A question about the second amendment:

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

“ 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 hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

“ 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. ”

Source.

To my mind, the second amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed for the purposes of a well regulated militia. When I think of a militia, I picture an organised paramilitary.

I was wondering how this became corrupted to the point where it is assumed that every individual has the right to bear arms, whether or not they are a member of such an organisation.

Can any of my American brothers or sisters enlighten me?

Read this carefully without the benifit of public education /brainwashing.

If this was exclusively for the benifit of the militia...the term right or rights would never have occured in the amendment. Notice the usage of the term "The right of the people to keep and bear arms." This too would not occur in the amendment. The people would be omitted as is wont by so many "Experts" today.

The bill speaks of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not the militia.

The term citizen soldiers is what was often refered to as the militia..ordinary people owning arms and banding together. Notice also the term "Free State" The people ..armed are the free state..not a government militia or a national guard. No where in this amendment do you see the term National Guard or Federal Reserve troops.


When you see this Amendment refered to by "Experts" the phrase
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is excluded or ignored in lieu of the Militia. They ignore the fact that the people are the militia. THey substitute the Federal military or the State National Guard for Militia. They are no such thing. THe militia has always been the people themselves.

Coming at this from another angle...A Government especially one looking to limit its people and their freedoms and rights will never sanction the private ownership of firearms. They must attempt by careful misreading of a Amendment like this to read the Government institutions not the public. To them Government institutions need no rights since they are to Government .....automatically the Soverign. This is not an American principle. It is a dictatorial principle.

IN American principles the people are the Soverigns not the Government.

Public Education is for the purpose of reversing this thinking in our minds and to put the Government as the Soverign...precisely what was going on in Europe and continues in Europe today. Feudalism. Americans are not by nature a Feudal based people with priveleges granted by the Soverign..we have Rights not priveleges.

This type of American thinking and understanding extends much further than the 2nd Amendment. To private property, Search and seizure, Habeus Corpus, Bearing witness against ones self, etc etc.

You do not find these principles in Feudal and European law...for Europe mostly has the law of the Soverign.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Read this carefully without the benifit of public education /brainwashing.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
If this was exclusively for the benifit of the militia...the term right or rights would never have occured in the amendment. Notice the usage of the term "The right of the people to keep and bear arms." This too would not occur in the amendment. The people would be omitted as is wont by so many "Experts" today.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. Why would those terms not have occurred?

Originally posted by orangetom1999
The bill speaks of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not the militia.

The term citizen soldiers is what was often refered to as the militia..ordinary people owning arms and banding together. Notice also the term "Free State" The people ..armed are the free state..not a government militia or a national guard. No where in this amendment do you see the term National Guard or Federal Reserve troops.

What else would a militia be made up of, if not citizens of the "Free State"?

Definitions of militia on the Web:

civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army

the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia"--United States Constitution

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Source.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
When you see this Amendment refered to by "Experts" the phrase
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is excluded or ignored in lieu of the Militia. They ignore the fact that the people are the militia. THey substitute the Federal military or the State National Guard for Militia. They are no such thing. THe militia has always been the people themselves.

Let me assure you, This question hasn't been prompted by any "experts" I may have heard talk on the matter. I have no preconceived notions regarding the second amendment.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Coming at this from another angle...A Government especially one looking to limit its people and their freedoms and rights will never sanction the private ownership of firearms. They must attempt by careful misreading of a Amendment like this to read the Government institutions not the public. To them Government institutions need no rights since they are to Government .....automatically the Soverign. This is not an American principle. It is a dictatorial principle.

Where as I think I see what you are saying, by extension, wouldn't any law of any land be considered "a dictatorial principle"?

I think orangetom, you may be misunderstanding me. I don't want to spark a pissing contest between the US and Europe. God knows, there is enough of that on this board already.

I just happened to read this and thought, that if this is all the US right to bear arms is based on, it sure seems flimsy to me.

Thanks for your time and effort.

[edit on 23/3/07 by Implosion]

The Ammendments to the Constitution are inalienable rights that cannot be trodden upon by the government. Therefore, it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms as it is those citizens who form the militia as it were, not the military.

