ETYMOLOGY & THE 2ND AMENDMENT

[Mud Marine,SASS#54686 Life]

It is a fascinating exercise attempting to decipher the mythical rationales of the Gun Banners. One of my favourites is their purposely aberrating the etymon of the word "regulated" in the amendment's wording. Even the back page editor of "Guns & Ammo" magazine recently fell into their trap. :-)The 18th Century etymon of "regulated" meant "equipped" and had absolutely no relation to its modern usage. My Heavens, is there no depth to the prevarications of the "Gun Banners" in order to come to their false conclusions that are so bereft of logic and truth?

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

Yup ... they do like to make stuff up!

[FriscoCounty]

US Constitution

Article I

Section 8

The Congress shall have Power to ...

(P15) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

(P16) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Section. 10.

(P3) No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article IV

Section. 2.

(P1) The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

So, Frisco, what is your interpretation?

[FriscoCounty]

Congress has the power to organize, arm, discipline, and call forth the Militia. It also has the power to restrict the states from keeping their own troops. The first ten amendments were meant to restrict the powers of the Federal government. At the very least, then, the 2nd amendment must be there to prohibit the Federal government from denying the private ownership of arms by the people. Also, by extension, based on Article IV section II since no state my restrict any of its citizen's right to own arms that are allowed by another state, no state may restrict the right of its citizens to own any type of arm.

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

Got it. Thanks. This also seems to inhibit state sponsored militia, but it does not say anything about private militia. Is there a known restriction?

[FriscoCounty]

The idea of private armies presents a disturbing dilemma. As I see it, there must be a distinction that must be maintained between the unorganized militia being able come together and practice - become well regulated - and mercenaries and warlords.

[Coho]

My understanding is that the people’s right to keep and bear arms is to be able to, if required to control (regulate) the militia called up and controlled by the government, and thereby insuring the state is kept free from a domestic threat.

[Mud Marine,SASS#54686 Life]

Coho, you have used the word "regulate" in a 20th Century etymon which bears no relation to that of the 18th. Remember that there are FOUR parts of the governing system of the USA, to wit: the Legislature, the Judiciary, the Executive and the overriding part, the PEOPLE. The militia is "The people risen up armed". Unlike every other nation, the USA did not receive its authority via a benevolent or forced tyrant, THE PEOPLE seized it! :-)

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

The idea of private armies presents a disturbing dilemma. As I see it, there must be a distinction that must be maintained between the unorganized militia being able come together and practice - become well regulated - and mercenaries and warlords.

 

I bet private armies are a delemma. I like my highly trained Security Force or armed gaurds. Even if they are volunteers and not employees (mercenaries). They are certainly not state employees.