tieguy
Banned
And that point was supported by the supreme court in washington DC versus Heller.
Second Amendment
- Thread starter Jagger
- Start date
And that point was supported by the supreme court in washington DC versus Heller.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Oh not funny at all. Just using the same tactic you guys have been using for some time. You leave out the people and only talk about militia so it is only fair to leave out the militia and talk only about the rights of the people. There remains no doubt that the right to keep and bear arms was retained by the people to guarantee a free state. It is also not funny and no wonder that the first of our freedoms the socialists target in this country is our right to keep and bear arms.
You can't have your cake and eat it do, dude. You can't say the Amendment grants an individual right to have guns, then turn around and say it allows the states to arm their militias, if Congress doesn't.
You phony "gun rights advocates" don't fool me. I know you're all Commies and that what you really want is for Congress to be able to destroy the state militias by neglecting them.
You phony "gun rights advocates" don't fool me. I know you're all Commies and that what you really want is for Congress to be able to destroy the state militias by neglecting them.
tieguy
Banned
I own dozens of guns.
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.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
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
Banned
tieguy
Banned
The militia wasn't the whole people. It was a select corps of moderate extent that was well trained.
The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.
--Alexander Hamilton
The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.
--Alexander Hamilton
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Hamilton was one of the main reasons the Bill Of Rights were put in place.
If they lawmakers intended to establish an absolute unequivocal individual right to keep fire arms for personal protection, why did they make an ambiguous Second Amendment, which included language about a well regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state and which didn't even mention self defense?
Why would they have made amendments that addressed all the objections to the Constitution by the Anti-Federalist except the most important one about the States not having the power to provide for their own militias if Congress neglected to provide for them?
Similar threads
- Locked
