Question regarding the 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by phila, Sep 4, 2006.

  1. phila

    phila New Member

    Sep 4, 2006
    "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 apologize up front if this is old ground, but I have never read or heard this point discussed that I can recall. My question is this: When one looks the word "state" up in the dictionary they will first find it defined as a "condition" or form of being.

    I know that through out the history of the Bill of Rights the capitalization of that word (and many many others) has varied, somtimes back and forth from the ratification until present.

    I guess my point is that I'm not sure that the language of the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with a State in the context of a political entity,goverment or territory, but rather with ensuring that the individual has a right to maintain a state of freedom and a well regulated militia is one means of protecting that right.

    Over the many years that I have read it this, it seems to make much more sense than the more often interpeted meaning of the word state as it is used in the 2nd Amendment.

    Any thoughts?
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2006
  2. Big Roy

    Big Roy New Member

    Sep 3, 2006
    In the South
    State is used several times in the Bill of Rights. Each time it refers to the government or territory meaning. Clearly (to me anyway) it does in this case also.

  3. Leander H. McNelley

    Leander H. McNelley New Member

    Aug 29, 2006
    Regardless of it being intended to mean a "state of condition" of the People, or the "State of Massachesetts", the meaning and intent of the second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" would apply either way.

    "The People" are the State, and they were granted the right by God, to maintain a free state of being by way of keeping, and bearing arms.

    (Unfortunately, we keep electing folks that think the State is supposed to control the people, rather than the in the intended founding manner)

    The real problem is with legislators not being able to understand the words "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" meand that it simply "shall not" be infringed upon.
  4. phila

    phila New Member

    Sep 4, 2006
    Thanks,I could not agree more.
  5. Sackett

    Sackett Member

    Nov 29, 2003
    SW Mississippi
    Some people also think that the 2nd Amendment somehow refers to State Rights while the rest of the Bill of Rights refers to individual' rights.
    I've always found that logic a little twisted.
  6. Well put Sackett
  7. Nighthawk

    Nighthawk New Member

    Aug 22, 2006
    South Central Texas
  8. Ursus

    Ursus Active Member

    If any person has a doubt about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to your Constitution refer them to "The Federalist Papers" (If you don't have it, get one. I have it and I'm not an American). I donĀ“t remember exactly where it refers to the 2nd Amendment, but I'll check and post it here.
  9. Leander H. McNelley

    Leander H. McNelley New Member

    Aug 29, 2006
    Whenever anyone tells you they don't know the exact "interpretation" or "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment, or try to make you believe they don't understand it, there are only a few possible reasons. One, is they are lying, and want to make the majority of Americans believe the 2nd amendment says something which it clearly does not. The other reason, is public education has allowed a revisionism of how law is to be made. Nowdays, people beleive the Supreme Court can dictate law, and the law is to be made by the Legislative branch, all of which must be "in pursuance of" the Constitution, or it is not law on it's face. You do not need a Supreme Court decision to determine if a law is passed that "infringes" upon your right to keep and bear arms, then that law which bars yor bearing arms, is dictated by the Constitution itself, as not lawful.

    Many attempts are made in order to try and make us believe we are ignorant of the meaning, of a simple sentence. You don't have to be a "Constituttional Scholar" to understand this Amendment.

    Keep in mind, the 2nd Amendment is a sentence consisting of a total of 27 words, and we are taught the meaning of those words previous to even entering high school.

    The school system, and the legal system, simply do not want you to read all of those words in the same sentence, since it would possibly lead to students reading all the others in the Bill of Rights, and reading the Articles of the Constitution, which would really be a problem for the governmental system we have unfortunately allowed to usurp our original system of government. We used to be a "Representative Republican form of Government" with control over all three governmental branches, including the Judicial. Now, the Judicial controls us illegally, according to the Constitution's VIth Amendment, because all trials are to be public, by jury.

    No plea bargains were ever allowed under the Constitution. By allowing Judges and D.A.'s to begin deciding sentences, we gave up our right to control the Judiciary, thus the stupid idiotic "case law" we see allowing all sorts of onerous governmental regulations and control of your life.

    I'm surprised they don't tell us in which cadence to breath in and out. :)
  10. dge479

    dge479 New Member

    Oct 6, 2004
    Haskell NJ
    I agree woth Mr McNelly, Especially where it says You dont have to be a constitutional scholar. I beleive thes were written to be read and uderstood as they were written and were done so with comon sence in mind.
    What part of Not be infringed , dont they understand.
  11. Xracer

    Xracer *TFF Admin Staff Mediator*

    Hi Phila........welcome to TFF! :)

    You raise a very interesting intrepation of the 2nd that I hadn't considered before.

    Generally speaking, there are two views on the meaning of "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State...."

    On side holds that it refers to the State as being a governmental entity.....and therefore refers to a State regulated Milita. Some also hold that in today's terms, the National Guard is the direct descendent of the Revolutionally War Militias and therefore the term "militia" refers to the National Guard.

    Others hold that, historically, the State Militias were comprised of various local and town Militias, and that every man between the ages of 17 to 50 (ages varied from locality to locality) was a member of that Militia....and that each man was expected to furnish his own firearm and that every man is (to this day) a "member of the militia".

