Quote of the Day: The Second Amendment Doesn’t Say What It Says

6kv15wg4

“The Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to own a firearm. This narrative was developed by the National Rifle Association in the late 1970s, out of fear that further gun control laws would eliminate private ownership of firearms altogether.” – Samantha Paige Rosen in Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment [at huffingtonpost.com]

comments

  1. avatar Mad Max says:

    She needs a history lesson.

    1. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

      unfortunately all liberals comprehend only what they think is right….

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        Basically. As long as they lack the political support to repeal the second (and they are actually loosing ground there, at least for now) they cannot give up the failed collective right argument.

      2. avatar Bob in IN says:

        What they feel is right. Fixed it for you.

        1. avatar Mike B. says:

          What they feel is politically correct. Fixed it for ya.

    2. avatar Random_Commenter says:

      I think this is TTAG’s version of “click bait”

    3. avatar Tex300BLK says:

      Or just a dictionary… I wasn’t in the top of my classes ever but “the right of the people” seems like it is stating that the “right” of individual “people”. The document was written in English so it’s not like you can sit there and discuss the meaning of “the people” like biblical scholars sit around and parse what the Hebrew word for “day” is. Or maybe I am missing something?

      1. avatar Kimberwarrior45 says:

        Does this help?
        Definitions from the 1828 Webster Dictionary
        “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.”
        A-An adjective, commonly called the indefinite article, and signifying one or any, but less emphatically.
        well-Suitably to one’s condition, to the occasion, or to a proposed end or use; suitably; abundantly; fully; adequately; thoroughly
        regulated- Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions
        Militia- In the widest sense, the whole military force of a nation, including both those engaged in military service as a business, and those competent and available for such service; specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies.
        being- Since; inasmuch as
        necessary-Such as must be; impossible to be otherwise; not to be avoided; inevitable
        to- The preposition to primarily indicates approach and arrival, motion made in the direction of a place or thing and attaining it, access; and also, motion or tendency without arrival; movement toward
        the- A word placed before nouns to limit or individualize their meaning
        security-The condition or quality of being secure; secureness. Specifically: (a) Freedom from apprehension, anxiety, or care; confidence of power of safety; hence, assurance; certainty.
        of- In a general sense, from, or out from; proceeding from; belonging to; relating to; concerning;
        a- (see above definition)
        free- Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one’s own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one’s own course of action; not dependent; at liberty.
        State-The circumstances or condition of a being or thing at any given time.,
        the- (see above definition)
        right- Conformed to the constitution of man and the will of God, or to justice and equity; not deviating from the true and just; according with truth and duty; just; true.
        of- (see above definition)
        the- (see above definition)
        people- The body of persons who compose a community, tribe, nation, or race; an aggregate of individuals forming a whole; a community; a nation
        to- (see above definition)
        keep- To hold; to restrain from departure or removal; not to let go of; to retain in one’s power or possession; not to lose; to retain; to detain.
        and- A particle which expresses the relation of connection or addition. It is used to conjoin a word with a word, a clause with a clause, or a sentence with a sentence.
        bear- To possess or carry, as a mark of authority or distinction; to wear; as, to bear a sword, badge, or name
        Arms-, Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.
        shall- To owe; to be under obligation for
        not- A word used to express negation, prohibition, denial, or refusal.
        be- To exist actually, or in the world of fact; to have exstence
        infringed- Broken; violated; transgresses.

        1. avatar Menford Sands says:

          “Arms-, Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.”

          So the 2A includes grenade launchers, flamethrowers, and nuclear weapons? Does the 2A give individuals — whether very wealthy individuals or corporations (which under SCOTUS often qualify as individuals) — the right to build and own nukes?

        2. avatar SDN says:

          Menford Sands, the Second Amendment was intended by the Founders to allow any weapon the individual soldier could carry and use. Thus no artillery, crew served weapons, or nukes. You are absurd.

    4. avatar Alex Peterson says:

      Just because she has a BA in Film Studies and is pursuing an MFA in Creative Writing, you don’t think she knows history? [/sarc]

      1. avatar Rad Man says:

        I’m always amazed at the folks who’ll tell you what the second amendment doesn’t mean, but can’t tell you what it does mean.

