The Usage of One's Noggin

[FC]

"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."

 

A little exegesis here. Take a close look at this often quoted Ammendment of the Constitution.

First off, what do the writers mean when they say, "A well regulated Militia being necessary tot he security of a free State"? They were not bantering about words to sound pretty- these were geniuses at work. What do they mean by a well regulated Militia? It is implied that this Militia is necessary to the security of a State, a free State. Therefore, the militia is a for the preservation of freedom.

 

Secondly, notice: "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms". The militia and the people are intertwined. It does not say the right of the government to keep and bear arms, that is a given. The Ammendment is necessary to ensure the PEOPLE have the ability to possess arms.

 

Thirdly: "shall not be infringed". Why does it say this? Because there was a danger that a power would try to infringe upon this right.

 

Thoughts? Watching "National Treasure" got me thinking.

Interesting reading

[Emul8]

Well, the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment has definitely been debated by people better equipped to do so than I am, but, I'm feeling spunky today, so I'll toss out some thoughts since you asked, FC.

 

I feel that much of what can be extracted from the wording of the Second Amendment is in the punctuation, which, sadly is often shall we say, "enhanced" to put another spin on it...not usually the proper one either. The version that FC posted is the one generally accepted as "official", therefore it's the version with which I agree.

 

The first part of the Second Amendment:

 

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," says to me that a militia, any militia comprised of "citizen soldiers", should be regulated by perhaps members of it's ranks or whatever, but still separate from government military forces which are, in the composition of the Constitution, a given. The militia seems to be a balance to government military forces, and the framers clearly understood the necessity of having both so as to ensure the freedom of the State, whether that means a single state, or the State, in a collective sense.

 

The second part of the Second Amendment:

 

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", means what it says, the people MIGHT be the militia, or perhaps they aren't, however, that doesn't mean that just because they don't participate in the militia the people have forfeited their right to keep and bear arms. To the contrary, the existence of a militia and a free State ensures the right of the people to keep and bear arms, perhaps in order that the people may one day have need of participating in a militia to combat tyranny in whatever form it takes. That the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is the bottom line!

 

Well, that's how I see it anyway.

[Guest Guest_MorgansBoss_*]

To the founding fathers THE MILITIA and THE PEOPLE were one and the same.

 

Anyone who can believe that a confederation that had just undertaken a struggle to defeat a strong government in order secure rights for individuals, but only intended for the means to do so to be in the hands of another government - even their own - is living a fantasy. These were men with extremely strong principals. Principals they thought would be easy for free people, or people who desired to be free, to understand.

 

Were some of their ideas dated? Absolutely - slavery and women's rights are but two places they got bogged down in period thought. Is it reasonable to infer that the right to armament is also a "dated idea"? NO.

 

These were men who had demonstrated the only way to assure ones individual freedom is to defend it. Without the means of defense, nobody - men or women, of any color - can expect to be free. When we depend on the government to grant us our desires or provide our defense, we are neither free or safe!

[Doble Troble]

We all have a responsibility to be part of the militia. Those who founded our nation expected us to not only be armed, but prepared to use our weapons in defense of the Constitution. This principle is straight-forward and without wiggle room. Only enemys of freedom and those who don't respect their countrymen (e.g. most Demoncrats) have attempted to misinterpret it.

 

If 10% of the people in the mall where the recent shooting occured had been armed, how many rounds would that lunatic have gotten off? We all have a responsibility to be armed and prepared to defend life and liberty - that's what constitutes a well regulated militia. Unfortuneatly, and to the detriment of our nation's safety, we rarely can depend on the militia.