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.
Rewording the Second Ammendment
jonk
Member Posts: 10,121
Because my liberal friends seem to insist that it just means that the military may own weapons, I thought I would do some explaining and rewording to educate them.
"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."
Let's take that piece by piece.
"A well regulated Militia"- in Colonial days, every man was a member of the militia. With the professional army days, even months away, all men had to be proficient with firearms and familiar with military drill; and had to turn out for muster a few times a year. A lack of familiarity meant that if war came, all we would have would be a rabble in arms, men who couldn't shoot or follow orders. Well regulated therefore meant properly trained, not controlled by the government.
Relevance today: Twofold- first, the draft is still on paper, if not in force, and young men must register with selective service. While the training part of the program may be obsolete (the Army will do that) a familiarity and proficiency with weapons would still be desireable should the draft ever be used. Second, society is a dangerous place. Ownership of a firearm and familiarity and proficiency with it will accomplish the same function as did the militia- defending yourself, family, and neighbors in time of danger.
So to update the language, let us say: A citizenry well trained and proficient in firearms...
Moving on: "being necessary to the security of a free State"- State here is referring to two things; first, yes, the State as in the country or your state of residence. Given the description above about firearms proficiency needed for every man, the next logical step is to use that proficiency to secure freedom and peace for your nation. However it also can refer to condition, a synonym for state; so we may consider that proficiency and ownership of firearms will allow you as an individual to live in a free condition.
Update: ...is more able to defend itself and its community from a threat than one not proficient.
Continuing: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Given the points above, not much needs explaining except to say that in order to secure all the benefits above, any limitations (infringements) on gun ownership are BAD for the individual and society. We will clean up the language a bit for the uneducated masses to understand: Therefore, no one, including the government, will in any way limit or restrict the right of a citizen to own a gun.
I made a few little tweaks from my running monologue above, but here's what I come up with...
So our total 2010 reworded definition for morons would be:
"Citizens well trained and proficient in the use of firearms are more able to defend themselves, their community, and their nation from a threat than those not proficient. Therefore, no one, including the government, will in any way limit or restrict the right of a citizen to own a gun."
"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."
Let's take that piece by piece.
"A well regulated Militia"- in Colonial days, every man was a member of the militia. With the professional army days, even months away, all men had to be proficient with firearms and familiar with military drill; and had to turn out for muster a few times a year. A lack of familiarity meant that if war came, all we would have would be a rabble in arms, men who couldn't shoot or follow orders. Well regulated therefore meant properly trained, not controlled by the government.
Relevance today: Twofold- first, the draft is still on paper, if not in force, and young men must register with selective service. While the training part of the program may be obsolete (the Army will do that) a familiarity and proficiency with weapons would still be desireable should the draft ever be used. Second, society is a dangerous place. Ownership of a firearm and familiarity and proficiency with it will accomplish the same function as did the militia- defending yourself, family, and neighbors in time of danger.
So to update the language, let us say: A citizenry well trained and proficient in firearms...
Moving on: "being necessary to the security of a free State"- State here is referring to two things; first, yes, the State as in the country or your state of residence. Given the description above about firearms proficiency needed for every man, the next logical step is to use that proficiency to secure freedom and peace for your nation. However it also can refer to condition, a synonym for state; so we may consider that proficiency and ownership of firearms will allow you as an individual to live in a free condition.
Update: ...is more able to defend itself and its community from a threat than one not proficient.
Continuing: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Given the points above, not much needs explaining except to say that in order to secure all the benefits above, any limitations (infringements) on gun ownership are BAD for the individual and society. We will clean up the language a bit for the uneducated masses to understand: Therefore, no one, including the government, will in any way limit or restrict the right of a citizen to own a gun.
I made a few little tweaks from my running monologue above, but here's what I come up with...
So our total 2010 reworded definition for morons would be:
"Citizens well trained and proficient in the use of firearms are more able to defend themselves, their community, and their nation from a threat than those not proficient. Therefore, no one, including the government, will in any way limit or restrict the right of a citizen to own a gun."
