CDZ This is As Clear As A Bell.

[evenflow1969]

The Bill of Rights has been under assault for years. When all Americans are spied on by their government, essentially the Fourth Amendment is meaningless. When Americans can be held by their government indefinitely without charges, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment are meaningless.

It is just a matter of time before the Second Amendment becomes limited or eliminated altogether....if we continue down this path to tyranny.

Thank you for bring those issues up! I complain about them all the time and no one gets on the band wagon. The second amendment is to protect those other ones!

 

[oldsoul]

We actually have people marching in the streets begging the government to take away rights

I feel like I'm in Bizarro World

Or 1930's Germany... Oh, crap, should I say that? Or will the brown shirts, AKA thought police, come for me? Screw it, if I have to go down, at least I'll still have my integrity, and honor...


[knock at the door]


[crickets...]

 

[gipper]

The Bill of Rights has been under assault for years. When all Americans are spied on by their government, essentially the Fourth Amendment is meaningless. When Americans can be held by their government indefinitely without charges, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment are meaningless.

It is just a matter of time before the Second Amendment becomes limited or eliminated altogether....if we continue down this path to tyranny.

Thank you for bring those issues up! I complain about them all the time and no one gets on the band wagon. The second amendment is to protect those other ones!

It is amazing how many Americans just accept their government taking their rights. Clearly we are no longer a free nation, when our government can spy on us all with impunity. The central government ignores the Constitution whenever they want. When all three branches of government have become one, when the Founders design was for them to monitor and control each other, the American people are being railroaded.

 

[oldsoul]

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

The intent is clear. People have the right to own guns. We can look at 1801 and see how it was applied to figure it out

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Honestly we can look at how the 2nd was implemented while the writers were alive to see what they meant it to mean.

But man if you read it I wonder if they either:

A. sucked at writing a clear and concise thought.

B. left it as a living amendment with flexible meanings for the future.

Let me address a few things here:

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

Um, no, when you understand the thinking and understanding of the day, it's really quite clear. Allow me to explain:

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

You mean, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Seems clear, even today.

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

In the common parlance of the day (and until the mid to late 1800's), "well regulated" meant properly functioning.

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Are you referring to, "...being necessary to the security of a free State..."? If so, then we have already covered this. It would seem as though you are attempting to over complicate things here.

The entire first half ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."), is an attempt to explain the reasoning for the amendment. I trust that you understand what the war was all about that gained them (and thus, us) freedom from the British crown. But, in case you, or others, do not remember that part of your history lessons:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

From the Declaration of Independence. They then go on to spell out many of the reasons they felt the British crown was ruling over them in a despotic way.

So now, we come to the second half of the single sentence amendment,"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." seems to be extremely clear. What part of this is unclear? Anything? I'd be happy to provide clarity if you need it.

 

[evenflow1969]

The Bill of Rights has been under assault for years. When all Americans are spied on by their government, essentially the Fourth Amendment is meaningless. When Americans can be held by their government indefinitely without charges, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment are meaningless.

It is just a matter of time before the Second Amendment becomes limited or eliminated altogether....if we continue down this path to tyranny.

Thank you for bring those issues up! I complain about them all the time and no one gets on the band wagon. The second amendment is to protect those other ones!

It is amazing how many Americans just accept their government taking their rights. Clearly we are no longer a free nation, when our government can spy on us all with impunity. The central government ignores the Constitution whenever they want. When all three branches of government have become one, when the Founders design was for them to monitor and control each other, the American people are being railroaded.

I expected rioting in the streets and marches, but nothing! Democracy is dead as long as Americans can left sweep and right sweep they are happy!

 

[gipper]

The Bill of Rights has been under assault for years. When all Americans are spied on by their government, essentially the Fourth Amendment is meaningless. When Americans can be held by their government indefinitely without charges, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment are meaningless.

