Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Do you want to understand the Second Amendment? If so, keep reading...

I have seen so many people twist the Second Amendment, trying to say that only the military should have weapons or that "well regulated" means that the government must create laws to make sure people don't have weapons of some obscure type or that the Government disagrees with. I am sick of this nonsense and will explain as simply as I can, using the actual words of our Founding Fathers... the men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to include the Second Amendment.

I have studied the founding of our country and Constitutional law both on my own and with a noted and accredited University for the last 5 years. Based on my studies and the actual writings of the men who created our government, I will section the Second Amendment for ease of comprehension. However, we cannot accept only the first part or the second part as the conclusion of the idea. The whole sentence, collectively, conveys the complete idea. Also, keep in mind that this is only one sentence and as simply and plainly written as possible to prevent opposition to the idea… yet here we are today.

"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."

This sentence is broken into two parts. The second section is the statement of fact or the declaration of an idea. The first half is the justification supporting that fact or declaration of an idea. When you combine the two parts, the whole sentence conveys the whole idea. Both the action (or lack thereof) and the justification.

"Well regulated" means to make regular or to operate correctly. A militia is an armed populace; i.e. not a standing army, but armed citizens. To support this definition, during the Constitutional Convention, George Washington said "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined." Also, during the Ratification, George Mason said "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

With regard to “the security of a free state”, when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they were afraid to create a standing army controlled by the federal government because, they feared the Government would one day become tyrannical and use the army against the people. James Madison said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." If you read James Madison's Federalist Paper Number 46, you will see that the expectation of our founders was for the free people to have arms equal to that of the standing army, the people be well trained, and grossly outnumber the standing army, in the event that the people need to take their government back by force from tyrannical leaders.

So, without trying to muddy the waters too much, but still providing evidence of intent in the words of the authors of the Constitution and the Second Amendment, a translation to modern thought would be…

The individual Right of the people to have, carry and train with any weapon to defend themselves cannot be restricted by the government, because a well armed and well trained population is needed for citizens to defend their own freedom from enemies outside our borders or tyrants in political office of the United States.

The free people, their access to arms and training was never meant to be limited at all... but rather the power of the Government was meant to be limited by the Constitution.

Interesting. I came to the same conclusion on my own, simply by considering relevant history, and it's context with the document. It also helps to have a good understanding of the English language. (I brought home a bad grade in English once. My mother exclaimed, "English is your native language! What kind of idiot fails a class on a language they already know! There is no excuse for this!" I found that logic to be motivating.)

I also looked up a few words in Websters 1828 dictionary, which can be found online.

I note that it's the first half of that sentence that receives the most abuse. Anyone who understands sentence structuring should be able to immediately denounce those that do the abusing.

If I were to say, "It is important that I get to work in a timely fashion, so I find my ability to own and operate a motor vehicle to be necessary", that would not mean that the ONLY thing that I will use my car for is to go to work. I will also use it to visit friends and family, to go shopping, to go to the post office, or simply to drive around and burn gas because I enjoy driving. When I state that I think that it's important to get to work quickly, I am merely giving one reason to justify owning a car and holding a drivers license. And, of the potentially limitless reasons, I give one of high importance.

It's not a mere coincidence that the Second Amendment was written so close to the end of the war which we fought to overthrow an oppressive government.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

SHMIV wrote:If I were to say, "It is important that I get to work in a timely fashion, so I find my ability to own and operate a motor vehicle to be necessary", that would not mean that the ONLY thing that I will use my car for is to go to work.

Exactly!!! I hope you don't mind if I use this in conversation. That is a great example!

article on the meaning of "well regulated" (and thew clear meaning and intent of the writing) at the time the Bill of Rights was adapted:

http://bearingarms.com/well-regulated/

Also seems to me that Bill Whittle did a very good job of expositing this in one of his videos.

EDIT: HERE IT IS:
https://youtu.be/FOwy9OWfnAM

I love the wrap-up in that video. That was funny.

Now that I think about it... I think we could get all gun laws repealed. Everyone talks about gun laws violating the 2nd Amendment, but no one ever mentions the 10th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Well, everywhere in the Constitution that define the authority and premise of creating rules, laws and regulations... the Constitution specifies where that authority lays. An example would be any law that impact revenue (i.e. changes our taxes) MUST start in the House of Representatives or the passing of any regulation or Bill would be unlawful.

