If any other text on the planet has been argued about more than the 2nd Amendment, I’d be very surprised:
Bill Whittle always serves it up nicely. People will continue to argue this forever, no matter what.
“Well that was written back in the days of flintlock muskets so… blah blah blah” *extreme eye roll when people say that*
Thoughts?
Hat tip: TTAG
Comments
5 responses to “Beating The Meaning Of The 2nd Amendment To Death Over And Over”
“If any other text on the planet has been argued about more than the 2nd Amendment, I’d be very surprised:”
Religious texts? Those get argued about some. Always civilly though.
There’s also explicit detail that every single person is included when they’re talking about the “well regulated militia”, and not just a handful of “registered” civilians. James Madison talks all about it in the Federalist Paper #46. It’s a quick, 5min read and available free. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay wrote the Federalist Papers on the eve of the constitutional convention to convince the nation to ratify the document [the Constitution].
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm
“Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
An explanation of the 2nd Amendment that makes perfect sense to me but that I rarely hear from others is this…
The first half of the sentence, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”, is saying that a well-regulated militia is necessary to maintain security. That’s just a simple statement of fact, and a qualifier for what comes next.
Then the second part, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is a statement of consequence. It’s saying that because a well-regulated militia (or military) must be a fact of life, the people must be allowed arms too. Because, as has been learned, the military could be used against the people. The people must therefore be equally armed in order to protect from such a possibility.
Someone will inevitably dispute the definition of the word ‘militia’, to which I would respond that “well-regulated” would imply a formal military. But such a debate wouldn’t be germane to my point; the people must be allowed arms in order to protect from their gov’t turning on them. Certainly that was a concern of the founders.
That’s how I read the 2A. *shrug*
that was fucking awesome
I don’t understand where the confusion comes from and why it needs to be debated?
Do people not realize what the colonials just got done doing before those documents were created? They just got done rebelling against their government for their freedom to exist independently. And they did it with the “arms” they had on hand, which at the time was better in some cases then what the army had. The british government even tried to take those arms from the people so they couldn’t fight back.
If they didn’t have those weapons there wouldn’t be a US of A. Of course they would write it into the Bill of Rights because, duh, without those arms they wouldn’t have been able to exist.
And they figured we might need them again one day. Also it was considered part of a god given natural right to defend yourself which existed before any governments existed and as such they just sorta put it into writing thinking they were stating the obvious but it needed to be said.
But now everyone feels a need to argue it like it’s some sort of un-natural privilege to be able to have the tools at your disposal to defend yourself and your way of life.
addlepated sheep