General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow is Meatloaf's 'I'd Do Anything for Love' like the 2nd Amendment?
(But I won't do that)
So what is that? Its the line before every chorus, explained Loaf. Theres nine of them, I think.
The problem lies because Jimmy likes to write, so you forget what the line was before you get to I wont do that.'
(Some of the things the song says he wont do: forget the way you feel right now; forgive himself if you dont go all the way tonight; do it better than he does it with you, so long; and stop dreaming of you every night of his life.)
On the other hand.....................
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.
What happened to the first part?!
The 2nd amendment is one of, if not the most, debated Amendments in the United States Constitution. Most noteworthy, until the late 1960s, restrictions on the 2nd Amendment were not questioned. The NRA itself, in the early 20th Century, not only favored restrictions they publicly announced them. The completely changed their tune in the late 1960s.
The Amendment has actually been changed in the past 20 years. Those that fully support the Amendment have erased the first part from the collective memory.
Think about it, when you hear someone (that fully supports this right) quote the Amendment, they only include
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
Every so often they will throw in the last part about infringed when they are trying to make a point. They rarely, if ever, mention the very first part that includes the very important phrase A well regulated Militia. They do this for a very good reason. It completely destroys their argument that every man and woman in the United States has a right to own a gun.
The simple reason for this is because the 2nd Amendment does not actually give citizens a right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment guarantees a citizen the right to bear arms if they serve in a militia. It is right there in the Amendment.
Take a look at the Bill of Rights for a moment. One theme that should pop out to you is that the language in the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments is not vague. To put it another way the wording is not confusing. Every part of the Amendments is laid out in such a way that is easy to understand. Except, somehow, the 2nd Amendment.
This is the main reason why I do not believe that the Amendment is left vague or confusing. It is really simple and straightforward.
Let me re-arrange the wording to help out:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms for a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.
Does it make more sense now? Despite the NRAs attempts, the two sections of the Amendment are not meant to be separated, 'cause linguistics. If the Founders had wanted the two sections to work independently of each other they would have included a very important word. And. Take a look.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, AND, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
trc
(823 posts)But, as it is written, it does not. A well regulated militia is not a requirement of the right to keep and bear arms, it is just an excuse, an example of why citizens are allowed to own weapons. The 2nd amendment is still not fully incorporated to the state level and at the federal level is not absolute. The battle needs to be fought about the addons to weapons, not necessarily the weapons. Fight the legality of "bump stocks", silencers and even ammunition. You may keep and bear arms but that does not mean you have a constitutional right to unlimited ammo, clips, and addons to make a weapon into an instrument of war.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)The people have the right to arms, because well-regulated militias composed of those people are required to keep us free.
All bets are off when the people decide they no longer want the responsibility and duty to serve. When they don't want to arm themselves, and/or to muster. When they decide huge standing armies are wonderful, and not a threat to freedom.
Time was when a central govt was not trusted to have the uncontrolled power over the militias (and so the people) and their arms.
Maybe trying to reinterpret a law written for a time 230 years ago when everyone knew what a militia was, and their vital role in it, is not the way to go forward.