Found on another forum. Worth the time to read.
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html
Good read.
great read, i sent it on to some folks on me email list
This question is brought up toward the end of the article where he said he actually researched for opposition but could find none.
Very good read.
That is a great read. Very good information to have at hand for the inevitable encounter with the family anti-gunners.
That is a good article, and an understanding of natural rights is important to understanding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is, however, unnecessary in combating the current assault against the Second Amendment. I find fault with the author for failing adequately to address the misunderstanding of the first clause of the Second Amendment as related in the second section: The 2nd Amendment isnt about you guys owning guns, Bill said. Its about the state having guns. It says youre only allowed guns if youre part of the militia and I dont see any of you guys with uniforms. The 2nd Amendment is about the National Guard.
Absolutely, dead, self-evidently wrong. The meaning of the Second Amendment is perfectly clear from the grammar. "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." Any English sentence is, reduced to its essence, subject and verb. What is the subject of that sentence? Militia? No. The subject is "right". What is the verb? The compound verb is "shall not be infringed." Reduced to its essence, the sentence is "right shall not be infringed." The rest of the sentence amplifies and provides more information. What right? "To keep and bear arms." Whose right? Here is where the article's author completely misses his opportunity. Whose right clearly and self-evidently is not "of the well-regulated militia". Whose right clearly and self-evidently is not "of the states". Whose right clearly and self-evidently is not "of the National Guard". Whose right? "Of the people". Clearly and self-evidently.
Well, if that is true, what is all this stuff about a well-regulated militia, and why does it appear first in the sentence? Doesn't that mean the right of the people to keep and bear arms is predicated on membership in a well-regulated militia? The author's discussion on that point is relevant and good, but not controlling. The grammar of the sentence answers these questions perfectly without any contemporary research at all. The first clause, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is in grammar a dependent clause. That is, it provides philosophical reasoning as to why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not in any way modify the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It provides philosophy justifying the right of the people. In more modern English we would add one word, unnecessary in grammar, but which would make the order of the sentence more readily readable to the modern American eye: "because". In more modern English we would write "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state."
There is one more important understanding that the first, dependent clause provides. What is in view in the Second Amendment is not sporting arms or hunting arms. What is in view explicitly is military ("militia") arms. Furthermore, the purpose of the military arms in the hands of the people explicitly is to ensure the security of a free state. Security against what threat? Explicitly against the threat of tyranny, usurpation of sovereignty, by the Federal Government against the states, for that is the entire intent of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
So, given that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, how much regulation of arms is permissible under the Second Amendment? Surely regulation of fully automatic machine guns, hand grenades, explosives, anti-personnel mines, and so on is permissible, right? To answer that question it is necessary to determine only whether such regulation "infringes" the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If it "infringes", then it is impermissible. We have just answered the entire question of gun control. Explain to me how it is possible to legislate or regulate any aspect of firearms without "infringing" the right of the people to keep and bear arms! It is not. By its nature any law or regulation of any kind whatsoever necessarily and intrinsically "infringes" the right of the activity legislated or regulated.
Interestingly, the right of the Second Amendment is more absolute and immovable than the Left's favorite, the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees only that Congress shall make no law. Thus the only restriction in the First Amendment is on Congress, and the only action prohibited is making laws. No other agency or action is mentioned. But in the Second Amendment Congress is not the subject. The right itself is the subject. In the First Amendment Congress shall make no law "establishing" or "prohibiting" religion; or even merely "abridging" speech, press, assembly, and petition. Of importance to note is that both of these proscriptions are proportionately less absolute than the proscription in the Second Amendment, wherein the right itself may not be even so much as "infringed" by any agency whatsoever! Again, tell me how it is possible to legislate or regulate arms in any degree whatsoever without "infringing" the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
If you have managed to retain a Leftists' attention thus far he inevitably will descend into some variation of: "The founders could never have anticipated the current state of lethality of military arms, nor of the violent state of society. The Second Amendment therefore is no longer relevant. Ensuring our safety in the modern world requires (fill in your favorite flavor of gun control here)." This is an utterly lawless approach. Under law, if any provision of the Constitution needs to be changed, there is only one lawful way to do it: by Constitutional amendment. The process of amendment is deliberately difficult to achieve, in order to enforce deliberation before any such change is enacted. This obviously has not prevented amendments from being passed, nor has it prevented stupid amendments from being passed. Our forefathers in c. 1917 to 1919 were at least honest enough to acknowledge that the Congress had no power under the Constitution to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. If they wanted Congress to have such power, they first had to grant such power by amending the Constitution, which they successfully did by way of the Eighteenth Amendment. Though they did so legally, it was utterly stupid and counterproductive. When the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors is illegal, does it stop? No. On the contrary, criminals suddenly have a very lucrative and dangerous and destructive monopoly on the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors. So would it be with applying prohibition to, say, drugs, guns, or any other similar thing.
