The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution
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.
No matter what you say, the following formula is incorrect:
one person = militia
one person = state
one person = people
In the rest of the constitution, the following formula was used:
one person = “owner” (third amendment)
one person = “person” (fifth amendment)
one person = “accused”, “him”, “his” (sixth amendment)
group of individuals = “persons” (fourth amendment)
group of individuals = “citizens”, “subjects”
No where in the constitution is militia, state, or people used to mean a singular person or a large group of unorganized individuals. The federal constitution focuses on the federal government’s role. The rest is left up to states. Again, a government is not comprised of one person. A government is a state with its own militia supported by its people (not one person).
How strange is it for anyone to read the second amendment as saying:
“A well regulated group of one person, being necessary to the security of a free one person, the right of one person to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Where can anyone misunderstand, when reading the constitution in its entirety, that one person is considered a state, a militia, or even “the people”?
There is outright refusal to accept the obvious truth:
one person does not make a state, a militia, nor a people.
If you believe that you have a truth that the rest of us don't, you also believe that it's not worth defending since you have decided not to face more any more arguments.
I don't need to defend it since the Supreme Court agrees with me, as well.
Most, if not all, the definitions in your copy/paste, say “people” means a group, body, etc. There are two definitions that support my (and the Constitution’s authors’) point:
1. persons indefinitely or collectively
8. the body of enfranchised citizens of a state: representatives chosen by the people
Why did they not say "the citizens of a state"? Why did they say "state"?
If the authors were interested in specifying that each individual have the right to a gun/rifle, why did they not use “citizens”, “subjects”, “persons”, or “person” (as they did in the rest of the document)?
Why did they choose the word, “people”, a word always used to refer to a recognized group of people . . . not one person or disorganized persons.
Why did they decide to be creative and use a word one time with a different meaning when using the same word for a different definition repeatedly?
As Chase claims, they “were not trying to be witty, imply sexual innuendo, present characterization, nor twist words to rhyme.” (Don't ask me about the sexual innuendo nor rhyme. . . I don't know where in the Constitution that happens.)
They were being
very clear in their use of “people” over other words such as “citizens”, et al.
The government tries to erode the individual rights of people in incremental steps.
How can the government erode a right that wasn’t there in the first place? The second amendment clearly applies to State rights; not one person’s right. Last I checked, every state/commonwealth has its own standing army. Why have a gun to protect your state . . . when your state can already protect itself from the Federal government?
As a literary and history scholar, I find the U.S. Constitution a document rich in both, but I don’t study it in isolation.
How convenient for you to say that when you did that. You took the second amendment alone without observing the entire document. If you did, you would have come to the same conclusion (as the Supreme Court did) that one person does not make a state, a militia, nor a “people”.
During the late 1770s, "keep and bear arms" indeed applied to militia, and the militia was every citizen.
Since you are gung-ho on dictionary use, where in the definition of militia is all citizens? I only see “a body of”, “a group of”, and/or “all males”. I find it surprising that a scholar does not see the distinction between “a body/group/males” vs. “all”. Shocking . . .
You don’t know much history if you believe “the founding fathers settled their differences with ‘majority rules’ concept, not bullets.” Ever read about “the shot heard ‘round the world”? It’s not just an allegorical bullet.
You mean to tell me that one person took it upon himself to start the American Revolutionary War? You mean to tell me that a group of people went ahead and provoked Great Britian into a war without the consent of the American colonists/people? Are you telling me that representatives sent from colonies-turned-states did not
vote to declare war?
A shot heard around the world refers to the fact that the United States was the first colonial entity to successfully shrug off its colonial master(s). Shortly, thereafter, other colonies were inspired to revolt, as well.
That’s why it’s a shot heard around the world . . . and that, Mr. “Scholar”, is an allegorical bullet.
. . . true statistics and logic won’t mean a thing to the immature who really don’t seek the truth . . .
How’s this for statistics:
In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)
Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)
American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)
In 1994, more than a quarter-million households experienced the theft of one or more firearms; nearly 600,000 guns were stolen during these burglaries. (Cook and Ludwig, 1997.)
Every day in the United States, 93 people die from gunshot wounds. (Office of Analysis, Epidemiology, and Health, Firearm Deaths and Death Rates by Intent, United States, 1996, Washington, DC: National Center for Health Statistics, Office of Analysis, Epidemiology, and Health, 1996.)
an additional 240 sustain gunshot injuries. (J.K. Annest, J.A. Mercy, D.R. Gibson, and G.W. Ryan, "National estimates of nonfatal firearm-related injuries: Beyond the tip of the iceberg," Journal of the American Medical Association 273:17491754, 1995.)
gunshot wounds account for approximately $40 billion in medical, public service, and work-loss costs each year (T.R. Miller and M.A. Cohen, "Costs of gunshot and cut/stab wounds in the United States, with some Canadian comparisons," Accident Analysis and Prevention 29(3):329341, 1997.)
