The 2nd Amendment's Misconstrued 'Militia' - A Primer on the 2nd Amendment
Posted by freedomforall 1 year, 1 month ago to Politics
Excerpt:
"it’s important to ensure readers have a proper general understanding of the Bill of Rights. Contrary to common misperception, these amendments do not bestow privileges upon American citizens. Rather, they are primarily a set of prohibitions against the government infringing on pre-existing human rights all people have.
That’s evident in the language. For example, the First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law…” This amendment isn’t awarding citizens the rights of religion, speech and assembly — it’s outlawing the government’s thwarting of those innate and universal human rights.
Similarly, the Fourth Amendment asserts that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Again, the authors are not granting those rights, they are protecting them.
When the Bill of Rights was proposed, some feared the enumeration of a handful of rights could be misinterpreted as providing a comprehensive catalogue — and thus empowering the government to infringe on human rights not specified. That’s why they included the Ninth Amendment, asserting that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
“Amendment II. 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.”
With that understanding of the Bill of Rights in mind, we see that, via the Second Amendment, the founders explicitly asserted that there is a “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
What about that reference to “a well regulated militia”? As we set out to scrutinize the phrase, let’s first observe that the Second Amendment contains two distinct components serving two different purposes:
An operative clause that sets out a specific prohibition against the government’s infringement on a right: …the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A prefatory clause that announces a purpose: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…
Positioned in the prefatory clause, the “well regulated Militia” reference merely serves to provide a rationale — and not necessarily the only rationale — for the operative clause that follows."
-------------------------------------------------
The Second Amendment is the ONLY REASON that the American People still have any rights remaining.
Any powerful government will be corrupt.
The US government must be reduced to less than 1/100th of its current power if the People are to regain their individual human liberty.
"it’s important to ensure readers have a proper general understanding of the Bill of Rights. Contrary to common misperception, these amendments do not bestow privileges upon American citizens. Rather, they are primarily a set of prohibitions against the government infringing on pre-existing human rights all people have.
That’s evident in the language. For example, the First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law…” This amendment isn’t awarding citizens the rights of religion, speech and assembly — it’s outlawing the government’s thwarting of those innate and universal human rights.
Similarly, the Fourth Amendment asserts that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Again, the authors are not granting those rights, they are protecting them.
When the Bill of Rights was proposed, some feared the enumeration of a handful of rights could be misinterpreted as providing a comprehensive catalogue — and thus empowering the government to infringe on human rights not specified. That’s why they included the Ninth Amendment, asserting that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
“Amendment II. 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.”
With that understanding of the Bill of Rights in mind, we see that, via the Second Amendment, the founders explicitly asserted that there is a “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
What about that reference to “a well regulated militia”? As we set out to scrutinize the phrase, let’s first observe that the Second Amendment contains two distinct components serving two different purposes:
An operative clause that sets out a specific prohibition against the government’s infringement on a right: …the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A prefatory clause that announces a purpose: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…
Positioned in the prefatory clause, the “well regulated Militia” reference merely serves to provide a rationale — and not necessarily the only rationale — for the operative clause that follows."
-------------------------------------------------
The Second Amendment is the ONLY REASON that the American People still have any rights remaining.
Any powerful government will be corrupt.
The US government must be reduced to less than 1/100th of its current power if the People are to regain their individual human liberty.
i asked a friend who is an Oath Keeper
seems most of them are too busy watching sports to keep their Oaths....
guess things are not yet bad enough for them
how bad does it need to get? and at what point is it no longer repairable?
Not for Sport.
Not even for self-defense.
While all excellent reasons.
The second amendment was solely intended for the preservation of The Republic against a Tyrannical Government.
It is this very Tyrannical Government that is pushing one false flag operations after another in a vain effort to seize our God-Given Right to bare arms.
I perish the thought, but my "Spydie Sense" tells me this (Watering the Tree of Liberty) is not going to end well... for the black hats.
Being civilized, we of course, chose to not act against the existence of others that have not acted against ours but if we did, we would forfeit our right to defend ourselves and submit ourselves to a court of law to decide our punishment.
The ladder paragraph is where everything has gone haywire.
Sounds like it's time for that well regulated militia...
When I turned 18 I had to sign up for the draft here in this country. It was my duty, like it or not, to go to war if called to do so by my country.
Too damn bad if my country now thinks I should not have the right to own weapons and protect myself, my family or my country or state. Here in the United States we are all innocent unless and until proven guilty of a felony and we all maintain the right to keep and bear arms unless otherwise convicted of a serious felony offence. Nothing in the Constitution mentions anything about the types of weapons we can have. Common use is a term we often hear and weapons have continually been improved upon since the 2A was written and muskets were the common gun. Since that time it has been a constant chip, chip and more chipping away at the rights with regulation after regulation on the types of guns in common use. The term "Assault Rifle" is BS. AR stands for the Armalite Rife platform developed many years ago and is as common as apple pie.in this and many other countries. Auto loading and semi automatic weapons have been around since the civil war.
Hunting has absolutely nothing to do with gun ownership and we all have the right to protect ourselves with whatever means available, a hammer is a great weapon if nothing else is available and lots of people die every year at the end of hammers. In another Civil war in this country, North against the south, the south will have a distinct advantage because numerous weapons in the common use are banned in the north and not so in the south. Electing legislators who know little about weapons is our downfall yet we continue to do so. We are surrounded by ignorance and we continue to allow it jeopardize our rights of protection. I would guess that over 60% of the citizens of this country don't know squat about guns.
Sorta like now, or the near future, the way things are going.
The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.
August 24, 2004
> https://wiki.conventionofstates.com/d...
Excellent. Enjoyed reading and factually based.
A great exposition.
and the Govt should be 1 MILLIONTH it's current size!
I don't know how scholarly opinion interprets it, but to my reading of it is it's saying that that people grant power to the government, and that means that people in militias rather than a large permanent army that could become a political force operating outside of the law or at least on the border of it influencing policy. I also see it as a symbol: if the people are the final source of rights they shouldn't turn over responsibility for dangerous things to the state. I interpret it to mean the people have a right to weapons, powerful tools, drugs and medicine.
I used to think "well-regulated" meant this didn't apply to criminals or the mentally ill, but the article's suggestion of well-equipped seems more plausible.
The part about the national guard being under the command of the federal government. That made me think the amendment might have been intended to ensure that the federal government wouldn’t dominate over the states. If so, that part did not work as planned.
The prohibitions against government infringing on people's rights are not there for times when the majority of citizens would have gov't respect people's rights anyway. They're for times when, for one reason or another, the majority would consider granting government powers that infringe on someone's rights.
If we don't defend our rights, they will be taken away by looters and their damn fool conspirators.
I think the article stated that it meant well equipped at the time. I have never seen it again.