Do you believe in your 2nd amendment rights?

[brett636]

Then you should be concerned about a major shift in the political climate of Washington. Below are the minutes from a handgun control, Inc. meeting in 1993 about their five year plan for pushing gun control legislation. We dodged a bullet with the republicans takeover of Congress in 1994, but a major election on the horizon and a possibility of a democrat president and congress can the dems resist the urge to limit our 2nd amendment rights through the lobbying of groups like the Handgun control, Inc.

Handgun Control Inc. 5 Year Plan
In December of 1993, this document was leaked by a Handgun Control Inc.
volunteer, and exposes the ultimate goals of elite anti-gunners;
The eventual elimination of ALL guns and ALL hunting!

(NOTES AND MINUTES OF MEETING OF FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1993)
ROUGH DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR INTERNAL MEMO AND FIVE YEAR PLAN
(OF HANDGUN CONTROL INC.)

WHAT IS PENDING NOW AND CAN BE LAW IN 1994
* Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.
* Ban on all semiautos which can fire more than 6 bullets without reloading.
* Ban of possession of parts to convert arms into miliary configuration.
* Ban on all pump shotguns capable of being converted to more than 5 shots without reloading.
* Banning of all machine guns, destructive devices, short shotguns/rifles and assault weapons.
* Banning of Saturday Night Specials.
* Banning of Non-Sporting Ammunition
* Arsenal licensing (for possession of multiple guns and large amounts of ammunition)
* Elimination of the Department of Civil Marksmanship.
* Ban on possession of a firearm within a home located within 1000 feet of a schoolyard.
* Ban on all realistic replicas/toy guns or non-firearms capable of being rendered realistic.
* The right of the victim of gun violence to sue manufacturers and dealers to be affirmed and
perhaps, aided with money from government programs.
* Taxes on ammo, Dealers licenses & guns to offset the medical costs to society.
* The eventual ban on all semiautomatics (regardless of when made or caliber).
WHAT WAS ONLY A DREAM TEN YEARS AGO CAN
BE REALITY AS EARLY AS THIS YEAR
(After the meeting the following ideas were the result of a brainstorming session to guide
the focus of gun control initiatives over the next five years. These may not be politically
feasible for 1994, but we are confident that with continued pressure we can achieve most if
not all of these goals within the next five years. The following list is condensed from our
meeting in which we considered the best ideas for public safety expansion. The time is
right for action.)

 

[brett636]

