I anticipated you wouldn't accept facts. The facility that has been the center of this conspiracy in the railroad car factory in Oregon. The largest in the nation. many of my comments were from employees at that factory. Since you won't accept facts lets try logic.
Why are there no pictures? 102,000 box cars. 145′ each. That is 2800 miles worth of something to hide. Where are they hiding all these cars? We are talking about a line of cars that is lined up end-to-end would stretch farther than Los Angeles to Savannah and not a single photograph.
If the DHS was to hide these cars at 100 locations, they would have to find 280 miles of track for each of the 100 places. Certainly someone would have come across at least one of these cars and taken a photograph of the inside of it. Not a single photograph. (And I dont mean the stock bulls**t photos. I mean a clear photo of the inside of one or more of these cars).
Well, they are behind fences. Ok. We are talking about enough fence to cross America twice. At least 6,000+ miles of fence. The fence companies would have had a field day.
If the designers of this car gave each person three feet of space, each car would hold 300 people (which is a conservative estimate since only the outside of the cars would be used to chain people to). That would mean someone would have to weld 300 chains to hold the inhabitants if they were shackled on a single appendage. That is 30,000,000 welds. Where are all the people who have done the welding? I guess DHS kept them in concentration camps and then k**led them when they were done welding the shackles. One post said they used children to do the welding. I guess they were pretty good by the time they were done.
That is also 30,000,000 hand or foot cuffs. I guess GSA just bid that out to a firm is Bangor, Maine. Sure, they took the contract and didnt think twice about. OR it went out to a lot of small businesses under a secret contract. These businesses produced their hundreds of thousands of shackles and never thought twice about it. The people who work at these businesses did the work year in, year out and never thought twice about it. Odd, since they were shipping them to FEMA, or a shadow company under a secret contract. That is a lot of welding and a lot of manufacturing for no one to ever think that there is something odd about making millions of welds and millions of restraints.
I Washington, a place that cant keep a secret for ten minutes, this project with all its secret contracts really stayed, well secret!
Did Gunderson manufacture these cars? They must have used thousands of workers who were sworn to silence under pain of death. The thing is, last year Greenbrier (who owns Gunderson) delivered 15,000 rail vehicles of all types. At that rate they would have had to use all their output for 6.8 years to complete this phantom fleet of 102,000 rail cars. They would have had to own a secret facility to complete the manufacture of these rail cars. Since their manufacturing took a dive after 2009 (the recession) I would bet they would have liked the business. But I guess the Greenbrier 2012 Annual Report investor report is nothing but a government cover up (phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=98215&p=irol-irhome).
(Greenbrier Manufacturing Segment Report
Manufacturing revenue was $1.254 billion, $721.1 million and $295.6 million for the years ended August 31,2012, 2011 and 2010. Railcar deliveries, which are the primary source of manufacturing revenue, were 15,000 units in 2012 compared to 9,400 units in 2011 and 2,500 units in 2010. Manufacturing revenue increased $532.9 million, or 73.9%, in 2012 compared to 2011 primarily due to higher railcar deliveries as a result of increased demand and a higher per unit average selling price principally due to a change in product mix. Manufacturing revenue increased $425.5 million, or 144.0%, in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to higher railcar deliveries partially offset by a decline in marine barge activity and a change in railcar product mix with lower per unit sales prices.)
Let me make an estimate for the price of these cars. At $50,000 per car it would have cost FEMA 5.1 billion dollars. I guess Bush and Obama just handed that money over.
Also, if you t***sport 30,000,000 (oh, did I mention that 102,000 cars times 300 people per car equals 30 million or around 10% of the population) in shackles, you have to t***sport them naked. Why? Because you would have to have an army just for unchaining people who needed to defecate. So, they would have to be unclothed because they would need to go where they sit. Then, once they got to their destination, you would have to use precious water to hose down the cars. Also, you would not be able to t***sport in the winter areas during winter months. You would also have to keep track of their clothes (unless they were just going to stay naked or you were going to k**l them right after they got off the train).
These Americans DHS is going to t***sport. They arent going to be like the Holocaust victims. You put these people on a train filled with shackles and they KNOW what is going to happen. They arent going to stand idly by and walk to their deaths. That means there is going to be a lot of k*****g before and after the t***sportation. Remember Flight 93. So, you are going to need a lot of Americans who are willing to k**l women and children. Lots of them. What I hear from my right wing friends is the people who will fall in line will be people dependent on the government. That is a code for people of color. They are just animals anyway, so why wouldnt they be willing to k**l women and children to hold on to their food stamps and welfare?
When they t***sported arrive, I dont know what you would do with the people. They would be covered in s**t. Disease would be rampant. The guards would have to be wearing coveralls and using breathers. The stench would be beyond belief. Also, would they feed these people? Would they provide water? After a few days the guards would be carrying people out of the cars.
It would make more sense to simply use the cars as rolling jail cells and leave the t***sported loose and not chained down. The shackles dont make a bit of logistic sense.
But the people who dreamed this up thought the shackles would scare people more. Either way, the shackles make no sense at all. I mean if you are selling fear, chains make more noise.
Will DHS feed any of these people? You would need tons of food to move 30,000,000 people. How would you feed them? They would be chained down. I guess you could leave a pile of food at one and of each of the 3 floors and it would get passed around. But, since theres no way to use the bathroom, it would be easier to go without the food.
The next question is why do you want to move 30,000,000 at one time? That is close to the population of California (38 million in 2012). What are going to do, move them to Mexico and leave them there (thatll teach them for sending us millions of i******s)? Or will the DHS move 30,000,000 people somewhere and k**l them? Maybe that is why they need all those coffins (which arent really coffins even if you thought they are). You dont bury 30,000,000 people. You burn them.
