How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199:2834]

[Trip]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

For those who do not recognize this specific statute, it is the Concord Minuteman statue, not to be confused with the Lexington Minuteman statue.

The Concord Minuteman statue is repeated in detail in the National Guard's logo, and that object behind the minuteman, at his feet, is a plow, the minuteman being a citizen farmer.

Concord's Hymn
Ralph Waldo Emerson

"By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world."​

The Concord minuteman would be known as a "Massachusetts irregular", being a farmer.

Meanwhile the Lexington statue has no plow, has no hat on the figure, and he is holding a musket ; he is actually a soldier, evidently an organized militia member, despite the fact that history does not record any actual militia being at the Lexington.

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

The National Guard is only a name for the official state militia. They Founders did not need to write "National Guard" in the Constitution because they relayed the substance.

Similarly Madison did not have to describe what he was references in Federalist #10 as Progressive Marxism, but nonetheless the idea was accurately conveyed, along with it being an anathema to this country's principles.

Congress did not change the wording of the Constitution, and did not even change the substance of the Constitution and I'm not arguing in any way that they did, so your repeated reference to this is not only insipid, but pointless. Congress only wrote an Act that created an entity name, the "National Guard", which is nothing but an organized militia under the control of the state governor, just as described in the Constitution.

Excerpt from the Federalist Papers:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried
in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number
of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.

This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than
twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia
amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands,
officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common
liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their
affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia
thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of
regular troops.

Those who are best acquainted with the last successful
resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most
inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being
armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other
nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people
are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a
barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than
any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding
the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are
carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are
afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with
this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were
the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments
chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the
national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these
governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be
affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny
in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which
surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America
with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of
which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of
arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their
oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition
that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the
experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of
insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

 

[Dammitboy!]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

"Besides the advantage of being
armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other
nation..."

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

"Besides the advantage of being
armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other
nation..."

Yes, the U.S. citizenry has a constitutional Right to keep and bear arms, individually as well as the citizen Militia. Under the Constitution, both Individual persons and the citizen Militia, arms are for the purpose of defense from physical attack and not for the purpose of aggression. Outside of defense from being attacked, doing intentional harm with arms is a crime.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

First you say that they are absolutes and then you say that they are not. Which is it?

you have to remember what a right is, and what a privilege is, many people get them confused, and think they are the same thing......and this a great problem.

a right is an absolute, which you need no authority to act on, you just do it and no one has the authority to stop you..........IE. speak, worship, assemble, protect yourself , me secure in yourself and property......these can only be taken from you if you violate those same things of other people, and that is a crime, under criminal law.

a privilege is something allowed you by a higher authority, if can be material goods, services, the ability to do something, and it can be given , or taken at any time...its not an absolute.

when something is given under a privilege, there can be conditions placed on it by the authority giving it to you or not, its up to that authority.

services a city offers, are not rights they are privileges of a society, police, firefighters, trash pickup to name a few and generally everyone gets them equal, under privileges, but their are some privileges that be denied to you if you do not meet the standards of what the society you live among sets as it standard.

when something is licensed, the society is setting a standard to have a certain privilege, that will be given to some and not to others, who do not meet that standard.

there are many professions which require a license, issued by states, and each standard is different.... licensing helps prevents many things, fraud, theif, misrepresentation, what ever society wants to use achieve what it expects out of that licensing.

is our government to provide materiel goods or services, the ability to do something as a right? ......i know of no such authority under government power...... a material good is property of a person or entity, and no one person or group of people have a right to anothers property, a service is an action preformed by a person or entity , is there a right under the u.s. constitution or power of government, for a one citizen to force another citizen, or entity....to do something against his will or standards which have been set.

no rights under the u.s. constitution have the application of force behind them, ...the closest thing that comes to it is....due process of law, which the court does provide you with a lawyer, and why.....because the STATE, is making charges against you, and you have the right to self protection against your accusers.

marriage has come to the forefront of things today, and where it has been a privilege because it is licensed by the state, many are saying it is right, an absolute. first and most important is that if it is a right, then licenses would have to be done away with by the state, why?....licenses issued by government are not part of rights.

are governments now affirming rights through state documents by elected officials, i thought constitutions could only affirm rights.