        1. avatar Lucas D. says:

          Oh, they can. They say it’s to arm the “militia,” which means it only applies to the armed forces. It’s never made any sense to me that a constitution written to spell out the rights of the people and limit governmental powers to restrict them would randomly toss in a single provision granting the government permission to form a military, which no ruling body has ever needed to do. But then, unlike Ms. Rosen, I’m not a total idiot.

        2. avatar Rad Man says:

          I’m with you Lucas! The entire Bill of Rights enumerates individual rights – except the Second? I somehow doubt that….

      2. avatar A Friend says:

        She doesn’t even have to understand history. She just has to recognize the difference between a prefactory clause and an opperative clause. That should come easy for her.
        The prefactory clause sets the motivation behind the action. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” Another example I have seen used before is:
        “A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a productive day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.”
        The opperative clause is the actual action. It reads …”the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

        There. Now that all those who have a BA in government and a Masters in creative writing now know how to read, let’s try again.

    5. avatar Murray says:

      She needs to learn to read English as it doesn’t seem to be her mother tongue!

  2. avatar Adub says:

    Lexington and Concord!

  3. avatar TravisP says:

    Oh that NRA that was protecting the rights of freed slaves…… from firearm confiscation….. from Democrats…. the story stays the same.

  4. avatar John E> says:

    Let’s just throw the Federalist papers out the window. Nor should we understand how the operative clause works in the 2nd Amendment.

    That and the fact violent crime is at a 40 year low. My head aches.

  5. avatar dh34 says:

    Actually, my reading challenged friend, it does.

  6. avatar Chicago Steve says:

    Maybe in her eyes we’re not people.

    #gunownerslivesmatter

    1. avatar Kevin says:

      And through her eyes the world is in soft focus so that, just like her picture, it supposedly looks better. Think about it, in a soft focus world she doesn’t see reality. Only vague shapes and ideas and she can fill it in her mind’s eye to be whatever dreamland she desires.

  7. avatar PRK543 says:

    My comment on the Huffington Post “article’s” page:
    To quote the author of this post; “Nowhere in the text, however, is it stated that an individual right to keep and bear arms is preserved. More overtly, the text refers to the collection of people who would make up a militia if the federal government were to abuse its power.”

    So, if this “collection of people who would make up a militia” as the author so eloquently put it were to stand up to the federal government, how would they do so with out their own individual weapons? Are they supposed to grovel to the same abusive government for their militia to be armed? “Excuse me government bureaucrats, we believe you are abusing your power, we need some guns so we can stand up to you. Could you issue some weapons to our militia? Pretty please?” Good luck with that argument. Remember, the colonial militia’s were typically required to equip themselves and were typically armed with fowling pieces, smooth bore muzzle loading muskets (the military arm of the day), and rifled muskets. So in reality, the text does affirm an individual right as the militia would need to equip themselves with their own weapons.

    1. avatar Mecha75 says:

      I always refer them to Madison’s Federalist paper #46 regarding what the framer’s of the Constitution thought was the purpose of the militia. Then ask them how are we supposed to do that if we do not have our own arms? It usually shuts them up regarding the “2nd Amendment is about the Militia and not about private ownership of firearms”

      A couple of good quotes from it:

      “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation”

      “Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe , which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms”

      Keep in mind that Madison is defending the Constitutional allowance of a standing army (which the newly formed USA was very wary of). In it he says that because the citizenry is armed, it would outnumber any standing army the federal government could raise and therefore keep any tyrannical aspirations of the federal government at bay. With this logic, how is it that any leftist could sit there and say that “weapons of war” do not belong on the streets of america.. Clearly the intent was that the people be allowed to have the same exact weapons that the standing army could field. This means that we want a full auto SCAR, we can have a full auto SCAR. If we want a Ma Deuce, we can have a Ma Deuce.

      1. avatar Alex Peterson says:

        And don’t forget Madison’s role at the Constitutional Convention. He was the “Chief Recorder” which was a fancy way of saying that he was in charge of taking notes. As a result, Madison’s words are found in the Constitution more than any other of the Founding Fathers’. So, when anti-‘s are constantly tripping themselves up over the meaning of the word “militia”, they need only look at Madison’s earlier works (specifically, the Federalist Papers) for its intended connotation.

      2. avatar PRK543 says:

        Thanks Mecha75! I will keep that in mind.