Where are all the cars? 3,000 miles worth of cars
Where are they? There is not a single photograph of one of the inside of these cars. There is not a person who worked on them who has stepped forward. Every person in America has a digital camera on their person. Where are the photographs? And while I am at it, where are the photos of the guillotines that are on each of the cars? I mean they are making them in Asia and sending them (under secret contract) to the states for use on this 3,000 mile fleet of phantom rail cars.
Funny how there is so much of this (hundreds of thousands and miles and miles of proof out there) and all of it is secret and not a single person has produced a single shred of evidence that this fleet exists. Funny how I know people who have a answer for all of this. The answer doesnt make sense, but it is an answer from a patriot and that should be enough. It isnt. The thing isnt that this story is a lie. It is. The thing is why do God fearing Christians have so much invested in it being true?
You call yourselves patriots? You look like liars to me. This lie has been floating around since 2004. It is time for it to stop. A lie, is a lie, is a lie.
And this ladies and gentlemen, is a lie.
My position is that the 2nd amendment is not the avenue for gun ownership.
There is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun and there never was.
With the correct interpretation, the 14th amendment doesn't even enter into the picture. THE WORD PEOPLE REFERS TO THE STATE LIKE IN COURT PROCEDINGS, PEOPLE VS JOHN DOE. M*****A REFERS TO THE NATIONAL GUARD, PEOPLE REFERS TO THE STATE , A COLLECTIVE RIGHT WHICH IS WHERE THE GOVENOR GETS HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FORM A(M*****A) NATIONAL GUARD. THE PEOPLES(STATE) RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRIDGED TO ARM THE NATIONAL GUARD. A WELL REGULATED M*****A(NATIONAL GUARD)
If I ignored the 2nd paragraph as some state is because there is no 2nd paragraph. The 2nd amendment is only one sentence. A sentence by and large only has one meaning and starts out a well regulated m*****a which defines what the sentence is all about. The people in the m*****a have a right to possess arms in a well regulated m*****a. After the presidents impassioned call for gun control in his State of the Union, Tea Party favorite Sen. Rand Paul offered a rebuttal. We will not let the liberals tread on the Second Amendment, he insisted, repeating whats become the GOPs mantra: Obamas gun proposals infringe the Constitution. This refrain is profoundly misleadingnone of Obamas proposals is likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court. It should nonetheless serve as a reminder that gun-control advocates mistakenly continue to cede the constitutional arguments to the extremists.
Its time to take back the Second Amendment.
This is hardly a new observationits been made many times before, here and elsewhere, but it bears repeating because politicians like Senator Paul seem unwilling or unable to process its essential t***h.
For the past 30 years, the Second Amendment has been defined by the most radical elements of the gun-rights movement. They argue not only that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to own gunsa view that represents, in my view, the best understanding of our history and traditionbut, more importantly, that nearly any restriction on the manufacture, ownership, or use of firearms infringes this sacred right.
This radical vision of the Second Amendment is remarkable mainly for having so little basis in Supreme Court case law, the text of the Constitution, and American history.
In 2008 the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did secure the right of law-abiding, responsible adults to have handguns in their homes for protection. Yet the court went out of its way to acknowledge that most forms of gun regulation remain constitutionally permissible. Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, Justice Antonin Scalia, explained. In a sentence the NRA and many gun-rights extremists apparently missed, Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for wh**ever purpose.
Lets say that again: Justice Scalia, hero of the most int***sigent conservatives in the country, stated unequivocally that restrictions of Second Amendment rights are constitutional.
Indeed, Scalias opinion in Heller warned that nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on a wide range of gun laws, including bars on felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns, restrictions on guns in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. These categories capture the vast majority of gun laws in America.
In short, theres plenty of room under the Second Amendment for gun control.
In recognizing the legitimacy of many gun laws, the Supreme Court did no more than adhere to the text of the Second Amendment. In the part of the amendment that gun-rights absolutists usually ignore, the Founders extolled the importance of a well regulated M*****a. (For years, the NRAs headquarters displayed a sign promoting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, conveniently omitting the amendments opening clause.) Gun advocates are right that this language was not designed to limit the right to people serving in military organizations like the National Guard; the framers repeatedly said the m*****a was composed of we the people, ordinary citizens with our own guns. Yet its also clear that the framers thought that the people who make up the m*****a should be well regulatedtrained, disciplined, and properly instructed by the government to use arms effectively, safely, and properly.
The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that todays NRA leaders would never support them.
In other words, the American right to bear arms has always co-existed with gun regulation. The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that todays NRA leaders would never support them: broad bans on possession of firearms by people thought to be untrustworthy; m*****a laws that required people to appear at musters where the government would inspect their guns; safe-storage laws that made armed self-defense difficult; and even early forms of gun registration. The founders who wrote the Second Amendment did not think it was a libertarian license for anyone to have any gun anytime and anywhere they wanted.
And yet today, Second Amendment radicals like Rand Paul and NRA chief Wayne LaPierre blindly insist that Obamas gun proposals infringe on the Second Amendment. Apparently, they havent read Heller, or many of the approximately 400 federal court decisions since Heller on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun lawsand why would they? They know that if they did, theyd have to face the reality that the overwhelming majority of gun laws have been upheld.
All of the major provisions of Obamas gun agenda are likely to enjoy the same support. Universal background checks at the point of sale are exactly the type of law Justice Scalia accepted as legitimate: commercial sale conditions and qualifications designed to make it harder for felons and the mentally ill to buy guns. The Supreme Court also said that dangerous and unusual weapons, like machine guns, can be banned. Arguably, military-style rifles and high-capacity magazines fit this description.
