Yeah, really not surprising, after all those that would take our rights away are either after power and money, or brainwashed by those who have it and want more.


That said, I know this really isn’t the place for this, but I need some advice. I’m taking an Intro to American Government class at a local community college. We were going over the amendments and when he got to the second amendment he said something along the lines of “The meaning of the second amendment depends on how you parse it, but I think its pretty clear its not an individual right.” So I was wondering if you could point me to some good, well cited material on the true meaning of the second amendment that would give me some good arguments to use against a history professor. Thanks in advance feel free to email me. Oh and I am already using “ARMED CITIZENS, CITIZEN ARMIES: TOWARD A JURISPRUDENCE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT” I’m just searching for more historical and linguistic references to prove my point of view.

I would raise my hand and ask if he could explain why it's not an individual right, when it clearly states "the right of THE PEOPLE" - just like all of the other rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights. I would suggest that it is not at all "clear" that is not an individual right. Then allow him to construct his explanation.

I would also challenge the assertion that the meaning of any of the BoR "depends on how you parse it." Regardless of how one might choose to parse the language, it has the meaning intended by those who wrote it. If I intend my words to have a particular meaning, yet you choose to derive a different meaning by parsing the words in a chosen manner, that does not alter the meaning of the words as I assembled them. It is a new meaning you have given to them (or should I say imposed upon them, based on your preconceived notions and prejudices).

Good luck.

Andrew:

Print out a copy of Parker v. DC. That spells it out pretty well.

GMC70:

You presume [ahem] that the good professor can read.

the DOJ paper is good:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

Guncite also has quite a few references and papers:

http://www.guncite.com/

One of the best is Tench Coxe on the debates:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

If "the people" in the 2nd are actually "the state" then "the people" in the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc must also be "the state". Let him chew on that.

Thanks for all of the suggestions, next time it comes up I'll be sure to have a response prepared.