Now. Have any of the usual gun-grabbing suspects been at least honest in their attempts to circumvent the clear text of the Second Amendment? I have yet to hear any of them acknowledge the need first to amend the Constitution (1) to remove the current explicit protection of the Second Amendment, and (2) grant the power to Congress to regulate arms. Without both steps any attempt to regulate arms is strictly illegal.
Absolutely, dead, self-evidently wrong. The meaning of the Second Amendment is perfectly clear from the grammar. "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." Any English sentence is, reduced to its essence, subject and verb. What is the subject of that sentence? Militia? No. The subject is "right". What is the verb? The compound verb is "shall not be infringed." Reduced to its essence, the sentence is "right shall not be infringed." The rest of the sentence amplifies and provides more information. What right? "To keep and bear arms." Whose right? Here is where the article's author completely misses his opportunity. Whose right clearly and self-evidently is not "of the well-regulated militia". Whose right clearly and self-evidently is not "of the states". Whose right clearly and self-evidently is not "of the National Guard". Whose right? "Of the people". Clearly and self-evidently.
Well, if that is true, what is all this stuff about a well-regulated militia, and why does it appear first in the sentence? Doesn't that mean the right of the people to keep and bear arms is predicated on membership in a well-regulated militia? The author's discussion on that point is relevant and good, but not controlling. The grammar of the sentence answers these questions perfectly without any contemporary research at all. The first clause, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is in grammar a dependent clause. That is, it provides philosophical reasoning as to why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not in any way modify the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It provides philosophy justifying the right of the people. In more modern English we would add one word, unnecessary in grammar, but which would make the order of the sentence more readily readable to the modern American eye: "because". In more modern English we would write "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state."
There is one more important understanding that the first, dependent clause provides. What is in view in the Second Amendment is not sporting arms or hunting arms. What is in view explicitly is military ("militia") arms. Furthermore, the purpose of the military arms in the hands of the people explicitly is to ensure the security of a free state. Security against what threat? Explicitly against the threat of tyranny, usurpation of sovereignty, by the Federal Government against the states, for that is the entire intent of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
So, given that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, how much regulation of arms is permissible under the Second Amendment? Surely regulation of fully automatic machine guns, hand grenades, explosives, anti-personnel mines, and so on is permissible, right? To answer that question it is necessary to determine only whether such regulation "infringes" the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If it "infringes", then it is impermissible. We have just answered the entire question of gun control. Explain to me how it is possible to legislate or regulate any aspect of firearms without "infringing" the right of the people to keep and bear arms! It is not. By its nature any law or regulation of any kind whatsoever necessarily and intrinsically "infringes" the right of the activity legislated or regulated.
Interestingly, the right of the Second Amendment is more absolute and immovable than the Left's favorite, the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees only that Congress shall make no law. Thus the only restriction in the First Amendment is on Congress, and the only action prohibited is making laws. No other agency or action is mentioned. But in the Second Amendment Congress is not the subject. The right itself is the subject. In the First Amendment Congress shall make no law "establishing" or "prohibiting" religion; or even merely "abridging" speech, press, assembly, and petition. Of importance to note is that both of these proscriptions are proportionately less absolute than the proscription in the Second Amendment, wherein the right itself may not be even so much as "infringed" by any agency whatsoever! Again, tell me how it is possible to legislate or regulate arms in any degree whatsoever without "infringing" the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
If you have managed to retain a Leftists' attention thus far he inevitably will descend into some variation of: "The founders could never have anticipated the current state of lethality of military arms, nor of the violent state of society. The Second Amendment therefore is no longer relevant. Ensuring our safety in the modern world requires (fill in your favorite flavor of gun control here)." This is an utterly lawless approach. Under law, if any provision of the Constitution needs to be changed, there is only one lawful way to do it: by Constitutional amendment. The process of amendment is deliberately difficult to achieve, in order to enforce deliberation before any such change is enacted. This obviously has not prevented amendments from being passed, nor has it prevented stupid amendments from being passed. Our forefathers in c. 1917 to 1919 were at least honest enough to acknowledge that the Congress had no power under the Constitution to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. If they wanted Congress to have such power, they first had to grant such power by amending the Constitution, which they successfully did by way of the Eighteenth Amendment. Though they did so legally, it was utterly stupid and counterproductive. When the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors is illegal, does it stop? No. On the contrary, criminals suddenly have a very lucrative and dangerous and destructive monopoly on the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors. So would it be with applying prohibition to, say, drugs, guns, or any other similar thing.
Now. Have any of the usual gun-grabbing suspects been at least honest in their attempts to circumvent the clear text of the Second Amendment? I have yet to hear any of them acknowledge the need first to amend the Constitution (1) to remove the current explicit protection of the Second Amendment, and (2) grant the power to Congress to regulate arms. Without both steps any attempt to regulate arms is strictly illegal.
bravo good sir, that was a magnificent display of irrefutable intellect!