Even if such weaponry is sufficiently commonplace to avoid being designated as unusual, restrictions on such weaponry do not substantially interfere with anyones ability to defend themselves. Thats exactly what a recent decision of a federal appeals court said, in an opinion written by Douglas Ginsburg, a judge known for his libertarian leanings who was nominated by Ronald Reagan to the Supreme Court.
Judge Ginsburg understands what the Second Amendment extremists dont. The Second Amendment, while securing an individual right to have guns for personal protection, is not offended by gun laws designed to make it harder for the most dangerous people to obtain the most dangerous weapons.
The Second Amendment is about both rights and regulation. This more nuanced view of the Second Amendmentwhich is grounded in Supreme Court jurisprudence, the text of the Constitution, and our established traditionsis one that gun-control advocates should embrace.
In the debate over gun control after Newtown Subject: Fw: THE NRA IS WRONG ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT-THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND THERE NEVER WAS
Subject: WILL SOMEONE CHALLENGE THE NRA ON THE PROPER INTERPERTATION OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT. MAYBE WOLF BLITZER OR ANDERSON COOPER
Subject: why does hardball(chris matthews) support the NRA's version of the 2nd amendment. as well as others at msnbc.Ed Shultz does have some promise of not taking the NRA line.
(Subject: Fw: there is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun and there never was. Does the NRA own MSNBC to.)
The 2nd amendment only has 27 words and is but one sentence. For the most part, a sentence has but one meaning which I believe to be the case with the 2nd amendment and it is clear what the subject matter is.
We didn't have a standing army during this period and the members of the state m*****a were permitted to have their rifles at home to be ready. The state were authorized under the 2nd amendment to maintain a well authorized m*****a. Today we call it the National Guard and the 1934 firearms act regulates fire arms and I believe the 10th and 14th in some respect gives one the right to protect their property. Its time we took the streets back from the NRA which hides behind the 2nd to promote unlimited gun use(violence). Interpret the 2nd as a military document as it is and let the NRA defend guns through the 1934 firearms actor other parts of the constitution, not the 2nd.
(A well-regulated m*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed)
Saul Cornell, believes this record of historical interpretation is false: "The original understanding of the Second Amendment was neither an individual right of self-defense nor a collective right of the states, but rather a civic right that guaranteed that citizens would be able to keep and bear those arms needed to meet their legal obligation to participate in a well-regulated m*****a."[33][106] David Thomas Konig ascribes to a similar viewpoint, writing: "No individual right existed unrelated to service in a well-regulated m*****a; no effective m*****a could serve its purpose without an armed citizenry." He also stated that the collective and individual right interpretations are really "products of present-day normative agendas that have polarized the debate into two competing and largely historical models."[107] Although the term civic right does not appear in Heller, Justice Stevens, in his dissent, agreed with the interpretation advanced by Uviller, Konig, and Cornell. Stevens opined that the Second Amendment protects a right that may be enforced by individuals. In contrast to the majority opinion, that individual right was defined by the Amendment preamble as the preservation of a m*****a. Stevens found that Aymette v. State, a case decided by the Tennessee Supreme Court in 1840, confirmed his view.
Garry Wills also cites Greek and Latin etymology:
... "Bear Arms" refers to military service, which is why the plural is used (based on Greek 'hopla pherein' and Latin 'arma ferre') one does not bear arm, or bear an arm. The word means, etymologically, 'equipment' (from the root ar-* in verbs like 'ararisko', to fit out). It refers to the 'equipage' of war. Thus 'bear arms' can be used of naval as well as artillery warfare, since the "profession of arms" refers to all military callings.[120]
Subject: Fw: there is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun and there never was. Does the NRA own MSNBC to.
IT REALLY BOTHERS ME WHEN I SEE MORE PROGRESSIVE HOST LIKE RACHEL, MATTHEWS, OBERMANN AND O'DONNELL EVERYTIME THE GUN CONTROL ISSUE COMES UP THEY AGREE WITH THE WEALTHY NRA THAT THE 2ND AMENDMENT PROTECTS GUN OWNERSHIP. NEVER ANY DEBATE, NO QUESTIONS, JUST GO ALONG WITH THE NRA POSITION. THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND THERE NEVER WAS. HAVE MARC RUBIN ON YOUR SHOW. HE CRAFTED THE PHRASE AND HAS WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ABOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND GUN CONTROL. THE 2ND AMENDMENT ONLY DEALS WITH THE NATIONAL GUARDS OF THE UNITED STATES. THE 1934 FIREARMS AND MAYBE THE 10TH AMEND TO SOME EXTENT DEALS WITH GUN CONTROL.[the protection clause] UNTIL WE SEPARATE THE TWO, THE NRA WILL CONTINUE TO ABUSE THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND PEOPLE ARE TO BUSY TO FIGURE IT OUT ON THEIR OWN , THE JUST LET THE LOBBYIST DO IT FOR THEM. I THOUGHT MAYBE MSNBC MIGHT BE DIFFERENT. IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT, JUST GOGGLE IN[ WHAT DID JEFFERSON SAY ABOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT] &a Subject: LETTER I SENT REP MCCARTHY AND REP KING ON GUN CONTROL
I SUPPORT YOUR EFFORTS IN BETTER GUN CONTROL. I HAVE WRITTEN 100'S OF LETTERS TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT THE 2ND AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GUN OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL. IT'S A MILITARY DOCUMENT SUPPORTING THE NATIONAL GUARDS OF PAST AND PRESENT. THERE ARE SOME PROTECTIONS I BELIEVE IN THE 6TH AND 10 AS WELL AS THE 1934 FIREARM ACT
Subject: THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND THERE NEVER WAS
THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND GUN CONTROL / OWNERSHIP
THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND THERE NEVER WAS. the supreme court republicans were simply wrong. you know any v**e in the court or congress that is partisan is just wrong. it was simply political thought not intelligent or informed thought
Subject: Fw: THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND GUN CONTROL / OWNERSHIP
ATTN SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES [INFO THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IN THE FUTURE]
Subject: THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND GUN CONTROL/OWNERSHIP
Subject: THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND THERE NEVER WAS
No Virginia There is No Constitutional Right to Own a Gun[ MAYBE THE FACTS WILL HELP YOU IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THE FACTS] THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND THERE NEVER WAS. BY MARC RUBIN
Published by:
Marc Rubin
View Profile | Follow | Add to Favorites
More:FloridaIndonesiaTokyoCasey JamesGang StarrCeltics
There was a demonstration in Virginia over the weekend consisting of gun owners demonstrating for what or against what no one really knew and maybe they didn't either. But it probably had to do with a second amendment right for them to own guns that doesn't exist. And never did.
