MrFatbooty

No, I'm analyzing the whole sentence.

The two halves do not exist in a vacuum. It's not like Amendment 2a is "make sure there's a militia" and Amendment 2b is "the people have the right to bear arms." Paraphrased, the entire amendment means, "a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, so the people have the right to bear arms in order to keep that militia staffed."

Of course, that was already in my first post.

Bl@ck

heh.. it's late, though that's only your interpretation.

"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."

a more realistic paraphrase would be "a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, however the people as a whole will have the right to bear arms"

it has nothing to do with staffing a militia, but ensuring the people have the means to fight if need be regardless if there is a militia present in their geographic area.

konali

I wholeheartedly I agree with Mr. Fatbooty that you must analyze the amendment and statement as a whole. By taking only part of the ammendment you can easily argue that any citizen has the right to arms, but that would be improper. The second amendment was written over 200 years ago, in a different time.[RANT](This is the same rational that the government is currently using to usurp constitutional protections through the use of the Patriot Act, while generally accepted and considered well meaning, these protections have none the less been eroded. Times and needs change.)[/RANT]

The legality of a militia and how it's formed is probably as important in this debate as anything because that is the purpose of this amendment really, no really.

The US Supreme Court hasn't tackled this issue for a long time for a good reason, fear of having to make a decision that would affect too many people with guns.(Opinion based on fact)

The brainwashing here is coming from the NRA and those with their hands in the NRA pockets.

Info on the last Supreme Court ruling - 1939

MrFatbooty

That's a more realistic paraphrasing of the amendment? That's paraphrasing the amendment to say what you want it to say while disregarding its grammatical structure. It is grammatically impossible to have two unrelated subjects in one sentence. It makes no sense. I highly doubt that the Bill of Rights is written with bad grammar.

It's really quite a simply structured sentence. All it says is "since x, then y." As in, "since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now if you want to claim that the people as a whole have the right to rise up and form a militia, that's not what the amendment says. It says "well-regulated." Well-regulated connotes some kind of organization, and it certainly does not mean anyone and everyone can mount up and start patrolling the city. The formation of the National Guard satisfies the "well regulated militia" requirement. Since the only stated premise for protecting the right to bear arms is the formation of a militia, and the National Guard satisfies that premise, the conclusion based on that premise ("the right to bear arms shall not be infringed") is no longer valid.

Dekz

You americans are so silly. That amendment was written a very long time ago in a VERY different world. Things are not the same as they were back then. Laws need to adapt just like everything else. It's just simply not reasonable for every idiot to have the right to own a gun. I wouldn't trust 50% of the people I see with a sharp pencil, nevermind a handgun.

There are all kinds of stupid laws, here are some examples:

1. It is illegal to have an ice cream cone in your pocket on Sunday.
2. Any physical action intended to frighten fish is prohibited.
3. A passenger in an elevator must talk to no one with their hands folded while facing the door.
4. Fish cannot be transported via parcel post.
5. It is illegal for a man to look at a woman, “In that way”.
6. Woman are prohibited from wearing body hugging clothing.
7. Dancing in an unlicensed bar or nightclub is illegal.
8. Filming in a city park without permit is illegal.
9. Unauthorized use of a milk crate.
10. It is against the law to walk down the street while reading.
11. Dancing Tango is outlawed city wide.
12. It is illegal to throw a ball at someone’s head for fun.
13. It is against the law to do anything that is against the law.

The point is, these laws may have made sense for some reason over a hundred years ago, but now they are just stupid.

spanky

nah, let them handle them. teach them that they are NOT a toy and NOT to be touched unless you or your spouse is around. don't scare them away from the guns but let them know that they are dangerous

v8guy

I think we should define well regulated militia circa 1790. The militia is NOT the National Guard. America's first permanent militia was established in 1636 by the Massachusetts Bay Colony. These were a voluntary military unit comprised of civilians that would meet and drill together for the purpose of common defense. "Well regulated" ,by the way, means well trained. In 1792, Congress passed a law which remained in effect for 111 years. With a few exceptions, (Quakers etc) the 1792 law required all males between the ages of 18 to 45 to enroll in the militia. The Bill of Rights was passed in 1791, so this should give you a pretty good idea of what they meant by militia back then. It should be plain as day that our founding fathers passed the second amendment to guarantee the rights of "the people" to keep and bear arms in order to be able to form militia regiments for the purpose of common defense.

benjamin

That was exactly my point. Now you've been brainwashed by the liberal intelligentsia too. And I say welcome to the party, comrade!

v8guy

Did you read my post? If you did obviously you didn't understand it. The second amendment guarantees the right of all able bodied men to keep and bear arms for the purpose of common defense.

ALL ABLE BODIED MEN

not just the national guard, police, military.

etzok

Hmmm....odd, Im doing a speech on this very topic Monday.....