What are you prepared to do?

[PredFan]

i ask all of my brothers and sisters this famous question from The Untouchables:

“What are you prepared to do?

View attachment 191687

I have heard a lot of talk here and elsewhere from 2nd Amendment supporters like me. How theywont turn in their guns, how it will be the next Civil War if they try to take them, I see hats with Mulon Labe on them and I see Gadson Flags flying.

But what are you REALLY prepared to do when they come? You have jobs, you have a family, a mortgage, are you ready to become an outlaw?

I have given this a lot of real thought. I have personally decided that yes, I am prepared to be an outlaw. I have a mortgage, I have a family but they are all grown and on their own now. I have a job that I love but will put in jeopardy. But I am willing.

The key I think is to defy the laws and not get caught. To have my guns and everything else too. I am making plans to that end.

This guy WILL
NOT COMPLY, EVER.

What are YOU prepared to do?

I don't see your scenario playing out. If you are serious about survival number one need will be clean fresh water. Consider a product like this. When I hike in the Adirondacks I always carry it with me; along with a compass, knife, and paracord.
MINI Water Filtration System | Sawyer Products

All the guns and ammo in the world are worth nothing if you aren't alive to shoot them.

I’m not talking about survival.

 

[PredFan]

i ask all of my brothers and sisters this famous question from The Untouchables:

“What are you prepared to do?

View attachment 191687

I have heard a lot of talk here and elsewhere from 2nd Amendment supporters like me. How theywont turn in their guns, how it will be the next Civil War if they try to take them, I see hats with Mulon Labe on them and I see Gadson Flags flying.

But what are you REALLY prepared to do when they come? You have jobs, you have a family, a mortgage, are you ready to become an outlaw?

I have given this a lot of real thought. I have personally decided that yes, I am prepared to be an outlaw. I have a mortgage, I have a family but they are all grown and on their own now. I have a job that I love but will put in jeopardy. But I am willing.

The key I think is to defy the laws and not get caught. To have my guns and everything else too. I am making plans to that end.

This guy WILL
NOT COMPLY, EVER.

What are YOU prepared to do?

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

Clearly no thought was put into this post – ‘real’ or otherwise.

No one advocates for gun ‘confiscation.’

No one wants to take anyone’s guns, no one is going to take anyone’s guns.

This is nothing more than delusional rightwing paranoia.

Feel free to fuck off. This thread isn’t for you.

 

[rightwinger]

No doubt you do, and you prolly need em all.

My answer: 'Come Get Some Motherfucker'!
The US NG/military will NEVER go to war against their own people.
That leaves the LIB 'man-bun' pyjama-boys' to stand up and fight.
What are they going to use as weapons? Pieces of red licorice?
In other words no one.

The US military will be all over your ass the first time some shithead gun nut kills one of their buddies

They wont open fire on the American people.
They know that if they do the vast majority of our enlisted will cap their ass.

Of course they will
Cops do it all the time

You take up arms against your country, you are a traitor

If that is true, America was founded by traitors.

What did the Brits call them?

 

[Pop23]

My answer: 'Come Get Some Motherfucker'!
The US NG/military will NEVER go to war against their own people.
That leaves the LIB 'man-bun' pyjama-boys' to stand up and fight.
What are they going to use as weapons? Pieces of red licorice?
In other words no one.

The US military will be all over your ass the first time some shithead gun nut kills one of their buddies

They wont open fire on the American people.
They know that if they do the vast majority of our enlisted will cap their ass.

Of course they will
Cops do it all the time

You take up arms against your country, you are a traitor

If that is true, America was founded by traitors.

What did the Brits call them?

Slaves

 

[rightwinger]

The US military will be all over your ass the first time some shithead gun nut kills one of their buddies

They wont open fire on the American people.
They know that if they do the vast majority of our enlisted will cap their ass.

Of course they will
Cops do it all the time

You take up arms against your country, you are a traitor

If that is true, America was founded by traitors.

What did the Brits call them?

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

 

[Pop23]

They wont open fire on the American people.
They know that if they do the vast majority of our enlisted will cap their ass.

Of course they will
Cops do it all the time

You take up arms against your country, you are a traitor

If that is true, America was founded by traitors.

What did the Brits call them?

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

BINGO, which is exactly the reason we have a 2nd Amendment!

Thanks again for the support!

 

[rightwinger]

Of course they will
Cops do it all the time

You take up arms against your country, you are a traitor

If that is true, America was founded by traitors.

What did the Brits call them?

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

BINGO, which is exactly the reason we have a 2nd Amendment!

Thanks again for the support!

Why is it the second amendment not apply to slaves?

 

[Pop23]

If that is true, America was founded by traitors.

What did the Brits call them?

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

BINGO, which is exactly the reason we have a 2nd Amendment!

Thanks again for the support!

Why is it the second amendment not apply to slaves?

Slavery has been made illegal by an amendment to the Constitution. Or don't they have newspaper in loonville?

 

[dblack]

If that is true, America was founded by traitors.

What did the Brits call them?

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

BINGO, which is exactly the reason we have a 2nd Amendment!

Thanks again for the support!

Why is it the second amendment not apply to slaves?

It did, once slavery was abolished. Why do you think racists are so scared?

 

[rightwinger]

What did the Brits call them?

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

BINGO, which is exactly the reason we have a 2nd Amendment!

Thanks again for the support!

Why is it the second amendment not apply to slaves?