It is just a matter of time before the Second Amendment becomes limited or eliminated altogether....if we continue down this path to tyranny.

Thank you for bring those issues up! I complain about them all the time and no one gets on the band wagon. The second amendment is to protect those other ones!

It is amazing how many Americans just accept their government taking their rights. Clearly we are no longer a free nation, when our government can spy on us all with impunity. The central government ignores the Constitution whenever they want. When all three branches of government have become one, when the Founders design was for them to monitor and control each other, the American people are being railroaded.

I expected rioting in the streets and marches, but nothing! Democracy is dead as long as Americans can left sweep and right sweep they are happy!

I must be much more jaded than you, because I expected nothing.

 

[evenflow1969]

The Bill of Rights has been under assault for years. When all Americans are spied on by their government, essentially the Fourth Amendment is meaningless. When Americans can be held by their government indefinitely without charges, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment are meaningless.

It is just a matter of time before the Second Amendment becomes limited or eliminated altogether....if we continue down this path to tyranny.

Thank you for bring those issues up! I complain about them all the time and no one gets on the band wagon. The second amendment is to protect those other ones!

It is amazing how many Americans just accept their government taking their rights. Clearly we are no longer a free nation, when our government can spy on us all with impunity. The central government ignores the Constitution whenever they want. When all three branches of government have become one, when the Founders design was for them to monitor and control each other, the American people are being railroaded.

I expected rioting in the streets and marches, but nothing! Democracy is dead as long as Americans can left sweep and right sweep they are happy!

I must be much more jaded than you, because I expected nothing.

I am getting there! I am getting more comfoprtable in old age as this plpace is becoming so foreign to me I will not miss it when I am gone! I am starting to think that I will just keep my head down and my mouth shut and not worry about it. I will likely be dead before the shit hits the fan!

 

[SeaGal]

The entire first half ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."), is an attempt to explain the reasoning for the amendment. I trust that you understand what the war was all about that gained them (and thus, us) freedom from the British crown. But, in case you, or others, do not remember that part of your history lessons:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

From the Declaration of Independence. They then go on to spell out many of the reasons they felt the British crown was ruling over them in a despotic way.

So now, we come to the second half of the single sentence amendment,"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." seems to be extremely clear. What part of this is unclear? Anything? I'd be happy to provide clarity if you need it.

Well said!

...and yet we do have infringement.

I would be interested to hear from those who like the argument - 'but the authors of the Constitution couldn't have foreseen the types of weapons used today' when that argument is used against the First's freedom of the press. The Founders could not have foreseen the media technology today - so back to the printing presses for all.

 

[Toronado3800]

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

The intent is clear. People have the right to own guns. We can look at 1801 and see how it was applied to figure it out

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Honestly we can look at how the 2nd was implemented while the writers were alive to see what they meant it to mean.

But man if you read it I wonder if they either:

A. sucked at writing a clear and concise thought.

B. left it as a living amendment with flexible meanings for the future.

Let me address a few things here:

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

Um, no, when you understand the thinking and understanding of the day, it's really quite clear. Allow me to explain:

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

You mean, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Seems clear, even today.

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

In the common parlance of the day (and until the mid to late 1800's), "well regulated" meant properly functioning.

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Are you referring to, "...being necessary to the security of a free State..."? If so, then we have already covered this. It would seem as though you are attempting to over complicate things here.

The entire first half ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."), is an attempt to explain the reasoning for the amendment. I trust that you understand what the war was all about that gained them (and thus, us) freedom from the British crown. But, in case you, or others, do not remember that part of your history lessons:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

From the Declaration of Independence. They then go on to spell out many of the reasons they felt the British crown was ruling over them in a despotic way.

So now, we come to the second half of the single sentence amendment,"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." seems to be extremely clear. What part of this is unclear? Anything? I'd be happy to provide clarity if you need it.

Not that I want to offend you by repeating that obviously private citizens were intended to own weapons since we can look at 1801 and see...

