Second Amendment

[Flash The Cash]

The fifth common law rule of construction says that when the reason ceases, the law itself ought likewise to cease with it. The lawmakers meant for the right to keep and bear arms to terminate when a well regulated militia is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state." That's not my personal view, but it is a fair construction of the text of the amendment according to the common law rules of construction that prevailed at the time the second amendment was made.

[The One]

I pray to God that I'm misunderstanding what it is you're driving at here.

[Shed]

Or they believed that:
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.

I don't see an expiry date.

[pcosmar]

I thought the "fifth law of construction" was don't hit your thumb with a hammer.

[The One]

I thought the "fifth law of construction" was don't hit your thumb with a hammer.


No, it's don't get your penis near the skil saw.

[Doktor_Jeep]

Obviously if it means to abolish 2A because they did not have "assault rifles" on those days, then perhaps it's time to abolosh 1A because they didn't have TV and radio in those days either.

Or perhaps the insinuation is that there is no longer a free state therefore no more militia?

THAT disparity is not going to be the resolution so easily.

[GunnyFreedom]

The fifth common law rule of construction says that when the reason ceases, the law itself ought likewise to cease with it. The lawmakers meant for the right to keep and bear arms to terminate when a well regulated militia is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state." That's not my personal view, but it is a fair construction of the text of the amendment according to the common law rules of construction that prevailed at the time the second amendment was made.


Problem is that this is a fallacious argument, (unstated major premise) resting on the assumption that a militia itself has no purpose. The reality is, that the only purpose of a militia, ANY militia, is the overthrow of tyranny. This is what the original American militia did, and it has basically been the purpose of every militia from the dawn of time up to this very day.

Has tyranny itself ceased? No! Then America requires the availability of a well equipped militia. Is it within the framers intent that the very potential instrument of tyranny replace and displace even the ability to establish a militia force? No!

The only rational construction of the amendment, must account for the Constitution's own definition of a militia, to include every able-bodied male from 17 to 45. According to a strict interpretation of the US Constitution, so long as you have able-bodies men of the proper age, then you have a defacto militia. If, then, the militia is obsolete, why are we not liquidating every able-bodied male from 17 to 45? At least that would be the only Constitutional means of abolishing the militia...

The argument you quote from above leaves a major unstated premise, inasmuch as it assumes that there is no purpose for a militia anymore. The Founder's intent for the American militia has neither lessened nor expired. If anything, the very aim of their concern is of greater value today than it has ever been.

The sole purpose of a militia is to overthrow tyranny. We are in more danger of tyranny today than we have ever been in American history, therefore, America requires a ready citizen's militia, and thus America requires that respect be paid to the Second Amendment.

[youngbuck]

Or they believed that:
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.

I don't see an expiry date.

See the problem with the second amendment is that there is so much left up in the air for interpretation with the phrase "shall not be infringed." The found fathers should have made it more clear.

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

seems clear to me that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms because of the possibility that they may "need" the means to fight another revolution.
it was a given then as it is to some of us now. free men should be able to defend themselves (against all enemies both F and D). if the enemy is armed, you should be too.

[porcupine]

nm