In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Comments on the Second Amendment
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Comments on the Second Amendment
By Earl V. Johnson II - for The Federal Observer
"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."
Word(s) defined:
Well - properly, correctly
Regulated - controlled
Militia - a military (or quasi-military) group or unit including (but not limited to) the army, navy, marine, air force, national guard, foreign army, domestic army, Hessians, citizen soldiers, private force, Coast Guard
Being necessary - not optional, must have
Security - safekeeping, freedom from harm, peaceful
Free state - a place where citizens have guaranteed rights, as opposed to just privileges granted by the whim of the state (be it National, State, or Local Government).
Right - some act (or refusal to act) that a citizen may do at his pleasure (alone or in concert with others of like mind)
Of the people - Belongs to the people
To keep - to possess, to hold, without regard to open or concealed possession
Bear - to carry, to control, to have, to maintain
Arms - firearms, weapons, swords, knifes, cudgels,
Shall not be infringed - not to be changed in any way, not be encroached upon, left alone
Rewritten in modern terms the Second Amendment might read...
"The proper control of all military (or quasi-military) groups is necessary if we are to have a safe country where citizens have guaranteed rights; therefore, the right of all citizens to possess, carry, and use weapons to control these military (or quasi-military) groups shall not to be changed in any way, or be encroached upon."
The founding fathers knew that an un-armed citizenry would be at the mercy of any government (benevolent or not) or its military machine, just as they would be at the mercy of any highwayman or gang of criminals. There is no "security of a free state" if the people do not have the means to enforce their rights.
Some people might say that it is no longer possible for armed citizens to stop a military takeover of the United States due to modern military weapons. Well, we don't know the answer to that question. The United States has never been taken over by a military unit (ours or someone else's). Could it be that our armed citizens act as a deterrent?
Courts and laws are mostly the product of governments. In some cases, governments have fallen under the control of people that wish to enslave others. If this were not so, would there be any need for the Magna Charta or the Bill of Rights? Even a jury system cannot protect the citizen in all cases.
Our founding fathers did not intend for us to shoot up the town every time we got disgruntled. Reasonable laws, such as regulating the discharge of weapons in populated areas, have not been opposed by the American people. No citizen should object to a requirement of training prior to the possession or carrying of arms. I hold a Concealed Handgun License from the State of Texas. I would prefer it to be titled a Concealed Handgun Training Certificate. It is good for everyone to receive training.
There are cases where people should not be allowed guns, just like there are cases where people should not be allowed cars. Americans have always been reasonable people. Children and mentally unfit people should not possess weapons. Many classes of criminals should not possess weapons. That is what laws should decide.
Every citizen should object to any form of gun/owner licensing or gun/owner registration. If the state can issue a license for something, the state has the legal power to withhold that license. There is a big difference between a right and a privilege. Owning arms (guns, knives, etc.) is a right.
If someone feels unsafe living next to armed citizens, they can relocate. Me, I am glad that my neighbors can protect themselves and the neighborhood, if need be. There is no need to change America into a version of some other country. If you don't like it, you can move to a country you do like. We here in the United States are free to go to another country anytime we like. Me, I like it here. So do most people. Let us not make our country just like those places that people are running from. You know, the places where freedom is dead.
The police do a good job, but will never be everywhere at all times. Police can prevent some crime. Police can investigate crime after the fact. But, no police department will ever have the manpower or the money to stand guard over all our families. We have to be able to do that job ourselves.
Countries like Switzerland have little crime. Their citizens are armed. Un-armed countries like England have lots of crime. Where would you like to live?
One big argument for gun licensing and registration is, "crime prevention." This is the Swiss cheese of anti gun arguments. It is full of holes. We have had "crime prevention" used as a means to enact laws that only take rights from the honest citizen. Criminals, by there very nature, don't follow rules or laws. Dope is illegal. Criminals have all the dope they want. In countries where guns are illegal, criminals have all the guns they want. Crime is rampant in these nations because all the good citizens do not have a gun to protect themselves with. The criminals know that they are safe to do as they wish because no one has a way to stop them. The threat of jail time is not a deterrent. Look how full our jails are.
Much of what I have written is not new. I know that. But, I just had to put my thoughts and feelings into words. I get tired of hearing so-called scholars misunderstand a simple thing like the Second Amendment. It has always made sense to me, but maybe putting it in modern terms will help those that struggle with it.
Earl V. Johnson II
Life Member of NRA
Dallas, TX
http://www.federalobserver.com/index.php?section=The+Right+to+Keep+and+Bear+Arms
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By Earl V. Johnson II - for The Federal Observer
"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."