FIVE YEAR PLAN
LICENSES:
1. NATIONAL LICENSING OF ALL HANDGUN PURCHASES
This is at the top of our list, however, the political climate may be right to initiate this step
immediately. Please refer to our memo outlining our ideas on how this should be executed.
2. LICENSE FOR RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS
We should take our cues from Great Britain. Strict licensing should be mandatory -- for all
firearms whether handguns or not.
3. STATE LICENSES FOR OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS
We want to take a workable idea from Great Britain, whereas, we should require the states to
issue strict licenses for possession and require the licenses to be signed by at least three public
officials --i.e., the police chief, city attorney and mayor, for example, to eliminate ownership by
dangerous individuals. It is reasonable to require that all individuals must prove to the signers
that they require a firearm. This should be attached to any legislation requiring purchasers to
show a need for a firearm.
4. REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF GUNS TO REQUIRE AN ARSENAL LICENSE
Right now the proposed Arsenal licenses which Senator Feinstein should be pushing for,
requires an "Arsenal License" for those people who feel they need more than 20 guns and 1000
rounds of ammunition. We feel that number is too generous, due to the fact that any number of
guns constitutes a grave threat to the safety of the community; we suggest Strongly that this
license limit be reduced to possession greater than 5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition.
5. ARSENAL LICENSE FEES
It is not unreasonable to require a yearly fee for an Arsenal license to be at least $300, with a
cap of $1000. The money collected can be used to defray the immense medical costs directly
attributed to these deadly weapons.
6. LIMITS ON ARSENAL LICENSING
No Arsenal Licensing to be permitted in counties with populations of more than 200,000.
7. REQUIREMENT OF FEDERALLY APPROVED STORAGE SAFES FOR ALL GUNS
We should follow Great Britain's lead on this. All licensed gun owners should be required to
have a storage safe which meets minimum federally mandated requirements. This step would
reduce the tragic accidents which claim the lives of tens of thousands of children a year and
make it more difficult for burglars to steal the guns.
8. INSPECTION LICENSE
Another good revenue source would be mandatory inspection licensing of all safes. Each safe
would be registered with a specific serial number and the serial numbers and types of weapons
stored would be on file with federal and state authorities. Since unannounced inspectors can
insure that all declared weapons are being properly stored, all safe licenses should have an
additional yearly fee to offset the cost of these spot inspections.
PUBLIC SAFETY REGULATIONS:
9.BAN ON MANUFACTURING IN COUNTRIES WITH A POPULATION OF MORE
THAN 200,000
Guns are being built all the time and the number of licensed manufacturers it too great to justify
the threat to public safety. This is a small step to reduce the number of these shops where,
anything, even machine guns, are being built every day.
10. BANNING ALL MILITARY STYLE FIREARMS
The pending national ban on all Assault Weapons, based on a point system can be expanded to
eventually cover any firearm with a remotely military appearance. We feel that this aggressive
appearance appeals to the type of dangerous individuals who are a definite threat to public
safety. We hope that this point system can eventually be expanded to high powered airguns and
"paint ball" weapons, which can inflict great damage, and with a little effort can be converted to
real guns.
11.BANNING OF ANY MACHINE GUN PARTS OR PARTS WHICH CAN BE USED IN
A MACHINE GUN
Periodicals such as "The Shotgun News" particularly cater to individuals who wish to build
illegal machine guns. If Senator Feinstein's courageous section of the crime bill is successful in
banning all machine gun parts expect for police and military, then there would be no legitimate
need for machine gun parts except to build illegal weapons.
12. BANNING THE CARRYING OF A FIREARMS ANYWHERE BUT HOME OR
TARGET RANGE OR IN TRANSIT FROM ONE TO THE OTHER
We should institute a federal mandate to the states to strictly regulate the carrying of a firearm.
13. BANNING REPLACEMENT PARTS (MFG, SALE, POSSESSION, TRANSFER,
INSTALLATION) EXCEPT BARREL, TRIGGER GROUP
Thousand of people are building illegal weapons every day. We can put a dent in this by
banning parts and parts kits, except those items like the barrel and trigger group, which are most
likely to wear out due to use.
14. ELIMINATION OF THE CURIO RELIC LIST
A gun is a gun. Even an old gun can kill people. This a loop hole in the federal law which was
allowed thousands of dangerous weapons to be distributed unchecked. This regulation, if
enacted, would automatically eliminate the need for a Curio or Relic collector's license. All
handguns, rifles and shotguns would fall into the same category as their modern counterparts.
15. CONTROL OF AMMUNITION BELONGING TO CERTAIN SURPLUS FIREARMS
Senator Moynihan has already proposed a tax or ban on .22 LR, .32 ACP, and 9mm
ammo,however, it has been pointed out to us that there is an extreme proliferation of high
powered surplus rifles (i.e.,the Mosin-Nagant series and Enfield series) in which the wholesale
prices are as low as $45 to $75. We suggest that to control the proliferation of violence
associated with the large number of these types of weapons entering this country that we ban the
importation of their ammunition. 7.62x54R and .303 surplus ammunition.
16. EVENTUAL BAN OF HANDGUN POSSESSION
This may be closer to reality than many of us think. Handguns are becoming increasingly
unpopular and we think that within five years we can enact a total ban on possession at the
federal level.
17. BANNING OF ANY AMMO THAT FITS MILITARY GUNS (POST 1945)
With the proliferation of high powered weapons, including semiautomatics and automatics from
World War II, we suggest following the lead of Mexico, by prohibiting the sale, manufacture,
possession or transfer of any caliber fitting a military firearm in service with a recognized
military force after 1945.
AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES:
18. BANNING OF ANY QUANTITY OFSMOK ELESS POWDER OR BLACK POWDER
WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE MORE THAN THE EQUIVALENT OF 100 ROUNDS
OF AMMUNITION
With the bombing of the World Trade Center, it has been made clear that we must reinforce the
above proposed regulation with this additional notation. It is arguable that no one has any real
need to have so much dangerous material on hand.
19. BAN ON THE POSSESSION OF EXPLOSIVE POWDERS OF MORE THAN 1
KILOGRAM AT ANY ONE TIME
Gun nuts are notorious for circumventing the intent of the law, so we can reinforce the above
proposed regulation with this additional notation. This additional language can be useful in
preventing "bomb-makers" and other dangerous individuals.
20. BANNING OF HIGH POWERED AMMO OR WOUNDING AMMO
In addition to the banning of military calibers, there is a plethora of dangerous rounds which are
too high powered for sporting use. This includes the highest calibers of pistol and rifle
ammunition (of note are the monster calibers for rifles and pistols, like the .50 caliber Desert
Eagle Bullet). We should not forget the lessons learned with the insidious Black Talon Ammo.
Hollow points, Glaser killing rounds and other types of ammunition designed specifically for
maiming should be prohibited.