 

[captainawesome]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Tell me what is a communist?

Google it

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Strange indeed ...

how the National Guard, which has "nothing to do with the militia"...
yet uses as its symbol the "minuteman" militia statue.

and get this

Sentry Insurance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a private insurance company with the same symbol and the Constitution does not mention it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :shock::doh


If you are fascinated by that this will really floor you: A Boston Cream Pie is a cake.

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Google it

Communist Manifesto, which I don't support.

 

[Anti-Party]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Complete nonsense. We only have to look at the founders writings on the subject to get a very detailed perspective of what they meant.

Absolute ignorance........is a common thing to see in politics today.

 

[captainawesome]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Communist Manifesto, which I don't support.

Couldn't find a definition in Google?

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Couldn't find a definition in Google?

I asked you for your definition?

 

[captainawesome]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

I asked you for your definition?

Communism had a definition Google it.

 

[Anti-Party]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

"Besides the advantage of being
armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other
nation..."

Well sir, MY interpretation of the 2A states that we need to be regulated as gun owners to ensure we will always have the Right To Bear Arms. Because without regulation of arms we will see lots of uncontrolled deaths due to arms, but we haven't noticed much of that lately..........or have we?

We SHOULD have the right to bear arms but they SHOULD be regulated, as the 2A states. Otherwise, what will happen after a Right Wing upstanding citizen teaches her son she knew was crazy to shoot a military style weapon, then doesn't lock her arms up ending in her death and many others. The only ignorance of this is that some people ONLY focus on "crazy" people when the EXACT SAME PARTY has been fighting funding to institutions for decades. Also, there is NO ABSOLUTE way to determine someone will be safe to carry a weapon in society! It's nonsense.

 

[Trip]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Well sir, MY interpretation of the 2A states that we need to be regulated as gun owners to ensure we will always have the Right To Bear Arms. Because without regulation of arms we will see lots of uncontrolled deaths due to arms, but we haven't noticed much of that lately..........or have we?

We SHOULD have the right to bear arms but they SHOULD be regulated, as the 2A states. Otherwise, what will happen after a Right Wing upstanding citizen teaches her son she knew was crazy to shoot a military style weapon, then doesn't lock her arms up ending in her death and many others. The only ignorance of this is that some people ONLY focus on "crazy" people when the EXACT SAME PARTY has been fighting funding to institutions for decades. Also, there is NO ABSOLUTE way to determine someone will be safe to carry a weapon in society! It's nonsense.

The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about regulating arms! It references a "well regulated militia" and recognizes that militia to be important for the security of free state! If that "well regulated" militia meant that the memberss of the militia should have their arms limited, subject to regulations and registration, then how might that militia serve to promote the security of a free state. And under your interpretation, WHY would the reference to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in the primary independent clause, and indicate with the powerful positive mandate, "SHALL NOT be infringed"?

Under your interpretation of "regulated" the entire second amendment becomes schizophrenic and self-conflicted.

In truth the reference to "regulated", in "well regulated militia" is something entirely different. Rather than meaning "subject to regulations and mandates", it means well disciplined and proficient. In District of Columbia vs Heller, the Supreme Court indicated that "the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

Alexander Hamilton confirmed this interpretation of "well regulated" in Federalist #29:

This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss​

Thus, the second amendment indicates nothing about regulating arms, by the interpretation of plying the use of those arms with regulation, limitation and registration. And your representations of the "Right Wing" are nothing but fallacious dribble born of nothing but partisan "craziness".

 

[Trip]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Communism had a definition Google it.