And more that I don't want to say I disagree with our founding fathers and liberty.

But

Seems like an awful lot of explaining you had to do for two sentences worth of a thought our founders tried to cram into one.

If I want to type a sentence which says private citizens can own guns. It will say, "Private citizens can own guns". Not something about peanut butter, the states needing to maintain their own militias to defend the country from the Brits (It happened!), and how well regulated soup must be.

 

[oldsoul]

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

The intent is clear. People have the right to own guns. We can look at 1801 and see how it was applied to figure it out

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Honestly we can look at how the 2nd was implemented while the writers were alive to see what they meant it to mean.

But man if you read it I wonder if they either:

A. sucked at writing a clear and concise thought.

B. left it as a living amendment with flexible meanings for the future.

Let me address a few things here:

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

Um, no, when you understand the thinking and understanding of the day, it's really quite clear. Allow me to explain:

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

You mean, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Seems clear, even today.

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

In the common parlance of the day (and until the mid to late 1800's), "well regulated" meant properly functioning.

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Are you referring to, "...being necessary to the security of a free State..."? If so, then we have already covered this. It would seem as though you are attempting to over complicate things here.

The entire first half ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."), is an attempt to explain the reasoning for the amendment. I trust that you understand what the war was all about that gained them (and thus, us) freedom from the British crown. But, in case you, or others, do not remember that part of your history lessons:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

From the Declaration of Independence. They then go on to spell out many of the reasons they felt the British crown was ruling over them in a despotic way.

So now, we come to the second half of the single sentence amendment,"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." seems to be extremely clear. What part of this is unclear? Anything? I'd be happy to provide clarity if you need it.

Not that I want to offend you by repeating that obviously private citizens were intended to own weapons since we can look at 1801 and see...

And more that I don't want to say I disagree with our founding fathers and liberty.

But

Seems like an awful lot of explaining you had to do for two sentences worth of a thought our founders tried to cram into one.

If I want to type a sentence which says private citizens can own guns. It will say, "Private citizens can own guns". Not something about peanut butter, the states needing to maintain their own militias to defend the country from the Brits (It happened!), and how well regulated soup must be.

At this point the only reason I can see for you to continue with this, is that you refuse to a) come up with a well thought out, reasoned response, and b) admit your original stance may have been wrong.

You seem to be grasping at straws, and are showing a very thin grasp of the context of the discussion.

Furthermore, this was not, and never has been, exclusively about guns. This is about individuals, and "the people" as a whole, being able to defend themselves. As I see it, the ONLY reason to argue against the 2nd is that you believe this should not be a right. As you have stated, you are not against the 2nd, per se, but believe there should be more regulation of said right. I ask you, of the "regulations" you would have, which of them would you also be willing to apply to your 4th amendment rights? Or your 1st?

Before you make the argument that the 2nd is different, keep in mind history. Usurpation of the rights enumerated in both the 1st and the 4th has lead directly to the deaths of millions. So no, guns are not more dangerous.

 

[Toronado3800]

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

The intent is clear. People have the right to own guns. We can look at 1801 and see how it was applied to figure it out

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Honestly we can look at how the 2nd was implemented while the writers were alive to see what they meant it to mean.

But man if you read it I wonder if they either:

A. sucked at writing a clear and concise thought.

B. left it as a living amendment with flexible meanings for the future.

Let me address a few things here:

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

Um, no, when you understand the thinking and understanding of the day, it's really quite clear. Allow me to explain:

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

You mean, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Seems clear, even today.

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

In the common parlance of the day (and until the mid to late 1800's), "well regulated" meant properly functioning.

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Are you referring to, "...being necessary to the security of a free State..."? If so, then we have already covered this. It would seem as though you are attempting to over complicate things here.

