Ammo For Sale

« « The Airing of Grievances: Miscellaneous | Home | Ammo issues » »

The Airing of Grievances: The Second Amendment

Anyone who believes in the collective rights (or as it should be called the ‘no rights’) model of the second amendment is either clueless or a disingenuous hack. I think it was insty who referred to the ‘no rights’ model once as creation science, wherein the goal is developed first and worked back from there to obtain that result. He’s right. For those of you wishing to have that argument again, go to Aunt B.’s place.

7 Responses to “The Airing of Grievances: The Second Amendment”

  1. Sean Braisted Says:

    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.

  2. SayUncle Says:

    The words you striked are a present participle. They are not a clause.

  3. Sean Braisted Says:

    Hence, I shall never be an English major 🙁

  4. Michael Says:

    Anut B hit the nail on the head. I just hope that a group of dopey judges see it the say way.

  5. Ron w Says:

    The present participle is not restrictive: that is, it does not negate or alter the meaning of the main or independent clause of the sentence which declares the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear (carry) arms. And the 2nd Amendment, as are all the other ones in the Bill of Rights is “restrictive” of the Federal Government to which it is addressed according to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

    PREAMBLE
    The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

    The Bill of Rights are “declaratory” of the pre-existing, inalienable rights of the people and “restrictive” of the government’s “delegated powers”according to the 10th Amendment.

  6. USCitizen Says:

    While I was otherwise content to post happy holliday pictures at my site, your post gives me reason to weigh in on the Second Amendment.

    The words do not need to be changed; the meaning is not ambiguous.

    The implementation of our rights through the present laws however, leave much to be desired.

    We are the militia.

    Of the militia, there are actually two under the law. The organized (States’ National Guards); and the unorganized (everyone else – aged 18 to 45, excluding females).

    The age and sex restrictions I protest in a letter to my US Senators and Congressional Representative:

    My purpose for writing you today is to request a change in the Federal definition of militia. Specifically, my request is to replace the words able-bodied males with persons; and to replace the words under 45 years of age with under 64 years of age.

    These changes would be consistent with the regulations pertaining to the organized militia (the National Guard) and expand the legal participation by the unorganized militia in our national defense to include women and those over 45 years of age.

    The relevant code section is: TITLE 10 – ARMED FORCES, Subtitle A – General Military Law, PART I – ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS, CHAPTER 13 – THE MILITIA, Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes.

    Thank you for you attention and responsiveness.

    Those who seek to selectively limit the rights in the Constitution should be wary of which rights may fall after the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was, and is, the one guarantee that the other rights would be honored – in fact the 2nd Amendment was a necessary condition to the ratification of the entire Constitution.

    Let’s expand the scope of ‘militia’ to include all citizens (including the women-folk).

    Anything short of that wold be – dare I say it? an unconstitutional infringement of the Bill of Rights.

  7. USCitizen Says:

    … and thanks for the other rants in the series, too!

    I could rant about spell-checking, too. “wold” should be “would” and not “world” in the previous comment.

    Please edit.