      3. avatar neiowa says:

        A M2 (or a TOW or 81mm, or M1) would be crew served weapons and analogous to the smooth bore cannon of 1775, That is community owned weapons. You define your community and what it “needs”.

    2. avatar JERRY says:

      PEOPLE NED TTAKE AN ENGLIS LESSON ‘ THE TIGHT OF THE EOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS DOES NOT MEAN THE MILITIA. A COMA SEPERATES THE TWO STATEMENTS AND A COMA OR SEI COLON IS USED TO SEPERATE THOUGHTS, IDEASAND ACTIONS IN A SENTENCE AND THERE IS ACOMA BETWEEN THE 2 THOUGHTS OF MILITIA AND PEOPLE.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Please stop shouting.

        And the grammatical structure, and separation of prefatory and operative clauses of the second amendment, is much more profound and explicit than the placement of a mere comma.

        1. avatar Mr. AR-10 says:

          Indeed. How any one can even entertain the notion that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” means the right is not something the people have.

          It doesn’t get any simpler.

      2. avatar PRK543 says:

        JERRY! I get it. I just tend to try to counter the arguments of anti’s with posts to get them to think about what they are reading. My strategy is to play the nice guy (it is harder at times than others) to get through to people who would normally stonewall any other approach. The quote I used from the post was just to illustrate the point I was countering. Normally I also try to include links to sources, but at the time I pulled together that post I was at work and I was supposed to be working.

    3. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      I usually try to keep even more straight forward when arguing the “2A doesn’t mean what you say it means” crap. Example:

      The Bill of Rights is considered a list of recognized natural human rights that existed before the formation of the US Government (or any government). How can a right that existed before the formation of government be a collective right controlled by government?

  8. avatar GuyFromV says:

    Two words: ball gag

  9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    If I pointed out her complete failure in basic grammar and reading comprehension, would that constitute a micro-aggression or a macro-aggression? Would her safe space be only partially, or completely, violated?

    1. avatar IL-annoyed says:

      The mere existence of a questioning attitude is unacceptable in the lefts echo chambers.

  10. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Apparently, she only read bits and pieces of the Heller case.
    It must be in their contracts to write at least one anti gun piece per month over at huffpo.

  11. avatar Shire-man says:

    Is there some derogatory term that can be used to describe somebody who in the face of plain language and plenty of court rulings still refuses to accept the reality?
    Individual rights denier? Militia-clause-er? Liar? Oh, I got it. Petty tyrant.

    From her bio:

    Samantha has lived and worked in New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, and Northampton, MA. Given unique opportunities to meet people from diverse backgrounds and professions, she has developed a vivid and sensitive understanding of today’s world.

    Nothing says “vivid understand of todays world” like leapfrogging from one echo chamber to another.

    1. avatar boardsnbikes says:

      Northampton likely means a stint at Smith College, “a private, independent women’s liberal arts college” (Wiki). Its activist history is well-founded. God bless her heart.

    2. avatar Pascal says:

      Fun fact, the Huffpo and many traditional media outlets are simply opinion generation sites cloaked in the disguise of journalism. Facts are not important when you can ignore them.

    3. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      Northampton, MA? That is small town liberal MA. I wonder if she went to one of the boarding schools nearby or was she a townie and tired of the life and desired to run with the wealthy elites??

  12. avatar Wesley says:

    “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.”

    Let’s break it down.
    -A well regulated Militia,
    Meaning a well trained group of civilians trained in combat arms, This is NOT the national guard.
    -Being necessary to the security of a free State,
    Meaning that if we were ever under attack from an enemy foreign or domestic those militia’s could come together and mount an offensive, These are regular citizens that were called for defense of the State, Again not servicemen or women.
    -the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    Notice, It says the right of the PEOPLE not the right of the Militia or National Guard (which did not exist yet), Granted the Militia’s was largely replaced by the National Guard in the exact role as intended, However it was never replaced, When I became a US Citizen, We had to swear our allegiance and part of this swearing in was that I will take up arms to defend this nation when in need.

    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

    As you may have noticed it doesn’t mention anything about the military when referring to bearing arms…

    However if it was up to Bloomberg and crew it would read like this:

    “A well regulated Military, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Military to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    As ludicrous as it sounds it would be the deathknell of the second amendment, The founding fathers almost thought it was common sense and unnecessary to have the second amendment but they included it JUST IN CASE someone tried to come for the guns again, They set up the provisions that not only the Militia would be able to form but that their weapons would never be taken.

