The words "to bear arms" is a military term

[bigrebnc1775]

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:...

 

[RDD_1210]

So are you saying that only those connected to the military should be able to bear arms and not private citizens?

 

[zzzz]

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.

 

[LostAmerican]

How about this taken literally:

Three-fifths compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Leweman]

Didn't the 14th amendment correct that. Holy crap the constitution was changed as the constitution allows for it to be. How about that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So are you saying that only those connected to the military should be able to bear arms and not private citizens?

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

 

[RDD_1210]

So are you saying that only those connected to the military should be able to bear arms and not private citizens?

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

Ahhh, I see now. I thought you were making sense. I was wrong, you went in the opposite direction.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So are you saying that only those connected to the military should be able to bear arms and not private citizens?

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

Ahhh, I see now. I thought you were making sense. I was wrong, you went in the opposite direction.

Between you and I the only one that is making any sense is ME

 

[RDD_1210]

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

Ahhh, I see now. I thought you were making sense. I was wrong, you went in the opposite direction.

Between you and I the only one that is making any sense is ME

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[LostAmerican]

[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.

The Confederate Army was largely militia.

 

[Binky]

bigreb...........unless I'm missing the shot on this one...............

You are making it much more complex than it is. The first part means in order to protect the country, it needs a well armed military. The second half refers to the people having the right to own and carry their own guns, rifles etc. It really isn't all that difficult to understand. Without that second amemdment, there would be no capable military and we, the people, would certainly not be able to own and carry weapons. Just let the powers that be, omit/change or toss out the amendment altogether and watch how fast it all goes to hell......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To bear arms originally applied to knights in service of a king, and had nothing to do with the military.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I just wear a tank top to bear arms.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To bear arms originally applied to knights in service of a king, and had nothing to do with the military.

When have we had a knight or king in the United States of America?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb...........unless I'm missing the shot on this one...............

You are making it much more complex than it is. The first part means in order to protect the country, it needs a well armed military. The second half refers to the people having the right to own and carry their own guns, rifles etc. It really isn't all that difficult to understand. Without that second amemdment, there would be no capable military and we, the people, would certainly not be able to own and carry weapons. Just let the powers that be, omit/change or toss out the amendment altogether and watch how fast it all goes to hell......

And the people have the right to military grade weapons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[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.

The Confederate Army was largely militia.

And so were the northern troops

 

[bigrebnc1775]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To bear arms originally applied to knights in service of a king, and had nothing to do with the military.

When have we had a knight or king in the United States of America?

What does that have to do with your claim that it has always applied to military service?