Further, Orangetom is correct in the method of public education in brainwashing people into believeing that the government holds these rights, not the people, ergo making it's very citizens subservient to the government. Shamful in my opinion. But let us not forget that the states, who originally held ALL rights over the federal government have ceded those rights to the federal government by the very act of taking federal money. As a result, any state accepting federal education funds must now comply with all federal statutes and regulations regarding education - this includes curriculum. And wouldn't it make sense that the federal government would be interested in indoctrinating you into believing that IT holds supremem power, and not the states as the founding fathers had intended? And in order to preserve their supreme power, would it not also make sense that they need systematically dismantle those provisions which could empower people to take the power backas was also intended by the Constitution?

Why all this talk of public education?

1. I am not a US citizen.

2. I was not educated in a public institution.

I'm not sure I understand why this is relevant at all.

Arguments regarding semantics are always tricky. Language is very often a subjective medium.

Next?

The way the Amendment is written, the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is parenthetic to the statement "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." IE the militia (at the time considered essentially to be all adult males capable of bearing arms) is a rationale for the right, but the right is given to the People, not to the Militia. I hope that makes it clearer.

Yeah, that seems fair enough. However, reading down the wiki page I posted as a source for the amendment in my OP, there sure is a hell of a lot of discussion about every single aspect of this amendment.

I'm thinking I have asked a very stupid question, with the acceptability of answers resting largely on point of view. Opinion, opinion, opinion. Nevertheless, I'm always happy to learn about differing perspectives.

There is a problem with the amendment that some people dont realize.

When it was written, there were things like muskets and cannons.

My point is that the people who wrote it probably didnt realize that muskets would be completely gone and people would be wanting incredibly effective, incredibly deadly assault rifles like the AK-47 and the M-16. Some people use it as an excuse to buy an M134 even, because due to the second amendment, its legal in some states.

Dont get me wrong, I am a huge gun enthusiast, I am just laying some info on the table.

The 2nd Amendment debate seems to always polarize around the militia = military idea. The posters on this thread have done a good job of putting this in context: there was no such thing as a standing army back then. The polulation WAS the military.

There is alot of debate about 'what did the framers intend' as regards the 2nd Amendment. If you read other papers and letters written by the framers regarding the right to bear arms one common principle is a constant. Their intent was to prevent the government to ever have the upper-hand against the citizenry in order to prevent the possibility of a tyrranical government.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Not to be short but, enough said.
If it was specifically for the milita it would would have stated that, not "people"

Originally posted by Implosion
I'm thinking I have asked a very stupid question...

No way! It's a good question. The more people who really understand the 2nd amendment, the better, whether you're a US citizen or not. And don't let ANYONE make you feel stupid or bad for asking the question.

In my opinion, xmotex said it best. And here's further analysis.

“ 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. ”

...can be read as "Understanding that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In other words, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

(I wish they had said it that way, but it wasn't highly proper English at the time)

A current day example might say:
“ A good income being necessary to the security of a family, the right of the family members' to seek employment shall not be infringed. ”

In other words, the family members' right to seek employment shall not be infringed because a good income is necessary to the security of a family.

I hope that's not too confusing.

Watch this video and tell me that we Americans have the right to bear arms:


Arms Seized

[edit on 3/24/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
My point is that the people who wrote it probably didnt realize that muskets would be completely gone and people would be wanting incredibly effective, incredibly deadly assault rifles like the AK-47 and the M-16. Some people use it as an excuse to buy an M134 even, because due to the second amendment, its legal in some states.

These amendements, especially the 2nd are not a country club's rules, they are designed to make clear that the citizenry is in charge, not some king, dictator, bureaucrat or banker.

it's not about fun at the range, it's about fighting for your very existence, life and liberty, so state-of-the-art weaponry is not an option but a must. if anything, today's technology based society with its energy, industrial production and, to a lesser degree information, monopolies with its standing armies and surveillance capabilites makes it extremely hard to effectively resist violent enslavement.

It's wrong, wrong, wrong! Preach on Sister!

Roper

The Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I believe strongly that this means that people should be well armed, in case the government gets to powerful. Throughout history, especially during the nazi regime, soverign nations who gave up their weapons were then invaded. I think the only reason that bush & co., and other unamed forces haven't taken over is the fact that Americans have guns. This is just my opinion, so take it at such. Personally, I wouldn't give over my gun, even if it were against the law. SoverignPatriot

"people should not fear the government, governments should fear the people"

That in a nutshell pretty much sums up the 2nd amendment, and states it purpose fairly clearly.

