I Like Posting This!

The responses are sooooo entertaining.

"shall not be infringed." is the verb to the subject "A well regulated militia,"

But you left out a key part of the sentence.

Perhaps you could quote from retired justice Stevens spring 2014 book on this topic. I could use some entertainment.

http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html

Is, this, what, you're, going, on, about?

What is your understanding of the 2nd Amendment? Now remove the words that make up the first half of the 2nd Amendment. Does your understanding change? No? Then you are wrong. Those words account for nearly half the amendment and have meaning. That meaning is the purpose of the latter half.

If you take the position that bearing arms only means carrying weapons small enough to carry around (knives, swords, muskets, pistols). And if you take the position that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people from a "tyrannical state". And if you cede that any state, tyrannical or otherwise, would not only posses arms but also ORDINANCE.

Then how the fuck would the 2nd Amendment actually work?

Even during the time when it was written, states had cannons, naval guns, and bombs. Any INDIVIDUALS trying to overthrow the state would have been BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS. Just as now, any individual (or group of individuals exercising their individual rights collectively...or some "one word has two meanings in the same sentence" nonsense) trying to use an arm (something they could carry) would be blown to bits by a bomb or missile from a drone.

Even using all the definitions of the so-called 2nd Amendment supporters, the flaw is not only clear as day, but consistent throughout 200+ years of history.

Without reading the book are you saying Justice Stevens mentioned specifically how "shall not be infringed" is or is not the verb to the subject "A well regulated militia"? Again, without reading the book, I'd bet he made no mention of the sentence or paragraph structure of any part of the Constitution. I could be wrong though.

Reading anything from a lawyer has got to be horribly boring.

Perhaps you could quote from retired justice Stevens spring 2014 book on this topic. I could use some entertainment. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

interesting link but reaches no conclusion. Good narrative on grammatical history though. Frankly, I'd rather read the opinion of a panel of English Professors though. Considerable more authority than a bunch of right wing lawyers and history professors.

In my own mind, I have yet to read much of anything of the history of the 2d Amendment, outside of a history book that is. Everybody seems to be ignorant of or forgot (conveniently or otherwise about George's decree.

Finally, I wasn't "going on" about anything. Just brought up an observation that, as it turns out, others have noticed too.

http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html

Is, this, what, you're, going, on, about?

What is your understanding of the 2nd Amendment? Now remove the words that make up the first half of the 2nd Amendment. Does your understanding change? No? Then you are wrong. Those words account for nearly half the amendment and have meaning. That meaning is the purpose of the latter half. Originally Posted by Longermonger

http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html

Is, this, what, you're, going, on, about?

What is your understanding of the 2nd Amendment? Now remove the words that make up the first half of the 2nd Amendment. Does your understanding change? No? Then you are wrong. Those words account for nearly half the amendment and have meaning. That meaning is the purpose of the latter half. Originally Posted by Longermonger

Agreed. Context matters.

Reading anything from a lawyer has got to be horribly boring. Originally Posted by dumars

But critically important, thus that must be endured.

Agreed. Context matters. Originally Posted by algrace

And that context must be based on the understanding of the "historical" terminology that was in use in the late 1700's.
Which understanding includes the common acceptance that at that time, almost every house in the states had weapons. And that almost all of the founding fathers owned and were experienced with weapons. After all, they were the ones who ran the war against the Brits.

When it comes to reciting the 2nd amendment it matter not what any Justice has to say. If you want to talk about the law and precedents then we can discuss what people have said.

In the days that the amendment was written a private citizen could, and in some cases did, own cannon. A private citizen could arm his ship with cannon on the high seas without the need for the military of which there was none. A private citizen going to establish a town on the frontier could buy a cannon for protection. In general, a private citizen could have hand weapon the equivalent and in many cases superior to what the military (or militia) carried.

... A private citizen could arm his ship with cannon on the high seas... Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

It was rare for a merchant ship to not have a few cannon. After all, the age of pirates ran through the mid-1700s and in some areas a bit later.

... a private citizen could have hand weapon the equivalent and in many cases superior to what the military (or militia) carried... Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

In fact, during the Rev War, quite a few of the Colonials carried their personal weapons cause at that time, weapons were all hand built, and in short supply. In 1778 the French started shipping muskets.

So the common argument that the 2nd amendment didn't apply to military style weapons is plain wrong. The Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifle was a better weapon that the Brown Bess musket.

Exactly.
But under todays laws, I consider myself fortunate that I have friends with ATF licenses, that allow interesting tools to be kept.

And to bring historical perspective to current days, there's an issue, still, with Somali pirates, wherein merchant ships have to go through great efforts to have protective whatnot on board.

When it comes to reciting the 2nd amendment it matter not what any Justice has to say. If you want to talk about the law and precedents then we can discuss what people have said.

In the days that the amendment was written a private citizen could, and in some cases did, own cannon. A private citizen could arm his ship with cannon on the high seas [COLOR="rgb(255, 0, 255)"]without the need for the military of which there was none.[/COLOR] A private citizen going to establish a town on the frontier could buy a cannon for protection. In general, a private citizen could have hand weapon the equivalent and in many cases superior to what the military (or militia) carried. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Agree with everything above. However, you guys know how precise I am (Gets tedious, doesn't it?; it needs to be clarified a bit that the military and the militia are not the same thing.

The militia in history was very different than today. It was a very seriously needed protective force for the community and most. Today, we have police departments and an extended military.

When I was a youth, there were instructions in out high school concerning how every man in the county could be immediately called upon by the local sheriff to be deputized to become part of a sheriff's posse, should there be a need.

I remember the local police department giving instructions in the Boy Scouts in traffic control to free up the police and sheriff's department should the need arise.

Doesn't all of this sound strange today?

The Second Amendment addressed a real need; at times, those needs still exist.

It is observed that there are those with an abnormal interest in guns and playing at being in the military.

For those of us who have been there and done that, we remember our weapons training. I hope I never have to use it again. However, I still carry when I believe there is a need for it: such as walking alone from my office to my car at 2 AM.

though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Today, a lot of people carry. Should you be one of them?

JR

Nice presentation JR.

I'll add that todays State National Guard is the actual successor to the Rev War State Militias, and is actually apart from the "National Guard of the United States" which is the federal military's reserve.

Last, I note that the best way to keep oneself up to date on using any "tool" is to teach that material. And, serious folks do not play with tools.

Those same folks

playing at being in the military

are generally thought to be inclusive of those

serious folks who do not play with tools.

Some may be called radicals. Some may be more like Timothy McVeigh or Peter Keller than America wants to remember. Unfortunately, our society's stance on the potential for domestic terrorism reminds me a bit of a movie costarring Nick Nolte as an ex-armed forces character. Not all gun enthusiasts are gun nuts, and not many gun nuts are fanatical.