The entire first half ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."), is an attempt to explain the reasoning for the amendment. I trust that you understand what the war was all about that gained them (and thus, us) freedom from the British crown. But, in case you, or others, do not remember that part of your history lessons:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

From the Declaration of Independence. They then go on to spell out many of the reasons they felt the British crown was ruling over them in a despotic way.

So now, we come to the second half of the single sentence amendment,"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." seems to be extremely clear. What part of this is unclear? Anything? I'd be happy to provide clarity if you need it.

Not that I want to offend you by repeating that obviously private citizens were intended to own weapons since we can look at 1801 and see...

And more that I don't want to say I disagree with our founding fathers and liberty.

But

Seems like an awful lot of explaining you had to do for two sentences worth of a thought our founders tried to cram into one.

If I want to type a sentence which says private citizens can own guns. It will say, "Private citizens can own guns". Not something about peanut butter, the states needing to maintain their own militias to defend the country from the Brits (It happened!), and how well regulated soup must be.

At this point the only reason I can see for you to continue with this, is that you refuse to a) come up with a well thought out, reasoned response, and b) admit your original stance may have been wrong.

You seem to be grasping at straws, and are showing a very thin grasp of the context of the discussion.

Furthermore, this was not, and never has been, exclusively about guns. This is about individuals, and "the people" as a whole, being able to defend themselves. As I see it, the ONLY reason to argue against the 2nd is that you believe this should not be a right. As you have stated, you are not against the 2nd, per se, but believe there should be more regulation of said right. I ask you, of the "regulations" you would have, which of them would you also be willing to apply to your 4th amendment rights? Or your 1st?

Before you make the argument that the 2nd is different, keep in mind history. Usurpation of the rights enumerated in both the 1st and the 4th has lead directly to the deaths of millions. So no, guns are not more dangerous.

We may have to disagree then.

To be clear though, I'm not arguing what the founders meant by it as we can look at how they implemented gun rights. I'm stating the 2nd was written poorly. The thread was about interpretation.

 

[oldsoul]

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

The intent is clear. People have the right to own guns. We can look at 1801 and see how it was applied to figure it out

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Honestly we can look at how the 2nd was implemented while the writers were alive to see what they meant it to mean.

But man if you read it I wonder if they either:

A. sucked at writing a clear and concise thought.

B. left it as a living amendment with flexible meanings for the future.

Let me address a few things here:

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

Um, no, when you understand the thinking and understanding of the day, it's really quite clear. Allow me to explain:

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

You mean, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Seems clear, even today.

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

In the common parlance of the day (and until the mid to late 1800's), "well regulated" meant properly functioning.

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Are you referring to, "...being necessary to the security of a free State..."? If so, then we have already covered this. It would seem as though you are attempting to over complicate things here.

The entire first half ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."), is an attempt to explain the reasoning for the amendment. I trust that you understand what the war was all about that gained them (and thus, us) freedom from the British crown. But, in case you, or others, do not remember that part of your history lessons:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

From the Declaration of Independence. They then go on to spell out many of the reasons they felt the British crown was ruling over them in a despotic way.

So now, we come to the second half of the single sentence amendment,"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." seems to be extremely clear. What part of this is unclear? Anything? I'd be happy to provide clarity if you need it.

Not that I want to offend you by repeating that obviously private citizens were intended to own weapons since we can look at 1801 and see...

And more that I don't want to say I disagree with our founding fathers and liberty.

But

Seems like an awful lot of explaining you had to do for two sentences worth of a thought our founders tried to cram into one.

If I want to type a sentence which says private citizens can own guns. It will say, "Private citizens can own guns". Not something about peanut butter, the states needing to maintain their own militias to defend the country from the Brits (It happened!), and how well regulated soup must be.

At this point the only reason I can see for you to continue with this, is that you refuse to a) come up with a well thought out, reasoned response, and b) admit your original stance may have been wrong.

You seem to be grasping at straws, and are showing a very thin grasp of the context of the discussion.

