2nd Amendment - Individual Right or Arming of Militia

[pianoman9701]

The wording of the 2nd Amendment is difficult to understand for several reasons. Although the founding fathers were very careful in the wording of the Constitution to make sure the laws were understood, they were liberal with their use of punctuation. In fact, it seems that the use of punctuation, specifically the coma, remained mainly undefined during that period. So when we read "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.", the next to last and the final coma is what make for confusion. Had the next to last coma been replaced with "and", then there would be no ambiguity as to whether the 2nd Amendment refers to the individual's right to bear arms, or the militia's right to bear arms. The final coma after "arms" is completely unnecessary and further complicates the issue. There are three things that tell us that it's an individual right.

First, with the exception of the 10th Amendment, all of the Bill of Rights refer to individual rights of the people. This was the most important factor which influenced the court's decision in Heller v DC. The judges agreed with Heller's attorneys that for all of the other rights to be individual and this one not to be would be an oversight that the founding fathers wouldn't have made.

Secondly, we know that the exact wording of the Bill of Rights was argued for days on each Amendment to again, ensure the least possible ambiguity. The use of the phrase "..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", it has been argued, means "the people" as a whole and doesn't refer to the individual. But there are several indications that it is indeed the individual that is afforded these rights. In the 2nd Amendment there is reference to both the "State" and the "People". In several other Amendments, the rights of the "People" are quoted. But the most telling is the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In this Amendment, the founding fathers spell out three separate entities in the "United States", the "States", and the People". Remember that the exact wording was of paramount importance and that using "the people" to refer to the collective rights of the US or States in the 2nd Amendment would've been absurd when "the People" in every other instance in the Bill of Rights is used to describe the rights of the individual.

And thirdly, Alexander Hamilton wrote, among many others, the 28th Federalist Paper which explains the reasons for the 2nd Amendment. The 85 Federalist Papers were written by writers of the Constitution to support and advocate the ratification of the Constitution. In the 28th, Hamilton says, " If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. " This clearly speaks about what happens when the States turn on its citizens. Without the individual right to bear arms, this wouldn't be possible.

[Greenhorn]

Good stuff pianoman!

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk

[blackdog]

Individual right.

[csaaphill]

Individually we all belong to the militia, and being all together were the people.
So each has to make that distinction of weather or not they want to be part of the militia much like volunteer service now I reckon.
Much like the minute men of that time each who felt the need to come to the call to arms were the militia.
So in a sence it means both individuley and Militia, or part of the whole.
"Being neccessary for the security of a free state" means not just the state a person resides, but a free state as in the United states as a whole. So in essence when libs attack the state of being free and not bound to the Gov they infact are nothing more than enemeys to the state of being free, or at liberty!
"The right of the people/militia to bear arms against such usupers/tyrannicals shall not be infringed! 
It's more than clear we are to defend liberty with our lives each and everytime usurpers infringe upon our 2nd amendment, or anyother for that matter.
I likes my difinition lol
 

[300UltraMagShooter]

That is just those stupid arguments from leftists to fool really dumb people.

The fact is, no matter how you read it, the answer is the same.  After all, We Are The Militia.

[pianoman9701]

That is just those stupid arguments from leftists to fool really dumb people.

The fact is, no matter how you read it, the answer is the same.  After all, We Are The Militia.

You must remember that many of the anti-gun people don't know the Constitution, don't know Heller v. DC, and don't take time to read history once they've graduated from school. A lot of these people are talking out of their butts, only with emotion as their "substance". The more we educate ourselves on the Bill of Rights, why it's worded the way it is, and why the people who wrote it wrote what they did, the more these idiots will fall flat on their faces when they try to argue against it. Every single time that you face an uninformed emotional outcry with a controlled, educated discourse, you take the argument.

[csaaphill]

That is just those stupid arguments from leftists to fool really dumb people.

The fact is, no matter how you read it, the answer is the same.  After all, We Are The Militia.

You must remember that many of the anti-gun people don't know the Constitution, don't know Heller v. DC, and don't take time to read history once they've graduated from school. A lot of these people are talking out of their butts, only with emotion as their "substance". The more we educate ourselves on the Bill of Rights, why it's worded the way it is, and why the people who wrote it wrote what they did, the more these idiots will fall flat on their faces when they try to argue against it. Every single time that you face an uninformed emotional outcry with a controlled, educated discourse, you take the argument.

exactly which is why I try and research quotes so much when this comes up.
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth
OOOPs just sliped
SOme actually do know it though that's why they go to the well regulated part but that's when I slip in the that's an oxy moron statement because they did not mean a regulated militia as with GOv regulation, but well oiled well armed well readyed well drilled militia etc is what they meant!