Subject:
|
2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Sep 2002 19:08:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
260 times
|
| |
|
|
Here is the quote part:
"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."
This could just as easily read:
Because a free state must protect itself against internal violence,
invaders, and tyrannical rulers by using the posse comitatus...
[note: this part is just the explanation]
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms is noted and will remain
unlimited.
[note: this is the salient part]
From Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia:
"POSSE COMITATUS. These Latin words signify the power of the county."
Or yet again in other words: the power of the people.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, and if anyone else cared to read the
cites, the Federalist and the MANY state debates over ratification of the
constitution document rather unequivocally that the legislative intent of
the framers of the U.S. Constitution in adopting the 2nd Amendment was to
give the people the ability to protect themselves, their homes, their
states, and their country, and even to go toe to toe with the federal govt.
should that become necessary -- through the use of arms!
I mean, if you strip away the explanatory wording, the only significant part
of the amendment reads: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed." That is plain enough, isn't it?
At some point those raising objections need to realize that the phrase "the
people" (i.e. freemen) is NOT actually equated with the term "a well
regulated militia" (i.e. posse comitatus) -- the suggestion is that since
the militia, or a posse comitatus, by its nature draws its numbers from the
people every freeman is supposed to keep arms handy to this purpose: to
serve in the miltia or to form a posse. If you used words like militia and
posse comitatus everyday as did the founders you wouldn't have any doubts as
to the precise meaning of these words. That's why guys like George Mason
made statements like:
""I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few
public officials."
Why is this so hard to grasp? I well understand why anti-gun types want to
cloud the issue, but is the above statement really that obscure or poorly
worded? I think not. The equation is simple:
militia = the whole people - public officials
I understand precisely what Mason said.
That others flatter themselves that they have mounted meaningful refutations
of these simple ideas is preposterous -- what I have seen is stark refusal
to admit the common meaning of simple words and a rejection to research
legislative intent. Lazy ignorance. Using mere modern dictionary
definitions to understand these slightly archaic terms is shoddy, limited
research. If we understand their meaning at all it is because we look at the
historical context of their meaning and seek further explanation through
legislative intent. Assured of my rights, I have yet to hear an interesting
argument in favor of disarming the people.
Q: "Uh, Mr. Jefferson -- what does the 2nd Amendment mean?"
A: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms..."
vs
"I looked at a periodic table, now I understand nuclear fission."
As originally intended their is no one to help a freeman in times of trouble
-- he helps himself and sometimes bands together with others in force to
defend against opponents no single man can handle alone. The idea was that
there would be no standing army except in time of war. The closest thing to
a police force was the idea of the sheriff and possibly some deputies --
should more people be needed a posse would be formed.
Simple. Simple. Simple.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
|
| (...) Heh. I think that this is the exact crux of the problem. I confess that I am not as well-read on this subject as my peers here, but a lot of what I've read identifies the first clause of the amendment as the vital part. I can't get too deep (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