The 2nd Amendment does not specifically lay authority on any branch of Government or the States. Therefore, based on the 10th Amendment, the power to "regulate arms" lays with the people... individual people. As in, I can choose to have any arms I'd like or I can choose none at all.

The Federal Government has no authority to make laws restricting guns. And as my friend Allan puts it, "shall not be infringed" is pretty cut and dry.

You would think "shall not be infringed" is stupid proof,but apparently not

@Marc: Absolutely, use that example. I figured that driving and going to work were things that most folks could relate to. Of course, if talking to jobless hippies, you'll want to substitute "bicycle" for "car", and "picking up the welfare check" for "going to work".

*************************************************

On Bill Whittle, I like him. He generally explains things in a very clear and concise manner. One of the things that I miss about having unlimited high speed internet, is watching his videos.

I hadn't thought of using the 10th Amendment to protect the 2nd. I doubt that our Founding Fathers thought of it; mainly because the 2nd Amendment is clear enough that it ought to speak for itself. Unfortunately, if the phrase "shall not be infringed" is not understood, I doubt that any argument will be accepted.

Hell, lately, I've heard a lot of anti-gun people simply assert that the 2nd Amendment was written at a different time, is old and outdated, is unnecessary, and should just be abolished. They don't even worry with it's wording, anymore. I don't know how to reach those people; they say, in one breath, that they don't trust the government, but then say that only the government should have guns! If they don't recognize a logic fail of that magnatude, they are far beyond any help I could possibly hope to offer.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

The scary part is those people vote.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Yes. They do vote. The Bill of Rights, you'll notice, does not enumerate a right to vote. This is part of the reason why.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

SHMIV wrote: Hell, lately, I've heard a lot of anti-gun people simply assert that the 2nd Amendment was written at a different time, is old and outdated, is unnecessary, and should just be abolished. They don't even worry with it's wording, anymore. I don't know how to reach those people; they say, in one breath, that they don't trust the government, but then say that only the government should have guns! If they don't recognize a logic fail of that magnatude, they are far beyond any help I could possibly hope to offer.

Those type of people only care about the constitution when it suits their ideology. Those type of people are quick to bring up the constitution, or Supreme Court rulings when it fits their view of the world yet, totally disregard it for those with different opinions. Like was already stated..... I don't know how more idiot proof, "shall not be infringed" could be. It's pretty cut & dry. Most of these people are the same ones wanting to restrict free speech......just not their speech.

Best post ever! And how true - you cannot change, remove or alter any word and retain the meaning and intent.

http://gopthedailydose.com/2015/12/15/t ... ver-video/

Trey Gowdy is the man imo.....

^^ Bitch slap. That is what that was.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Nice thread guys! Excellent job distilling it, MarcSpaz!

I am very glad to hear people talking about this. It is definitely true the intent was for us to have the same arms, and better, than the military. I also would suggest that the tool to change this is the only way it gets changed. All these rules on arms are actually illegal, and an insult to us.

So, with regard to being outdated, it may be, but they have to fix it properly, by amendment. This is only exacerbated by the fact that the government, if they ifnore the constitution are outside its parameters, and how is it the government can tell us when our unlimited rights, against said government, should end?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

sorry, i babbled.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

LOL... no worries man! Where have you been? I haven't seen you in about a year! I hope all is well?

Thanks for remembering me! About when I disappeared I found my blood pressure was out of control, I got no exercise, and I stressed over our horrid corrupt government all the time. I decided to make a change, which included less time doing this stuff, exercising more and eating better.

I took up mixed martial arts and fixed my diet. I've dropped 25-30 lbs and put on serious muscle. I feel a ton better! But my blood pressure is only slightly improved, unfortunately. Still running 15-20 points high.

So, still working at it but also figured I can spend a little time with my like minded friends here too.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

My wife stays stressed over government corruption. Myself, I get angry about it, from time to time, but for the most part, I try to keep in mind that it's pointless to stress over things that are out of my control. Control is mostly an illusion, anyway. The only thing that is really controllable is your attitude, so I try to keep mine positive. I figure that if the Apostle Paul could remain content in a Roman prison, I really have no excuse to be grumpy.

Which, by the way, doesn't mean that I've just thrown up my hands and said, "Eff it; it will be what it will be"; I do what I can, where I can, but I just keep my head positive about it. If you can remain positive, it's easier to remain calm, which, when in debate, helps at presenting your case in a rational manner, instead of coming off as an unhinged loon.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Oh, and welcome back, Remek. Good to see you; glad that you are doing well.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]