Comments
Good job! (But you havn't addressed the 'and bear arms' part of the original document).
Quite a substantial omission, if you'd care to think on it....
Held:
1. a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.'
In short, any discussion of militia, the armed forces, or anything other than the operative clause is a distraction. Any distraction is unproductive.
There for, rewording the 2nd Amendment can only be the elimination of the prefatory clause, thus clarifying intent and giving less footing to those that wish to restrict a right. The 2nd actually reads:
'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
No re-wording is necessary.
Simple comprehension is all that is required.
Amazing that 9 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices lack that skill.
Brad Steele
The people were so divided whether the military should be armed or not that they finally had to settle the arguement by making it an Amendment to The Constitution.
LOL
The people were so divided whether the military should be armed or not that they finally had to settle the arguement by making it an Amendment to The Constitution.
Priceless!!!
"Citizens well trained and proficient in the use of firearms are more able to defend themselves, their community, and their nation from a threat than those not proficient. Therefore, no one, including the government, will in any way limit or restrict the right of a citizen to own or responsibly use a gun."
Good job! (But you havn't addressed the 'and bear arms' part of the original document).
Quite a substantial omission, if you'd care to think on it....
Done. [:)]
When the bad guys come to kill you, no one else will save yiou except yourself. The bad guys have guns. The bad guys MAY be the government. They will also have guns. A gun is a tool to kill someone efficiently. They will kill you efficiently if you don't have a gun to prevent this from happening. Do not use a gun to scare them away. They will returm w/ more bad guys. Learn to be proficient. The bad guys will be proficient. Take responsibility for yourself. IT IS YOUR JOB, NO ONE ELSE LOVES YOU OR CARES ABOUT YOUR LIFE AS MUCH AS YOU DO!
Remember, there WILL be blood. Don't let it be yours.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
How about,
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
How abouut: YOU CAN HAVE A GUN
The 2A is not flawed. Your logic is flawed.
Lets take Scalia's words from Heller (one part he got right)
Held:
1. a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.'
In short, any discussion of militia, the armed forces, or anything other than the operative clause is a distraction. Any distraction is unproductive.
There for, rewording the 2nd Amendment can only be the elimination of the prefatory clause, thus clarifying intent and giving less footing to those that wish to restrict a right. The 2nd actually reads:
'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
No re-wording is necessary.
Simple comprehension is all that is required.
Amazing that 9 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices lack that skill.
I agree, completely. However, Jonks points are well made for those who might think like the supremes.
I would say that the word "liberal" can probably be left to past, as far as describing fellow Americans. "Conservative" can be left there too. Both are generalizations that have been used to divide, and do so without understanding the underlying issues.
Good thread, it works towards an understanding of the INTENTION the founders forged in our social contract.
jonk......it just tickles me how we try to play around with the perfect words of the founders and we struggle and struggle and still come back to their words....I mean, what part of "....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't your liberal friends understand? Pretty damn clear to me! Case closed.
Well... the problem they have is that first part of it about militia. They just don't have any historical perspective, nor do they gramatically understand the difference between a dependent non-limiting clause and an independent one.
You're logic is laboring like a Judge. Are you a Judge? The 2A doesn't need updating. The * who can't read need updating. They need to be replaced by those with at least a 3rd grade reading comprehension.
The 2A is not flawed. Your logic is flawed.
My logic is not flawed. My logic understands the Second Ammendment just fine. My friends' and acquaintances though may not be as intelligent. I'm using the forum as a sounding board to write a definition to allow them to comprehend that which they currently clearly don't.
I agree, completely. However, Jonks points are well made for those who might think like the supremes.
I would say that the word "liberal" can probably be left to past, as far as describing fellow Americans. "Conservative" can be left there too. Both are generalizations that have been used to divide, and do so without understanding the underlying issues.
Good thread, it works towards an understanding of the INTENTION the founders forged in our social contract.
I am beyond caring what the intention of the founders was. Any discussion that brings intention into the argument is fraught with danger. While it is true that there is a vast body of work that reveals the intention of some of the founders on some subjects, the bottom line is that the end result, and thus their only important intention, was what was written in the Constitution and BOR.