    Historically speaking, by the time the first ten amendments were ratified in 1791, most State Militias were more organized than at the begining of the Revolutionary War, and the States did issue them firearms......however, even at that time, there were local Militias on the Western Frontier (which at that time was in the Western Pennsylvania/Eastern Ohio area down thru Kentucky and Tennessee areas) and they were expected to furnish their own firearms. Additionally, a firearm was absolutely necessary to defend each home and homestead (at this time against Indians, not the British) and to hunt to put meat on the table.....and that those who ratified the 2nd Amendment must've taken that into consideration, and meant that personal ownership of firearms was within the meaning of the of that amendment.

    A third argument holds that all other rights listed in the 10 Amendments refers to idividual rights and it would inconsistant to expect that the framers of the first 10 Amendments would make the 2nd Amendment an exception.

    Interesting arguments all......
  12. Leander H. McNelley

    Leander H. McNelley New Member

    Aug 29, 2006
    Regardless, when you read the sentence, it states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The portion of the sentence which refers to a militia is there to demonstrate why not allowing government to infringe upon our God-given right to keep and bear arms, is so important to maintaining our freedom from oppressive governments and dictators.

    Suppose for a moment, that the following sentence was actually the 2nd Amendment with all other Amendments and Articles of the Constitution remaining exactly as they are.

    Amendment II. "Three well rounded meals a day being necessary to maintain a balanced diet, the right of the people to eat and keep foodstuffs shall not be infringed.

    If Congress or a certain State passed a law limiting the amount of food one could eat, or what type of food one could possess, such a law would be in direct opposition of that 2nd Amendment. It would therby constitute an "infringement" upon that right.

    Article VI of the Constitution states clearly that any law (Federal or State) which is "not in pursuance of the Constitution" is forbidden. All Judges are bound by that Article (VI) to find any law "infringing" upon one of the Bill of Rights, to be illegal.

    So consider the actual 2nd Amendment. The sentence says "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.

    Any law which sets out a stipulation or requirement previous to a citizen keeping or bearing arms, is an infringement on that right. When you read the entire Constitution as a whole, one Article after another, and then the Bill of Rights, one after another, you can see that the Constitution, or "contract" which we agreed to in 1789 states emphatically that no government, federal or state, shall infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. Because we need to be both prepared, and capable of, defending ourselves as a whole against an oppressive government.

    To think the Founders intended nine Federal Government employees (Supreme Court Justices) to decide if that right can be infringed upon two hundred plus years AFTER writing a contract that says "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is preposterous.

    For years, lawyer after lawyer has attempted to make the People believe the Supreme Court (nine lawyers on a government payroll) should be allowed to decide if we are to maintain a right which was (according to our Founders) God-given.

    The Supreme Court is not to decide if the Constitution is Constitutional. It is to determine if a law is "in pursuance of" that contractual agreement.

    Nowhere does the Constitution of the United States grant government any authority to limit ownership of weapons. In fact, it strictly forbids government from doing so. The portion about a "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is there to declare why not restricting ownership of guns, is vitally important to maintaining a free state.

    Granted, there are THOUSANDS of illegal, unconstitutional gun laws on the books. But being wrong THOUSANDS of times, doesn't change the fact that our Constitution forbids regulation of firearms by any government agency, in one simple, easy to understand sentence.
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2006
  13. Red Neck64

    Red Neck64 Former Guest

    Jun 18, 2006
    North N.Y.STATE
    Well to tell you what I think.I/we have been fighting gun control for many years now some people don't even live as long.So in order to keep my sanity and stop giving buckets of money to the NRA,I had to come to this conclusion.And that is ain't no SOB gonna take my guns from me just "NO".,
  14. hoser1

    hoser1 New Member

    Jun 7, 2006
    We have the right to keep and bear arms so we can defend ourselves against an oppressive govermnent. (Who was it that said it was our DUTY to overthrow an oppressive goverment?) But overthrowing the government is impossible, oppressive or no, even if you could get EVERYBODY united. They control the military.
  15. Leander H. McNelley

    Leander H. McNelley New Member

    Aug 29, 2006
    Dear Hoser1:

    You ask "who said it was our duty" as civilians to overthrow an oppressive regime?

    Well, Patrick Henry was the most vocal about it during ratification of the Constitution in Virginia.

    However, you can look at the list of signators to the Declaration of Independence at the bottom of the document, and that list displays the names of many other men who did.

    And, when later gathering to mold the Constitution itself, they placed in Article I, Section VIII, the burden of "enforcing the laws of the Union" upon the CITIZEN MILITIA, well over ONE HUNDRED years previous to the formation of a National Guard.

    We have been charged with that duty by the Founders, in writing. There is no question about it.

    But the question remains (as posed by Benjamin Franklin) if we have the will to "keep it."

    With the public schools and colleges today being staffed mainly with "educators" who attended college in the 60's, being indoctrinated with every Anti-American, Pro-Marxist thought known to man, there is little wonder why few young Americans today even believe our Representative Republic system of government is worth the sacrifice to maintain it.

    In fact many high school and college graduates today don't know what a Representative Republic is. Our schools have almost completely halted teaching the Constitution at all.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum A question for the FBI regarding Orlando Jun 12, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum A question about carry permits Jan 6, 2017
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Questions about firearm transfer from CA to WA Nov 17, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum One more question about the Electoral college Nov 10, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Hypothetical question Nov 10, 2016