Word(s) defined:
Well - properly, correctly
Regulated - controlled
Militia - a military (or quasi-military) group or unit including (but not limited to) the army, navy, marine, air force, national guard, foreign army, domestic army, Hessians, citizen soldiers, private force, Coast Guard
Being necessary - not optional, must have
Security - safekeeping, freedom from harm, peaceful
Free state - a place where citizens have guaranteed rights, as opposed to just privileges granted by the whim of the state (be it National, State, or Local Government).
Right - some act (or refusal to act) that a citizen may do at his pleasure (alone or in concert with others of like mind)
Of the people - Belongs to the people
To keep - to possess, to hold, without regard to open or concealed possession
Bear - to carry, to control, to have, to maintain
Arms - firearms, weapons, swords, knifes, cudgels,
Shall not be infringed - not to be changed in any way, not be encroached upon, left alone
Rewritten in modern terms the Second Amendment might read...
"The proper control of all military (or quasi-military) groups is necessary if we are to have a safe country where citizens have guaranteed rights; therefore, the right of all citizens to possess, carry, and use weapons to control these military (or quasi-military) groups shall not to be changed in any way, or be encroached upon."
The founding fathers knew that an un-armed citizenry would be at the mercy of any government (benevolent or not) or its military machine, just as they would be at the mercy of any highwayman or gang of criminals. There is no "security of a free state" if the people do not have the means to enforce their rights.
Some people might say that it is no longer possible for armed citizens to stop a military takeover of the United States due to modern military weapons. Well, we don't know the answer to that question. The United States has never been taken over by a military unit (ours or someone else's). Could it be that our armed citizens act as a deterrent?
Courts and laws are mostly the product of governments. In some cases, governments have fallen under the control of people that wish to enslave others. If this were not so, would there be any need for the Magna Charta or the Bill of Rights? Even a jury system cannot protect the citizen in all cases.
Our founding fathers did not intend for us to shoot up the town every time we got disgruntled. Reasonable laws, such as regulating the discharge of weapons in populated areas, have not been opposed by the American people. No citizen should object to a requirement of training prior to the possession or carrying of arms. I hold a Concealed Handgun License from the State of Texas. I would prefer it to be titled a Concealed Handgun Training Certificate. It is good for everyone to receive training.
There are cases where people should not be allowed guns, just like there are cases where people should not be allowed cars. Americans have always been reasonable people. Children and mentally unfit people should not possess weapons. Many classes of criminals should not possess weapons. That is what laws should decide.
Every citizen should object to any form of gun/owner licensing or gun/owner registration. If the state can issue a license for something, the state has the legal power to withhold that license. There is a big difference between a right and a privilege. Owning arms (guns, knives, etc.) is a right.
If someone feels unsafe living next to armed citizens, they can relocate. Me, I am glad that my neighbors can protect themselves and the neighborhood, if need be. There is no need to change America into a version of some other country. If you don't like it, you can move to a country you do like. We here in the United States are free to go to another country anytime we like. Me, I like it here. So do most people. Let us not make our country just like those places that people are running from. You know, the places where freedom is dead.
The police do a good job, but will never be everywhere at all times. Police can prevent some crime. Police can investigate crime after the fact. But, no police department will ever have the manpower or the money to stand guard over all our families. We have to be able to do that job ourselves.
Countries like Switzerland have little crime. Their citizens are armed. Un-armed countries like England have lots of crime. Where would you like to live?
One big argument for gun licensing and registration is, "crime prevention." This is the Swiss cheese of anti gun arguments. It is full of holes. We have had "crime prevention" used as a means to enact laws that only take rights from the honest citizen. Criminals, by there very nature, don't follow rules or laws. Dope is illegal. Criminals have all the dope they want. In countries where guns are illegal, criminals have all the guns they want. Crime is rampant in these nations because all the good citizens do not have a gun to protect themselves with. The criminals know that they are safe to do as they wish because no one has a way to stop them. The threat of jail time is not a deterrent. Look how full our jails are.
Much of what I have written is not new. I know that. But, I just had to put my thoughts and feelings into words. I get tired of hearing so-called scholars misunderstand a simple thing like the Second Amendment. It has always made sense to me, but maybe putting it in modern terms will help those that struggle with it.
Earl V. Johnson II
Life Member of NRA
Dallas, TX
http://www.federalobserver.com/index.php?section=The+Right+to+Keep+and+Bear+Arms
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
By Earl V. Johnson II - for The Federal Observer
"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."
Word(s) defined:
Well - properly, correctly
Regulated - controlled
Militia - a military (or quasi-military) group or unit including (but not limited to) the army, navy, marine, air force, national guard, foreign army, domestic army, Hessians, citizen soldiers, private force, Coast Guard
Being necessary - not optional, must have
Security - safekeeping, freedom from harm, peaceful
Free state - a place where citizens have guaranteed rights, as opposed to just privileges granted by the whim of the state (be it National, State, or Local Government).
