The words "to bear arms" is a military term

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by bigrebnc1775, Feb 24, 2011.

  1. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    64,004
    Thanks Received:
    3,798
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,830
    First let’s look at 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.”


    Historically speaking it has always been used as a military term as in military grade weapons. This study is original historical research and analysis prepared for the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson
    Figurative v. Literal Usage
    "Figurative" and "literal" grammatical and rhetorical terms need some explanation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, which bases its definitions on historical usage since the 12th century and provides historical examples for the major variations in usage, a literal meaning is one in which is "free from figures of speech, exaggeration, or allusion;" that is, one that is used in its literal sense. For example, to "carry arms" in its literal sense means to transport or convey weapons from one place to another. On the other hand, a figurative meaning is one "based on, or involving the use of, figures [of speech] or metaphors; metaphorical, not literal. For example, to "deliver up arms" was a figurative expression for disarming a defeated enemy, often on the field of battle, but only in the broadest sense is the concept of delivering or transferring weapons from the custody of the defeated forces to that of the victors of significance to the meaning of the overall expression.
    Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...
     
  2. RDD_1210
    Offline

    RDD_1210 Forms his own opinions

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    14,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,298
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,017
    So are you saying that only those connected to the military should be able to bear arms and not private citizens?
     
  3. zzzz
    Offline

    zzzz Just a regular American

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,072
    Thanks Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Yountsville
    Ratings:
    +429
    I believe there was a gramatical error in the printing of the Amendment. The original authors never paid any attention to it because it was assumed that the right own and carry rifles and pistols was a given right in the Amendment.

    Amendment II should read as such:
    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.



    Instead of a comma after state it should have a semicolon. But even with the comma instead of the semi colon the inferance of the sentence implies that a well regulated milita is necassary for the security of the individual states. This harkens back to states rights and the ability of the indivdual states to raise milita to fight Native Americans and other people who invade the state or against inusrrections.

    The second part of the sentence concerns each individual citizens right to own and carry rifles, shotguns and pistols. The Amendment gives citizens the right to own and carry these for whatever purpose they choose.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. LostAmerican
    Offline

    LostAmerican BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    782
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +31
  5. Leweman
    Offline

    Leweman Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,009
    Thanks Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +737
    Didn't the 14th amendment correct that. Holy crap the constitution was changed as the constitution allows for it to be. How about that.
     
  6. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    64,004
    Thanks Received:
    3,798
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,830
    the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
    “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.”

    It's a military term, and is talking about military grade weapons. Which means the people have the right to own military style weapons. You know the kind those black mean looking rifle's
     
  7. RDD_1210
    Offline

    RDD_1210 Forms his own opinions

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    14,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,298
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,017
    Ahhh, I see now. I thought you were making sense. I was wrong, you went in the opposite direction.
     
  8. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    64,004
    Thanks Received:
    3,798
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,830
    OK then the national guard as directed by the federal government is unconstitutional. We should only have a regular military and the militia comprised of private citizens and no national guard.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2011
  9. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    64,004
    Thanks Received:
    3,798
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,830
    Between you and I the only one that is making any sense is ME
     
  10. RDD_1210
    Offline

    RDD_1210 Forms his own opinions

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    14,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,298
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,017
    Whatever helps you sleep at night.
     

Share This Page