Second Amendment and Rules of Construction

The Second Amendment wasn't written to be construed according to George Mason's personal views regarding who should be in the militia. It was written to be interpreted according to the rules of construction, which in 1789 dictated that words in a constitution are to be generally understood according to their usual and most known signification.

The usual meaning of the word "militia" was "the standing force of a nation" and the "subject matter" defined it as "body of the people trained to arms."

"Trained to arms" meant "trained in war."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you say so, space man.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

George Mason wasn't even one of the lawmakers who wrote the Second Amendment and the quote you presented wasn't even his understanding of the Second Amendment. The only reason you're so obsessed with it is that it produces the results you want.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So they are allowed to bear arms against the federal government, but not actually use them?

 

The Second Amendment wasn't written to be construed according to what Richard Lee thought was the proper way for the militia to be organized. Also, keep in mind that Lee was an Anti Federalist and they were the faction that lost the ratification battle over the U. S. Constitution.

Lee had many complaints about the way the militia was treated in the Constitution. So what?

Here's quote from Lee you may find interesting.

...we must have a select militia [a] particular corps... of young men...who have but little to do at home...armed and disciplined... at the public expense...always ready to take the field....not much unlike regular troops...​

 

If you say so, Buck Rogers.

 

What!?

Any American citizen may "take up arms", and that right may not be infringed. 2nd Amendment, extended to the States by further amendment. There is no right to murder with them.

The 2nd amendment was not written to be construed according to what any particular person - or government official - thought was the proper way for a militia to be organized. Militias organized themselves, in those days.

Bullshit. Find me a quote from anyone involved in the writing of the Constitution or the governing of the United States that uses "militia" to refer to "the standing force" of the United States, the Colonies, or any other governmental entity commensurate with "the nation".

 

Who are the militia? ...they [are] ourselves?

-- Tench Coxe - 1788.​

Let's test drive it.

A well regulated ourselves being necessary for the the security of a free state,.....​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now, that's funny.

 

Under the worst Amendment, the "well managed body of people trained to fight a war" are the only ones granted a right to keep and bear arms. The meaning of the words "well regulated militia" trumps the meaning of the word "people", according to the rule of construction which says that, where the parts of a law don't concur, the means should be sacrified to preserve the end being sought. See Federalist No. 40 for a good example of how the rule was applied to words in a legal instrument that don't concur.

True. But the right belongs only to the people in a satisfactorily directed body of persons trained in war.

The Second Amendment was made with the understanding it would be construed according to the well established common law rules of construction.

The militia referred to in the Second Amendment wasn't to be organized by itself.

Find me a quote from one of the lawmakers that says words in the Constitution are to be understood according to the way the words were used by anyone involved in writing it or anyone governing the U. S.

At the time the Constitution was made there were time honored common law rules of construction that were universally accepted in America as the way constitutions were to be construed. Under those rules. words were to generally to be understood according to their usual and most known signification. The usual and most known significations of the word "militia", according to the 1787 edition of A Dictionary of the English Language, was "train-bands" and "the standing force of a nation."

 

It was't writen to comport to your personnel views either, and it wasn't just, George Mason, who at that time held the view that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was the Right of the People.

Now you ask for the thoughts of the People at that time on what a militia was, and i have provided you with, direct quotes of the People who wrote, approved and passed the Constitution and Bill of Rights, remember, the Constitution would not have passed, with out the Bill of Rights, the Rights of the People, enumerated rights as expressed and defined by the Great Men who constructed the Constitutuion, and the Bill Of Rights.

And now even with the Direct Quotes of the Men who did this, you ignore the inconvertable evedence of those Direct Quotes and Writings, and say it wasn't writen to reflect the personal views of George Mason or the Rest of the Men who created the Constitution, the Constitution, is nothing but the personal views, and wisdom of those men, That something, The Constitution of The United States, and the Bill of Rights, is far greater than the Sum of its Parts, it is the Documentation of the Right of the People, all the People, and it only grudgingly gives any power to the State or the Federal Government, and anything not granted to the Government, State or Federal, by the Constitution, is the People Rights, and Power.

And the right to Keep and Bear Arms is given to the People.

It doesn't read the Right of the State to keep and bear arms.

It says the Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms shall not be Infringed.

 

Dear Buffalo Roam:

I respectfully suggest you expand your knowledge regarding the universally accepted method of legal interpretation that prevailed at the time the Constitution was made.

