Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Everyone knows the 2nd Amt. is only for arming the army

Now that I've grabbed you, what does everyone think of the idea that the Second Amendment actually guarantees (I didn't say grants) every law abiding American the right to own and carry any firearm he or she wishes, including full auto, without having to check with a government agencey? Seems clear that a militia requires such things. What does the word "infringed" mean in this context, if not that the Federal Government has to keep its paws off the matter, other than to prevent states from violating our rights in this regard?

As Tom Clancey said; "My gun is no one else's business."

Hawk, at the risk of stiring a fire storm similar to what we see about the Remington rifles, I think we, US citizens, do have the right to own and possess firearms. I do think, however, the Government has the right to restrict which type of firearms are manufactured and sold and even possessed by the citizens. I know that drawing an extreme conclusion would enable Big Brother to first ban anti-tank guns, then machine guns, then semi auto's, then pump guns, then bolt guns, then green ones, black ones, etc. But, I do believe that it is in the best interest of us all that only with severe restrictions ( I can't define that very well), only certain of us are allowed to own machine guns, "street sweepers", anti-tank guns, bazooka's hand grenades, etc. I have dropped out of the NRA many years ago because I felt the NRA wasn't doing it's part to help the cities draft legislation that would on one hand, protect the rights of citizens to own and possess firearms and still would enable the law enforment that we all desire and, I would add, require.

If I were an Anti my response would be "What part of Well Regulated did you not understand ?"

The first phrase provides the reason for the second. That is to say (to paraphrase), "Seeing that the best method of defending liberty is that which relies predominantly on a 'well regulated militia,' we the people hereby forbid the infringement by government of our right to keep and bear arms."
<br>
<br>You have to realize first off that our current understanding of the phrase "well regulated" is not the sense in which it was understood originally. When we see the word "regulated," we moderns automatically think of the many and diverse government regulations that we have all learned to live with in modern America. That understanding of the word was unknown at the time, however. "Well regulated" simply meant well organized, well equipped and well trained (Thanks B.C. Ranger). It had nothing at all to do with being regulated by a governmental agency. That notion was alien, in fact, to the early Americans. You only need to read what they themselves thought they were doing with the Second Amendment.
<br>
<br>In order to have a well organized, equipped and trained militia, you must first have a militia (i.e., an armed citizenry). In other words, a well organized, equipped and trained militia has as a prerequisite that the people's right to keep and bear arms not be infringed. This is the meaning of the Second Amendment, and no serious legal scholar, who has actually studied the issue, believes otherwise. I don't consider leftist ideologues serious scholars, by the way.
<br>

It's an argument I've encountered...I point out that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Samual Adams, Thomas Jefferson & Co were not guaranteeing the ownership of weapons they were recognizing that men had a proclivity to arming themselves to ensure that they could violently disagree with tyranny if the occasion arose and more importantly to ensure the safety of themselves and their loved ones...The Second Amendment isn't about hunting it is about fighting tyranny with the most effective means available...

I wish the liberal "scholars" had the wit to understand what the framers of the bill of rights had in mind and what they understood at the time. As Hawk points out their understanding of regulated was trained and properly armed. Not controled by the central government but by the states. They also had an abiding fear, with reason, of a "standing army". One of the causes listed in the declaration of independance is ".. has kept standing armies among us in time of peace..." The milita in their time was considered to be all free males willing and able to shoulder arms in defence of the state. The idea lasted well into the nineteenth century.
<br>BCR

"Proclivity" is not the word the Founders used. The word was "right," which means something very different. The Founders were Enlightenment thinkers, and the notion of Natural Rights was very much a central feature of the Enlightenment. Read the Federalist Papers.

Proclivity noun plural- ties.The natural or habitual inclination or tendency; propensity: predisposition according to Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.
<br>
<br>I meant in this instance that the forefathers knew people armed themselves whether it was legal to or not. I know at Lexington, Mass on April 19, 1775 after the King had outlawed private small arms ownership in the colonies his subjects revolted thereby fighting the first battle in the Revolutionary War.

Yes, the battles of Lexington and Concord were all about the Brits trying to collect the powder and guns of the Massachussetts colonists. These conlonists, however, were under the impression that they had a right to arms, not a mere proclivity, which is why they sniped dead over 70 Brits on their way back to Boston. Apparently they felt pretty strongly about it. Normal people don't usually resort to deadly force over mere proclivities.
<br>
<br>A kleptomaniac may possess a proclivity to steal, but he does not thereby possess the right to do so. The proclivity to arm oneself is not the source of the right. The right derives from the necessity to arm oneself in order to secure life, liberty and fundamental human dignity.
<br>
<br>A man who is disarmed by his own government is no longer a citizen (perhaps not even truly a man), but rather a slave to the state (lower case s state). Modern-day British SUBJECTS, for example, are not true citizens of Great Britain as they are disarmed by that government. They are something significantly less than citizens. Perhaps serfs is an appropriate word, or servants, or slaves, or subjects, or wards, but certainly not citizens. Their position in relation to their government is servile. This has always been the distinction between a slave and a citizen, i.e., a citizen may go about armed, while a slave may not.
<br>

Rolly, I know someone who teaches in Coeur d'Alene, ID. maybe you know each other.

Hawk,
<br>
<br> You are right onthe money in your description of the meaning of "well regulated". I have tried to explain this a few times over the years but most folks just don't get it. (or do not want to get it).
<br>
<br>MM

Obviously the word "proclivity" is becoming too obscure a word to use in conversation anymore...a testament to our public schools

Logansdad, I'm not sure I understand your concern with this word? What's with quoting the dictionary? Aren't you being a little ridiculous suggesting that I don't understand you when you use this word, and that it is due to my not having an adequate education? What's the point in that kind of talk?

Sorry about the education crack...I didn't think you were reading my posts. We agree on this issue.

My last post was deleted by a moderator or something

Hawkeye, who is the teacher?

All I learned here is that even people you agree with will argue with you on a topic given the opportunity

It seemed to me that our point of disagreement was worth commenting on. We probably are 90% in agreement, however, which is good enough for government work.

Rolly, check your messages.