Furthermore, this was not, and never has been, exclusively about guns. This is about individuals, and "the people" as a whole, being able to defend themselves. As I see it, the ONLY reason to argue against the 2nd is that you believe this should not be a right. As you have stated, you are not against the 2nd, per se, but believe there should be more regulation of said right. I ask you, of the "regulations" you would have, which of them would you also be willing to apply to your 4th amendment rights? Or your 1st?

Before you make the argument that the 2nd is different, keep in mind history. Usurpation of the rights enumerated in both the 1st and the 4th has lead directly to the deaths of millions. So no, guns are not more dangerous.

We may have to disagree then.

To be clear though, I'm not arguing what the founders meant by it as we can look at how they implemented gun rights. I'm stating the 2nd was written poorly. The thread was about interpretation.

Ok, I'll entertain this a bit more. How would you have written it, given the times and common use of language of the era?

 

[Toronado3800]

The intent is clear. People have the right to own guns. We can look at 1801 and see how it was applied to figure it out

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Honestly we can look at how the 2nd was implemented while the writers were alive to see what they meant it to mean.

But man if you read it I wonder if they either:

A. sucked at writing a clear and concise thought.

B. left it as a living amendment with flexible meanings for the future.

Let me address a few things here:

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

Um, no, when you understand the thinking and understanding of the day, it's really quite clear. Allow me to explain:

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

You mean, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Seems clear, even today.

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

In the common parlance of the day (and until the mid to late 1800's), "well regulated" meant properly functioning.

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Are you referring to, "...being necessary to the security of a free State..."? If so, then we have already covered this. It would seem as though you are attempting to over complicate things here.

The entire first half ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."), is an attempt to explain the reasoning for the amendment. I trust that you understand what the war was all about that gained them (and thus, us) freedom from the British crown. But, in case you, or others, do not remember that part of your history lessons:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

From the Declaration of Independence. They then go on to spell out many of the reasons they felt the British crown was ruling over them in a despotic way.

So now, we come to the second half of the single sentence amendment,"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." seems to be extremely clear. What part of this is unclear? Anything? I'd be happy to provide clarity if you need it.

Not that I want to offend you by repeating that obviously private citizens were intended to own weapons since we can look at 1801 and see...

And more that I don't want to say I disagree with our founding fathers and liberty.

But

Seems like an awful lot of explaining you had to do for two sentences worth of a thought our founders tried to cram into one.

If I want to type a sentence which says private citizens can own guns. It will say, "Private citizens can own guns". Not something about peanut butter, the states needing to maintain their own militias to defend the country from the Brits (It happened!), and how well regulated soup must be.

At this point the only reason I can see for you to continue with this, is that you refuse to a) come up with a well thought out, reasoned response, and b) admit your original stance may have been wrong.

You seem to be grasping at straws, and are showing a very thin grasp of the context of the discussion.

Furthermore, this was not, and never has been, exclusively about guns. This is about individuals, and "the people" as a whole, being able to defend themselves. As I see it, the ONLY reason to argue against the 2nd is that you believe this should not be a right. As you have stated, you are not against the 2nd, per se, but believe there should be more regulation of said right. I ask you, of the "regulations" you would have, which of them would you also be willing to apply to your 4th amendment rights? Or your 1st?

Before you make the argument that the 2nd is different, keep in mind history. Usurpation of the rights enumerated in both the 1st and the 4th has lead directly to the deaths of millions. So no, guns are not more dangerous.

We may have to disagree then.

To be clear though, I'm not arguing what the founders meant by it as we can look at how they implemented gun rights. I'm stating the 2nd was written poorly. The thread was about interpretation.

Ok, I'll entertain this a bit more. How would you have written it, given the times and common use of language of the era?

2. The right of law abiding citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Without hindsight I may have just cut loose on "the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed" but we are past that with felons even if limiting released felons probably should have required an amendment.