 

[brett636]

21. A NATIONAL LICENSE FOR AMMUNITION
This is an idea whose time has come. We should look at a Federal License for purchasing of
ammunition of all kinds. A special form should be forwarded to a new federal office to track
those who are purchasing too much ammunition. Remember that a gun is useless without
ammunition.
22. BANNING OR STRICT LICENSING OF ALL RELOADING COMPONENTS
Ammunition regulation laws can be regularly bypassed by home loaders, creating an
underground cottage industry of ammo manufacture. Possession or purchase of reloading
equipment and machines should be restricted and those who wish to use specially loaded
ammunition can go to a federally licensed reloader.
23. NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF AMMUNITION OR AMMO BUYERS
Fees collected from the national licenses should go toward a nationwide database of ammo
buyers with a possible background check to eliminate the purchase of dangerous ammo by felons
or mental patients.
24. REQUIREMENT OF SPECIAL STORAGE SAFE FOR AMMUNITION AND
LICENSING
Like the storage safe for guns, there should be a national requirement for special safes to store
ammo. These safes should be tamperproof and fireproof and be registered themselves so that on
the spot inspections can be held. Again, the costs for these inspections can be absorbed by the
license fees.
GUN RANGES:
25. RESTRICTING GUN RANGES TO COUNTIES WITH POPULATIONS LESS
THAN 200,000
The obvious threat to public safety of shooting ranges and stray bullets has been lost on many
states and counties. We can initiate a federal mandate or incentives to get states to prohibit any
kind of shooting range within a county with a population of more than 200,000.
26. SPECIAL LICENSING OF RANGES
Those ranges which conform to the previous requirement should get special licensing above and
beyond that which is required now. Additionally each existing or new shooting range must get in
writing the permission of all property owners within a radius of seven miles.
27. SPECIAL RANGE TAX TO VISITORS
Additional revenue can be a surtax on ranges, requiring the collection of a minimum of $85 per
visit per person. This can be in addition to required membership fees, upon which the state and
local governments get a sizable portion, to help defray the immense cost of gun violence.
28. WAITING PERIOD FOR RENTALS ON PISTOL RANGES
It has been suggested in the past that felons can acquire pistols and other automatic weapons
without a background check by renting a gun on a target range. Deranged individuals are
basically being given a license to practice hunting humans at these so called "sporting ranges."
We think that a national waiting period for gun rentals is yet another idea whose time has come.
ACTIVITIES WHICH PROMOTE GUN VIOLENCE:
29. BANNING GUN SHOWS
Illegal transfers and the sales of assault weapons and submachine guns is a common event at
these so called gun shows. A huge dent can be made in the illegal trafficking of weapons by
banning these shows altogether.
30. BANNING OF MILITARY RE-ENACTMENTS
The questionable "historical" value of these events has escaped the public scrutiny for too long.
Many of these so called historical events are mere excuses for gun nuts to blast the countryside
with automatic weapons. What is to keep them from loading live bullets and having those stray
bullets kill innocent children? What lives in the future will be lost due to this paramilitary
training going on right under our noses? We propose the prohibition of survivalist/paramilitary,
World War I and World War II and Civil War Re-enactments on federal land, and hope to
encourage the states to prohibit them from state and county lands as well.
31. MAKING UNLAWFUL THE ASSEMBLY OF MORE THAN FOUR ARMED
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT PEACE OFFICERS OR MILITARY
Since most hunting parties consist of four, we recognize the need to eliminate the currently legal
assembly of shooters for paramilitary training on private lands. This is just one good suggestion
for our elimination of the "gun culture" from the mainstream.
32. BEGIN TO CURB HUNTING ON ALL PUBLIC LANDS
Blood sports are an anathema to a civilized society, however, it has been a political reality that
the hunters and their ilk have too strong of a stranglehold on Congress. We feel that the
impending defeat of high tech assault "killing machines" will open the door to restrictions. With
the diminishing number of hunters, we feel that perhaps in five years we can open up much more
