in interpreting what the second amendment actually means, there are 3 words which must be interpreted and defined.
1. militia
2. people
3. arms
the first 2 are what i want to talk about here.
the word militia is understood by different people to mean different things. i see two opposing possibilities:
1. the meaning of "militia" is limited to armed forces under the authority of the state. in other words, the military.
this is not entirely a disagreable definition. let's consider it for now...
2. the "militia" is not confined to only state armies, but includes all armed citizens.
another possibilty. again, this meaning was also supported by quite a few of the founding fathers, as well as commentators of the day.
the second word in question is "people". what is meant by "the people"? i can see only one possibilty, but i must present two:
1. the "people" means all citizens of the united states.
duh.
2. the "people" only refers to members of the military.
this is preposterous...
now... with these interpretations, the second amendment can read 4 different ways:
1. an organized, state-controlled military being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of members of the military to keep weapons shall not be infringed.
this reading is ridiculous. for one, it was not the belief of the framers that a standing army was necessary for the security of a free state... it was quite the opposite. they felt that armed citizens were the best guarantee. secondly, this interpretation would make the second amendment unnecessary and redundant. of course the military can keep weapons. why would the bill of rights, which exists to limit government power over the individual, include such an amendment? third, this interpretation also requires us to understand "the people" as meaning only members of the armed forces, which is ridiculous.
2. an organized, state-controlled military being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of all citizens to keep weapons shall not be infringed.
this one is a little better. it still supposes the meaning of "militia" to include only the state military apparatus, but it does guarantee the right of all citizens to keep arms. this interpretation would not be redundant or unnecessary (though the the word, "militia", with the interpretation we're using here, would be a little out of place) and would make use of a reasonable definition of "the people".
3. armed citizens being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the military to keep weapons shall not be intringed.
this one is just silly.
4. armed citizens being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of all citizens to keep weapons shall not be intringed.
this is the one i find the most reasonable. it is consistant and logical.
of the four, i see #2 and #4 as possibilities. regardless of your interpretion of the word "militia", the only way the second amendment can be interpreted as not guaranteeing the right of regular citizens to keep arms is to use a ridiculous definition of "the people", an interpretation which makes the second amendment unnecessary, redundant, and inconsistant with the rest of the bill of rights.
i know you may not like it, but that fact is that the supreme law of the land in the united states explicitly guarantees, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". to suggest that "the people" includes only members of the armed forces is absurd.
any judicial "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment which says that it doesn't guarantee the right of the people to keep arms is no interpretation at all. "militia" is open to interpretation, as is "arms". "the people" is not.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Anonymous
Malachi
moonrawk
Evolving
Ellis Dee
luvdemshrooms