Whatever the founders were trying to say about militias I do not know. Perhaps:

11. Each state is responsible for maintaining a well regulated militia for the security of the nation.

 

[oldsoul]

Let me address a few things here:
Um, no, when you understand the thinking and understanding of the day, it's really quite clear. Allow me to explain:

You mean, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Seems clear, even today.

In the common parlance of the day (and until the mid to late 1800's), "well regulated" meant properly functioning.

Are you referring to, "...being necessary to the security of a free State..."? If so, then we have already covered this. It would seem as though you are attempting to over complicate things here.

The entire first half ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."), is an attempt to explain the reasoning for the amendment. I trust that you understand what the war was all about that gained them (and thus, us) freedom from the British crown. But, in case you, or others, do not remember that part of your history lessons:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

From the Declaration of Independence. They then go on to spell out many of the reasons they felt the British crown was ruling over them in a despotic way.

So now, we come to the second half of the single sentence amendment,"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." seems to be extremely clear. What part of this is unclear? Anything? I'd be happy to provide clarity if you need it.

Not that I want to offend you by repeating that obviously private citizens were intended to own weapons since we can look at 1801 and see...

And more that I don't want to say I disagree with our founding fathers and liberty.

But

Seems like an awful lot of explaining you had to do for two sentences worth of a thought our founders tried to cram into one.

If I want to type a sentence which says private citizens can own guns. It will say, "Private citizens can own guns". Not something about peanut butter, the states needing to maintain their own militias to defend the country from the Brits (It happened!), and how well regulated soup must be.

At this point the only reason I can see for you to continue with this, is that you refuse to a) come up with a well thought out, reasoned response, and b) admit your original stance may have been wrong.

You seem to be grasping at straws, and are showing a very thin grasp of the context of the discussion.

Furthermore, this was not, and never has been, exclusively about guns. This is about individuals, and "the people" as a whole, being able to defend themselves. As I see it, the ONLY reason to argue against the 2nd is that you believe this should not be a right. As you have stated, you are not against the 2nd, per se, but believe there should be more regulation of said right. I ask you, of the "regulations" you would have, which of them would you also be willing to apply to your 4th amendment rights? Or your 1st?

Before you make the argument that the 2nd is different, keep in mind history. Usurpation of the rights enumerated in both the 1st and the 4th has lead directly to the deaths of millions. So no, guns are not more dangerous.

We may have to disagree then.

To be clear though, I'm not arguing what the founders meant by it as we can look at how they implemented gun rights. I'm stating the 2nd was written poorly. The thread was about interpretation.

Ok, I'll entertain this a bit more. How would you have written it, given the times and common use of language of the era?

2. The right of law abiding citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Without hindsight I may have just cut loose on "the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed" but we are past that with felons even if limiting released felons probably should have required an amendment.

Whatever the founders were trying to say about militias I do not know. Perhaps:

11. Each state is responsible for maintaining a well regulated militia for the security of the nation.

Ok, so it would seem that you are only unclear about the militia part. Fair enough. Let me see if I can provide some contextual clarity for you.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Back in the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the Second Amendment." What the Founding Fathers Meant by "Militia"

I hope this serves to clear up your uncertainty.

 

[Toronado3800]

Not that I want to offend you by repeating that obviously private citizens were intended to own weapons since we can look at 1801 and see...

And more that I don't want to say I disagree with our founding fathers and liberty.

But

Seems like an awful lot of explaining you had to do for two sentences worth of a thought our founders tried to cram into one.

If I want to type a sentence which says private citizens can own guns. It will say, "Private citizens can own guns". Not something about peanut butter, the states needing to maintain their own militias to defend the country from the Brits (It happened!), and how well regulated soup must be.

At this point the only reason I can see for you to continue with this, is that you refuse to a) come up with a well thought out, reasoned response, and b) admit your original stance may have been wrong.

You seem to be grasping at straws, and are showing a very thin grasp of the context of the discussion.