    I know it was another politician that actually wanted to replace the people with the Militia but all this would ensure is that ALL gun owners would join a militia and we would already BE organized and probably train in a Militia to keep our arms, And if they tried to take them…Well…Welcome to 1776 part two…

    Love him or hate him, Alex Jones said it best: “1776 will commence again if you try and take our firearms!”
    He may be a bit eccentric but at least he is a patriot, I see him more like the modern Paul Revere than a crazy conspiracy theorist spouting about theories of flat earth, Impending alien invasion and armageddon every other year…

    1. avatar Bruce says:

      I would suggest that the first thing that she should have done was to have read the Heller and McDonald decisions, which essentially demolish her thesis. The Supreme Court has spoken, and has effectively debunked much of what she said about the 2nd Amdt.

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        She has a right to disagree with SCOTUS in Heller, just as I have a right to disagree with SCOTUS in Dred Scott and numerous other cases.

        She also has a right to ignore history, set aside basic English grammar and make up stories. That’s what they taught her in “journalism” school.

  13. avatar Wiregrass says:

    Don’t worry, I’m pretty sure she doesn’t believe in an individual right to vote either. Come and take ’em.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Oh, I bet she believes in the right to vote. Liberal progressives hold voting rights sacred – even for the useful idiots who can’t be bothered to take an ID. Or know anything about the candidates running in the election. Not a US citizen? Still ok to vote. No longer living? No problem. Vote early and vote often.

      I believe voter fraud and low-information voters are some of the greatest threats facing this nation. I bet this lady will push the (D) lever with great enthusiasm in 2016, and there are millions more like her.

  14. avatar Joe R. says:

    Huffpoo is not the press and has rescinded any right to freedom of it.

    Yes, I’m afraid I do get to decide.

    1. avatar PeterW says:

      ^^ This ^^

      Reading the Huffing Post causes immediate loss of brain cells akin to being tackled helmet-to-helmet.
      Enough reading causes memory loss, seizures, coma and death as the brain slowly eats itself alive in suicidal self-destruction until your body quits functioning. Yeah, I said it.

  15. avatar ButtMunch says:

    Is it me , or are the main anti2a’s female?

    Who cares what a dumb kunt thinks?

    1. avatar Phil says:

      Female? Nah, I see another trend.

      Rosen…. Schumer, Feinstein, Bloomberg, Wasserman-Schulz, Sugarmann..

      Nah, nevermind, don’t know what I was thinking. Nothing in common there.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Course that ignores the fact that the owner of this site is a member of the tribe. And I believe Ralph ran down a long list of catholic big wheels that supports gun control.

        I’m always dumbfounded by any Jew supporting gun control after their history of abuse in Europe and the mid east. But I don’t assume all Jews are kapo’s like bloomberg.

        1. avatar Bob says:

          I’d surmise that Bloomberg’s family were the kind of people that would assist the Nazi’s in putting other Jews into railcars in exchange for protection. They why he “states” so hard.

    2. avatar Mecha75 says:

      And there are plenty of Pro-2A woman as well. Emily Miller, Dana Loesh, and Katie Pavlich to name a few.

    3. avatar Another Robert says:

      In other words, yes, it’s you. And sane folks care just as little for what a dumb male thinks as for what a dumb female thinks. Just sayin’.

  16. avatar Mk10108 says:

    This is why in matters of armaments the majority of women should be seen and not heard.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Just now, a woman who is thinking about arming herself for her own defense stumbled across this blog, read what you just wrote, and decided she didn’t want to be one of us.

      Nice going.

      1. avatar ButtMunch says:

        Yea, but it is phunny.

  17. avatar DerryM says:

    In the Second Amendment the phrasing used is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..”. This refers to a right that existed before the Constitution, despite the Constitution and would continue to exist without the Constitution, Amanda. So, you are pathetically, ignorantly wrong, or deliberately spurious in what you say.

  18. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    And yet, these liberals readily agree that the rights to speech, press and religion are individual rights, despite the First Amendment’s use of the same term “the People” as in the Second Amendment.

    I guess the People of the First Amendment aren’t the same people as the People of the Second Amendment. Curious, that.