of our country to campers and hikers, andeliminate the threat to families and camping, by
looking at much more restrictions as to what parcels of land will allow hunting. This will not
infringe on sportsmens' rights to hunt on private land.
33. MAKING GUN OWNERS RECORDS AND PHOTOS MATTER OF PUBLIC
RECORD
We would have to assemble a legal team in order to investigate the balance of the right to
privacy and the right to safeguard public. We fully endorse the photographing and fingerprinting
of all gun owners, however, the records are usually relegated to law enforcement only. We think
that it would be a good idea to make these records public, so that the communities can have the
knowledge of who poses a danger to their community before disaster strikes. we realize that this
proposal would probably be controversial, thus a long public affairs campaign would have to
be initiated in order to build public support and ease the transition of such an idea. We feel that
this idea has merit, and can be justified via the past publication of the names of water wasters
during the drought, customers for prostitution, and deadbeat parents who are delinquent on child
support.
34. RANDOM POLICE CHECKS FOR WEAPONS (LIKE SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS)
This idea was floated before in California in 1989, where some thought it would be a great
deterrent to gang-related crimes for police to do sweeps for gang weapons. Right now this idea
may have some resistance; however, the political climate can become right to initiate these
random vehicle stop and checks at all levels and in all types of neighborhoods. If we continue to
mainstream the pressure we can make this a reality.
THE NEXT FIFTEEN YEARS:
With all that is going on, who knows what is possible in the next few years? With murders in the
streets, the public fed up, and the once mighty thugs of the Gun Lobby whimpering in impotence
we have an opportunity to change the face of America for the better! Previously we thought that
it would take at least a century to eliminate dangerous weapons and guns from the public hands,
but now with allies in the White House and Congress, we can accelerate this trend, and make the
barbaric NRA extinct!!! Here are some ideas to consider for the long term:
BANNING OF MILITARY ACCOUTREMENTS
Essential to the Neanderthal gun culture are the typical military clothing, camouflage, pouches,
boots and other combat gear. They euphemistically refer to this as "militaria." Elimination of the
future sale of these items will cripple the culture of violence well into the 21st century.
STRICTER GUIDELINES FOR VIOLENCE IN TELEVISION AND THE MOVIES
We should look at the possibility of victims of violence by copying an act on television and the
movie or video screen, suing the makers of such shows for compensation to their suffering. If the
industry cannot regulate itself, we may have to eventually look at an independent branch of
government to determine which scenes cause more harm than good to the public and regulate the
numbers of violent acts portrayed.
THE TOTAL ELIMINATION OF ARMS FROM SOCIETY
We cannot survive into the 21st century unless we remember the need to expand our wave to
new thinking to the total disarmament of America. With much of the public we can become more
like Great Britain, where we can also eliminate the need for much of our police to be armed.
This would take a long time; however, a concerted public relations campaign can pressure local
law enforcement to give up their arms, when the time comes. Weapons would be available to
special units like SWAT or the military.
CONTROL OF DANGEROUS LITERATURE (BOMB MAKING,MACHINE GUN
CONVERSIONS, ETC.)
Too much irresponsible material is purportedly covered by the First Amendment, however, the
time will come when our nation has to agree that some literature does not belong in a safe
society, like instruction manuals on how to kill, or how to make homemade explosives or
nuclear bombs. We must realize that there can be such a thing as too much freedom where such
literature poses a serious threat to the public safety.
1994 SOUNDS THE DEATH KNELL FOR THE BULLY TACTICS OF THE NRA AND
THE CULTURE OF VIOLENCE IN AMERICA!!
We are pressing on all fronts and much of this can become reality sooner than we expect. With
the loss of power and clout of the NRA and their various smaller crony organizations crumbling
to dust, we eliminate a 200-year-old license to murder into history, and enter the 21st century a
safer place for our children and children's children.