Furthermore, this was not, and never has been, exclusively about guns. This is about individuals, and "the people" as a whole, being able to defend themselves. As I see it, the ONLY reason to argue against the 2nd is that you believe this should not be a right. As you have stated, you are not against the 2nd, per se, but believe there should be more regulation of said right. I ask you, of the "regulations" you would have, which of them would you also be willing to apply to your 4th amendment rights? Or your 1st?

Before you make the argument that the 2nd is different, keep in mind history. Usurpation of the rights enumerated in both the 1st and the 4th has lead directly to the deaths of millions. So no, guns are not more dangerous.

We may have to disagree then.

To be clear though, I'm not arguing what the founders meant by it as we can look at how they implemented gun rights. I'm stating the 2nd was written poorly. The thread was about interpretation.

Ok, I'll entertain this a bit more. How would you have written it, given the times and common use of language of the era?

2. The right of law abiding citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Without hindsight I may have just cut loose on "the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed" but we are past that with felons even if limiting released felons probably should have required an amendment.

Whatever the founders were trying to say about militias I do not know. Perhaps:

11. Each state is responsible for maintaining a well regulated militia for the security of the nation.

Ok, so it would seem that you are only unclear about the militia part. Fair enough. Let me see if I can provide some contextual clarity for you.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Back in the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the Second Amendment." What the Founding Fathers Meant by "Militia"

I hope this serves to clear up your uncertainty.

Not bad and a very very good explanation.

To some extent I may disagree with a few of the quotes but that is thought out and if anything too mature for the board!

That militia talk still creates a logic failing IMO. It makes me think about folks in the militia having the right to bear arms. I'm not in the militia so does that mean I have no right? My selective service registration enough?

 

[oldsoul]

At this point the only reason I can see for you to continue with this, is that you refuse to a) come up with a well thought out, reasoned response, and b) admit your original stance may have been wrong.

You seem to be grasping at straws, and are showing a very thin grasp of the context of the discussion.

Furthermore, this was not, and never has been, exclusively about guns. This is about individuals, and "the people" as a whole, being able to defend themselves. As I see it, the ONLY reason to argue against the 2nd is that you believe this should not be a right. As you have stated, you are not against the 2nd, per se, but believe there should be more regulation of said right. I ask you, of the "regulations" you would have, which of them would you also be willing to apply to your 4th amendment rights? Or your 1st?

Before you make the argument that the 2nd is different, keep in mind history. Usurpation of the rights enumerated in both the 1st and the 4th has lead directly to the deaths of millions. So no, guns are not more dangerous.

We may have to disagree then.

To be clear though, I'm not arguing what the founders meant by it as we can look at how they implemented gun rights. I'm stating the 2nd was written poorly. The thread was about interpretation.

Ok, I'll entertain this a bit more. How would you have written it, given the times and common use of language of the era?

2. The right of law abiding citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Without hindsight I may have just cut loose on "the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed" but we are past that with felons even if limiting released felons probably should have required an amendment.

Whatever the founders were trying to say about militias I do not know. Perhaps:

11. Each state is responsible for maintaining a well regulated militia for the security of the nation.

Ok, so it would seem that you are only unclear about the militia part. Fair enough. Let me see if I can provide some contextual clarity for you.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Back in the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the Second Amendment." What the Founding Fathers Meant by "Militia"

I hope this serves to clear up your uncertainty.

Not bad and a very very good explanation.

To some extent I may disagree with a few of the quotes but that is thought out and if anything too mature for the board!

That militia talk still creates a logic failing IMO. It makes me think about folks in the militia having the right to bear arms. I'm not in the militia so does that mean I have no right? My selective service registration enough?

Actually, according to George Mason, and James Madison (the first two quotes), you are a part of the Militia. Assuming you consider yourself a part of "the people"...

Therefore, you do, by any interpretation, have the right to keep and bear arms.