If there is one thing both conservatives, many Democrats and most journalists have in common its their constitutional ignorance of the second amendment and their false belief that the second amendment has anything to do with an individual's right to own a gun.
It doesn't and it never did.
But to listen to Obama, and many Democrats and liberals like Ed Schultz the other night on MSNBC, along with conservatives, they assume they know what the amendment means, assume it gives individuals the right to own guns, and as is the case with so many mistaken assumptions made in America, they are all wrong.
How do we know? Let us count the ways. First, there has never been one single Supreme Court ruling that has held the Second Amendment gives people the right to own guns ( "Heller", which many advocates like to quote, actually skirted the entire issue and focused instead on the status of the District of Columbia as not being a state and ducked on the whole question of the second amendment and states rights). You would think with all the controversy surrounding guns that somewhere along the line there would have been a case or a challenge where the Supreme Court addressed the issue, but there has never been an affirmation of the Second Amendment applying to individuals. Ever.
"Guns in America" clearly points this out when it says:
The public debate over the meaning of those words ( the Second Amendment) has raged for decades, but the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the Second Amendment since 1939, in a case called U.S. v. Miller. The 25 paragraphs of that unanimous ruling have been regarded by lower federal courts as a definitive decision that the Second Amendment was designed to preserve state m*****as, not to give individuals an absolute right to keep and bear arms. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reality of this is that any state can pass any gun law they wish, banning, restricting, taxing, guns ammo, anything, and they do. That is irrefutable. Its there for all to see. The 2nd amendment does not prevent any state from passing any gun laws they wish. That is irrefutable because these laws are on the books
THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND THERE NEVER WAS [WHAT DID JEFFERSON SAY 1801-1808]
Taking On Gun Control
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson
A Well-Organized and Armed M*****a
"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed m*****a is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the m*****a and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of pr********n in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
--Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson, 1803.
"It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.
"A well-disciplined m*****a, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
"[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the m*****a of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.
"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a m*****a. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND THERE NEVER WAS
Glen Walters <gewweg4000@yahoo.com> Add to Contacts
To: frogiehermit@yahoo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ATTENTION ]ALL SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. I BELIEVE THIS ARTICLE IS A MUST READ BEFORE ANY DECISION IS MADE OF THE 2 ND AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM Forwarded Message -
From: Glen Walters
Subject: THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND THERE NEVER WAS
Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment Theres been a lot in the news lately about the Obama Justice Department supposedly wanting to take away peoples 2nd amendment rights. And the issue of illegal guns going to Mexico and contributing to the gang violence has brought up discussions as to whether actions proposed by the Justice Department might be violating 2nd amendment rights. Obama in his recent press conference with the President of Mexico, in answer to a question about banning assault weapons said he thought they could do it and still respect the 2nd amendment right to bear arms.
And just the other day the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case involving Alameda County in California that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals.They were wrong.
Every so often the discussion of the 2nd amendment crops up as its doing now and the same people make the same mistake and show the same ignorance regarding the 2nd amendment.
Publicly there are few politicians or people in the news media well versed enough in the Constitution to get it straight. That and the fact that most of them are afraid of getting a lot of angry letters from people who dont want to hear that t***h or politicians who are afraid that speaking the t***h will cost them v**es and typically politicians and journalists always take the cowards way out. But the plain t***h is, once and for all, the 2nd amendment has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with an individuals right to own a gun. And never did. There is no Constitutional right to own a gun.And there never was.
Not that Im a proponent of confiscating peoples guns. Or banning them. Im not. There is not a shred of evidence anywhere to show that guns owned and registered by law abiding citizens are any threat at all to the public welfare and most statistics prove it. Drunk drivers are literally hundreds of thousands of times more dangerous and more of a threat to public safety than anyone legally owning a gun. But for gun enthusiasts and politicians to keep trying to hide behind the 2nd amendment doesnt do anyone any good. It just promotes the kind of dishonesty as well as public ignorance and pandering by politicians that most citizens are tired of. It also shows an unwillingness by politicians and the press to simply be honest.
Wh**ever laws we have in this country governing guns is and always has been the result of political will and acts of congress, not the 2nd amendment. This is why the NRA has a very effective lobbying effort. If the 2nd amendment had anything to do with an individuals right to own a gun they wouldnt need lobbyists and would save a lot of money. But political will is also why Congress will never pass a law banning individual ownership of guns. There is no political will by any political majority to do so and probably never will be.
The fact that Obama agrees with a 2nd Amendment right to own a gun just shows again, how either Constitutionally ignorant or willfully ignorant politicians can be, which is an utter disgrace considering their position. As far as most citizens are concerned, they simply believe what they read or what they are told. Its not up to them to be researching the Constitution to learn what it really means, but it is up to someone like the President and other members of Congress who swears to uphold and defend it to know what they are talking about. Which they clearly dont.
