The words "to bear arms" is a military term
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: The words "to bear arms" is a military term

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088

    The words "to bear arms" is a military term

    First let’s look at the Second Amendment
    “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.”


    Historically speaking it has always been used as a military term as in military grade weapons. This study is original historical research and analysis prepared for the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson
    Figurative v. Literal Usage
    "Figurative" and "literal" grammatical and rhetorical terms need some explanation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, which bases its definitions on historical usage since the 12th century and provides historical examples for the major variations in usage, a literal meaning is one in which is "free from figures of speech, exaggeration, or allusion;" that is, one that is used in its literal sense. For example, to "carry arms" in its literal sense means to transport or convey weapons from one place to another. On the other hand, a figurative meaning is one "based on, or involving the use of, figures [of speech] or metaphors; metaphorical, not literal. For example, to "deliver up arms" was a figurative expression for disarming a defeated enemy, often on the field of battle, but only in the broadest sense is the concept of delivering or transferring weapons from the custody of the defeated forces to that of the victors of significance to the meaning of the overall expression.
    Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...

  2.   
  3. #2
    handgonnetoter Guest
    Listen, these anti-gun people are going to try to tear apart the 2nd Amendment a thousand different ways. To me I see one thing. THE PEOPLE! We are those people, and we have the right to keep and bear arms.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by handgonnetoter View Post
    Listen, these anti-gun people are going to try to tear apart the 2nd Amendment a thousand different ways. To me I see one thing. THE PEOPLE! We are those people, and we have the right to keep and bear arms.
    It's a military term, and is talking about military grade weapons. Which means the people have the right to own military style weapons. You know the kind those black mean looking rifle's

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    The framers of the US Constitution and it's origanal amendments were written by simple people and in simple english. It's real easy, now that those people are dead, for the oposition to skew what their intent was. You will notice that the left will never question any part of the constitution that fits their agenda. Shall not be infringed, means just that period. As far as the people having military weapons, that is exactly what they had at the time the constituiton was written.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by handgonnetoter View Post
    Listen, these anti-gun people are going to try to tear apart the 2nd Amendment a thousand different ways. To me I see one thing. THE PEOPLE! We are those people, and we have the right to keep and bear arms.
    Absolutely,

    also, the second amendment is in the BILL OF RIGHTS. Citizen's rights, nuff said.

    Collective right my ass!

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    OK let's start with the words of the second amendment.

    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.
    First lets look at the words keep and bear Arms. Historically speaking it has always been used as a military term as in military grade weapons.

    17th AND 18th-CENTURY DEFINITIONS OF "BEAR ARMS"
    • 1665: "to bear Armes or wage war by sea or Land."(111)

    • 1669: "to bear arms, and serve as soldiers."(112)

    • 1676: "to beare armes in martiall or millitary manner."(113)

    • 1730: "to bear Arms, or learn or exercise himself in the Art of War."(114)

    • 1731: "bearing arms or attending musters and training."(115)

    • 1755: "the bearing of arms or Military Service."(116)


    • 1775: "bear Arms, nor be concerned in warlike Preparations."(117)

    • 1775: "bearing arms in the militia."(118)

    • 1780: "Bairing Arms or Doing Duty" in the militia.(119)

    • 1787: "principled against fighting or bearing arms."(120)
    Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...
    Now who is the militia?
    George Mason the Father of the Bill of Rights said
    "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people"

    Next let’s look at the words well regulated
    the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

    They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

    because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."
    U.S. Code governs what a militia is
    10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes

    (b) The classes of the militia are -
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
    and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
    the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
    Naval Militia.


    Plus U.S. vs. Miller ruled that a weapon had to be a military grade weapon to be protected by the second amendment it had to be of military use and the kind in common use at the time.



    Conclusion:
    No. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed- off double barrel shotgun. With Justice James Clark McReynolds writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that because the possession of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.
    United States v. Miller, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument

    The Court also added

    The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
    U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

    Lastly the militia was not totally controlled by congress.

    the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

    They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

    because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    The framers of the US Constitution and it's origanal amendments were written by simple people and in simple english. It's real easy, now that those people are dead, for the oposition to skew what their intent was. You will notice that the left will never question any part of the constitution that fits their agenda. Shall not be infringed, means just that period. As far as the people having military weapons, that is exactly what they had at the time the constituiton was written.
    It's just like how if you read article 1 section 8 of the constitution you will not find a clause giving congress the power "To regulate marriage, acts of sexual intercourse, and reproduction." That clause isn't in the constitution.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Quote Originally Posted by G50AE View Post
    It's just like how if you read article 1 section 8 of the constitution you will not find a clause giving congress the power "To regulate marriage, acts of sexual intercourse, and reproduction." That clause isn't in the constitution.
    Ok I get it, that hasn't stopped the government from regulating as they see fit.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  10. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    The framers of the US Constitution and it's origanal amendments were written by simple people and in simple english. It's real easy, now that those people are dead, for the oposition to skew what their intent was. You will notice that the left will never question any part of the constitution that fits their agenda. Shall not be infringed, means just that period. As far as the people having military weapons, that is exactly what they had at the time the constituiton was written.
    I agree, in the fact that it was written in a cut and dry form. Our finding farthers where smart men that could have written more clauses into it. I think there was a reason why they did not complicate it more. I also think that they must have had in mind the average citizen and his ability to stand up against a tyrany govt if need be. Its a shame that the 2nd amendment has different meaning to law makers from state to state. I do not by into the logic that different measures call for different times. If so i think that our founding fathers were smart enough to word it accordingly. There was criminals in thier time also, there was always good and evil since the beginning of mankind. So the right to bear arms, goes hand in hand with the right to protect ones self and loved ones, and or others who cannot protect themselves. And i dont think that the govt should have the better arms and we the people should be left with sling shots. I remember hearing some say we are overdue for a revolution, i sometimes wonder if there is some sense to this?

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Quote Originally Posted by steelhammer View Post
    I agree, in the fact that it was written in a cut and dry form. Our finding farthers where smart men that could have written more clauses into it. I think there was a reason why they did not complicate it more. I also think that they must have had in mind the average citizen and his ability to stand up against a tyrany govt if need be. Its a shame that the 2nd amendment has different meaning to law makers from state to state. I do not by into the logic that different measures call for different times. If so i think that our founding fathers were smart enough to word it accordingly. There was criminals in thier time also, there was always good and evil since the beginning of mankind. So the right to bear arms, goes hand in hand with the right to protect ones self and loved ones, and or others who cannot protect themselves. And i dont think that the govt should have the better arms and we the people should be left with sling shots. I remember hearing some say we are overdue for a revolution, i sometimes wonder if there is some sense to this?
    It is a shame law makers find different meanings about our Constitution and Bill of Rights. There in lays the the problem. Most law makers are lawyers and lawyers can't take anything at it's word. They have to look for what isn't stated not what is stated. Then strart to twist things to fit there agenda.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast