What do these words mean to you?

[smc13]

"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."

I am just curious what does this convoluted sentence mean to you?

Many people seem to act as if there is a hidden if somewhere in there and read it as "if a militia is necessary to the security of the country then people can keep some guns. But, since it isn't you can't have guns."

I find two fallacies in the above view. One, there is no if. The founders were certain that arming the people was needed. Two, people read Arms as if it means guns. It doesn't. Arms means weapons.

So where did the "IF" come from? Where did the limitation from weapons to guns come from?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: smc13
"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."

I am just curious what does this convoluted sentence mean to you?

Many people seem to act as if there is a hidden if somewhere in there and read it as "if a militia is necessary to the security of the country then people can keep some guns. But, since it isn't you can't have guns."

I find two fallacies in the above view. One, there is no if. The founders were certain that arming the people was needed. Two, people read Arms as if it means guns. It doesn't. Arms means weapons.

Politicians used the two ends of it to take advantage of a perceived loophole.

"Well Regulated" and "shall not be infringed"

 

[TheBDB]

One interpretation would be people only have an absolute right to bear arms if they are a member of a "well regulated militia."

 

[Genx87]

I think the meaning is deeper. When they say a "militia to maintain the security of a free state".

They mean to have a militia that will fight a foe from abroad or from within(ie the govt itself) if freedom is threatened.

 

[3chordcharlie]

It means you should be allowed to have weapons, so that you can be a member of the well regulated militia. It clearly does not offer protection for the purposes of private protection, or any other reason; BUT there is no specific limitation given that you must be a member of said militia in order to have weapons.

Therefore it is a reasonable, but not infallible interpretation to read it as 'you may own any weapon you wish'.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think the meaning is deeper. When they say a "militia to maintain the security of a free state".

They mean to have a militia that will fight a foe from abroad or from within(ie the govt itself) if freedom is threatened.

If that is the case, who is responsible for keeping that militia "well regulated?" If this militia is outside the perview of the government, and the government is the only institution who has the authority to regulate, is there not an inherent contradiction there?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
It means you should be allowed to have weapons, so that you can be a member of the well regulated militia. It clearly does not offer protection for the purposes of private protection, or any other reason; BUT there is no specific limitation given that you must be a member of said militia in order to have weapons.

Therefore it is a reasonable, but not infallible interpretation to read it as 'you may own any weapon you wish'.

Exactly. Prior to the War of 1812 the US had no Army, Navy, or other Government organized military, just Armed Citizens who belonged to Militias. These Militias were getting their asses handed to them by the superior organization of Euro-style Armies(aka the British). Thus began the US's move towards Government Militaries. The idea of Militias still has value, but even most of them grew into the National Guard and very few Traditional Militias still exist.

 

[glenn1]

It's very simple if you understand basic grammar principles such as whether a group of words is a dependent or independent clause. The way the amendment is written clearly shows the first part " "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" to be dependent clause contingient upon the second part ""the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" which is an independent clause.

One interpretation would be people only have an absolute right to bear arms if they are a member of a "well regulated militia."

That would be one interpretation, but it would be wrong. Let's substitute a couple of words to illustrate (substitutions bolded):

Original: "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."


Change to: "A well educated people being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

By your tortured reasoning, only those who would be considered "well-educated" would be allowed to read books, and I somewhat doubt that would be your position.

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: glenn1
It's very simple if you understand basic grammar principles such as whether a group of words is a dependent or independent clause. The way the amendment is written clearly shows the first part " "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" to be dependent clause contingient upon the second part ""the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" which is an independent clause.

One interpretation would be people only have an absolute right to bear arms if they are a member of a "well regulated militia."

That would be one interpretation, but it would be wrong. Let's substitute a couple of words to illustrate (substitutions bolded):

Original: "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."


Change to: "A well educated people being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

By your tortured reasoning, only those who would be considered "well-educated" would be allowed to read books, and I somewhat doubt that would be your position.

A well sexed people being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and rape sex slaves shall not be infringed.

I don't see how sex slaves or books have anything to do with guns.

 

[miketheidiot]

does this mean i can start to draft for my personal army yet?

 

[glenn1]

A well sexed people being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and rape sex slaves shall not be infringed.

I don't see how sex slaves or books have anything to do with guns.

That takes the prize for stupidest post I think I've ever seen in ATPN.


BTW, let's cut through the bullsh!t, why not just 'fess up to your true motivations? The vast majority of those who oppose gun rights don't do so because they're worried about some good ol' boy in Idaho and his hunting rifle, they're worried about minorities in the inner city shooting them. And since saying so outright would leave them (correctly) open to charges of racism, you have to couch in terms that make it sound like you're worried about Cletus the Redneck and his shotgun. So stop pretending like you care about what happens in what you've dubbed "Dumfuckistan" since we know better.

 

[daveshel]

When the four corners of the document in question do not give adequate clues as to its proper interpretation, look to the intent of the framers, as evidenced by the record of the deliberations that led to the adoption of the measure.

As I recall, this compound sentence represents a compromise that combined the proposals of two delegates; there is evidence that the phrases were conceived separately and should be read separately. The latter phrase is the most indistinct in the entire constitution: if it were a law enacted today it would be struck for vagueness.

What it means: a delegate or faction at the Constitutional Convention was concerned about some aspect of the right to bear arms, whatever they were trying to accomplish was for the most part negated by the political wranglings it took to get the Constitution written.

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: glenn1

A well sexed people being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and rape sex slaves shall not be infringed.

I don't see how sex slaves or books have anything to do with guns.

That takes the prize for stupidest post I think I've ever seen in ATPN.

BTW, let's cut through the bullsh!t, why not just 'fess up to your true motivations? The vast majority of those who oppose gun rights don't do so because they're worried about some good ol' boy in Idaho and his hunting rifle, they're worried about minorities in the inner city shooting them. And since saying so outright would leave them (correctly) open to charges of racism, you have to couch in terms that make it sound like you're worried about Cletus the Redneck and his shotgun. So stop pretending like you care about what happens in what you've dubbed "Dumfuckistan" since we know better.

I don't oppose gun rights. In fact I was thinking of buying a pistol and maybe getting a concealed permit for it. They are a lot of fun to shoot. I qualified as a sharpshooter at Navy OCS and I wear the ribbon on my chest everyday. Maybe you should cut the bullsh!t and not assume things about people.

The point of my ridiculous post was to point out that I didn't agree with your books analogy. The subject matter is important and you can't say because one makes sense the other does as well.



Edit: My problem is I'm not a party hack so sometimes I say things to stimulate the debate even if I don't agree with them, but people here are so quick to judge and label.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: glenn1

A well sexed people being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and rape sex slaves shall not be infringed.

I don't see how sex slaves or books have anything to do with guns.

That takes the prize for stupidest post I think I've ever seen in ATPN.


BTW, let's cut through the bullsh!t, why not just 'fess up to your true motivations? The vast majority of those who oppose gun rights don't do so because they're worried about some good ol' boy in Idaho and his hunting rifle, they're worried about minorities in the inner city shooting them. And since saying so outright would leave them (correctly) open to charges of racism, you have to couch in terms that make it sound like you're worried about Cletus the Redneck and his shotgun. So stop pretending like you care about what happens in what you've dubbed "Dumfuckistan" since we know better.

i'm afraid of both, particularily crazy north dakotans running around with their rifles and JD bottles There aren't any miorities here.


BTW i am a moderate in this issue. 3 day waiting period and tracking type stuff. nothing on actual ownership (except for criminals and crazies)

 

[dannybin1742]

too many gun nuts think just this:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

they simply don't know or choose to ignore this first part

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
BTW i am a moderate in this issue. 3 day waiting period and tracking type stuff. nothing on actual ownership (except for criminals and crazies)

I also think of myself as a moderate in this sense. The only point where I disagree with you is anyone with a CPL/CWP should be able to buy a weapon with no waiting period as you've already passed a waiting period to obtain the license.

 

[daniel1113]

I prefer the grammatical analysis. The Second Amendment is actually made up of four distinct phrases:

1. A well regulated militia,
2. being necessary to the security of a free state,
3. the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
4. shall not be infringed.

Due to the placement of the commas, the grammatical construction reads: "Neither a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, nor the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed."

However, if you want the accepted legal meaning, I suggest reading the following Supreme Court cases: The Supreme Court vs. Miller (1939), The Supreme Court vs. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (1992).

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
I prefer the grammatical analysis. The Second Amendment is actually made up of four distinct phrases:

1. A well regulated militia,
2. being necessary to the security of a free state,
3. the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
4. shall not be infringed.

Due to the placement of the commas, the grammatical construction reads: "Neither a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, nor the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed."

However, if you want the accepted legal meaning, I suggest reading the following Supreme Court cases: The Supreme Court vs. Miller (1939), The Supreme Court vs. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (1992).

That's quite the stretch. Read the sentence as written, it is not discussing 4 ideas in one sentence, but 1 idea, that Citizens need to be armed for Defense of the Nation.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: sandorski
That's quite the stretch. Read the sentence as written, it is not discussing 4 ideas in one sentence, but 1 idea, that Citizens need to be armed for Defense of the Nation.

I never said there were four distinct ideas; however, there are clearly four distinct sections. And, if you read the sentence following the grammatical structure as is accepted by experts in the field of the English language, that would be the meaning.

Not to mention that is the current meaning accepted by the Supreme Court.

EDIT: I might also add that the only real argument here is what the meaning of the word "arms" means in this context.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sandorski
That's quite the stretch. Read the sentence as written, it is not discussing 4 ideas in one sentence, but 1 idea, that Citizens need to be armed for Defense of the Nation.

I never said there were four distinct ideas; however, there are clearly four distinct sections. And, if you read the sentence following the grammatical structure as is accepted by experts in the field of the English language, that would be the meaning.

Not to mention that is the current meaning accepted by the Supreme Court.

I'm relatively confident that the grammar makes it clear that the need for a well-regulated militia is the reason that the right to bear arms will not be infringed. However, since the wording is so vague, it makes no claim that you need to be part of said militia (this is assumed perhaps?) in order to have your right protected. Therefore there is no basis for denying someone the right to have weapons based on their militia activity or inactivity.

However, things like registration, cooling off periods and the like clearly do not infringe on those rights in a substantial way, and as such would be perfectly constitutional, if they were implemented. They don't have to be, but the constitution has nothing to say about them one way or the other.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I'm relatively confident that the grammar makes it clear that the need for a well-regulated militia is the reason that the right to bear arms will not be infringed.

You can be as confident as you want, but you're wrong (in terms of correct English grammar). Whether or not this is the intended meaning is a different argument.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I'm relatively confident that the grammar makes it clear that the need for a well-regulated militia is the reason that the right to bear arms will not be infringed.

You can be as confident as you want, but you're wrong (in terms of correct English grammar). Whether or not this is the intended meaning is a different argument.

Uh... the only way english grammar would make the exact meaning you used correct is if a period or semicolon were separating the two halves of the statement. (note there would be some additional words needed to make a semicolon separation function remotely as you've interpreted the sentece)

The way it is written, the first statement is given as the reason for the second one.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The way it is written, the first statement is given as the reason for the second one.

Actually, it's the other way around. The second clause is the reason for the opening clause. However, the second clause has no relation to the third clause, grammatically speaking.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I'm relatively confident that the grammar makes it clear that the need for a well-regulated militia is the reason that the right to bear arms will not be infringed.

You can be as confident as you want, but you're wrong (in terms of correct English grammar). Whether or not this is the intended meaning is a different argument.

Uh... the only way english grammar would make the exact meaning you used correct is if a period or semicolon were separating the two halves of the statement. (note there would be some additional words needed to make a semicolon separation function remotely as you've interpreted the sentece)

The way it is written, the first statement is given as the reason for the second one.

He conveniently added the word(s) too.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: sandorski
He conveniently added the word(s) too.

Do tell where I have added words, aside from my rendition of the grammatical meaning.