2nd Amendment

[palani]

As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:[29]

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[30]

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.

Some people believe arms means weapons [I have made it clear I intend arms to mean seals, flags and coats of arms]. For those who believe the weapons theory read the 2nd amendment closely. The (s) on the end of arms makes it plural. Some misguided statute writers have actually written that the plural includes the singular and the singular includes the plural but as in most things they write they have it wrong. Legislators have never been given the authority to construct the rules of the English language.

If you have a right to bear arms and believe these arms are weapons when you should at least make sure you have two or more of them on you. Literally, you have a right to bear those arms but it is questionable whether you have a right to bear an arm. If you carry a sidearm at least have a pocket knife on you. Even better, carry a flag, a seal or a coat of 'arms'.


arm (n.2)
"weapon," c.1300, armes (plural) "weapons of a warrior," from Old French armes (plural), "arms, war, warfare," mid-13c., from Latin arma "weapons" (including armor), literally "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE root *ar- "fit, join" (see arm (n.1)). The notion seems to be "that which is fitted together." Meaning "heraldic insignia" (in coat of arms, etc.) is early 14c.; originally they were borne on shields of fully armed knights or barons.

[Glass]

I think that whichever interpretation is the most expedient for your situation is the one you should go with.

[palani]

I think that whichever interpretation is the most expedient for your situation is the one you should go with.
As with anything in law there is no issue until one is raised. I don't doubt that is why this topic has not been raised before. All the public has to do is find a book on statutory interpretation and it will (gratuitously so I might add) tell you that male includes female and singular includes plural. Yet here is the situation as written by Lombard in his 1604 edition of Eirenarcha:


This, though it might seeme to be warranted (after 18.E.3) upon the Construction of the word Counties, used plurally in the Statute, 18.Ed.3.Stat.2.ca.2 yet was it much contrarie to the mea-ning

21 CAP 4

Ning of the former lawes (made 1.E.3.cap.15 & 3.4.E.3.cap2) where the same word is read (Everie Countie) in the Singular number. And therefore the Parliament (34.E.3.ca.I) restored ___ proper sense of these lawes, saying: In everie Countie of England there shall be assigned for the safe keeping of the Peace, one Lord, and with him, 3. or 4. of the mightiest men in that countie. And afterward it addeth, They shall have power to heare & determine (at the kings suit) al maner of Felonies & trespasses, done in the same County.


English is not a sloppy language and in law especially what is written had best be accurate and should be taken literally. Trying to make English sloppy is part of the program of dumbing down the world. This is also the preferred method to control the population.

[crimethink]

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."

Noah Webster


"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Thomas Jefferson


"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

(...)

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."

Richard Henry Lee

[crimethink]

I think that whichever interpretation is the most expedient for your situation is the one you should go with.

He's already admitted he makes shit up as he goes. He defines words as he so wishes.

[palani]

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."

Richard Henry Lee

There are no people in any state. There are only citizens and aliens.

palani

[palani]

He's already admitted he makes shit up as he goes. He defines words as he so wishes.

And you classify this as 'making shit up'?

Why would I define a word when it gives YOU the advantage in the discussion?

Would that be rational? Or would you consider this to be EQUITABLE?

[Uncle Salty]

So when the Fourth Amendment states...


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...

does that mean we can only be secure if we have more than one person, one house, and one effect?

[palani]

So when the Fourth Amendment states...does that mean we can only be secure if we have more than one person, one house, and one effect?
You have a point.

Persons? You do have multiple person(alities). I could probably identify at least 20 persons for each individual man, woman or child. There are the birth certificate, drivers license, passport, voter registration, title, mortgage, social security just to name a few. Each is a separate individual person.

Houses? At the time this was written practically everyone had an (out)house. Most didn't live there though so they had another house.

Papers? Interesting thought. If the JBT ask for your papers you might tell 'em you only have one and produce it.

Effects? Likely you have more than one. Take shoes for example. They generally come in pairs.

[crimethink]

There are no people in any state. There are only citizens and aliens.

palani

Richard Henry Lee, one of the greatest men in American history, vs. palani, an unknown shithead on an obscure (no offense, GSUS) website. Gee, how can I decide who to believe?

[palani]

Richard Henry Lee, one of the greatest men in American history, vs. palani, an unknown shithead on an obscure (no offense, GSUS) website. Gee, how can I decide who to believe?

Can you demonstrate that anyone on this forum really CARES what you believe? My understanding in this great country is you may believe what you like. Am I incorrect in this belief?

Your shithead comment just goes to show your inbred superiority complex. Do you believe it adds to the discussion?

[monty]

Interesting history on 'a well regulated militia'

http://www.virginia1774.org/History1.html


http://www.virginia1774.org/MilitiaActs.html

[boogietillyapuke]

If there was ever a doubt in anybody's pea brain about the intent of the 2nd amendment, reading that should resolve any and all doubt as to what is referred to as "arms".