It is beyond obvious that the 1st Amendment applies only to Congress. It is beyond obvious because it limits Congress and only Congress. The states are free to ignore the First Amendment because they are excluded by its specificity.
It is equally beyond obvious that the States were and are bound by the restrictions of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th because these are rights guaranteed to 'people', 'property 'Owners', 'persons', 'the accused', etc. In all cases, the governments that would deny these rights were State and Local Governments.
Enforcement was lax until the Civil War and the 14th Amendment because there was always the possibility of a State refusing such enforcement and leaving the Union. With that pesky problem of actual freedom behind it, SCOTUS decided they could flex their national muscles absent the fear of fragmenting the Nation.
Sure there is 200 years of Constitutional Law that suggests otherwise, but think about it:
Who would have infringed upon a citizens right to own a firearm? There was no Federal Police force - it would have been State and Local Authorities.
Who would station troops in some-one's home?
We had no standing national army, we had State Militias.
Who would have unreasonably search a person's home?
Local and State authorities.
Who prosecuted people for crimes?
Local and State Officials.
Who conducted the criminal trials?
Local and State Courts.
Who conducted the Civil Trials?
Local and State Courts.
Who set bail?
Local and State Judges.
Who was the greatest threat to the Right Retained by the People?
Local and State Governments.
Therefore, if the original B.O.R. was not to restrain Local and State Governments, what in God's name was its purpose????
The words so matter. The words ensure the rights and freedoms of the people. The words do not say from whom these rights and freedoms are ensured, so there cannot be an a-political finding that excludes any governmental agency.
Sorry for the rant. I fully expected the McDonald case to come down exactly as it did, but had held out just a little hope that SCOTUS would make the right decision. That hope was quashed this morning, and I'm just a bit unsettled.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter
I agree, completely. However, Jonks points are well made for those who might think like the supremes.
I would say that the word "liberal" can probably be left to past, as far as describing fellow Americans. "Conservative" can be left there too. Both are generalizations that have been used to divide, and do so without understanding the underlying issues.
Good thread, it works towards an understanding of the INTENTION the founders forged in our social contract.
I am beyond caring what the intention of the founders was. Any discussion that brings intention into the argument is fraught with danger. While it is true that there is a vast body of work that reveals the intention of some of the founders on some subjects, the bottom line is that the end result, and thus their only important intention, was what was written in the Constitution and BOR.
It is beyond obvious that the 1st Amendment applies only to Congress. It is beyond obvious because it limits Congress and only Congress. The states are free to ignore the First Amendment because they are excluded by its specificity.
It is equally beyond obvious that the States were and are bound by the restrictions of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th because these are rights guaranteed to 'people', 'property 'Owners', 'persons', 'the accused', etc. In all cases, the governments that would deny these rights were State and Local Governments.
Enforcement was lax until the Civil War and the 14th Amendment because there was always the possibility of a State refusing such enforcement and leaving the Union. With that pesky problem of actual freedom behind it, SCOTUS decided they could flex their national muscles absent the fear of fragmenting the Nation.
Sure there is 200 years of Constitutional Law that suggests otherwise, but think about it:
Who would have infringed upon a citizens right to own a firearm? There was no Federal Police force - it would have been State and Local Authorities.
Who would station troops in some-one's home?
We had no standing national army, we had State Militias.
Who would have unreasonably search a person's home?
Local and State authorities.
Who prosecuted people for crimes?
Local and State Officials.
Who conducted the criminal trials?
Local and State Courts.
Who conducted the Civil Trials?
Local and State Courts.
Who set bail?
Local and State Judges.
Who was the greatest threat to the Right Retained by the People?
Local and State Governments.
Therefore, if the original B.O.R. was not to restrain Local and State Governments, what in God's name was its purpose????
The words so matter. The words ensure the rights and freedoms of the people. The words do not say from whom these rights and freedoms are ensured, so there cannot be an a-political finding that excludes any governmental agency.
