TexasCHLforum.com

Stumbled across this today. Thought it was a good read.

http://webpages.charter.net/mad_prophet ... 00001.html

Lately I have been thinking that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is there to ensure that the militia is well regulated. IOW, that the general population, properly armed, would keep the militia in line.

jimlongley wrote:Lately I have been thinking that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is there to ensure that the militia is well regulated. IOW, that the general population, properly armed, would keep the militia in line.

Following that line of thought, now comes the 3rd Amendment, eh?

That was really a good read. It points out just how clear and to the point the 2A is. How in the world do all the antis come up with their convoluted meanings and interpretations? The English language really isn't that hard to understand, even for us Texans.

Oldgringo wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Lately I have been thinking that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is there to ensure that the militia is well regulated. IOW, that the general population, properly armed, would keep the militia in line.

Following that line of thought, now comes the 3rd Amendment, eh?

That would follow. The only way to ensure it is an armed populace.

The original language of the period defines "regulated" as being able to march, knowing the manual of arms, follow orders, readiness, structure of a military command - officers, enlisted, etc. It does not mean regulated in terms of controlled or maintained by a state or federal government like we think of today. By definition, the militia was THE PEOPLE. Many of the first militias were in fact church congregations who took it upon themselves to drill (become regulated) in the use of arms and tactics in order to defend their communities and farms. If any governments were involved, it was the town or village, not the state.
The problem that Liberals have with the 2A is they want to define the Militia as a State organization, like today's National Guard, and that the term "people" in the 2A only refers to those within the Militia. The problem with that line of logic (???) is that if the word "people" in all other Amendments (like the 1st) means the individual citizen, but that it somehow means something different in the 2A.

- Dreamer42

Dreamer42 wrote:The original language of the period defines "regulated" as being able to march, knowing the manual of arms, follow orders, readiness, structure of a military command - officers, enlisted, etc. It does not mean regulated in terms of controlled or maintained by a state or federal government like we think of today. By definition, the militia was THE PEOPLE. Many of the first militias were in fact church congregations who took it upon themselves to drill (become regulated) in the use of arms and tactics in order to defend their communities and farms. If any governments were involved, it was the town or village, not the state.
The problem that Liberals have with the 2A is they want to define the Militia as a State organization, like today's National Guard, and that the term "people" in the 2A only refers to those within the Militia. The problem with that line of logic (???) is that if the word "people" in all other Amendments (like the 1st) means the individual citizen, but that it somehow means something different in the 2A.

- Dreamer42

A good point I read the other day - if the 2A meant militia, and the militia was the run by the state, why would the state need permission to arm itself? When you think of it like that, it makes perfect sense that the amendment is for individuals... And as it was said before, the militia back then was considered EVERY individual (or at least every free man).

EDIT: after reading the article, both of these points are in it. My apologies, and great article.

How to read the second amendment?

Just read the black part, it's a lot less confusing that way.

Find the show from penn and teller on the 2a.
Worth watching

HKMike wrote:That was really a good read. It points out just how clear and to the point the 2A is. How in the world do all the antis come up with their convoluted meanings and interpretations? The English language really isn't that hard to understand, even for us Texans.

It isn't just the written word. Many of the same people who distort the meaning of the 2nd Amendment distort the meaning of weather events and other natural phenomenon. All of those distortions lead to the same place. Humans must be controlled by the State for their own good.

cheezit wrote:Find the show from penn and teller on the 2a.
Worth watching

Warning: Typicall Penn and Teller, there is some profanity here.

[youtube][/youtube]

Dreamer42 wrote:The original language of the period defines "regulated" as being able to march, knowing the manual of arms, follow orders, readiness, structure of a military command - officers, enlisted, etc. It does not mean regulated in terms of controlled or maintained by a state or federal government like we think of today.
- Dreamer42

I recall watching Antonin Scalia on fox discuss limits to the 2A. He basicly said some of the modern restriction attempts remain to be tested. With that said, he did leave a door open for some limitation. Using the text of the amendment he mentioned limiting guns to what you can carry as an example since the text reads "keep and bear". He also cited a tort on the books at the time called a "frightening". This prevented people walking around with an unusually scary weapon. I could see this concept being pushed in modern times.

I've put a link to the full interview. The whole thing is good and has been linked here before. The begining covers approaches taken to interpreting/applying the constitution. The 2A talk comes about 6:57.

http://therightscoop.com/full-interview ... ws-sunday/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jerry_r60 wrote:

Dreamer42 wrote:The original language of the period defines "regulated" as being able to march, knowing the manual of arms, follow orders, readiness, structure of a military command - officers, enlisted, etc. It does not mean regulated in terms of controlled or maintained by a state or federal government like we think of today.
- Dreamer42

I recall watching Antonin Scalia on fox discuss limits to the 2A. He basicly said some of the modern restriction attempts remain to be tested. With that said, he did leave a door open for some limitation. Using the text of the amendment he mentioned limiting guns to what you can carry as an example since the text reads "keep and bear". He also cited a tort on the books at the time called a "frightening". This prevented people walking around with an unusually scary weapon. I could see this concept being pushed in modern times.

I've put a link to the full interview. The whole thing is good and has been linked here before. The begining covers approaches taken to interpreting/applying the constitution. The 2A talk comes about 6:57.

http://therightscoop.com/full-interview ... ws-sunday/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I would argue that Scalia is wrong, because the crafters of the amendment almost certainly had recent events at Lexington and Concord in mind, where Colonel Smith's mission was to seize cannon and ammunition for same.

I want a cannon....not sure my HOA would like that, but oh well....I want a tank too, but I'm not sure it would fit down my street

Great article. Thanks for sharing.