If we were to go by the 'academic' definition of "Communism", then no Communism or communists would ever have existed, for never has the state withered away and been without any national government, not even in the USSR.

Fortunately, we do not need to go by that definition of communism, for there to be communists.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Well sir, MY interpretation of the 2A states that we need to be regulated as gun owners to ensure we will always have the Right To Bear Arms. Because without regulation of arms we will see lots of uncontrolled deaths due to arms, but we haven't noticed much of that lately..........or have we?

We SHOULD have the right to bear arms but they SHOULD be regulated, as the 2A states. Otherwise, what will happen after a Right Wing upstanding citizen teaches her son she knew was crazy to shoot a military style weapon, then doesn't lock her arms up ending in her death and many others. The only ignorance of this is that some people ONLY focus on "crazy" people when the EXACT SAME PARTY has been fighting funding to institutions for decades. Also, there is NO ABSOLUTE way to determine someone will be safe to carry a weapon in society! It's nonsense.

that is one of the most pathetic interpretations I have ever read/ You are claiming that the second amendment includes a LIMITATION on an inalienable and natural right which flies in the face of the entire premise upon which the Constitution was based. YOur rants about the right wing is nothing more than pathetic contrarian nonsense. And your paranoid rant that no one can be determined to be safe is nothing more than prior restraint based control freakesque blather.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about regulating arms! It references a "well regulated militia" and recognizes that militia to be important for the security of free state! If that "well regulated" militia meant that the memberss of the militia should have their arms limited, subject to regulations and registration, then how might that militia serve to promote the security of a free state. And under your interpretation, WHY would the reference to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in the primary independent clause, and indicate with the powerful positive mandate, "SHALL NOT be infringed"?

Under your interpretation of "regulated" the entire second amendment becomes schizophrenic and self-conflicted.

In truth the reference to "regulated", in "well regulated militia" is something entirely different. Rather than meaning "subject to regulations and mandates", it means well disciplined and proficient. In District of Columbia vs Heller, the Supreme Court indicated that "the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

Alexander Hamilton confirmed this interpretation of "well regulated" in Federalist #29:

This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss​

Thus, the second amendment indicates nothing about regulating arms, by the interpretation of plying the use of those arms with regulation, limitation and registration. And your representations of the "Right Wing" are nothing but fallacious dribble born of nothing but partisan "craziness".

nothing is more patently idiotic than the suggestions that the bill of rights were included so as to INCREASE government control over the citizens and/or the several states. People like Anti-Party argue that the second amendment delegated addtional power to the federal government. That is so completely contrary to the entire premise upon which the USC is based upon, that his pronouncements on the document must be completely rejected due to that fundamental error

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

nothing is more patently idiotic than the suggestions that the bill of rights were included so as to INCREASE government control over the citizens and/or the several states. People like Anti-Party argue that the second amendment delegated addtional power to the federal government. That is so completely contrary to the entire premise upon which the USC is based upon, that his pronouncements on the document must be completely rejected due to that fundamental error

True, the Bill of Rights neither removed nor added anything to the Constitution; and as Hamilton said, amending a Bill of Rights is unnecessary as it would only become a point of contention. The Constitution is not about the people, but is about a government of a country of a free people.

 

[Anti-Party]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about regulating arms! It references a "well regulated militia" and recognizes that militia to be important for the security of free state! If that "well regulated" militia meant that the memberss of the militia should have their arms limited, subject to regulations and registration, then how might that militia serve to promote the security of a free state. And under your interpretation, WHY would the reference to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in the primary independent clause, and indicate with the powerful positive mandate, "SHALL NOT be infringed"?

Under your interpretation of "regulated" the entire second amendment becomes schizophrenic and self-conflicted.

