It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: elysiumfire
The United States 2nd Amendment to the Constitution states…”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 is the Thomas Jefferson authenticated ratified version by all the states at that time.
How is the statement to be read and understood, and more importantly, does it refer to an individual right to own a gun for one’s own self-defence?
”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.”
originally posted by: elysiumfire
Perhaps, it would good to be reminded that random and instantaneous vigilantism is not good for the community. The reason being is that innocents can suffer under it, non-involved people can become involved by getting caught in the crossfire and/or gun fire exchange, potentially increasing the likelihood of deaths and casualties. This in itself nullifies the twisted logic of ‘carry and conceal’. It also places the police and Home Guard in very peculiar and threatening positions. They will have no idea who is concealing and carrying, nor if they are a good guy or a bad guy.
As things stand, the Constitution is not a haven for an individual’s right to bear arms for their own self-interest and self-preservation.
originally posted by: JAY1980
”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.”
It's the comma(,) that separates the militia and the citizen.
Both of whom have this right to bear arms.
originally posted by: AMPTAH
originally posted by: JAY1980
”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.”
It's the comma(,) that separates the militia and the citizen.
Both of whom have this right to bear arms.
I would say that means that the Federal Government has no right to tell the citizens of the state that they can't keep and bear arms, "if" the state determines that is what is required to keep a "well regulated militia."
Yes, there's a comma, but not a period, separating the two statements. That suggests they are part of the same "thought".
See, the state can decide that everyone in the state should or can keep and bear arms, or the state can decide that only certain people in the state can keep and bear arms. That depends on how the state defines its militia. Is everybody part of the militia, or is the militia just a subset of the citizenry?
What gives the government the right to say "felons" and "mentally ill people" cannot keep and bear arms?
The constitution doesn't say that felons or mentally ill people are "excluded" from these "rights."
So, it is obvious that the constitution "CANNOT" mean every citizen has the right to bear arms.
And it then follows that the constitution "MUST" mean that the government has the power to decide who can bear arms.
Then, the context of that statement in the 2nd amendment clarifies that the state decides which of it's citizens can keep and bear arms, having decided how to constitute a militia, which can vary from state to state, and that once the state decides on who can keep and bare arms, the Federal Government cannot then infringe on these state determined rights.
That has got to be the correct interpretation of the U.S. constitution, because nothing else makes any sense.
originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Expect for that pesky part at the end that says shall not be infringed.
originally posted by: Ursushorribilis
a reply to: AMPTAH
Should felons and the "mentally ill" be able to protect themselves?
originally posted by: AMPTAH
originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Expect for that pesky part at the end that says shall not be infringed.
So, even felons and mentally ill have the right to keep and bear arms?
Who has the right to "infringe" on these citizen's rights?
originally posted by: seagull
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What part of that are you having such an issue with, as regards comprehension?
Shall not be infringed. That means hands off. So long as I'm using my arms in a legal manner, the govt can not prevent me from owning.
originally posted by: AMPTAH
originally posted by: seagull
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What part of that are you having such an issue with, as regards comprehension?
Shall not be infringed. That means hands off. So long as I'm using my arms in a legal manner, the govt can not prevent me from owning.
See...that's the whole thing.
The "right" !
Where did you get this "right" from?
Who granted you this "right"?
The "state" grants the "right" to the citizen to keep and bear arms.
And once the "state" grants you that "right", the Federal Government cannot "infringe" on your "right".
That's it.
You are not born with the right to keep and bear arms.
God didn't give you a gun, when you entered this world.
You get the gun from someone else, and the right to have that weapon from the state.
It's a state granted "right".
The "right" comes from the "state", and the "do not infringe" sign is a message to the Federal Government,
AFTER the state has granted you that "right."
originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Do you think they'll change it now?
originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: AMPTAH
The People granted the State permission to act on our behalf and in our interest.
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: AMPTAH
The gun is a **bleepin'** tool. It allows me, should the time ever come, to protect myself a bit easier. It allows me to feed myself, another protection, this one from hunger.
.
originally posted by: AMPTAH
originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Do you think they'll change it now?
Of course.
They have no choice.
You cannot control a population of 300 million people, with a simplistic interpretation that says every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms.
That was a misinterpretation that got enshrined into the "legal practice", for one reason or the other, and has become the norm among many legal and normal citizens alike.
It's uncertain how many mass shooting it will take, before the states clamp down and apply the more strict interpretation of the constitution to solve the problem.
The solution is there, already, in the correct interpretation of the constitution. But, because of misinterpretations in the past, there are now court cases that establish the law that is at variance with the text of the constitution itself. So, it's going to take "re-interpretation" by the supreme court in the future, to add clarity to the issue, and re-establish the law as it was originally written, by close reading the text, rather than the fuzzy unclear practice we have now, where arbitrary decisions are being made on who can or cannot keep and bear arms.
Ultimately, the supreme court decides on the "correct interpretation" for the age.
So, we await their more intelligent interpretation.
No new laws are required.
The solution is on the books.
The supreme court just has to act.