance. IE: how much crap can a
tyrannical government shove down the throats
of an armed populace?

Those looks were priceless.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

IE: how much crap can a
tyrannical government shove down the throats
of an armed populace?

hmmm, well an armed populace is not necessarily a guarantee against a tyranical government. The Taliban took over Afghanistan, & they have always had an armed populace.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

The Taliban took over Afghanistan, & they have always had an armed populace.

So we need to arm ourselves against well armed cults then, huh?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

And going back to when it was written, there wasn't really such a thing as a "military" or "non-military" firearm. The weapons used by farmers to shoot birds or control vermin were largely the same ones they'd carry when they "Formed Line" to repel invaders.

What about cannons? Any idea if the original intent of the framers was to include cannons or siege guns (which weapons had no civilian application)?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I think a lot of people's fear of guns comes from a lack of understanding them. My mom is firmly convinced an unloaded gun is going to jump out of the lockbox, load itself, and pull it's own trigger.

Exactly.

Fear of something usually springs from ignorance of that thing. You can see it in people's weird fears of homosexuality, religion, even skydiving.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[miked10270 0]

Quote

What about cannons? Any idea if the original intent of the framers was to include cannons or siege guns (which weapons had no civilian application)?

I think that a "militia" quickly formed from the general populace would preclude such weapons. I think of a militia as a "light infantry": Quick to raise & train. Short logistical tail. Able to adapt to guerilla tactics using local knowledge... Kind of like Britain's Home Guars & Stay-Behinds of 1940. The idea being that they would render "conquered" territory very difficult to govern and drain an oppressor's military resources from the front line - Thus making the regular army's job easier.

In such circumatances "heavy" weapons would be a hindrance due to their visibility.

So y'all can forget about using The Second Amendment to justify having a fully equipped Bradley - no matter how good it is at cutting through the Rush-Hour traffic!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Kennedy 0]

My understanding is that the second was intended to cover military arms of the "average" infantry soldier.

Today, at the very least, that would mean M16s and M4s. Yes, I believe the second amendment applies to select fire and full auto firearms. Obviously, this also precludes any kind of magazine ban, as soldiers use 30 rounds mags in their rifles. It also should prevent any kind of ban on semi-automatic handguns, including Glocks, 1911s, and Berettas.

The argument could be made, though it may be a bit more tenuous, that the second should cover MP5s and SAWs as well.


of course, then there's the political reality of today...

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

I think a lot of people's fear of guns comes from a lack of understanding them. My mom is firmly convinced an unloaded gun is going to jump out of the lockbox, load itself, and pull it's own trigger.

I think that goes for a lot of other things that get people all riled up. Including, but not limited to, cultural diferences, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and skydivers...

Problem is some people dan't want to be educated or are incapable of learning the lesson.

illegible usually

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Wow, this may be a Speakers Corner beer event: an honest discussion on the second amendment and guns in America.

I know an honest debate w/o people trying to kill each other.

To me the 2nd is one of the most powerful amendments out there, on par with the first. It carriesa huge amount of responsibility. Think about it for a second; you have the right to own firearms. I'm all for the second, but I do not consider it an absolute. Certain individuals should not own guns. Before anyone jumps on me. I'm referring to convicted criminals. If anyone is convicted of a violent crime, then they should lose this right. I remember reading a case in my law class at the Uni about a Judge restoring a convicted domestic abusers fireams. To me this was wrong.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I remember reading a case in my law class at the Uni about a Judge restoring a convicted domestic abusers fireams. To me this was wrong.

Don't be so quick to judge all of 'em the same.

When that law was passed, it was applied retroactively. So even people convicted of domestic violence long ago in the past, had their guns confiscated, even though that wasn't part of the penalty at the time they were convicted. Such as "ex post facto" law is supposed to be illegal under the Constitution, but lawmakers don't much care about that when it comes to confiscating guns.

There was one case of a man who married young and dumb (don't we all?), and the couple fought a lot. He was convicted of a minor domestic violence, then got divorced. As the years went by, he re-married to a good woman and they both got along well. He had a prosperous business, raised kids and everything was going great. 20 years later, the domestic violence gun law was passed. The cops showed up at his door and confiscated a quarter-million dollar gun collection from him, because of his 20-year-old domestic violence conviction. This is wrong.

There are exceptions to everything, and judges should have the freedom to overturn past mistakes, when a man has since made good of his life.

Just because a man slapped his wife 20 years ago, doesn't mean that he shouldn't be allowed to go duck hunting today. Just because a woman slapped her husband 20 years ago, doesn't mean that she shouldn't be allowed to have a gun for home defense today. A judge should be able to decide these on a case-by-case basis.

[Kennedy 0]

TO add to what John said, sometimes you have to remember that domestic abuse falls under the very FUBAR name of "violent misdemeanors."

Also, in more and more places, any kind of violence in the home is a "shall arrest" event for law enforcement. That means one or both parties are going to jail, no questions asked or answered. This leads to drastically higher "domestic abuse" rates, even though nothing new is happening. It also leads to more and more people losing their rights, even when it isn't warranted.

Giving judges the power to review case by case appeals is the best way to handle to possibility of over-done punishments.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[randomdude 0]

IIRC, there is some provision in most states/
fed gov for restoration of 2nd Amendment
rights in individual cases, but the ATF just
doesn't fund their end of it=nullification.

As far as what the 2nd should cover, my
vote goes up to medium crew-served. Stuff
like M240s, M2s, Mk 19s, 81mm mortars,
AT4s, etc.

Nice to dream, isn't it?