  19. avatar larry says:

    It is simple.

    The seconded amendment is in the BILL OF RIGHTS.

    End of discussion on what the intent was. Is it still relevant is the only discussion that can be had.

  20. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    “– Samantha Paige Rosen in Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment”

    Who’s hiding… I don’t know about this lady, but I do not hide behind my rights. I exercise my rights, proudly.

    1. avatar ACP_arms says:

      The only time i’m “behind” my rights is when i hold a firearm in front of myself when i shoot.

  21. avatar John L. says:

    Just one comment for her: a dissenting Supreme Court opinion is two things. First it is merely an opinion. Second it is meant to summarize the failed argument of the minority.

    So, actually, a minority opinion that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, is actually a pretty good argument that it is an individual right.

    Also logic, thy name isn’t Samantha, apparently.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      A dissenting opinion can be more than that. It’s also evidence of the conflict between different interpretations of the law, sometimes of the Constitution itself. These conflicts, at the highest level of constitutional review, are important in their own right, because they signal divisions on the court that might yield vastly different decisions if presented with only slightly different circumstances.

      Moreover, insofar as the court keeps its finger in the political wind and its eye on posterity, dissenting opinions can signal early indicators of the court’s gradual shift on major issues. (They want to be on the “right side of history.”) Eventually, such long term shifts can result in a definitive ruling on a subject, where prior rulings had been limited in scope, or even a reversal of a previous ruling.

      In that latter scenario, some dissenting opinions become famous for presaging and informing future majority opinions. One example is Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and Chief Justice Warren’s majority opinion in Brown v. Board of Education (1954); addressing the separate but equal doctrine.

      That might not just be happenstance, either. There’s a theory out there that holds that some justices strategically dissent. That is, they use their dissenting opinions as vehicles for communicating to future litigants how to reframe their arguments to secure a majority opinion next time.

      A case cited as an example of this is Evans v. Newton (1966). Georgia Senator Bacon had bequeathed a park (1911) for whites only use. Decades later, the city allowed blacks to use it. The white board of trustees sued and the city relented, prompting blacks to sue to regain access to the park under the 14th amendment.

      Justice Douglas agreed and wrote the majority opinion, arguing against racial segregation. Justice Black dissented, arguing the case was fundamentally about states’ powers to enforce wills & trusts, and not about racial segregation, per se. Justice Black went even further, arguing that the SC had no authority even to hear the case, as it’s a state court matter.

      Subsequently, Bacon’s heirs sued to regain ownership of the park (so they could exclude blacks). That prompted another lawsuit that went back to the SC. In that case, Evans v. Abney (1970), the majority accepted the state’s rights argument, flipping the majority from just four years before!

      Then again, some dissents aren’t high minded at all, but rather just rants written by the loser(s). So who knows?

  22. avatar 36IDRedleg says:

    I think what is very applicable here is the following link to quotes from Josef Goebbels:

    https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/281832.Joseph_Goebbels

  23. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Crap… I clicked on the huffpo link. How do I un-click it?

    1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

      You can’t. And I’m pretty sure you have herpes now.

  24. avatar Reggie Browning says:

    The constitution doesn’t say “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the states to form well regulated (By the government of course) militias shall not be infringed.” It says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms.” There is a clear distinction. There can be no collective right to keep and bear arms. Such a collective right would mean being part of a government controlled military. How do they expect a government funded and regulated militia to be any use against a corrupt government? It’s ridiculous! No. The right belongs to the people so they can form a well regulated militia should the need arise.

  25. avatar RockThisTown says:

    “The 2A does not protect an individual’s right to own a firearm. This narrative was developed by the NRA in the late 1970s, out of fear that further gun control laws would eliminate private ownership of firearms altogether.” – Samantha Paige Rosen in Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment.

    I’m going out on a limb here . . . . but I’m guessing she was born in the late 1970s & hasn’t picked up a (non-liberal censored) history book since.

  26. avatar Another Robert says:

    Oddly enough, she seems to have stated one thing pretty accurately, and dispatched her own argument in the process. The right does indeed belong to the people who would make up the militia if the central gov. ran amok. And those people are all–wait for it–individuals. Who is it that said, ‘And who is the ‘militia’, sir? It is the whole people, other than a few government officials.”? Liberals are so wedded to their damn collectivism that the concept of the individual that makes up the collective simply doesn’t register with them I guess. And they also seem to have difficulty reading what they themselves have written, it seems.

