ARS on Twitter
RSS
Where is the last sentence of the Second Amendment?
Posted by Raven on June 27th, 2008
From many editorials today:
NYT:
In a radical break from 70 years of Supreme Court precedent, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, declared that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms for nonmilitary uses, even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.”
WaPo:
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, concluded that the amendment guarantees a right to bear arms for private use, such as self-defense, although nowhere is that explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Teh Boston Globe:
To arrive at this decision, the court performed a grammatical parsing that would confound the best English teacher, deciding that the first 13 words are merely “prefatory” to the “operative clause” of the one-sentence amendment, thus conveniently tossing aside the importance of “a well regulated militia” to the right to bear arms.
SO what do the people think? CNN asked us last night and within hours it was pretty clear:
Of course once it became clear to CNN, they took down this poll. Last I checked it was 5:1 in support of the ruling.
Perhaps the editors didn’t read the amendment fully? Or maybe they don’t understand the words? As with all the anti gun fools, any mention of the 14 words in the last sentence mean nothing, because, peoples’ rights mean nothing. Self defense is not a part of the picture here. When people have the means to defend themselves, crime would become less prevalent. And this would end the need for a big chunk of local, state and federal law enforcement.
Either way, it was at age three, my Dad taught me these words. He didn’t teach me about guns, although he owned many. My X took care of that- when he was active USMC. These words cannot be forgotten, wisked under the carpet, or misinterpreted.
“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.”
June 27th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Isn’t it obvious that the media can be so clueless about what the American people think? I don’t know why people even get their news from any of the major news sources (nbc, cbs or abc). It is so liberally biased.
What the media fails to understand is that the entire Bill of Rights is about “individual” rights. Each one of them – even the oddly worded 2nd amendment. Although I don’t think it is that strangely written. The 2nd amendment is about two things – a militia (which was so important to the American Revolution) and individual gun rights. The Framers were trying to make certain each one was included in the Constitution.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Spot on Jennifer…exactly. But alas, the liberals and others don’t want people to defend themselves; it’s better we all become some statistic than shoot back. Not me. I don’t care what the law says…I will always carry my gun and those who wish to hurt my family, harm me, steal my property will be given one warning if the situation warrants…I shoot not to kill but I will if it comes to that. I’ve taught my daughters the same thing and each of them carries as well.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:22 am
The militia was made up of civilians who brought their OWN guns when they were mustered, not guns provided by the state. And the militia being the security of a FREE state. Those are
as the Globe says. What else COULD they be, especially as Jennifer points that the Bill of Rights were for individuals… not the states. It is readily apparent that the liberals and the NYT, WaPo and the B Globe are all in the tank with the anti-gun crowd, spouting the entire “well-regulated militia” crap argument and then ignoring the part where the actual right is stated that the RIGHTS of THE PEOPLE … shall not be infringed. Be very wary if B. Hussein Obama gets elected. He’ll put judges on the Supreme Court that ignore the Constitution and will start interpreting that “living document” in accordance with international law….
June 28th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
By the end of next week, the Credentialed Media will deem that the ruling is a loss for Civil Rights, and will be running stories left and right about how guns are so dangerous in private hands. Probably be a bunch of editorials masquerading as news stories starting tomorrow.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:07 am
[...] Raven is wondering where the last sentence of the 2nd is [...]
June 30th, 2008 at 9:27 am
the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.”
I would say this is true, but not in the sense that the NYT appears to believe. For them, service in the militia is apparently what gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms, subject to the regulations upon the militia. In my opinion, the right of the people (i.e. individuals) to keep and bear arms is what enables the militia to exist in the first place.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Well said Bigfoot… well said…