 

You have the correct legal interpretation for the time? :roflmao:

I have given the interpretation of the meanings as meant by the writers of the Constitution, well educated men, who knew the correct legal interpretation of the words they used to construct the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

I have the Writings and the Direct Quotes, of these Great Men who in their own words say, that the Militia, is the Peopleexcept for public officials(politicians) that these rights are the Rights of the People, and not the domain of the government, it is the People who have these rights and not the government, unless specifically granted in the Constitution.

The Words, and Explanations, of their intent as expressed by them, in their writing, speeches, own words and the Constitution.

Who would better know what was meant in the Constitution, than the Men who wrote the Constitution?

YOU? That is definitely above your pay grade.

 

The Right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now, that's funny, please explain how the State can Bear arms?

The Operative clause, does not make sense with the word State as the one bearing arms, as only a individual can bear arms, something that the state is not, and explain how the State can keep arms, it can own arms, and have them in armories, but it doesn't keep arms, as the ability to keep something, again is something only a individual can do:

You want the Legal Definition of the word:

keep (v.)

late O.E. cepan "to seize, hold," also "to observe," from P.Gmc. *kopijanan, but with no certain connection to other languages. It possibly is related to O.E. capian "to look," from P.Gmc. *kap- (cepan was used c.1000 to render L. observare), which would make the basic sense "to keep an eye on."

"The word prob. belongs primarily to the vulgar and non-literary stratum of the language; but it comes up suddenly into literary use c.1000, and that in many senses, indicating considerable previous development." [OED]
Meaning "financially support and privately control" (usually in ref. to mistresses) is from 1560.

The noun meaning "innermost stronghold of a tower" is from 1586, perhaps a translation of It. tenazza, with a notion of "that which keeps" (someone or something); the sense of "food required to keep a person or animal" is attested from 1801. Keepsake is first recorded 1790, on model of namesake; thus an object kept for the sake of the giver. For keeps "completely, for good" is Amer.Eng. colloquial, from 1861. Keeper "one who has charge of some person or thing, warden" is from c.1300; sense of "one who carries on some business" is from c.1440.

 

Buffalo Roam:

You need to educate yourself with regard to what the lawmakers, and those who were opposed to its ratification, said, at the time the Constitution was being made in the late 1780's, about the method of interpretation they believed should be applied to the Constitution.

Right now, you have no business even trying to interpreting the Constitution, because you don't know the first thing about the common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was made.

A good place for you to start learning about the lawmakers views on methodology of constitutional interpretation, would be read about what the lawmakers did, when they were framing the Constitution at the Convention in Philadelphia, to predict the meaning that would be put on the term "ex post facto law" by the courts. That will give you some insight into what they had in their eye as they decided which words to use in the Constitution to express their will.

 

I have, and those who opposed the Constitution as you interpret it didn't hold sway, the Constitution was Passed and Signed by the Men I quoted, and in their words, speeches, and papers are the intentions and meanings for the words of the Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

The people who opposed a Bill of Right were voted down, and the Constitution was Ratified as written when the Men who constructed it put their Thoughts Down in the Federalist Papers, Articles in the New, and Broad Sides, explaining exactly what they meant to accomplish.

You still haven't gotten past the Quotes, of the words, of the Men, who wrote the Constitution, and what they meant by them.....Who are the Militia?

THE PEOPLE.

Time and again this is reiterated by the Writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Now please provide quotes from any of the Signers of the Constitution that show that they did not mean the Individual as the Holders of the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

You keep telling me that they didn't mean the People, the Individual, who are they? so now provide Quotes and names of those who constructed the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, who didn't mean the People, and didn't believe that this was a individual right.

Please explain who the People are in the First Amendment.

 

Here is a sentence from a law made in 1787 by the Continental Congress:

Religion, Morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, Schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.​

What does the word "Schools" mean? Does the meaning of the word "schools", include schools that teach religion? Did the law obligate the government obligated to encourage schools that taught religion?

 

If you learn the rules of construction you can figure it out for yourself?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Give us a standing army!

--George Mason

 

We must...rely...on...a standing army.

--George Nichols at the Virginia Ratifying Convention

 

He observed, that no government could be energetic on paper only, which was no more than straw--that the remark applied to the one as well as to the other system; and is therefore of opinion that there must be a standing force to give every government weight.

--William Paterson