  27. avatar EJQ says:

    Yeah, I’m sure George left Martha at Mount Vernon completely unarmed, so that she, nor anyone else there could hunt for food, or defend themselves.

    I guess the local exterminator was called, whenever varmints got into the cellar.

  28. avatar SurfGW says:

    Right or not, most judges share her view (at least the ones I have talked to) because State Constitutions reference the governor calling out the National Guard usually refer to this action as “raising the militia” or “recalling the militia”.
    While our founding fathers probably wanted individuals to keep weapons, the law is as written. Well meaning people need to stop chasing 2nd Amendment rulings because it is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court rules in line with the Militia=National Guard view and all rights to bear arms go away. If you want to keep your weapons, focus on electing officials who have your views, responsible ownership, and maintaining good optics (presenting a friendly face to gun ownership) to introduce more people to firearms.

    1. avatar Wiregrass says:

      No we have to call them out. I used to believe in the passive approach, electing the right people. That doesn’t work, it never did.

      http://freebeacon.com/politics/ted-strickland-busy-with-fundraising-has-not-explained-flip-flop-on-guns/

      1. avatar SurfGW says:

        Most judges are not sympathetic to RKBA, so taking things to court will only result in more restrictions. The ballot box seems like the only answer.

    2. avatar Mecha75 says:

      The SCOTUS has already ruled on the National Guard = Militia argument. It isn’t. Even the very act that created the National Guard (The Militia Act of 1903 aka The Dick Act) differentiated what became the National Guard and the 2nd Amendment right to the Militia (i.e. it called all the male citizens not in the Army or Nat Guard the unorganized MILITIA). In the debates, those in favor argued that it replaces the Militia but that the 2nd Amendment right to the militia was upheld by addition of the “Unorganized Militia” part of the act.

  29. avatar Fred Frendly says:

    That shemale is correct about one thing, the NRA is a shadow of itself from the 70s.

  30. avatar Coyyote says:

    So a BA in Govt, and a MA in “Creative Writing” makes you a constitutional scholar. Not! This idiot is a joke relying on “creative writing” to make a living opining on stuff she doesn’t know crap about. Nuff said.

  31. avatar mer says:

    Has she never watched Red Dawn?

    Wolverines!!!!

    (the milita, self armed, fighting against the oppressive government)

  32. avatar SuperBoom says:

    Since we’re discussing interpretation, perhaps the freedom of the press needs review too. Now is that a printing press as was originally intended, or…

  33. avatar James69 says:

    Yep if they throw the 2nd out the window the 1st won’t be far behind……

  34. avatar DaProf says:

    Liberals —
    Always making stuff up. It is what they do.
    Redefining words after giving the world Politically Correct speech codes.
    And of course, their willful ignorance on so many issues, such as this one.

    If they weren’t in positions of power it would be laughable. As it is, it continues to be disconcerting.

  35. avatar JeffR says:

    So, the Second Amendment was necessary to codify that a government has the ability to form an army? Because that ability is something that has been so hotly disputed throughout history that we needed to include it in our Bill of Rights. /sarc/

  36. avatar Anonymous says:

    “The Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to own a firearm. This narrative was developed by the National Rifle Association in the late 1970s, out of fear that further gun control laws would eliminate private ownership of firearms altogether.”

    Lies and nonsense.

    “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.”

    The people are the militia. All of the people are the militia. “The right of the people” it says. It doesn’t say “the right of the militia” – it says “the right of the people.”

    Supporting discussions made by the writers of the 2nd amendment:

    “The constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
    ― Alexander Hamilton

    “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
    ― James Madison

    “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
    — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 (George Mason was co-author of the 2nd amendment!)

    “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
    — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

    “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
    — Tench Coxe, in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1).

    If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
    — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

    “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
    — Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
    –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

    “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
    — Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

    Something called history appears to show otherwise.

    All that aside – it seems popularity and webpage hits at Huffpo are dissipating. They needed some quick cash to pay their lackluster staff and appear to have solved the problem temporarily with this article.

    1. avatar daveR says:

      “The constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
      ― Alexander Hamilton”

      Not AH. That was Sam Adams from Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        That is correct.