Sorry for the rant. I fully expected the McDonald case to come down exactly as it did, but had held out just a little hope that SCOTUS would make the right decision. That hope was quashed this morning, and I'm just a bit unsettled.
WOW! So perfectly explained Mr Mcmanus. +1!!!!!!
Thank you, Sir.
I have been at this game a long time...and I just never thought about the subject in quite the fashion you structured it.
That appears to me to put the final touch on the question...for all time.
Therefore, if the original B.O.R. was not to restrain Local and State Governments, what in God's name was its purpose????
No, it was not the original intent. The original intent was to restrict federal government. It's throughout all of the historical writings.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Therefore, if the original B.O.R. was not to restrain Local and State Governments, what in God's name was its purpose????
No, it was not the original intent. The original intent was to restrict federal government. It's throughout all of the historical writings.
Yes, Rock, and the first and the 10th do just that.
The 2nd - 9th, however, specifically protect the rights of the people without an exception for local and state governments. It is how they are written, it is what they say. It is exactly why we are a nation of law, not a nation of laws or of men.
It is also why intent needs to be ignored, and our governing document needs to be respected.
Brad Steele
It is also why intent needs to be ignored, and our governing document needs to be respected.
I agree with you here. The rest I have to revisit, as it's not my day today, and I barely understand wth is going on.
The militia is all able bodied male citizens.
Able bodied male citizens should procure for themselves a weapon and ammunition conforming to military regulations, ie, a musket or rifle capable of firing a 1/8 oz lead ball (the standard military round at the time) and a specific amount of powder.
A well regulated militia is a male citizenry possessing arms equivalent to those used by the regular soldier.
There is nothing in the decade following the amendments adoption to suggest otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter
I agree, completely. However, Jonks points are well made for those who might think like the supremes.
I would say that the word "liberal" can probably be left to past, as far as describing fellow Americans. "Conservative" can be left there too. Both are generalizations that have been used to divide, and do so without understanding the underlying issues.
Good thread, it works towards an understanding of the INTENTION the founders forged in our social contract.
I am beyond caring what the intention of the founders was. Any discussion that brings intention into the argument is fraught with danger. While it is true that there is a vast body of work that reveals the intention of some of the founders on some subjects, the bottom line is that the end result, and thus their only important intention, was what was written in the Constitution and BOR.
It is beyond obvious that the 1st Amendment applies only to Congress. It is beyond obvious because it limits Congress and only Congress. The states are free to ignore the First Amendment because they are excluded by its specificity.
It is equally beyond obvious that the States were and are bound by the restrictions of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th because these are rights guaranteed to 'people', 'property 'Owners', 'persons', 'the accused', etc. In all cases, the governments that would deny these rights were State and Local Governments.
Enforcement was lax until the Civil War and the 14th Amendment because there was always the possibility of a State refusing such enforcement and leaving the Union. With that pesky problem of actual freedom behind it, SCOTUS decided they could flex their national muscles absent the fear of fragmenting the Nation.
Sure there is 200 years of Constitutional Law that suggests otherwise, but think about it:
Who would have infringed upon a citizens right to own a firearm? There was no Federal Police force - it would have been State and Local Authorities.
Who would station troops in some-one's home?
We had no standing national army, we had State Militias.
Who would have unreasonably search a person's home?
Local and State authorities.
Who prosecuted people for crimes?
Local and State Officials.
Who conducted the criminal trials?
Local and State Courts.
Who conducted the Civil Trials?
Local and State Courts.
Who set bail?
Local and State Judges.
Who was the greatest threat to the Right Retained by the People?
Local and State Governments.
Therefore, if the original B.O.R. was not to restrain Local and State Governments, what in God's name was its purpose????
The words so matter. The words ensure the rights and freedoms of the people. The words do not say from whom these rights and freedoms are ensured, so there cannot be an a-political finding that excludes any governmental agency.
Sorry for the rant. I fully expected the McDonald case to come down exactly as it did, but had held out just a little hope that SCOTUS would make the right decision. That hope was quashed this morning, and I'm just a bit unsettled.
