A question about the second amendment:

this whole discussion started because someone who stated he was not a u.s. citizen wanted the militia explained to him as it relates to the 2nd amendment well here is the legal definition of the militia right out of u.s. code title 10 this is the law:

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

if you want more just google us code title 10 +militia.

clear enough?

Originally posted by Lilin
Not that I don't trust you or anything like that, I'm just more interested now.

I just want to say good on you for checking out more than the propaganda. I used to be anti-gun until someone challenged my reasoning. I'm a logical thinker and I also have a lot of compassion for kids (even though I don't want one of my very own). So the propaganda had me hook, line and sinker.

The more information you have, the better. There is no way anyone could convince me to be anti-gun again. I have too much knowledge about it.

Originally posted by Nicotine1982
Unfortunately, I don't think many people would be willing to tell and armed Entry team "No, you can't have my guns."

Those that will, will be reported as "opening fire" or "responding with hostility" to the poor innocent JBTs" and "appropriate action" will be taken.

I know that I'm prepared to die for my rights, but how many others are?

[edit on 24-3-2007 by Nicotine1982]

As quoted in Tombstone:
"Your friends might get me in a rush, but not before I make your head into a canoe, you understand me?"

Thats my views as far as some armed swat busting in and taking away my right to bear arms.

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

Is that a contemporary definition? IIRC, the second amendment was penned in 1789. Has there been no evolution in the meaning of the term? Language is very much a transient medium. Has there been no change in meaning in the 208 years since the amendment was written?

Also, I know that isn't your definition, and you're just repeating parrot fashion, but it's not exactly helpful to define a word by using the word.

So, to answer your question, no, not really, however I think if you'd read the thread, you'd find that this had already been cleared up. Thanks for your input.

Back to the original post....

Originally posted by Implosion

'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?

How the Second Amendment became corrupted in that manner? That's a good question. From my research, the questioning of the Second Amendment came first, back when the U.S. Constitution was originally put in place, and the Amendments were first added. So you're talking back in 1780's. Even back then, there were some that were corrupt in the government that did not want the people to be able to provide their own self defense. During ratification of the Constitution, there were very strong calls for the Second Amendment in order to provide for just such a thing, of which I'm sure there was opposition. Here's a link to a nice read.

Five of the states that ratified the Constitution also sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. Here, in relevant part, is their text:
Please read on...

Not trying to rekindle any argument, but wcssar's US Code definition of militia is true and correct...

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

....but the terminology of militia does not represent the people that the Second Amendment protects. The recent case held in DC, in regards to the handgun ban cleared that up (as I've stated earlier).

"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

So, you see, the court conceded that the term militia as used in the Second Amendment does not affect the people as a collective group, we have the right as individuals. The fact of "the right of the poeple..... shall not be infringed" is what is being upheld.

[edit on 3/25/2007 by Infoholic]

All you have to do to understand the Second amendment better is to look at the very words and lives of the people behind it.

Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be de-barred
the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain
their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect
themselves against tyranny in government.

George Mason

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.’’

A " Militia" at the time the second amendment was written was any free and able man of fighting age. They weren't talking about the national guard or any other branch of the military. They knew from personal experience ones own goverment can become the people's enemy.

There are so many other example to cite what the founding fathers meant I could fill pages with the stuff

But thinking of it in terms of modern interpretations of the words used in the text in question is often incorrect.

THere is a very intresting thing or facet to the First Ten Amendmemts to the Constitution of the United States of which are hardly taught anymore to students for what they obviously are..or what they signify.

The First Ten Amendments are obviously all restrictions on the Government itself. This is clear in any of them. Only with Amendment 11 through the Amendments 26 do we see the powers clarified as to what the Government can do. But the first Ten Amendments are all restrictions on the Government itself ...not on the public or private citizens. This much is obvious. Read them carefully some time if you have never had this explained to you. Read them with this new found view. It will be obvious to you now.

Experts and Lawyers have worked from the begining to make these rights apply to the Government not the people. This too is obvious about our history from the begining. A free Government always means a unfree people. The reverse is also true.. a free people means a unfree government. You decide which one is workable and long lasting. But dont be ignorant of the history here in making your decision. HOw often do you see government experts or public/government education teaching you this facet of history? Why is that ??

The attempt by Sophists or Wise men historically has always been to limit the people ...not the Government. You can see this in World History in one form after another. This trend ...unchecked always leads back to Feudalism and eventually dictatorship.
Once you are aware of this history or fingerprint you will spot it over and over...changing guises and outward appearance but always the same dirty fingerprint. To limit the people not the Government.

By the way....I do not just speak of the Second Amemdment here but all of them. THey are all important to us who know the difference and the history.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Nicotine1982
I've got one I started awhile back.
There are some good posts on it and is relevent to our discussion.