Studies show that 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes. (ATF)
According to Americans for Gun Safety (December 2002), gun theft is most likely in states without laws requiring safe storage of firearms in the home and where there are large numbers of gun owners and relatively high crime rates. Based on FBI data,
nearly 1.7 million guns have been reported stolen in the past ten years, and only 40% of those were recovered. The missing guns, over 80% of which are taken from homes or cars, most likely fuel the black market for criminals.
Guns were used in 75% of all occupational homicides from 1980 to 1989 (NOISH)
Firearms were used in 60.1% of all suicides, in 67.8% of all homicides, and in less than 2.0% of unintentional injury deaths (NCHS)
Many, many statistics address the GREATER problem of children and firearms. They are most embarrassing since, compared with other peers (that is, countries with the same economic status in this world as the United States, the United States seems keen on killing its children. The adults seem more interested in “protection” when children, within their protection, are killing each other and themselves. The problem, the adults say, is not the gun nor gun owners. The problem is criminals; children are killing themselves and each other because of adult criminals. (Don’t tell me you find that logical!)
The United Kingdom (banned guns): 0.5% of their crime is gun-related
The United States (does not ban guns): 80 Americans die each day from guns
Americans using guns in defense against crime: 0.2% of all crimes
Why? The gun is not accessible at the time of the crime. In other words, the crime began with the gun on YOU first. “Keep your hands visible and no sudden moves.” If you'd like me to be more polite, then I'll say "Please, keep your hands visible and, Sir, please do not make any sudden moves."
The documents are there for anyone to read, rather than let a group with an agenda parrot a special spin on them.
There was a group with an agenda who wrote the Constitution, had thirteen colonies ratify it, and started “the shot heard around the world.” There is currently a group with an agenda that is more emotional that factual trying to mess it all up. Who are they? Mostly gun owners and
those living in fear.
Culture of Fear
I am surprised that no one, who appears to be against gun control, has noticed a common thread between all anti-gun control postings: “I want to defend myself against criminals.”
“I will fight to the death to keep my right to bear arms. I will defend my family. WITH DEADLY FORCE. Not all people can be reasoned with.”
“Anyone who trusts the local police to protect them had better start shopping around for life insurance and practice convincing the nice burglar to just wait a few minutes more to give the police time to get there.”
“The law-abiding citizens (foolish enough to give up their rights) would be left without any defense against the criminals and tyrants who just ignore gun bans.”
How many people here have been held up by a person/persons with gun(s)? How many people here have fought off a crime with a gun? How many people here truly believe that a gun, stored safely, will save them when they are staring at a gun?
Gun laws, as already proven time and again,
have been largely ignored and they have not been enforced. The ATF is toothless to enforce gun control and cities, with gun control laws, are still struggling with gun-related crime.
The statistics above clearly prove that only criminals want guns. Self-defense only works when you have the gun in your hand at all times. With other nations that have banned guns, their gun-related crimes have dropped, along with homicide, suicide, and accidental rates.
Guns were made with only the intent to injure and/or kill. Guns are not self-protection but a tool. The NRA (or other propaganda) says “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” Statistics prove that the mere appearance of a gun is enough to prevent victimization/crime (no bullets are usually fired). Statistics also prove that the “imitation” of firearms is enough to cause problems. So . . .
it’s all in your head.
You have a gun = you are protected.
You see a gun = you must submit or evade.
What is wrong with a society that will only do anything with a gun? Remember, you live by the sword; you will die by the sword.
Guns are not available to all citizens. Those who are considered mentally-ill, criminal, and/or “high risk” cannot have a gun. If the Bill of Rights said that ALL citizens have a right to a gun, then a mentally-handicapped person has a right to a gun, too. Nearly all states define a mentally-handicapped person who is either diagnosed as mentally ill, “retarded,” and/or is taking psycho pills. WellButrin, a drug used for emotional/mental problems and ALSO to quit smoking, is a red flag against anyone buying a gun. Still, as many of you say, all have a right to a gun. If that’s common sense, then may lightening strike . . . you.
If a well armed-society is a polite society, I’d like to see any evidence of such (it’s just a quote that gun owners would like to believe).
All statistics prove that a well-armed society is: violent, paranoid, and unable to protect liked/loved ones. We’d like to believe that most people are as civilized as we are. We are not alike. We are not the same. We are (those who are passionately arguing this amendment) Americans. We will vote and send representatives to Congress, who will decide all laws for us and for foreign policy.
Above all, we are Americans. We are not individuals, persons, nor subjects. I will say that even with a gun in my face.
I have shared my repeated view of the 2nd amendment and that it is not an individual right (States’ right vs Individual right). As a personal weakness, I admittedly am short of patience and I apologize for my previous and inevitable future bursts of impatience.
Now that I have stirred the pot further and have obviously invited others to post again . . . (probably mostly about my posting and not about the subject at hand), I solemnly swear not to post on this topic again.
My grandmother has said, “Do not talk about politics, religion or controversial issues.” Once again, I have ignored her and believed, for a moment, that others would see the truth.
Perhaps another day, they will.
PostScript:
TexanGuy, go to a college that you think will serve your education needs best . . . not because of political issues. Last I checked, colleges/universities do
NOT allow a student to have a gun on campus.
Swimming pools is for enjoyment and cooling during the summer season, period!