Very good points about who would deprive people of their rights, that ended up being defined in the Constitution.
I've learned something related to the Magna Carta (MC) that explains and provides context for this.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManusThe words do not say from whom these rights and freedoms are ensured, so there cannot be an a-political finding that excludes any governmental agency.
Explaining it is not that simple however and amounts to a major change of subject.
Essentialy history completely misrepresents the MC and those that forced its creation are left out and how they forced it is almost rejected as possible now because of religious issues/programming.
Your words, "from whom these rights and freedoms are ensured" echo the omissions of the MC and its intent just as the circularity of the MC (mis) defines the process of accountability.
Those that forced the MC to be created did not write it. They simply would not leave the elites in peace until it was written then signed and the elites aquiesed. Afterwards they simply worked to remove the truth of the situation, which was deeply shameful to them, from history.
Look at the regulations and definitions for the militia in 1792, one year after the 2nd was passed.
The militia is all able bodied male citizens.
Able bodied male citizens should procure for themselves a weapon and ammunition conforming to military regulations, ie, a musket or rifle capable of firing a 1/8 oz lead ball (the standard military round at the time) and a specific amount of powder.
A well regulated militia is a male citizenry possessing arms equivalent to those used by the regular soldier.
There is nothing in the decade following the amendments adoption to suggest otherwise.
The most reasonable and accurate definition of "a well regulated militia" I've seen yet.
Now, if mental health care was allowed to advance to the point where the best human instincts each of us possess controlled the population, then many American households would have fully automatic weapons, and that would be okay.
I propose, . . . more I DEMAND that states honor their own laws serving the peoples health and interest for the creation of a safer and more Constitutional environment.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=434277
Explaining it is not that simple however and amounts to a major change of subject.
Essentialy history completely misrepresents the MC and those that forced its creation are left out and how they forced it is almost rejected as possible now because of religious issues/programming.
Your words, "from whom these rights and freedoms are ensured" echo the omissions of the MC and its intent just as the circularity of the MC (mis) defines the process of accountability.
Those that forced the MC to be created did not write it. They simply would not leave the elites in peace until it was written then signed and the elites aquiesed. Afterwards they simply worked to remove the truth of the situation, which was deeply shameful to them, from history.
Exactly the situation we face today, freedomfighter. My knowledge of the Magna Carta is limited, so I'll take what you say at face value.
We know that Madison fought tooth and nail to ensure that the BOR was to be incorporated upon each and every State and Local governing body and we know that many disagreed. I don't care.
We know that there is over 230 years of learned SCOTUS decisions that nip and tuck and parse the words of the Constitution, including its Amendments, fundamentally changing the meaning of the words as written. Again, I don't care.
We know the founders looked to sample government from around the world and to their faith to construct a governing document through which to build a Republic. Not surprisingly, I don't care about this either.
What we also know is that we have a governing document with 27 fairly simple Amendments that the average 14 year-old can read and understand. Just as the elites of Merry Old England twisted the intent of the MC to advance their power and control, so have the pseudo-elites in our judiciary twisted and manipulated the words of the Constitution over the years, clouding its meaning, and vastly increasing the power of the Federal Government as well as the power of State and Local Governments.
It is unconscionable that the justices of the Supreme Court feel it necessary to go back 137 years to a flawed decision based upon a poorly worded Amendment to divine the intent and meaning of the 15 simple words in the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment. It is a game that is being played to obfuscate the meaning of the words as written. I don't know why it is being done. Perhaps to mystify and enhance the perceived intellect of the justices. Perhaps it is because the average person will not read 30,000 words and will sit back and assume that his betters do know better than he. Perhaps it just a sinister method to incrementally increase the power of government.
Guess what? I don't care.
It is wrong. It changes the Constitution every time it is done, and it should be called what it is by every Senator who interviews a potential SCOTUS justice. We will continue to have a continually changing governing document until this silly and self-aggrandizing practice is brought to an end.
OK, perhaps I do care, maybe a little.
Brad Steele