People ignorant of the Constitution which unfortunately includes the President, along with many members of Congress and the press, seem to refuse to read the 2nd amendment as it was written. And to acknowledge that the Constitution and the people who wrote it and founded this country were the greatest collection of geniuses in the principles of self government this country ever had at one time in one place. When you acknowledge that, then you take the words they wrote and argued over, debated and ratified in the Constitution seriously. And you dont try to pretend they mean something they were never intended to mean to suit your purposes. They knew what they were doing. They knew what they were saying. And they knew what every word of that amendment meant ( as well as everything else in the Constitution). And every word in the 2nd amendment means the same thing today that it meant in 1789 and in all the years in between.
The fact that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with an individuals right to own a gun is not a secret. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, Chief Justice during Nixons term wrote that the idea that the 2nd amendment has anything whatsoever to do with an individuals right to own a gun is the biggest Constitutional h**x ever perpetrated on the American people.
And if you dont want to take Burgers word for it, there is one other important group that knows the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun. The NRA knows it. More about that later.
There is a philosophical approach in applying the constitution that ironically enough is the conservative approach and its called original intent. Where the original intent of the framers is known and is clear, where their words and what they meant and intended are clear, there can be no other interpretation of a particular clause, provision, article or amendment other than what the framers meant and intended. Nowhere is that clearer than in the second amendment. And while there are many, many ways to prove the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with an individuals right to own a gun (all of which I will provide), all it really takes to understand the amendment is what you were taught by Mrs. Applecheeks, your 4th grade English teacher when you learned how to conjugate a sentence with a subject and a predicate.
But the first thing you need to know about the 2nd amendment is something very few people know: it was written,rewritten and revised 7 times. Thats right, 7 times. There were 7 versions of the 2nd amendment, and they are all available to be seen in the Library of Congress.
The 2nd amendment is only one sentence yet the Founders took the time to debate every word.and revise it seven times. And so, as a result of their debates and a desire to be abundantly clear, they changed a word here, another one there, added and deleted, until they arrived at the final version, to make sure its meaning was crystal clear and would endure. And so as a result of their debates they revised it seven times until there was unanimity. They did not rewrite it seven times so people could pick and choose what words they wanted to hear and ignore the rest. Or make them mean what they wish they meant.So keep in mind that every single word was important to the Framers and what they intended. Every word.
The amendment reads: A well regulated m*****a being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Read the whole sentence not just part of it and go back to your fourth grade English class and how to conjugate a sentence.The subject of that sentence, and therefore the amendment, is a well regulated m*****a not the right to bear arms. The subject is the m*****a and the modifier is necessary to the security of a free state which is the purpose of the amendment.
The 2nd amendment is about giving the states an absolute right to have their own armed m*****as which today has been t***sformed into the National Guard.It also guarantees that the states have the right to have the same weapons as a federal army, a right in existence today and has always been, since the National Guard of every state does have most of the same weapons that the Federal army has. National Guard units have tanks, they have fighter jets. They have bombers.And its why National Guard units have been fighting in Iraq since 2002. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the states to have them. It is also what allowed the states of the Confederacy to have the weapons to fight a Civil War.
If you think the amendment gives an individual the right to have those weapons try putting a tank in your backyard.And keep in mind the entire amendment wasnt written so that it could be diced and sliced with words ignored to suit someones purpose. The amendment means what it says.
The next line refers to the right of the people
.
For those who dont know there are two types of rights enumerated in the Constitution, states rights and individual rights. As any Constitutional scholar will tell you, when the Framers were referring to a states right they used the term the people:. When they were referring to an individual right, they used the word person.The 5th amendment is a good example. It begins with the words, No person shall
and lays out guarantees, among them, double jeopardy and that no person in a criminal case shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Once you understand who the Framers are referring to when they say the people, which is a collective for the individual states, and not referring to an individual right, its time to deal with the most misused and misunderstood part of the 2nd amendment the words to keep and bear arms.
Unfortunately for President Obama, Lou Dobbs, Joe Lieberman and others in congress and the media who badly and ignorantly misuse the phrase, to keep and bear arms doesnt mean the right of an individual to own a gun.At least not in terms of the Framers intended with the 2nd amendment. It doesnt mean the right to go hunting or take target practice or to shoot an intruder. It has nothing to do with an individuals right of self-defense (though it doesnt speak against it either). And it didnt mean the right to strut down the middle of Dodge City wearing six guns. If it did Wyatt Earp wouldnt have been able to arrest anyone who did and confiscate their guns because Earp banned them from Dodge City and no one ever accused Wyatt Earp of violating the Constitution.
First the term arms meant something very specific to the Framers who wrote the 2nd amendment in 1789 and it meant the same thing to them as it means now and that it has meant all through history.
The word arms in the 2nd amendment means one thing and only one thing. And it doesnt mean the right to have a gun you have in your house. It means weapons of war. Military weapons of war.
The right to keep and bear arms means that the Constitution is guaranteeing the states not only the right to have their own m*****as or military, but the right to keep their own weapons of war. Arms didnt just mean guns. It meant cannon. It meant swords and bayonets, cannon balls, powder, even war ships. Arms meant anything that could be used as a weapon of war. And it guaranteed the right of the individual states to have any weapons they wished, including the same military weapons as the Federal army. That guarantee is made clear in the last clause. As everyone knows there is a big difference between someone who owns a gun store and someone who is an arms dealer.And arms dealer is in the business of selling military weapons.
But the meaning of the word arms isnt the only thing in the 2nd amendment that people get wrong. They also dont know the meaning of the term to bear arms which also had a very specific meaning to the Framers in 1789.
To bear arms didnt mean to show them off. It didnt mean to go hunting or to use them to defend against a burglar despite what Lou Dobbs,President Obama and some Constitutionally challenged Congressmen think. To bear arms meant only one thing to the Framers It meant to go to war.