Here's the link : www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you haven't already been there and seen it.

Thanks for the tip Nicotine1982

[edit on 27-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

Arms are Arms.
Any and all.
We were not given this second amendment right just so we could go Turkey hunting.
We were given it to shoot people who are turkey's, if you know what I mean!

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133
I've got one I started awhile back.
There are some good posts on it and is relevent to our discussion.

Here's the link : www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you haven't already been there and seen it.

Indeed, the two go together very well, thank you for cross-linking them.

I know it's an old thread, but I came across this video regarding the question I posed here. I thought I may as well post it.

Alex Jones gives his opinion on the second amendment, and mentions Bill hicks, and the stance he took on this issue.

I was reading Bill Hick's book "Love All The People" when I posted this question, as it was that which made me think about it.



The interviewer is Kevin Booth of Sacred Cow Productions.

[edit on 26/9/07 by Implosion]

I didn't hear anything that I would disagree with.

Good find, thanks.

Roper

The constitution places "limits" and grants "powers" to the federal government, states, judicial, executive, and legistaltive. It does NOT grants "rights" to the government, as only citizens can have rights. Lately the government seems to think that only corporations are citizens, but I digress.

In order to fully understand the 2nd amendment (and other rights) you need to read the papers of the founding fathers. To get a much better understanding of the mindset of the framers and of the times they lived in.

I heartily agree with Snap. Lots of people attempt to twist the original intent of the second amendment. However, if you read the other materials wriiten by the framers they are quite specific on their intent and the reasoning behind the various amendments. It's an eye opener and they are anything but subtle in their comments.

Originally posted by biggie smalls

Originally posted by thedigirati

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

This is why UN troops would be used instead of American...Remember most of our troops are fighting overseas in an unconstitutional war...Thousands dead, how long do you think it takes for them to catch onto what's really going on here? Perhaps many already have.

UN troops on U.S. soil? Yeah....ok.

Those who defend the 2nd Amendment often state that the Constitution should be read as it was written in the eighteenth century. It should not be interpreted using twenty-first century language. I agree with that. In addition, I think we should follow the 2nd Amendment precisely.

That means we should allow anyone who wants to have as many single shot muskets in his/her home as s/he wants. However, we must not allow the framers' words to be twisted to include twentieth century inventions like multiple shot handguns and rifles.

Occam

Originally posted by Occam


That means we should allow anyone who wants to have as many single shot muskets in his/her home as s/he wants. However, we must not allow the framers' words to be twisted to include twentieth century inventions like multiple shot handguns and rifles.

Occam

This too works for me. BUT, to protect my family I need the same firearms that the criminals and a corrupt government has. AND, no I don't want a nuke or biological weapon.

Roper

P.S. I'd take a tank.

Originally posted by Occam
That means we should allow anyone who wants to have as many single shot muskets in his/her home as s/he wants. However, we must not allow the framers' words to be twisted to include twentieth century inventions like multiple shot handguns and rifles.
Occam

This doesnt make good nonsense..

It looks good on paper...sounds reasonable and logical but does not make good nonsense.

Translate or translation of this is that it makes good politics..just doesnt make good nonsense.

Nothing in the wording of the Framers mentions muskets etc in their homes. It states arms.. The right of the "people" to keep and bear arms.
IT does not clearly state the right of the government to keep and bear arms...only single shot muskets.

Think this through very carefully before you buy into a placebo ..as politics is often wont to utilize to keep the public off guard..every pun intended here.

Thanks,
Orangetom

the remaining rights in the bill of rights uses the phrase "the people" and each instance this phrase is used the phrase refers to an individual right.

inalienable rights are merely enumerated in the bill of rights. enumerated means listed.

the rights in the bill of rights are natural inalienable rights endowed by mans creator and not conferred granted given regulated, restricted or otherwise infringed upon.

Wow. This is an OLD thread! But I know the answer!

reply to post by Implosion


I don't know if this has been answered here, but many nouns in the original Constitution were capitalized. It was simply the style of the time.

Misspellings in the Constitution

Capitalization:

New students of the Constitution often see one more thing that raises eyebrows: the use of capital letters in the original text. Some have even gone so far as to say that capitalized words in the original Constitution have some sort of special significance above and beyond the non-capitalized words. This is only true in that most of the non-standard capitalization is done to nouns. Again, this was an issue of style, and is similar to the way German capitalizes nouns - they are simply capitalized, and that's all. The words "People" or "State" has the exact same significance and meaning as "people" and "state". Many modern transcriptions of the Constitution remove this extra capitalization without changing the meaning of the document.

The words mean what the words say. Don't read anything into the capital letters.