Manchurian Armament
BY PGF
1 year, 10 months ago
As a progressive democrat, I generally try to avoid any set of ideas that smacks of conspiracy theory. That caveat being stated, I have followed gun control legislation and its failures, as have many ofus, for some time. Most of us are familiar with the words of the Second Amendment to the Constitution:
“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.”
The author may be “familiar with the words of the Second Amendment” but not the punctuation; there is but one comma, the second one in the above misquote. Nor can “” read English well.
It appears to me that the concept of a well regulated Militia would involve not only the government, for the purposes of regulation, but also entities such as the National Guard, rendering those entities entirely sufficient. The Republicans, however, appear to conveniently ignore the first phrase, and devolve interpretation merely to the right of anyone in this country to “bear arms”, (including underage children who may be “given”a gun). The right to bear arms is not, of course, mentioned in the amendment, although that phrase is vociferously used as an argument against gun control or even gun safety.
This should be a fun reminder to gun lovers everywhere. Let’s see:
“A healthy breakfast being necessary to the start of a great day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.”
Who or what has the right to keep and eat food? The breakfast, the day? Who has the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment language? The Militia, the State? No, it’s the people. Breakfasts and days don’t eat food, nor do Militias and States have rights.
And it’s no theory; it was a conspiracy to overthrow the crown of England that gave us the Second Amendment codifying God’s immutable right for the people to keep and bear arms.
On February 24, 2023 at 8:55 am, HandleBar said:
I have never understood, nor have I heard the argument made, why would the Bill of Rights which describe the rights of man, interject a “right” that belongs to the state?
On February 24, 2023 at 9:02 am, MSG Grumpy said:
One of the many things “glossed over” by those who oppose the Bill of Rights, is the very obvious statement that IS the foundation of our Country AND the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
It is the fact that our “rights” are given to US by God, NOT government.
Our “Rights” pre-dated the founding of this country, and supersedes our documents.
The Second Amendment sets out to say in very plain language that this is a God given right that NO government has the right to infringe without due process.
Yet they do and claim that they adhere to the very Constitution they mangle for fun and profit.
God made His creation in His own Image, and it is Wrong when people try to Harm His creation.
He gave His creation the Right as well as the Responsibility to defend himself, his family and his community
THIS is the essence of the Second Amendment.
MSG Grumpy
On February 24, 2023 at 11:14 am, Frank Clarke said:
Actually, the entire Constitution is plagued by “commatosis”, extraneous commas hither and yon inserted where (we have to assume) the writer paused to take a breath. The 2nd amendment does, in fact, have three commas.
None of that, naturally, blunts the impact of the meaning of the 2nd: the people retain this right and the government is enjoined from interfering with it. This follows naturally from the wording of the Declaration of Independence wherein it is asserted as “self-evident” that we have the right to life which is endowed to us by God at birth. That right to life requires a right to defend that life, and THAT requires a right to the MEANS of self-defense.
Without the means to defend, we lack the right to defend, and thus the right to life itself. That would negate the baseline philosophy behind the founding.
On February 24, 2023 at 12:38 pm, MTHead said:
Maybe we can distill the argument a little. The plain language, with all precedence tells the story and truth behinds the words very clear for all to see.
The problem starts with a few in power twisting it for an agenda.
What there is no argument on is the fact that those who cannot read it for what it says are liars, frauds, idiots, or combinations of all three.
There is no argument to be made in honest debate over the 2A. All debate over it is toward the same ignorant end.
To convince that you should not want or need for arms. In the face of every fact known to man the contrary.
The fact is there is no HONEST debate to be made. We need to point that out to them.
Either they’re not being honest with themselves. Or everyone else. And it matters little which one.
On February 24, 2023 at 1:28 pm, scott s. said:
Anyone with even a moderate interest can find discussion of the significance of “well regulated militia” and failing to do so so makes krypton981’s argument meaningless.
On February 24, 2023 at 1:37 pm, PGF said:
Different states ratified slightly different versions of the 2A. The handwritten versions vary in punctuation and capitalization. Mr Clarke is correct; the version ratified by congress has three commas. So if congress is the authority in the matter, I was wrong. Ymmv as to what theoretical authority the congress has over the states.
On February 24, 2023 at 6:45 pm, MTHead said:
PGF; The supremacy clause of the constitution rules over everything granted or prohibited in it.
Anything in any law or constitution of any state to the contrary is notwithstanding. (Goes for bureaucrats too.)
The constitution does not repeat itself. SCOTUS ruled long ago. And a power granted in one section of the constitution to one group, need not be denied another group in another section of the constitution. Therefor, a well regulated militia, as a grant of power. Would have to be outside that already stated.
Everything needed is granted is already. Command in chief, appointment of officers, on and on.
Any power construed from it is already contained in it. Outside federal and state government. And it is very plain in speech to whom that power is granted.. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”