How hard can it be to Mistake the Second Amendment

[Soldier0117]

I still cannot believe that there needs to be a Supreme Court Case to decide what these sacred words mean

"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."

Yet how can there be fools like Sarah Brady who can't figure this out. It says the right of the PEOPLE (as in american citizens) shall not be infringed. Thus meaning we should always have our weapons and that in the event that it is needed we could act like a militia to protect freedom if something went horribly wrong. I would like to your opinions on this and how hard you think it is to understand properly.

 

[Robert Hairless]

That issue is the most hotly debated in this forum. It has been hotly debated here for years and there currently are several message threads debating it in the Legal section of The High Road.

Show us all a mercy. Look for some of those current threads and participate in those you like instead of generating yet another "Everyone Else Misreads the Second Amendment" thread.

Why not also take a look at the descriptions of the forum's message sections so you see how each is supposed to be used.

 

[paramedic70002]

And how many other parts of the constitution have been wrenched until they bleed?

Somebody tell me when the revolution starts.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Show me where the right to privacy is in the Constitution while you're at it. The SC has been convoluting our founding documents and downright making stuff up for decades and centuries. Every pivotal case the SC has ever decided should have never even happened if our elected representatives were actually doing their jobs.

 

[wacki]

If there is any doubt let them read this:

Alexander Hamilton:

Federalist Papers No. 28:

"The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call."

Hamilton further stated in the Federalist Papers under No. 69:

"The President, and government, will only control the militia when a part of them is in the actual service of the federal government, else, they are independent and not under the command of the president or the government. The states would control the militia, only when called out into the service of the state, and then the governor would be commander in chief where enumerated in the respective state constitution."

That is much clearer (to those that are in denial) than the wording of the 2A in the BoR.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Yet how can there be fools like Sarah Brady who can't figure this out. It says the right of the PEOPLE (as in american citizens) shall not be infringed.

How hard can it be, Soldier0117? Well you apparently don't understand that the Constitution isn't just about the citizens of the United States. The Constitution applies to any and all people with the borders of the US, not just citizens. There is a reason it doesn't say citizens, but it applies to everyone.

I still cannot believe that there needs to be a Supreme Court Case to decide what these sacred words mean

Here is part of the problem. Folks view the Constitution not from a pragmatic or political standpoint, but instead imbue it with religious and emotional characteristics. Once things get to that point, logic takes a back seat.

Further complicating the issue is the notion of a militia as wacki noted. You must look outside the Constitution to see what a militia is as the Constitution did not define it. People often suggest looking to other sources to see how militia is defined or how it is to be viewed. If you look to the first militia act of 1792, Dick Act of 1903, or current law, you will find that a militia only applies to males. Do you think the 2A should only apply to males. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=317896&highlight=militia+male

Then there is the whole militia age stuff (17-45).

Then there is the notion of being "well regulated." The Constitution does not define what "well regulated" means.

The militia is to be made up of male citizens, which is interesting, because the Constitution applies to people, not just citizens, within the US.

Do a search like Robert Hairless suggested.

 

[k_dawg]

The hard part is not knowing what it means.

The HARD PART is admitting what it means, when you personally do not like it.

 

[Soldier0117]

Thank you everyone for ypur opinions. Also thanks for bring up interesting points about the Militia. I myself believe that in today's world being part of a militia if it is needed would be our choice, but if we did so I think "well regulated" means that we would be under the governer's command. Also I agree that it does mean everyone and not just citizens, I meant everyone when I said that. The issue of women in the militia is something to think about also because it is says men, but I was wonder if that would be different now that women have gained full rights since 1776 such as the right to vote and the fact that they now serve in the military and in law enforcement just as their male counterparts would. Once again thanks for your thoughts this was cool and it made me think more also. I want to research the functions and plans regarding the militia now.