The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads,
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.
Progressives read this and say that only those people in “a well-regulated militia” have the right to keep and bear arms. Let’s find out why this is utter nonsense, shall we?
Over at the Constitution Society, author J. Neil Schulman conducted a remarkable exercise. He sent the text of the Second Amendment not to a lawyer but to an expert on the English Language: Roy Copperud taught Journalism at USC for 17 years and served on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary. Mirriam Webster’s dictionary frequently cites him as an expert on American English usage.
...He sent Mr. Copperud a precisely grammatically identical sentence: “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.” Does that mean, he asked, that only a well-schooled electorate — high school graduates, say — are the only ones with the right to keep and read books?
Hat tip: BadBlue Gun News.
7 comments:
"A citizen may not be required to offer a "good and substantial reason" why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs." Judge B. E. Legg
The Federalist Papers explain it.
Common sense explains it.
Let progressives explain this: "Progressive can go fu-ck themselves."
If the left is so very hung up on this "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment, then let's have congress start a militia that any citizen can join by paying a simple One Dollar membership fee. Meetings will be held with neighbors every election day to renew their rights as a citizen and a member of the militia. That should eliminate this stupid talk right there!
Anonymous: Membership fee? Renew my rights? More things for govt to regulate. Here's how I see it: As an American citizen, you are automatically a member of the "well regulated militia" by right of birth. People can opt out if they choose, but there is no subsequent test, no membership fee. As for me personally, Congress can say anything they want, but the 2nd Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, is valid and applies to me until I say different.
Springeraz...you are absolutely right and I am wrong. Well said.
Hey, that brings up an interesting thought. Why can't I just get together with a few of my friends and announce that we are forming a militia, and that we intend that it will be well-regulated. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the militia must be run by the government or sanctioned by the government. Any more than a newspaper has to be run by the government to "qualify" for 1st Amendment protection.
far as i know 'militia' is by definition the citizens (non-govt) anyway. and the things listed in the bill of rights were regarded as 'natural-born' rights, only being recognised, but not created, in the bill of rights. the purpose of govt is to 'secure' such rights, not to 'regulate' them.
Post a Comment