 

[diesel96]

Think about it, if McBush gets elected you might wish there are limits on your 2nd amendment rights. Because I guarantee you there will be some upheavel amongst the masses. It's for your protection Brett

If I'm not mistaken, the Handgun Control Inc was initiated as a result of Pres. Reagon's (R) Press Secretary James Brady's wife Sarah.

Wikipedia
"The Bill was championed for over a decade by Brady's wife, Sarah Brady, who became a gun control advocate after her husband, James Brady was shot during an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. In 1989 she became chairman of the legislative lobby, Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI). In 1991 she became chairman of HCI's "education, research, and legal advocacy" arm, The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. After the controversial shooting of exchange student Yoshihiro Hattori, she was a guest of honor at the signing ceremony for the bill in 1993, a milestone for her organizations. James Brady, who is severely brain damaged, appeared in a wheelchair."

 

[av8torntn]

Think about it, if McBush gets elected you might wish there are limits on your 2nd amendment rights. Because I guarantee you there will be some upheavel amongst the masses. It's for your protection Brett

The right to keep and bear arms is for my protection not anything the Federal Government does.

 

[Jagger]

The individual right to keep and bear arms interpretation of the Second Amendment advanced by the NRA and other traitors is just a way the friends of tyranny disguise their real goal, which is to take away the right of the several states to provide for an organized, armed and trained state militia.

 

[trplnkl]

The individual right to keep and bear arms interpretation of the Second Amendment advanced by the NRA and other traitors is just a way the friends of tyranny disguise their real goal, which is to take away the right of the several states to provide for an organized, armed and trained state militia.

I'm sure I will regret asking this, but would care to explain just what you mean?

 

[scratch]

The individual right to keep and bear arms interpretation of the Second Amendment advanced by the NRA and other traitors is just a way the friends of tyranny disguise their real goal, which is to take away the right of the several states to provide for an organized, armed and trained state militia.

The NRA and other traitors? You lost me there, I thought that citizens being able to own firearms is a right, whether it is just to target shoot, hunt, protect theirselves, or keep the government in check. When the politicians start to take away free speech and guns, its too late to do anything.

 

[moreluck]

2nd Amendment.......

1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

3. I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy.

4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

 

[Jagger]

Ascertaining the meaning of the word "people" in the Second Amendment​

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.​

--William Blackstone​

In 1789, the two most common significations of the word "people" were: 1)Those who comprise a community, village, town, city, state, nation, continent or other geographical entity; 2) a nation, state, county, city, town, village or other similar thing. A word with more than one usual signification is dubious of meaning.

William Blackstone wrote,

IF words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the fame nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the fame legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point.
​

The context of the word "people" is a legal expression which reads, "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The aim, the object and the goal of the expression is "the security of a free state." The means to that end is "a well regulated militia" [presumably under the authority of the state]. The means to the end a well regulated militia appears to be "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

It is not clear who the "people" are. They could be the people of the United States, the people of one of the several states or the people of the well regulated militia. "People" could also mean the nation known as the United States or one of the several states such as New York or Vermont.

