Misunderstanding the Second Amendment

To me the most misunderstood part of 2A is the word militia. To the left this is a civilian army for which we have no need because we have a Military.

1 Like

@MikeBKY Thanks Mike! As always you’re response is enlightening.

Cheers,

Craig6

1 Like

Agreed, and to be clear where any such signs do actually hold weight of law (such as TX, or in Federal Buildings) I would not carry in those instances.

1 Like

Suppose the founders had included an additional amendment, grammatically identical to the second:
“A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.” Would anyone believe this amendment meant that only registered voters had the right to read? The opening clause depends on the existence of the right, but it is not the only justification for that right. This is not my original idea, but I find it helpful in parsing the meaning of the second amendment.

Also, in Federalist #46, Madison (who wrote the Constitution) explains the role of local governments (such as today’s sheriffs) in calling up local armed civilians in response to some sort of emergency. Difficult to do if civilians are unarmed. It’s an interesting read.

2 Likes

@Danny10 in Kentucky “The sheriff in each county may appoint and have sworn in, and entered on the county clerk order book, as many special deputies as needed to assist him in the execution of his duties and office in preparation for or during an emergency situation, such as fire, flood, tornado, storm, or other such emergency situations. For purposes of this section only, an emergency situation is a condition which, in the judgment of the sheriff, requires a response immediately necessary for the preservation of public peace, health or safety, utilizing special deputies previously appointed in preparation for the contingency.”
KRS 70.045(2).

You have a point with the tax incentives, however, Medicaid, Medicare, WIC, and food stamps are people choosing to use Walmart as their location to use those benefits, not the government directly supporting Walmart.

@JamesR sR

Drive-through for prescriptions? Unfortunately, it would still be supporting the anti-2nd agenda a smidge, but we all have to fight the right battles for our families.

@Craig6

Wasn’t there a lawsuit after Sandy Hook - against the gun manufacturers, not the school?

1 Like

The problem with the ‘just don’t shop there’ argument that we often hear even among the pro-gun crowd is that you sometime have no choice(as others have pointed out about their prescription plans). I use to live in a state with strict signage laws. It was a Class III felony to violate those laws. EVERY grocery store, pharmacy, bank, etc. put up those signs. In today’s society, most of us have to have access to a grocery store, at least. When no grocery store in a 100 mile radius allows you to exercise your rights, ‘just not shopping there’ is a moot point. The left has been rapidly shifting their anti-gun attacks towards corporate America, pressuring major companies into anti-gun stances and policies that will effectively gut the 2nd Amendment without changing a single law. When you can’t buy a gun or ammo because your bank or credit card company blocks the transaction, or you can’t be a member of USCCA because your state’s insurance commission is anti-gun, and when you can’t buy or sell while exercising your rights, then your rights don’t exist. We cannot stand by and let big corporations hide behind ‘private property’ while actively working to destroy our rights. They have no reservations about attacking my rights, so I no longer have any reservations about attacking theirs. I know it’s a long-standing legal practice to define a corporation as a ‘person’ in at least certain legal situations. I think it’s time we rethink that.

2 Likes

Interesting points, @Samuel11. Time to do some pondering.

3 Likes

Another thing to ponder. What happens when companies like WalMart get ahold of this technology?

https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/uk-news/2019/09/16/technology-to-spot-weapons-hidden-under-clothing-on-trial-at-train-station/

1 Like

Business and other private buildings and occupancies have the right to forbid guns from their properties. They do this but their subrogation of your right to self defense puts the responsibility for your protection on them. If you are injured or killed on their property and they have not provided security to mitigate any threat, they are negligent and may be sued. You should remind them when you enter their properties that they are responsible for the subrogated right.

2 Likes

Welcome to the Community @Thomas79. While I agree with you that a place has the right to forbid weapons and almost anything else (i.e. bringing drinks and snacks in to a movie theater), it does not generally put the responsibility for your protection on the business or property owner. They can be sued, but the odds of winning would very much depend on the demographic of the jurisdiction where this occurred. And contrary to what you have said, Kentucky now has a lawsuit pending against Kroger from a shooting that happened last year BECAUSE they allowed guns in their stores. This is likely the impetus for Kroger requesting that people not open carry in their stores.

The YouTube personality Liberty Doll would be a great spokesperson to put up to talk about pro 2A. That is one sharp, funny, witty, young lady. Great call for the USCCA to add her in for referrals.

2 Likes

Mike,

Thanks for the clarification on this subject. My information comes from a number of discussions with people over the years. None of us are legal experts so I appreciate your points.

1 Like

I agree, I have seen Liberty Doll on YouTube, she would be a great call for the USCCA!

1 Like

She is a part of USCCA now but getting her a bigger soapbox would rock to. Maybe @ Dawn and @ Kevin can give her a weekly podcast if she wants or at least show her podcast of the week on it.

1 Like

Completely macabre and is only meant in a weird comparison.

So tomorrow all AR 15 disappear and are replaced by
AR 10s wonder how many would be wishing for the AR15 back.

1 Like

The only problem with the phrase “A well regulated militia” is an evolved change of meaning. We have lost sight of what “regulation” means. In the 2A, the meaning is old fashioned. It means, “A militia that is supplied to function well,” much as when a regulator is added to a motor. Thanks to government, more than anything else, most people today understand “regulated” to mean, “bound by so many rules and official fingers in the pie that almost nothing can function, except in the narrowest of allowed parameters.” The idea of “well regulated” used to mean the antithesis of this. Obviously enough, neither the 2A itself nor the militia that it mentions was intended to be “regulated” by the very potential tyrants against whom it was designed to protect the people!

4 Likes

With what I just read and in an attempt to protect my personal rights, may I suggest that the USCCA become a “A well regulated militia.”

1 Like

Hello friends,

I usually tell others the Second Amendment should be broken down and interpreted in three statements to better assure understanding. However, before your heads pop off, I’m saying this to proclaim the forefathers had no confusion in writing the amendment for the protection of the people.

(1) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (No explanation needed)
(2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, (I want to specify it does not say what kind of arms, and I think we have already been infringed. I’m not suggesting we have nukes and attack apache helicopters, but it should be an option for full-auto.)
(3) shall not be infringed. (Both of the statements should not be infringed)

1 Like

Welcome @Robert190 and @Randall318 to the community! I agree with @Randall318’s breakdown of the amendment but I do not believe that the first does not need explanation as it is obviously used by 2A haters to point to guns being needed only by the military and police. What they fail to see is that the “militia”, at the time of the Revolutionary War, consisted of all able body men able to serve in the defense of the country. These men were expected to bring their arms with them and what they did not have, they acquired by overrunning the magazines and armories of the British in the colonies. Even under current law, the militia is define in 10 U.S.C. 311 as follows:
“The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 , under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”
And, with respect the nukes and apaches, I do not see anything in the amendment that removes those from the definition of “arms” any more than the internet being excluded from the first amendment’s protection of freedom of the press.

2 Likes