Slavery has been made illegal by an amendment to the Constitution. Or don't they have newspaper in loonville?

So you are admitting that the founders did not make the second amendment absolute?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I got a million of em

No doubt you do, and you prolly need em all.

My answer: 'Come Get Some Motherfucker'!
The US NG/military will NEVER go to war against their own people.
That leaves the LIB 'man-bun' pyjama-boys' to stand up and fight.
What are they going to use as weapons? Pieces of red licorice?
In other words no one.

The US military will be all over your ass the first time some shithead gun nut kills one of their buddies

They wont open fire on the American people.
They know that if they do the vast majority of our enlisted will cap their ass.

Of course they will
Cops do it all the time

You take up arms against your country, you are a traitor

Only an idiot would use that as an example.

 

[rightwinger]

No doubt you do, and you prolly need em all.

My answer: 'Come Get Some Motherfucker'!
The US NG/military will NEVER go to war against their own people.
That leaves the LIB 'man-bun' pyjama-boys' to stand up and fight.
What are they going to use as weapons? Pieces of red licorice?
In other words no one.

The US military will be all over your ass the first time some shithead gun nut kills one of their buddies

They wont open fire on the American people.
They know that if they do the vast majority of our enlisted will cap their ass.

Of course they will
Cops do it all the time

You take up arms against your country, you are a traitor

Only an idiot would use that as an example.

Gun nuts taking up arms against their country will be traitors

 

[Pop23]

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

BINGO, which is exactly the reason we have a 2nd Amendment!

Thanks again for the support!

Why is it the second amendment not apply to slaves?

Slavery has been made illegal by an amendment to the Constitution. Or don't they have newspaper in loonville?

So you are admitting that the founders did not make the second amendment absolute?

Actually it's not me, it's language experts that claim as much:

Here's the opinion of an award winning language Expert:

First his credentials:

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

Source: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

His take on the wording of the 2nd Amendment:

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"


[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

 

[Pop23]

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

BINGO, which is exactly the reason we have a 2nd Amendment!

Thanks again for the support!

Why is it the second amendment not apply to slaves?

Slavery has been made illegal by an amendment to the Constitution. Or don't they have newspaper in loonville?

So you are admitting that the founders did not make the second amendment absolute?

No amendment can be considered absolute as long as there is a way for the States to repeal. You want to attempt a repeal, have at it. Expect a fight.

 

[Pop23]

My answer: 'Come Get Some Motherfucker'!
The US NG/military will NEVER go to war against their own people.
That leaves the LIB 'man-bun' pyjama-boys' to stand up and fight.
What are they going to use as weapons? Pieces of red licorice?
In other words no one.

The US military will be all over your ass the first time some shithead gun nut kills one of their buddies

They wont open fire on the American people.
They know that if they do the vast majority of our enlisted will cap their ass.

Of course they will
Cops do it all the time

You take up arms against your country, you are a traitor

Only an idiot would use that as an example.

Gun nuts taking up arms against their country will be traitors

The British thought so as well.

 

[rightwinger]

The slaves did not have a choice

BINGO, which is exactly the reason we have a 2nd Amendment!

Thanks again for the support!

Why is it the second amendment not apply to slaves?

Slavery has been made illegal by an amendment to the Constitution. Or don't they have newspaper in loonville?

So you are admitting that the founders did not make the second amendment absolute?

Actually it's not me, it's language experts that claim as much:

Here's the opinion of an award winning language Expert:

First his credentials:

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

Source: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

His take on the wording of the 2nd Amendment:

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"


[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

Opinion

 

[rightwinger]

The US military will be all over your ass the first time some shithead gun nut kills one of their buddies

They wont open fire on the American people.
They know that if they do the vast majority of our enlisted will cap their ass.

Of course they will
Cops do it all the time

You take up arms against your country, you are a traitor

Only an idiot would use that as an example.

Gun nuts taking up arms against their country will be traitors

The British thought so as well.

Yes they did

They had no problem firing on their fellow British subjects

 

[Pop23]

BINGO, which is exactly the reason we have a 2nd Amendment!

Thanks again for the support!

Why is it the second amendment not apply to slaves?

Slavery has been made illegal by an amendment to the Constitution. Or don't they have newspaper in loonville?

So you are admitting that the founders did not make the second amendment absolute?

Actually it's not me, it's language experts that claim as much:

Here's the opinion of an award winning language Expert:

First his credentials:

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

Source: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

His take on the wording of the 2nd Amendment:

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"


[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

Opinion

Expert opinion, trumps yours

 

[Pop23]

They wont open fire on the American people.
They know that if they do the vast majority of our enlisted will cap their ass.

Of course they will
Cops do it all the time

You take up arms against your country, you are a traitor

Only an idiot would use that as an example.

Gun nuts taking up arms against their country will be traitors

The British thought so as well.

Yes they did

They had no problem firing on their fellow British subjects

I really don't care what the British thought.

 

[rightwinger]

Why is it the second amendment not apply to slaves?

Slavery has been made illegal by an amendment to the Constitution. Or don't they have newspaper in loonville?

So you are admitting that the founders did not make the second amendment absolute?

Actually it's not me, it's language experts that claim as much:

Here's the opinion of an award winning language Expert:

First his credentials:

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

Source: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

His take on the wording of the 2nd Amendment:

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"


[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

Opinion

Expert opinion, trumps yours

Hardly expert

The sentence is ambiguous