The Founding Fathers in the 2nd amendment guaranteed the right of the individual states not only the means but the right to go to war and defend themselves both against the possibility of a future President deciding to become a tyrant and using military force to give himself dictatorial powers, or to defend themselves against a foreign enemy that might invade the shores of New York, Massachusetts, or New Jersey. It guaranteed that the states had both the means ( the right to keep
) and to use them, (to bear arms,)to defend themselves without having to depend on a Federal Army to do it for them or against a Federal army itself if that became necessary to the security of a free state.
If the Founding Fathers had intended the 2nd amendment to be about the right of an individual to own a gun they would have said so.And they didnt.
The final clause could be the most important because it impacts every gun law on the books. The clause says the right granted in the 2nd amendment shall not be infringed.
..shall not be infringed means just that. It doesnt mean shall not be infringed except sometimes..: or shall not be infringed unless we want it to be, or shall not be infringed unless we decide there is a good reason to infringe upon it. It means the right granted in the 2nd amendment cannot be diminished, restricted, reduced, or encroached upon in even the smallest way.
We all know what fringe means and where the fringe is on the outer edges of something. And the amendment makes clear you cant encroach upon the right granted in the 2nd amendment even there, on the fringe.
The 2nd amendment is only about a states right to have its own army and for that army to have any weapons it chooses, and that the Federal government cannot interfere with that right in any way. And that has been the case since 1789.It has never applied to an individual.And was never intended to.
If the 2nd amendment had anything to do with an individuals right to own a gun,the clause. shall not be infringed would make every single gun law on the books, and any restriction of any kind unconstitutional. The NRA knows this and knows both the infringement clause and the entire amendment has nothing to do with an individuals right to own a gun. Otherwise they would have challenged gun laws a long time ago on the grounds they violated the infringement clause of the 2nd amendment.
New York citys concealed weapon law is a perfect example. You cannot carry a concealed gun in New York city unless you are issued a permit by the police department. Just the requiring of a permit would certainly be an infringement of a 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms according to the Constitution if it related to individuals. But even more than that, 90% of the people who apply for the permit get rejected. You dont get the permit unless the police department decides you can have one. And they decide most cant.
That doesnt sound like a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms that hasnt been infringed upon to me. And no one knows this better than New York Giants former star receiver Plaxico Burress who is was arrested, arraigned and is now looking at a 3 year mandatory jail sentence for accidentally shooting himself in the leg with a concealed hand gun he was carrying without a permit. Burress certainly has the financial means to challenge the law on Constitutional grounds and he certainly has the money to pay good lawyers but no one has even remotely suggested that they will challenge the New York City law on 2nd amendment grounds or that the law is a violation of the infringement clause. And for good reason. They would lose.
So the NRA and their very smart lawyers have never brought suit against any state or municipality or against the Federal government challenging any restrictive gun law on the grounds that its unconstitutional and violates the rights granted in the 2nd amendment or the infringement clause in particular.
And if you are thinking what about the DC gun ban and the Supreme Court decision, even before it had been decided, constitutional experts and lawyers knew it had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment because DC is a special case and wh**ever the Supreme Court decision was going to be, it wouldnbt impact the 2nd amendment debate. DC is not a state. DC is essentially funded by Congress. They dont even have a say in the e******n of the President. They stand outside anything that refers to states rights in the Constitution because it is not a state and the 2nd amendment is a states right issue, not an individual rights issue. The DC ban against hand guns ( which Obama was for before he was against) didnt decide any 2nd amendment issues.
The last thing to keep in mind with regards to original intent, is to understand America in 1789 which is something Justices do when they are deciding a constitutional issue where the legislative history isnt known.They take everything into account to try and ascertain the intent of the Framers and the context in which the Constitution was written.
America in 1789 was 90% rural. And in 1789 America just about everyone in the Colonies owned a firearm.They used them to hunt. They used them to defend themselves against Indian attacks. They were a tool as basic to American life in 1789 as a lawnmower is now to the suburbs.
Owning a gun in 1789 America was common. It wasnt controversial. And you can be sure that the greatest minds in self government the country ever had didnt spend all that time debating and rewriting an amendment 7 times that gave people the right to own a lawnmower.
Again, this has nothing to do with taking away peoples guns. There is no reason to. The problem in this country isnt guns owned by law abiding citizens, its illegal guns that do the damage and laws need to be passed to address that, not restrictions on citizens who obey the gun laws already on the books.There should be some mandatory gun training on how to use a gun for anyone who wants one, just the way you have to pass a drivers test to get a license to drive to cut down on accidents and other public safety issues. But the gun problem in America is illegal guns.
And an illegal gun means just one thing a stolen gun or a gun obtained fraudulently.
There should be laws requiring a gun owner to report a lost or stolen gun within 24 hours to local law enforcement and any gun owner who has a gun lost or stolen twice in a year should have their licenses revoked. Mandatory security measures for gun dealers and shops could also be initiated to cut down the frequency of stolen guns.And additional jail time, stiff jail time should be imposed on anyone in possession of an illegal gun.
If politicians who are Constitutionally challenged would stop misusing phrases like to keep and bear arms, clearly not having the slightest idea of what the clause really means,and what the Framers were talking about, maybe more time would be spent dealing with the real problems posed by illegal guns instead of hiding behind the charade of what they think the 2nd amendment means.
As far as the recent decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Alameda County in California, that ruling should come as no surprise. And it is not definitive. The 9th Circuit is the most liberal court in the country and only the most liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment, one that completely disregards the original intent of the Framers and what the words actually mean, could choose to give the term to keep and bear arms such a broad meaning and one completely unintended by the Framers. In fact the only way to apply the words in the 2nd amendment to an individual is to completely disregard what the words were intended to accomplish, which is what conservatives usually complain is legislating from the bench.
