« Merry Christmas! | Main | BATF director-nominee catches flak from judge »
"The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms"
Just received a copy of David E. Young's new book by that title. I've only had time to skim, but it is GREAT!!!! And just in time for Parker.
260+ pages, but it compresses data very nicely -- he's a clear and concise writer. It goes into more detail than any other book I can recollect. It discusses, for instance, British anti-arms measures leading up to 1775 (banning of gunpower imports to the colonies, seizures of colonial powder supplies, attempted militia arsenal raids -- Concord/Lexington wasn't the first). He turns up records that have long gathered dust -- how PA, due to its Quaker population, had a voluntary militia system, how VA created the same to evade royal control (and they used "well-regulated militia" in the document, showing that well-regulated did not mean government controlled). How PA issued some arms to its militia, and decided to call them in for cleaning in 1787, and that was sufficient to create a controversy in the newspapers.
Not to mention... the state ratifications, which lay out the Second Amendment with zero, one, two, and three commas...
9 Comments | Leave a comment
It's hard for me to grasp that it's come to the point where anybody is seriously debating the meaning of commas in a sentence. That very fact should tell us the opposition is desperate and beyond desperate; in any other context, the notion would be ridiculous.
Give a box of chocolates, and nuts to the girl you love!
(sorry, couldn't resist)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The meaning of the word “militia” has been bandied around, and debated for years. However, it may just be possible that the key word in the 2nd Amendment has been overlooked.
Would it be completely out of the realm of possibility to suggest that the word, “state” in the 2nd Amendment might not mean what it has been assumed to mean?
Is it unthinkable that the word “state” in the context of the 2nd Amendment could mean the same as it does in Art. 2, Sec 3. [“state of the union”]?
If the writers had intended a collective right of subdivisions of the federal government would it not have been clearer to have worded the 2nd amendment, “Well regulated militia(s) being necessary to the security of free State(s).
A well regulated Militia,, being necessary to the security of a free condition, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
To your knowledge has anyone ever considered the word “state” in the 2nd Amendment to refer to a “state of being” rather than to a political subdivision of the federal government?
Other than the second amendment, the only other place in what we know as the “Bill of Rights” where the word “state” appears is in the 10th Amendment and the usage and context of the word “states” in the plural clearly indicates reference to political subdivisions of the federal government.
The Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com ) notes that the word
state” defined as “circumstances, temporary attributes of a person or thing, conditions” has been in use since c. 1225. The word “state” did not refer to a political subdivision until some 300 (+) years later.
Contemporary dictionaries’ primary definition of “state” is condition or mode of being. “State” as it refers to government is listed as a secondary definition.
That's and interesting interpretation of "State" in the Second Amendment. It is somewhat informative to note that the Second Amendment was changed from "free country" in Madison's original draft to "free state" in the final version.
It is also depressing to note that the Supreme Court tends to ignore the constitution when it doesn't like it. For example when it upheld the restrictions on free speech 90 days before an election.
I JUST HOPE & PRAY THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE US SUPREME COURT FULLY REALIZE, JUST WHAT THE 2nd AMMENDMENT TRULLY MEANT & VOTE TO ( KEEP ) OUR RIGHT " TO KEEP & BEAR ARMS "" !!! THAT WOULD FINALLY SETTLE THIS FOR ONCE & ALL & GET THOSE ( ANTI- GUNNERS ) SOMETHING ELSE TO DO, LIKE GO KNIT OR SOMETHING !!! DOES ANYONE TRULY BELIEVE, THAT THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES, & ANY OTHER JUDGE IN THE US DOES NOT HAVE A PISTOL UNDER THEIR ROBE ??? ( ANY ) SMART PERSON THIS DAY & AGE, THAT WANTS TO PROTECT THEIRSELVES, FAMILY & OTHER HONEST PEOPLE SURELY CARRIES !!! RESPECTFULLY, LBJ ( RETIRED CHIEF OF POLICE )
Does anyone truly believe that any gun owner would give up their guns for anyone just because some court decided that they were illegal? We started the Revolution because the British government decided to disarm Americans. We would have another revolution if the Supreme Court decided to disarm Americans again.....besides, It is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT! Who made the Supreme Court or anyone else more powerful, more wise, and more anything than God?
My final word on the matter: "They can have mine, one part at a time...starting with the bullets."
Interesting idea about the use of the word "state". Another intesting point is that the "rights" mentioned in the Constitution are "inalienable", meaning they cannot be alientated or taken away, or separated from. So the point is well taken that no person or governmental body can separate those rights from the people to whom they are granted. Still another point about the second amendment is my personal favorite. It can be considered irelevant in that the issue we really care about is the "Natural" right of any living being to self-preservation, or self-defense. It seems obvious that each person, and by extension, each State, has the right, or even the obligation, to preserve and defend him/herself. It then follows that they should do so in the most effective manner possible: the justification for owning, carrying and using firearms. And the Constitution does guarantee that each citizen is entitled to Life, Liberty ....
Several of the comments about the 2nd amendment refer to "unalienable rights" and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The people who write about these should know that these phrases come from the Declaration of Independence not from the constitution. And that the word "State" in the amendment refers to a "nation", a "country" and not one of the original 13 colonies. And that both of those documents were written in the latter part of the 18th century. This is the twenty-first century. There has been some change since then.
Not to mention that the 6th Act passed by the newly formed Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia (sometimes termed the 14th colony) in 1758 was to establish a militia of all able bodied men:
http://www.geocities.com/akimoya/1758.html
Merry Yule to all, and keep your powder dry!