In truth the reference to "regulated", in "well regulated militia" is something entirely different. Rather than meaning "subject to regulations and mandates", it means well disciplined and proficient. In District of Columbia vs Heller, the Supreme Court indicated that "the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

Alexander Hamilton confirmed this interpretation of "well regulated" in Federalist #29:

This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss​

Thus, the second amendment indicates nothing about regulating arms, by the interpretation of plying the use of those arms with regulation, limitation and registration. And your representations of the "Right Wing" are nothing but fallacious dribble born of nothing but partisan "craziness".

I know you are confident in your interpretation, but so am I. That's why this post was made. Everyone thinks their interpretation is the correct one. Though mine is the only one that follows the exact wording without having to change primary definitions of words ^^

 

[Anti-Party]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

that is one of the most pathetic interpretations I have ever read/ You are claiming that the second amendment includes a LIMITATION on an inalienable and natural right which flies in the face of the entire premise upon which the Constitution was based. YOur rants about the right wing is nothing more than pathetic contrarian nonsense. And your paranoid rant that no one can be determined to be safe is nothing more than prior restraint based control freakesque blather.

Again, my interpretation uses the primary meanings of the words in the 2A. Regulation means regulation. Militia means the armed citizens. And state means "state of being". I don't have to change any of the words meanings to secondary definitions to make it work, and the outcome is pretty much common sense. It states we will always have the right to bear arms as long as we use common sense regulations. A Federalist (not anti-federalist) president was in place when it was written and they used regulations on lots of things back then.

You may not agree with my perspective but try to debate it like a mature adult ok? :lamo

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Again, my interpretation uses the primary meanings of the words in the 2A. Regulation means regulation. Militia means the armed citizens. And state means "state of being". I don't have to change any of the words meanings to secondary definitions to make it work, and the outcome is pretty much common sense. It states we will always have the right to bear arms as long as we use common sense regulations. A Federalist (not anti-federalist) president was in place when it was written and they used regulations on lots of things back then.

You may not agree with my perspective but try to debate it like a mature adult ok? :lamo

remind me where it says the right of the people is to be well regulated. and tell me why you think the second amendment delegates the power to regulate what the People can own

 

[Harshaw]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Again, my interpretation uses the primary meanings of the words in the 2A. Regulation means regulation. Militia means the armed citizens. And state means "state of being". I don't have to change any of the words meanings to secondary definitions to make it work

Color-coded for (idiotic!) self-contradiction.

You should probably just let the adults talk.

 

[Anti-Party]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

remind me where it says the right of the people is to be well regulated. and tell me why you think the second amendment delegates the power to regulate what the People can own

Reading a post before replying to it is important.

Also, I'm not sure what you are asking, if it is even a question, or even a sentence. "the right of the people is to be well regulated"? Who said this? It's not even good english.

As far as your question, "Where does it delegate the power to regulate what people can own". That's under the term "regulate" my friend. I know, that's a tough one :lamo But I'm pretty sure you hold the definition of regulate as "organizing" and you hold the definition of "militia" as either national guard or the people/military combination.

It's all in how you define the words and as I said before, my interpretation uses primary definitions of words and doesn't need a background story or a long conversation of why it means what it means. It simply states that;

Good regulation of the armed citizens will be necessary for a free state of being. As long as we follow this, we will always have the right to bear arms.

In other words, the instant we get a group that fights against common sense regulation, we are going to see more violence carried out by these extremely dangerous arms. And when is the last mass murder you've seen where someone used a fully auto rifle or a gun with a silencer/suppressor? You probably don't hear of those much BECAUSE THEY ARE WELL REGULATED. :lamo

 

[Anti-Party]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Color-coded for (idiotic!) self-contradiction.

You should probably just let the adults talk.

Maturity is important when having an adult debate. I love the karma behind this troll post
State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words.........I am right

 

[Harshaw]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Good regulation of the armed citizens will be necessary for a free state of being. As long as we follow this, we will always have the right to bear arms.

There is nothing about this silly, made-up interpretation which bears the slightest bit of scrutiny.

("As long as we follow this." :lamo :lamo)