There is talk of appealing the 9th Circuits ruling to the Supreme Court. But anyone can challenge any gun law in the United States as being unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates both the second amendment and specifically the infringement clause if they think the 2nd amendment applies to individuals.
They can start with New York Citys concealed gun law. If they are right, the law will be struck down and every gun law in the U.S. will get struck down with it and the matter would be settled once and for all. And if not then the country can move on and focus on the real problem which is illegal guns.
Copyright 2009 Marc Rubin
ShareThis
THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS ONLY ONE SENTENCE. I WAS TAUGHT A SENTENCE STARTS WITH A CAPITAL LETTER AND ENDS WITH A PERIOD,? OR! AND HAS ONLY ONE MEANING. THE WORDS M*****A AND ARMS DESCRIBE IT AS A MILITARY DOCUMENT. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DIDNT WANT TO HAVE A STANDING ARMY, SO THEY WROTE A DOCUMENT GIVING THE STATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COMMAND A M*****A AND THAT MEMBERS COULD KEEP THEIR ARMS AT HOME ,RIFLES/CANONS ETC, BECAUSE THEY DIDNT HAVE ARMORIES LIKE THEY DO TODAY. I BELIEVE THAT THE NATIONAL GUARD TODAYIS PROTECTED FROM INFRINGEMENT BY THE CONGRESS BUT THE PRESIDENT CAN FEDERALIZE IN CASE OF EMERGENCIES. THE NRA HAS CAUSED MILLIONS TO BE K**LED BECAUSE OF THE MILLIONS THEY HAVE SPENT LOBBING FOR A GUN CONTROL OR LACK OF GUN CONTROL INTERPRETATION. THE 1934 FIREARMS ACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE VEHICLE FOR GUN CONTROL.. IT MAKES YOU WONDER WHY THE FIGHT ON THE NRA S PART. I GUESS ITS A WAY TO MAKE
MONEY.
The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns The Second Amendment. This topic has a home directly in the Constitution, at the 2nd Amendment.
A great source of information for this topic came from Origins of the Bill of Rights (Yale Nota Bene, 2001) by Leonard W. Levy. The 2nd Amendment page at the Government Printing Office Site is also of considerable use.
Historical context
Todays debate
Recent developments
A proposed amendment
Further information
Documentary History
Historical context
The 2nd Amendment, starting in the latter half of the 20th century, became an object of much debate. Concerned with rising violence in society and the role firearms play in that violence, gun control advocates began to read the 2nd Amendment one way. On the other side, firearm enthusiasts saw the attacks on gun ownership as attacks on freedom, and defended their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment just as fiercely. If the authors of the 2nd Amendment could have foreseen the debate, they might have phrased the amendment differently, because much of the debate has centered around the way the amendment is phrased.
Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state m*****as as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individuals right to own a firearm?
Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, Yes. The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790s than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state m*****as, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, m*****as were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.
Today, the state m*****as have evolved into the National Guard in every state. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government. No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation (though the US Code does still recognize the unorganized m*****a as an entity, and state laws vary on the subject [10 USC 311]).
This is in great contrast to the way things were at the time of adoption of the 2nd Amendment. Many state constitutions had a right to bear arms for the purposes of the maintenance of the m*****a. Many had laws that required men of age to own a gun and supplies, including powder and bullets.
In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independence, the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The Articles of Confederation specified that the states should maintain their m*****as, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, though it mentioned the m*****a, did not mention a right to bear arms the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for m*****amen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the m*****a (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized m*****a). One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the m*****as, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the
Articles. Finally, Madisons original proposal for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.
Perhaps in the 1780s, the rise of a tyrant to a leadership position in the U.S. was a cause for concern. Today, in my opinion, the v**ers are much too sophisticated to elect a leader whose stated aims would be to suppress freedom or declare martial law. For the leader whose unstated aim it was to seize the nation, the task would be more than daunting it would be next to impossible. The size and scope of the conspiracy needed, the cooperation of patriots who would see right through such a plan it is unfathomable, the stuff of fiction. There are some who fear the rise in executive power under the second Bush presidency is just such a usurpation, and in some ways it may be. But similar usurpations of power by the Congress and the President, such as the Alien and S******n Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, or the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, were all eventually overturned or struck down and then
condemned by history. My hope is that history can be our guide this time, too.
The defense of our borders had not been a cause for concern for nearly a century before the subject really came up again around the time of the turn of the millennium, in 1999. Concern with border defense again became an issue after September 11, 2001, when a series of terrorist attacks, both in the form of hijacked airliners crashing into buildings and anthrax-laced mail, made people realize that we do have enemies that wish to invade our nation, though not on the scale of an army. But while each state has its National Guard it can call up to guard the borders, the coordination needed is much more on a national scale, and special units of the regular army or border patrol are better suited for such duty than the Guard.
Todays debate
With the historical context set above, a look at the current interpretations of the 2nd Amendment are appropriate.
These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own m*****as. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or unrestrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.
The Supreme Court, in permitting the United States to apply a stamp tax to sawed-off shotguns (a move, it was argued, that was intended to make such weapons de facto illegal), essentially said that if a weapon does not contribute to the maintenance of a m*****a, and has no use in ensuring the common defense, it can be regulated (United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 [1939]). Though the outcome of Miller was never fully resolved (the Court asked that Miller prove the relevance of the sawed-off shotgun to the maintenance of the m*****a, but Jack Miller died before he could, and the case died with him), the rationale used in Miller has been the basis for all gun control laws since 1939. As the GPO page notes, At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.
