A friend sent me this as a study in what the 2nd Amendment means. What do you think?
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/164311
In Webster's English
Stephen P. Halbrook
Halbrook, an attorney and research fellow at The Independent Institute,
Oakland, Calif., is author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of
the Right to Bear Arms."
Anticipating the Supreme Court's expected late June decision in District of
Columbia v. Heller, which will decide the constitutionality of a D.C. law
restricting gun-ownership rights, many analysts have turned to the Founders'
writings in an effort to understand the Second Amendment. What analysts need
to do -- recognizing that language and word usage change over time -- is
turn to America's first dictionary.
The Second Amendment states simply, "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 Supreme Court questioned whether the D.C. statute "violate[d] the Second
Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any
state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms
for private use in their homes."
For the answer, turn to Noah Webster.
Known as the Father of American Scholarship and Education, Webster believed
that popular sovereignty in government must be accompanied by popular usage
in language. In "A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language,"
published in 1806, and "An American Dictionary of the English Language,"
published in 1828 and adopted by Congress as the American standard, Webster
defined all the words in the Second Amendment.
"People" were "the commonality, as distinct from men of rank," and "Right"
was "just claim; immunity; privilege." "All men have a right to secure
enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property," he wrote.
Thus in the language of Webster's time, "the people" meant individuals and
individuals have "rights."
"Keep" was defined as "To hold; to retain one's power or possession; not to
lose or part with ... To have in custody for security or preservation";
"Bear" as "to carry" or "to wear; name; to bear arms in a coat"; and "Arms"
were defined as "weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of
the body."
Only civilians would "bear arms in a coat" -- soldiers carried muskets in
their hands, while officers carried pistols in holsters.
Thus the words "keep and bear arms" suggest a right to hand-held arms as a
person could "bear," such as muskets, pistols and swords, but not cannon and
heavy ordnance that a person could not carry.
"Infringe" was defined by Webster as " ... to violate, either positively by
contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance."
"Militia" was defined as "able bodied men organized into companies,
regiments and brigades, with officers ... and required by law to attend
military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue
their usual occupations" and "Regulated" as " ... subject to rules or
restrictions." A well-regulated militia consisted of civilians, not
soldiers.
What about the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State?"
"Necessary" was defined as "that must be; that cannot be otherwise;
indispensably requisite"; "Security" as "protection; effectual defense or
safety from danger of any kind ... " and "Free" as "In government, not
enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed
laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not
subject to arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord."
"State" was defined as "A political body, or body politic; the whole body of
people united under one government, whatever may be the form of government
... ." A free state, we must conclude, therefore, encompasses the entire
body politic.
During most of our history an exhaustive analysis of the Second Amendment
would never have been necessary. The meaning of each word would have been
obvious to citizens of the time.
It was only in the late 20th century that an Orwellian view of the Second
Amendment gained currency. Within this distorted language prism, "the
people" would come to mean the states or state-conscripted militia; "right"
would mean governmental power; "keep" would no longer entail custody for
security or preservation; "bear" would not mean carry; "arms" would not
include ordinary handguns and rifles, and "infringe" would not include
prohibition.
The Founders worded the Second Amendment in an easy to understand manner.
Individuals have a right to have arms in their houses and to carry them for
protection, and the government may not violate that right.
Modern contortions of language can't change that meaning because we can
still refer to Noah Webster.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung[/i]Seems pretty weak to me. For example:
A friend sent me this as a study in what the 2nd Amendment means. What do you think?
[i]http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/164311
In Webster's English
Stephen P. Halbrook
Halbrook, an attorney and research fellow at The Independent Institute,
Oakland, Calif., is author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of
the Righ i]
"Militia" was defined as "able bodied men organized into companies,
regiments and brigades, with officers ... and required by law to attend
military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations" and "Regulated" as " ... subject to rules or restrictions." A well-regulated militia consisted of civilians, not
soldiers
Just how many "civilians oranganized into companies, [etc.] with officers and required by law to attend millitary exercises on certain days only" are there in the U.S.? I'm thinking he's arguing for a pretty small number of people.
Where do they hide this "militia"? If there isn't one, just how necessary is it "to the security of a free State"?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDo a little research. There are many home grown Militias in different states. They are citizen soldiers. The last time i heard they were about 7 million strong. Haven't read much about it lately, but they're out there.
[/i]Seems pretty weak to me. For example:
[b]"Militia" was defined as "able bodied men organized into companies,
regiments and brigades, with officers ... and required by law to attend
military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations" and "Regulated" as " ... subject to rules or restrictions." A well- ...[text shortened]... If there isn't one, just how necessary is it "to the security of a free State"?
You say it sounds weak to YOU.....SO!!!!!
GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869Are they "required by law to attend military exercises"? If not, they don't fit the definition regardless of what they choose to call themselves.
Do a little research. There are many home grown Militias in different states. They are citizen soldiers. The last time i heard they were about 7 million strong. Haven't read much about it lately, but they're out there.
You say it sounds weak to YOU.....SO!!!!!
GRANNY.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYes, BY LAW....Their law...the inalianable right to protect themselves or to remove an unjust gov't from power...should it arise. A self proclaimed right as stated in the Declaration of Independence.....which trumps the constitution. No, i don't belong to a militia....i will fight no more forever, unless some jit bags are goose stepping down main street, and thanks to the 2nd amendment, i, an individual, have the right to own guns. No neen to be in a militia.
Are they "required [b]by law to attend military exercises"? If not, they don't fit the definition whatever they choose to call themselves.[/b]
GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869The powers of rationalization appear to be as strong in those who fight for their "right" to bear arms as in "Christians" who fight for the "right" to sin with impunity. Children, children everywhere.
Yes, BY LAW....Their law...the inalianable right to protect themselves or to remove an unjust gov't from power...should it arise. A self proclaimed right as stated in the Declaration of Independence.....which trumps the constitution. No, i don't belong to a militia....i will fight no more forever, unless some jit bags are goose stepping down main street, and ...[text shortened]... endment, i, an individual, have the right to own guns. No neen to be in a militia.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by david haworthMaybe that's it. After the Revolution, our Fathers were terrified that somebody would try to make the government into a monarchy again. That's what led to the Articles of Confederation - and why their extreme Federalism made them so weak.
it seems to me that the founders were trying to protect us from someone trying to overthrow the government and take over by allowing us to have guns in case we needed to assemble a militia
Originally posted by david haworthIf that was their intent, they certainly worded it awkwardly. So awkwardly that you can't even tell.
it seems to me that the founders were trying to protect us from someone trying to overthrow the government and take over by allowing us to have guns in case we needed to assemble a militia
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneall they're saying is that a 'well regulated militia' is necessary for a free country, and having the right to bare arms is necessary in order to have a well regulated militia. i dont understand the confusion.
If that was their intent, they certainly worded it awkwardly. So awkwardly that you can't even tell.
Originally posted by david haworthSo does that mean we have an individual right to Keep and Bare Arms even if we're not in a militia? YES most certainly IT DOES!
all they're saying is that a 'well regulated militia' is necessary for a free country, and having the right to bare arms is necessary in order to have a well regulated militia. i dont understand the confusion.
GRANNY.