  37. avatar crashbbear says:

    Who was anti gun in 1776? I didn’t think so.

  38. avatar jwm says:

    Let’s examine that whole “All men are created equal”. Did they mean all people, including women and children or did they just mean men?

  39. avatar Pg2 says:

    Would anyone expect anything less from the Huffington Compost? You can be certain that whatever they print fits the current anti-freedom/anti- individual social conditioning agenda.

  40. avatar James in AZ says:

    People just won’t stop arguing over the text. It’s not about what is written, it’s about what we are born with. We have the absolute right to all weapons of any kind. Period. We don’t need a constitution to confirm that. The 2A protects it. That’s it. But if we just take the 2A text as it is, we are restricting our own arguments and actions.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      But if we just take the 2A text as it is, we are restricting our own arguments and actions.

      I disagree. The second amendment, as written, presumes that the right to keep and bear arms already exists. The second amendment, as written, does not create, but rather affirms the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.

      1. avatar James in AZ says:

        That’s what I meant. I meant we don’t need the 2A to give us rights since we have that right already. It’s just the militia clause that keeps throwing everybody off. It gives grounds for antis to argue. And it somehow pulls us into this “WTF is militia” argument as well. We should just get outta this altogether and say, we just F’ing want the guns, so what?
        Yea I know it’s not that easy.

        1. avatar Menford Sands says:

          “We have the absolute right to all weapons of any kind. Period. We don’t need a constitution to confirm that. The 2A protects it. That’s it.”

          Does this mean that wealthy individuals or corporations have the right to build and own their own nuclear weapons under the 2A?

  41. avatar B. Frank says:

    From the same piece:

    “The ultimate check on a tyrannical government, the Framers of the Constitution believed, was an armed population.”

    You were so close sweetheart. To bad you had to ruin it by quoting a dissenting opinion to try to back up your opinion from a case that squashes the whole point of your article.

  42. avatar DetroitMan says:

    Another “educated” Progressive who hasn’t read The Federalist Papers or the Constitution.

  43. avatar Larry says:

    Can’t take anyone serious when then have two,last names.

  44. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Huff POO-nuff’ said. Don’t add to it’s stats…

  45. avatar Fred says:

    According to 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.”

    Who makes up the Militia?

    According to US Code 10 311:
    §311. Militia: composition and classes
    (a) 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.
    (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.
    (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

    The last update of this code was in 1993 (expanded to include females in the National Guard), making this definition of the militia anything but archaic and outdated.

    The only basis by which you can deny the right to keep and bear arms based on this definition, reliant on the militia clause, is by gender and age. I personally do not support that because women and the elderly are in the most need of the aid of firearms to make up for the general lack of physical prowess.

    1. avatar Fred says:

      This, of course, accepts their argument that ignores “the people” and argues the Second Amendment is reliant on the militia clause. In reality the people need no qualifiers, the militia clause should be explained as, “the people need to know how to maintain and operate modern weapons in order to be effective when called to militia duty”, instead the left reads it as “only the militia, designated by the government, should have access to any weapons”, which makes no sense in the context of the Bill of Rights, which is protection from the government.

      The above argument defeats their “best case” argument that states the Second Amendment relies on the Militia Clause. If you see an argument about the Second Amendment they will probably push to the “Militia clause” argument. This will cover all the bases.

  46. avatar mark s. says:

    LATEST POLLNG SHOWS CRUZ SURGING .
    Praying for a miracle .

  47. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    I look forward to seeing the text of the clarified amendment she will be backing for ratification.

    Good luck with that. I’ll note that the failure to get the ERA(*) ratified can be attributed to the *language of the amendment as proposed*. By the time you throw the necessary sops to the agenda-mongers to get them on board, you’ve jettisoned the folks who agree in general, limited principle.”

    (*) Since I brought it up, I’d like to see vigorous, broad-based enforcement of the general protection clause. None of this: “All citizens are created equal, but some citizens are more equal than others.” That’s being used in Title 9, and various civil rights actions under the current federal administration. I’d like to see it broadly applied, especially to govt actions and preferences. The circus we’d see with zoning laws, economic development zones and similar would keep me eating popcorn for years.

  48. avatar J More says:

    So the NRA is here to protect “Private Ownership”? That’s their agenda?!
    I thought Bloomberg and his cronies were painting the picture that the NRA is shielding “Big Business Gun Manufacturers”.