When we compare the use of the word "people" with its use in other parts of the Constitution, we find the word is used - in the Preamble of the Constitution, Article One Section Two, The First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment - in the sense of the first of two most usual significations of the word in 1789, "those who comprise a community, village, town, city, state, nation, continent or other geographical entity."

When we call in the proeme to help our construction of the word "people", we find that it seems to point to "well regulated militia" or "free state" as the meaning of the word "people.

The context of the word "people" doesn't eliminate the ambiguity.

The learned Blackstone wrote,

AS to the subject matter, words are always to be understood as having a regard thereto; for that is always supposed to be in the eye of the legislator, and all his expressions directed to that end.​

There is only one item of "subject matter" on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 contains a legal expression that reads.

Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.​

The word "people" in Article XVII is ambiguous. It could mean the people of Massachusetts or the people in the Massachusetts military or it could mean the State of Massachusetts.

The great Blackstone wrote,

AS to the effects and consequence, the rule is, where words bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received fenfe of them.
​

Thus far, we have established that there are seven possible significations for the word "people."

1) Those persons who comprise the United States

2) Those persons who comprise one of the several states that comprise the United States

3) The nation known as the United States

4) The several states that comprise the nation of the United States

5. well regulated [state] militia

6) well regulated [United States] militia

7 ) free state​

None of those significations, if assigned to the word "people", would appear to produce an absurdity.

The learned judge wrote,

BUT, lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the laws itself ought likewise to cease with it.​

The cause which moved the legislators to make the Second Amendment was the need for a well regulated militia to secure the state. It appears that we must understand the word "people" in light of what would best achieve the security of a free state. Since a "well regulated [state] militia" is essential to achieving that goal, it appears that "people" should be understood to mean "well regulated [state] militia."

 

[tieguy]

Ascertaining the meaning of the word "people" in the Second Amendment​

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.
​

--William Blackstone
​

In 1789, the two most common significations of the word "people" were: 1)Those who comprise a community, village, town, city, state, nation, continent or other geographical entity; 2) a nation, state, county, city, town, village or other similar thing. A word with more than one usual signification is dubious of meaning.

William Blackstone wrote,

IF words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the fame nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the fame legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point.
​

The context of the word "people" is a legal expression which reads, "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The aim, the object and the goal of the expression is "the security of a free state." The means to that end is "a well regulated militia" [presumably under the authority of the state]. The means to the end a well regulated militia appears to be "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

It is not clear who the "people" are. They could be the people of the United States, the people of one of the several states or the people of the well regulated militia. "People" could also mean the nation known as the United States or one of the several states such as New York or Vermont.

When we compare the use of the word "people" with its use in other parts of the Constitution, we find the word is used - in the Preamble of the Constitution, Article One Section Two, The First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment - in the sense of the first of two most usual significations of the word in 1789, "those who comprise a community, village, town, city, state, nation, continent or other geographical entity."

When we call in the proeme to help our construction of the word "people", we find that it seems to point to "well regulated militia" or "free state" as the meaning of the word "people.

The context of the word "people" doesn't eliminate the ambiguity.

The learned Blackstone wrote,

AS to the subject matter, words are always to be understood as having a regard thereto; for that is always supposed to be in the eye of the legislator, and all his expressions directed to that end.
​

There is only one item of "subject matter" on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 contains a legal expression that reads.

Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.
​

The word "people" in Article XVII is ambiguous. It could mean the people of Massachusetts or the people in the Massachusetts military or it could mean the State of Massachusetts.

The great Blackstone wrote,

AS to the effects and consequence, the rule is, where words bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received fenfe of them.
​

Thus far, we have established that there are seven possible significations for the word "people."

1) Those persons who comprise the United States

2) Those persons who comprise one of the several states that comprise the United States

3) The nation known as the United States

4) The several states that comprise the nation of the United States

5. well regulated [state] militia

6) well regulated [United States] militia

7 ) free state
​

None of those significations, if assigned to the word "people", would appear to produce an absurdity.