Right - some act (or refusal to act) that a citizen may do at his pleasure (alone or in concert with others of like mind)
Of the people - Belongs to the people
To keep - to possess, to hold, without regard to open or concealed possession
Bear - to carry, to control, to have, to maintain
Arms - firearms, weapons, swords, knifes, cudgels,
Shall not be infringed - not to be changed in any way, not be encroached upon, left alone
Rewritten in modern terms the Second Amendment might read...
"The proper control of all military (or quasi-military) groups is necessary if we are to have a safe country where citizens have guaranteed rights; therefore, the right of all citizens to possess, carry, and use weapons to control these military (or quasi-military) groups shall not to be changed in any way, or be encroached upon."
The founding fathers knew that an un-armed citizenry would be at the mercy of any government (benevolent or not) or its military machine, just as they would be at the mercy of any highwayman or gang of criminals. There is no "security of a free state" if the people do not have the means to enforce their rights.
Some people might say that it is no longer possible for armed citizens to stop a military takeover of the United States due to modern military weapons. Well, we don't know the answer to that question. The United States has never been taken over by a military unit (ours or someone else's). Could it be that our armed citizens act as a deterrent?
Courts and laws are mostly the product of governments. In some cases, governments have fallen under the control of people that wish to enslave others. If this were not so, would there be any need for the Magna Charta or the Bill of Rights? Even a jury system cannot protect the citizen in all cases.
Our founding fathers did not intend for us to shoot up the town every time we got disgruntled. Reasonable laws, such as regulating the discharge of weapons in populated areas, have not been opposed by the American people. No citizen should object to a requirement of training prior to the possession or carrying of arms. I hold a Concealed Handgun License from the State of Texas. I would prefer it to be titled a Concealed Handgun Training Certificate. It is good for everyone to receive training.
There are cases where people should not be allowed guns, just like there are cases where people should not be allowed cars. Americans have always been reasonable people. Children and mentally unfit people should not possess weapons. Many classes of criminals should not possess weapons. That is what laws should decide.
Every citizen should object to any form of gun/owner licensing or gun/owner registration. If the state can issue a license for something, the state has the legal power to withhold that license. There is a big difference between a right and a privilege. Owning arms (guns, knives, etc.) is a right.
If someone feels unsafe living next to armed citizens, they can relocate. Me, I am glad that my neighbors can protect themselves and the neighborhood, if need be. There is no need to change America into a version of some other country. If you don't like it, you can move to a country you do like. We here in the United States are free to go to another country anytime we like. Me, I like it here. So do most people. Let us not make our country just like those places that people are running from. You know, the places where freedom is dead.
The police do a good job, but will never be everywhere at all times. Police can prevent some crime. Police can investigate crime after the fact. But, no police department will ever have the manpower or the money to stand guard over all our families. We have to be able to do that job ourselves.
Countries like Switzerland have little crime. Their citizens are armed. Un-armed countries like England have lots of crime. Where would you like to live?
One big argument for gun licensing and registration is, "crime prevention." This is the Swiss cheese of anti gun arguments. It is full of holes. We have had "crime prevention" used as a means to enact laws that only take rights from the honest citizen. Criminals, by there very nature, don't follow rules or laws. Dope is illegal. Criminals have all the dope they want. In countries where guns are illegal, criminals have all the guns they want. Crime is rampant in these nations because all the good citizens do not have a gun to protect themselves with. The criminals know that they are safe to do as they wish because no one has a way to stop them. The threat of jail time is not a deterrent. Look how full our jails are.
Much of what I have written is not new. I know that. But, I just had to put my thoughts and feelings into words. I get tired of hearing so-called scholars misunderstand a simple thing like the Second Amendment. It has always made sense to me, but maybe putting it in modern terms will help those that struggle with it.
Earl V. Johnson II
Life Member of NRA
Dallas, TX
Reader Comments:
On 2002-06-25 00:24:04, Kirk wrote:
It's a RIGHT and it is not to infringed...PERIOD! There is no debate, there is nothing to be misunderstood.
On 2002-06-24 23:26:21, Robert S. Baron wrote:
A cardinal sin of grammar is taking the meaning of an idiomatic phrase as the sum of its parts. Congressional debate which created the 2dAm discussed bearing arms only in terms of being compelled to do so. For example, 20 Aug 1789: Mr. Scott objected to the clause "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that such persons cannot be called upon for their services. The idiom 'to bear arms' clearly means rendering service in the organized militia forces.
On 2002-06-24 22:10:26, Damon wrote:
I'll second that one. I was trained by my grandpa in the absence of my father. It is a dad's job, not the Fed's, or State's job. There was a time where this would have been considered just plain stupid.
On 2002-06-24 14:44:45, Jim wrote:
You state:
"No citizen should object to a requirement of training prior to the possession or carrying of arms."
I do object because it is a constitutional right. Do we need training for "free speech" or the practice of religion too?
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=2962
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878