    It’s a sad day we live in where the dehumanization of honest people becomes a media soapbox or political agenda to further a career.
    Just ask yourself, why do so many million Americans feel they need to be a member of the NRA? Do they possibly feel Oppressed? Do they fell their rights or lifestyle is being threatened? Could that even be a possibility? No. Infact it hasn’t crossed the minds of
    Truth be told, we are demonized as red necks, wackos and macho yahoos. Gun collectors are now being painted as nut jobs “stock piling weapons”.
    So to generalize in this way is slanderous inflammatory bigotry.

    Im sorry you don’t know what it is to have something taken away from you Samantha Rosen. Something you have had and known to be perfectly normal (and legal) since you were young. You are a part of what disappoints me most about young adults today. So righteously naive and opinioned. You define the Orwellian narrative that speaks to the policy and propaganda that is destructive to the welfare of a free and open society of good, honest people.

    I learned values when I was young. Treat others with respect. Be grateful and thankful for what you have and be kind to others. But more to my point, this also included Respecting firearms (as a tool, not a toy) and being a responsible citizen of my community and the United States.

    Have you ever seen 2 hungry coyotes rip apart a chicken on a ranch? A rolled up newspaper and the word NO wont stop a pack of animals.
    The same can be said for Thugs, rapists and criminals.
    But the Affluenza stricken children and the entitled millenials have always been insulated and tend to be sheltered from the harsh realities of the inner cities or the wild open prairie that doesn’t offer cell phone service and mocha frappuccinos.

    Im a proud member of the NRA.
    I love shooting, I have a keen interest in firearms and the sport. Its what I grew up with. Good times with me and dad. Family. Bonding. Respect. The challenges, patience, skill and discipline required was a lesson in of itself…let alone the key to accuracy.
    But its intolerance, fear, misunderstanding and bigotry that is leading the anti-gun lobby.

    The Bill of Rights protects the People and their individual RIGHTS.

  49. avatar Kyle Kiernan says:

    “Does the 2A give individuals — whether very wealthy individuals or corporations (which under SCOTUS often qualify as individuals) — the right to build and own nukes?”

    Yes.
    Yes it does.

    Pipe. Insert. Smoke.

  50. avatar John says:

    Ms. Rosen makes the incorrect core assumption that the NRA exists to protect gun rights. The NRA exists to provide continued employment for its lobbyists, and continued fundraising for itself as a bureaucratic structure. It is not in the interest of NRA to have truly good gun laws, but to have the worst gun laws its lobbyists can pass, so as to perpetuate it’s own existence.

    Look at NRA contract lobbyist for IL Donald Todd Vandermyde. He cut the deal with the anti-gun Chiefs of Police to put Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 “NRA backed” carry bill, NOT Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, NOT Democratic Speaker of the IL House Mike Madigan.

    Vandermyde worked as lobbyist for William Dugan, president of the Intl. Union of Operating Engineers local 150 in Countryside, IL, before Dugan was convicted by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in 2010. Do Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA-ILA do criminal background checks on their lobbyists, or do they deliberately hire the worst people they can find to pass the worst possible gun laws?

    1. avatar Defiant Deity says:

      I may not agree with every stance the NRA has but they have done a lot for our rights. Without the NRA we would not have as much rights as we do now. You cannot deny their member base and the power that bring when electing officials or protesting gun laws. They have been successful plenty of times.

      I am not a member but I am a member of the 2A foundation. I believe they do great work with the successful court cases they have won for gun rights.

      1. avatar John says:

        Alan Gottlieb of SAF has done fantastic legal work and won some excellent court victories, including the Otis McDonald case from 2010. Alan Gura toiled in obscurity on 2nd Amendment law and did most of the heavy lifting. NRA wanted nothing to do with suing Chicago while Richard Daley was Mayor. Then months before Gura was to appear in front of the Supreme Court, NRA muscled into the case and brought in beltway lawyer Paul Clement to steal 10 minutes from the 30 minutes Gura had for oral arguments in front of the Supremes!

        NRA backstabs other gun rights organizations constantly. Look at what they do, not what they used to do, or what they say. Look at the background and associations of the lobbyists they pay to betray their own membership, like Donald Todd Vandermyde.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email