Both contemporary interpretations are correct, in a way. As illustrated in the first section, the amendment does appear to have been designed to protect the m*****as, and it was also designed to protect an individuals right to own and bear a gun. The question, then, is do we have to adhere to both tenets of the amendment today? If we decide to do away with the individual ownership aspect of the Amendment, reinterpreting the amendment to allow highly restricted gun ownership, we seem to open the door to radical reinterpretation of other, more basic parts of the Constitution. If we decide to do nothing, and allow unrestricted gun ownership, we run the risk of creating a society of the gun, a risk that seems too great to take. So the real question seems to be, can we have the a constitutional freedom to bear arms, and still allow restriction and regulation?
Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as weve done with much of the Constitution. After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say wh**ever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout Fire! in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution? Of course, prosecution for speech violations only take place after the fact, and regulation of gun ownership is necessarily different it is a prior restraint, a condition rarely allowed in speech restrictions, but necessary in gun restrictions.
The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation, between unreasonable unfettered ownership and unreasonable prior restraint. Gun ownership is indeed a right but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise.
Recent developments
In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the case of Parker v District of Columbia. In the case, the court ruled that D.C. laws that essentially prohibit the private ownership of handguns within the District, were unconstitutional. Specifically, the appellants, residents of D.C., were denied their 2nd Amendment rights by laws that bar the registration of handguns by anyone except retired D.C. police officers; that bar the carrying of a pistol without a license, even within ones home; and that require that lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled unless used for lawful recreational purposes.
The Court found that in spite of the first part of the 2nd Amendment that which refers to the m*****a the Second Amendments premise is that guns would be kept by citizens for self-protection (and hunting). The court acknowledged the history the m*****a played in the creation of the 2nd Amendment, but did not allow the m*****a to be sole measure to be viewed when looking at these laws restricting gun ownership and reasonable use. Parker, the court ruled, should be allowed to keep handguns in his home.
The case, filed as District of Columbia v Heller, was granted certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, and was heard in March, 2008. At issue were two questions. The first, raised by the District, is whether the District is forbidden by the Second Amendment to ban the possession of handguns while allowing the possession of rifles and shotguns. The second, broader issue is raised by Heller (another of the original petitioners in the Parker case): whether the Second guarantees that guns, including handguns, can be kept in homes by law-abiding citizens. The Court decided that the issue it should hear is Whether the [D.C. laws] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated m*****a, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
The Supreme Court ruled on the Heller case at the end of its term in June, 2008. The Court, which found for Heller in a close 5-4 decision, wrote that the 2nd Amendment did, in fact, protect an individual right. While the court was careful to note that the case did not call into question any laws that regulate guns, it did state, unequivocally, that Heller and his fellow petitioners had a right to own guns in their home. The Court also ruled that while reasonable regulation may be permitted, the requirement that guns be locked and disassembled was not reasonable. The Court finally noted that its ruling affected only the District of Columbia, as a federal enclave. It is expected that the laws of other cities, like Chicago, will be challenged so that the Court can examine the applicability of the 2nd to the rest of the nation.
A proposed amendment
Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a m*****a is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This proposed text is offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic.
Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.
Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds v**e of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.
This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. Because reasonableness can be far too elastic, the two-Congress restriction requires that two Congresses in a row pass the same bill this allows both thoughtful reflection and for the opinions of the people, to be expressed between these v**es, to be heard (both at the b****t box and in general). It is an unusual, but not unprecedented, way of passing legislation. Finally, the courts would have the ultimate authority in determining if a restriction is not reasonable, providing a final layer of protection (after the two pairs of debate in the House and Senate and the Presidents own agreement). The m*****a is removed from the equation, greatly clarifying the purpose of the amendment.
Historical note: in Section 2, the collecting clause was added, and Section 3 is a replacement for The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation after concerns over reasonableness were examined more fully.
Futher information
For further research, here are some links on both sides of the issue. Please note that these sites are outside the control of this site, and broken links may arise. Please contact the Webmaster if you do notice any broken links.
The NRA:
Our 2nd Amendment: The Original Perspective
Federal Court Cases Regarding The Second Amendment
Firearm Facts
Guarantees of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms In State Constitutions
The Founders, Not the NRA, Originated the Myth of the People Armed and Free
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:
M*****as Misinterpret Constitution
The Second Amendment Myth and Meaning
Exploding the NRAs Second Amendment Mythology
The Right to be armed: A Constitutional Illusion
The Second Amendment in the Twentieth Century
And from other sources:
What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment from the Independence Institute
Commonplace Or Anachronism from The Potowmack Institute
The High Road, a pro-gun message board for discussion and debate
Documentary history
It is often useful to not only try to interpret what the words of a part of the Constitution mean today, but also to see what they meant in the past. Proponents of the Original Intent method of interpretation always use the original meaning when looking at the Constitution. But even those who do not adhere to Original Intent still find the documentary history to be useful.
What follows are mentions of the right to bear arms in the documents leading up to the codification of the 2nd Amendment. Most are referenced on this site or others. Those that are not are t***scribed from the publication The Bill of Rights (National Archives and Records Administration, 1980).
From the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776): That a well regulated m*****a, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state
From the Vermont Constitution (1777): That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State
From the Articles of Confederation (1781):
every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined m*****a, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
From the New Hampshire Ratification Document (1788): Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual r*******n.
From the Virginia Ratification Document (1788): That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated m*****a composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state
That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.
From the New York Ratification Document (1788): That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated m*****a, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
From Madisons Introduction of the Bill of Rights (1789): The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated m*****a being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
From the Report of the House Committee of Eleven (1789): A well regulated m*****a, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
From the amendments as passed by the House (1789): A well regulated m*****a, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
From the amendments as passed by the Senate (1789): A well regulated m*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
From the Rhode Island Ratification Document (1790): That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated m*****a, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state