The 2nd amendments intent was to prevent what is happening currently in the U.S. of A.

(does this make it easier to understand?)

This is a great example of how different denominations in churches began by over analyzing a passage instead of the whole message. As it was explained to me by my high school history teacher way back in 1987: the people of the US have the full legal and constitutional right to remove the current government at anytime the people deem it to become necessary , the second amendment is the legal right to remove it by force.

The president is commander in chief of all armed forces. A militia is an armed force. If on 9/11 several street gangs banded together to protect 5th Avenue from a perceived invasion and reported themselves to NYPD, NY National Guard, FBI, US Army or Bush himself as armed and ready. Bush , or any one designated by Bush, could constitutionally direct them to move to Wall St. to fortify forces in the area there. The 5th Ave. Gang can accept or reject the order. By refusing they risk reprisal, but still retain the right to do so.

The question now would be if an armed group forms up and organizes does it have to declare itself a militia. Short answer is no. In the late 1850’s, John Brown organized a small band and raided Harper’s Ferry National Armory. Brown successfully captured the armory but was later defeated, arrested, judged and executed for treason.

A different example would be if Bush announced that all US military world wide were to be recalled and redeployed to Washington DC to remove the congressmen that voted to pass the recent funding bill that has mandatory Iraq withdrawal in September 2008. In that scenario would you interpret the 2nd amendment as only military or organized and declared militias can have guns?

Basically the 2nd amendment exists not only for the citizens to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic, but to serve as a reminder that there is a very large check and balance measure in place

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
A current day example might say:
“ A good income being necessary to the security of a family, the right of the family members' to seek employment shall not be infringed. ”

That is a fantastic way of illustrating your point. Clear, concise, beautiful, I do indeed see exactly what you're saying. Thank you.

Originally posted by thedigirati
"people should not fear the government, governments should fear the people"

I wonder how many thermonuclear weapons you would need to have stashed in your tool shed, before the government of the US saw you as a viable threat. Alas, I feel that may be a different thread altogether.

Originally posted by Implosion

I wonder how many thermonuclear weapons you would need to have stashed in your tool shed, before the government of the US saw you as a viable threat. Alas, I feel that may be a different thread altogether.

You may have a valid supposition; However, as a former Member of the military and a NWPL clerk ( Naval warfare publication library ) I know for a FACT that those that have the "keys" to the nukes are extremely patriotic, it's more likely DC would get nuked if the order came down to nuke the citizens of the U.S. of A.

I realize the personnel and highly "trained" ( ie brainwashed ) but you would have to have a fantastic reason the have them turn the key on their own families


this is why the 2nd amendment is still valid even in the nuclear age, chances are fairly good they by the time the armed insurrection starts, the military will be on the side of the people

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.
source

The 2nd Amendment clearly was put in place for the rights of the people, not of the government, by the founding fathers of America.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson)

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Thomas Jefferson)
source

Quoting the Founding Fathers can go on and on....

As far as current day 2nd Amendment upholdings...

- Look at the Judge's ruling on the handgun ban in D.C.

"Last Friday a federal appeals court in Washington DC issued a ruling that hopefully will result in the restoration of 2nd Amendment rights in the nation's capital. It appears the Court rejected the District of Columbia 's nonsensical argument that the 2nd Amendment confers only a "collective right," something gun control advocates have asserted for years."
source

For as the unconstitutional weapons removal during or after the Katrina fiasco... I feel badly for those people. They had no right to remove their weapons... as was founded here:

The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana today sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable and law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

“This is a significant victory for freedom and for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The court’s ruling is instant relief for the victims who now have an effective means of defending themselves from the robbers and rapists that seek to further exploit the remnants of their shattered lives,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.
source

IMO, in accordance with the 2nd Amendment, there's no scope for what type of weapon you can have. So, if you've got the money, I don't see why you couldn't possess a nuclear weapon in your tool shed. Just don't be surprised when the US Government pulls you in and forces you to sign a nonproliferation treaty with them, so that you can't be a contending force.

[edit on 3/24/2007 by Infoholic]