“Arms” is pluralized to match “the people” grammatically, not because it has anything to do with identifying the quantity any individual person has a right to.
Two.
No?
No.
The 2nd Amendment isn’t a permission slip that delineates the “right” that the people are allowed to exercise.
All the 2nd Amendment “does” is redundantly forbid the federal* government to exercise powers it was never granted.
- since McDonald v Chicago (2010), the 2nd Amendment is also applicable upon state action (incorporated under the 14th Amendment).
There is as much chance of that as there is of rewriting the civics curriculum and actually instruct people on the principles of the Constitution.
If those principles were wide knowledge there would be no discussion of your proposal.
For you as well as those who are militantly ignorant of the subject I’m sure it does. For me it really presents no problem, other than having to endlessly field this silly argument. 
But you know, keep bringing it up. I’m sure that eventually, through repetition it will eventually get you some traction. I mean, all your friends agree with you on this, so it must be valid, right?
If you have a point to make about how part of the Constitution is actually meaningless, you would do well to explain it.
Why should I continue with your hijack of this thread? I’ve explained my position on this myriad times in other threads and if you had anything more meaningful to say than your stupid drive by you’d have said it then. Since you didn’t and instead choose to do silly little drive by posts in this thread to try and derail it I choose to mock you for it. Simple as that. Feel free to start another thread on the subject you are obviously dying to talk about and get your ass kicked again. Should be fun to have the 1 millionth ‘But the 2nd Amendment is only about MILITIAS since it says it right there!’ thread.
So that would be a No.
As expected. Pity, that.
Perhaps if you actually had more than a drive by snipe that is laughably ignorant AND if it wasn’t a hijack of this thread someone might take your bait. As I commented already, if you had anything meaningful to say on the subject you’d have said it in past threads that actually WERE about the subject you seem to want to get your ass kicked on…but, you know, I don’t remember you ever saying anything meaningful in any of them. Funny, that.
Rules of Statutory Construction apply to AM’s, I would imagine.
1 USC § 1 - Words denoting number, gender, and so forth
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;
words importing the plural include the singular;
‘My proposal’ being that we re-address the Second Amendment
Actually, that should be part of revising the Constitution. Jefferson and others figured we would hold a Constitutional Convention about once a generation and hammer out issues that had changed over time. None of the Founders really thought they were creating a document that would or should stand unaltered. in the years since, we’ve amended the Constitution several times but it’s always been a big deal, never part of the ordinary course of business.
In the current modern climate, of course it’s impossible to amend the 2nd Amendment.
But to suggest that doing so violates “the principles of the Constitution” is factually inaccurate.
But that’s an aside, I’m not really trying to hijack the thread or seriously suggest that we could change the 2nd Amendment in any way.
What I came here to say; ninja’d.
Two things:
First, as has been mentioned in many previous threads, in the late 18th century the phrase “well-regulated” did not mean “under strict control”. It meant “in good working order”, “functional”, in the sense that a clock that kept time accurately was “well regulated”. The word “disciplined” was used to refer to armed men being under authority. Documents contemporary with the Second Amendment such as the Federalist Papers (especially #29) bear this out.
Second, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, even if not held to be a right outside of government service, still would refer to the fact that citizen militias were supposed to keep their weapons at home, the way the Swiss do, not issued from a government armory. The whole point of a militia is that it is composed of common citizens, not army regulars or even reservists. There was supposed to be a large (ideally, the entire able-bodied male populace) body of armed men who were NOT essentially slaves of the government, as army regulars- who could be court-martialed and hanged for non-civil offenses- were considered to be. The Framers were well acquainted with professional troops being the thugs of the government.
Entirely irrelevant to what you claim to be your individual right to carry a weapon for the purpose of your own damn safety, under no one’s “strict control” but your own, and *not *as part of a militia (unless you’re on maneuvers with the National Guard at the time). Why you guys keep thinking this means anything to the discussion is just strange. Not as strange as insisting on a *modern *definition of arms along with it, though.
Which, again, might be relevant if what you saw on the street every time you went out was the tyrannous jackboots you needed to defend against, as part of a militia.
You’re avoiding the part about it also meaning a functioning military organization, with chains of command and the following of orders and all that, none of which applies to you swaggering down the street.
Odd, then, how Guardsmen can be court-martialed anyway, and yes, even executed.
And they were also well acquainted with the government being the instrument* of the people*. That’s what they created. It does not mean that you can go shoot somebody in uniform if they try to enforce laws you happen to find inconvenient.
Even if you held a constitutional convention, the 2nd amendment would stand. It’s part of many state constitutions and while more people favor gun control than not, gun owners are far more motivated and willing to die on that hill, so to speak, whereas gun controllers have about 50 higher priorities. There just wouldn’t be enough support for limiting the 2nd amendment even in a constitutional convention setting.
As for militias, Elvis, militias in the 18th century were pretty loose affairs. They even elected their officers back then. It was just some regular joes who were called out with their personal firearms if things got wild, such as when Indians attacked. In those days, you couldn’t call the police or the army for that, the people had to grab their guns, gather under a prominent town official who everyone agreed was the leader, and head out to protect the town. There was no basic training, no chain of command as we understand it, and little in the way of military discipline.
Even today, it is still the case that the militias are needed. What happens if a Mexican drug gang decides to attack a border town? The army’ isn’t there. The state has the constitutional right and duty to protect itself by using National Guard troops or, simply citizen militias.
Eh. That’s not really what “infringing” means in other contexts, anyway. It’s arguably not just a synonym for “encroach.”
I for one welcome the limit to two firearms. It will be too late when we finally become aware of the existence of the hidden race of four-armed supermen.
You’re the one who keeps insisting that the first clause of the Second Amendment clearly and unambiguously shows that the right to keep and bear arms exists only within the context of military service. If you’re going to keep shouting “Case Closed!” based on this, evidence of your misperceptions are going to keep being brought up.
There was the Republican National Convention in 2008, where St. Paul MN was virtually under martial law for a week.
Hey, it’s not my fault the government has decided not to bother with mustering the citizens. And again, a militia is supposed to organize an already armed public.
Because people who step forward to volunteer for service are held by the 1903 Militia Act to have by implied consent joined the Army Reserve. Which means the Guard is an army not a militia in everything but name.
Anyone can claim to be acting on behalf of “the people”- like the Soviet Union or Mao’s China for example. An armed populace puts that claim to the test.
Crash double post.
Yes, it’s been misread by those with an agenda, including the trog wing of the current Supreme Court, and that misreading is effective law, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t misreading.
I saw no armed insurrection there of any sort, either by individuals or by gangs of yahoos styling themselves as militias, either. Your point?
Is their purpose to act in support of the government or in resistance to it? Make up your mind.
You don’t have to like that law, but you do have to recognize that* it made the militias the National Guard. *You talk about those forces in a 21st century context, or even 20th, and that’s what you’re referring to. The militia is the Guard.
Roving gangs of gun-waving yahoos interfering with the functioning of our elective democracy? Nope, they’re just thugs.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Yes, it’s been misread by those with an agenda, including the trog wing of the current Supreme Court, and that misreading is effective law, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t misreading.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, 'cause it’s not like we have the additional writings of the folks who composed the Amendment, nor the early drafts to look at when determining what it meant and all…
…oh, Wait™!! We DO have those, and we CAN look at what they actually meant as well as early drafts of the Amendment to see how it morphed into what we have today and determine whether the authors intended the right to be a personal right or one tied to military service! :smack:
But, you know, keep fooling yourself into thinking that you know what you are talking about on this subject. It’s amusing, in a hijacking sort of way.