The learned judge wrote,

BUT, lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the laws itself ought likewise to cease with it.
​

The cause which moved the legislators to make the Second Amendment was the need for a well regulated militia to secure the state. It appears that we must understand the word "people" in light of what would best achieve the security of a free state. Since a "well regulated [state] militia" is essential to achieving that goal, it appears that "people" should be understood to mean "well regulated [state] militia."

the classic second ammendment argument based on vague references. Once you admitted that the language had ambiguities then you should have also admitted that the language could support the right of the individual to bear arms.

 

[av8torntn]

This is a good essay written by one of the liberal ACLU types. It fits in pretty good with this discussion. Worth the time to read if the second amendment interests you.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html


"I, for one, have been persuaded that the term "militia" did not have the limited reference that Professor Cress and many modern legal analysts assign to it. There is strong evidence that "militia" refers to all of the people, or least all of those treated as full citizens of the community. Consider, for example, the question asked by George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because of its lack of a Bill of Rights: "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." [48] Similarly, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." [49] We have, of course, moved now from text to history. And this history is most interesting, especially when we look at the development of notions of popular sovereignty. It has become almost a cliche of contemporary American historiography to link the development of American political thought, including its constitutional aspects, to republican thought in England, the "country" critique of the powerful "court" centered in London."

 

[brett636]

Ascertaining the meaning of the word "people" in the Second Amendment​

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.​

--William Blackstone​

In 1789, the two most common significations of the word "people" were: 1)Those who comprise a community, village, town, city, state, nation, continent or other geographical entity; 2) a nation, state, county, city, town, village or other similar thing. A word with more than one usual signification is dubious of meaning.

William Blackstone wrote,

IF words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the fame nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the fame legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point.
​

The context of the word "people" is a legal expression which reads, "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The aim, the object and the goal of the expression is "the security of a free state." The means to that end is "a well regulated militia" [presumably under the authority of the state]. The means to the end a well regulated militia appears to be "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

It is not clear who the "people" are. They could be the people of the United States, the people of one of the several states or the people of the well regulated militia. "People" could also mean the nation known as the United States or one of the several states such as New York or Vermont.

When we compare the use of the word "people" with its use in other parts of the Constitution, we find the word is used - in the Preamble of the Constitution, Article One Section Two, The First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment - in the sense of the first of two most usual significations of the word in 1789, "those who comprise a community, village, town, city, state, nation, continent or other geographical entity."

When we call in the proeme to help our construction of the word "people", we find that it seems to point to "well regulated militia" or "free state" as the meaning of the word "people.

The context of the word "people" doesn't eliminate the ambiguity.

The learned Blackstone wrote,

AS to the subject matter, words are always to be understood as having a regard thereto; for that is always supposed to be in the eye of the legislator, and all his expressions directed to that end.​

There is only one item of "subject matter" on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 contains a legal expression that reads.

Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.​

The word "people" in Article XVII is ambiguous. It could mean the people of Massachusetts or the people in the Massachusetts military or it could mean the State of Massachusetts.

The great Blackstone wrote,

AS to the effects and consequence, the rule is, where words bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received fenfe of them.
​

Thus far, we have established that there are seven possible significations for the word "people."

1) Those persons who comprise the United States

2) Those persons who comprise one of the several states that comprise the United States

3) The nation known as the United States

4) The several states that comprise the nation of the United States

5. well regulated [state] militia

6) well regulated [United States] militia

7 ) free state​

None of those significations, if assigned to the word "people", would appear to produce an absurdity.

The learned judge wrote,

BUT, lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the laws itself ought likewise to cease with it.​

The cause which moved the legislators to make the Second Amendment was the need for a well regulated militia to secure the state. It appears that we must understand the word "people" in light of what would best achieve the security of a free state. Since a "well regulated [state] militia" is essential to achieving that goal, it appears that "people" should be understood to mean "well regulated [state] militia."

I can name five Supreme Court Justices that disagree with you, and their opinion carries a lot more weight than your own.