The 2'nd Amendment ONLY applies to Americans in the military (full-time or reserves)

M

McRocket

New member
First...I am a fan of firearms. And I do NOT want to ban any class of firearms.

Okay...

2'nd Amendment
'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.'

So...what exactly is 'A well regulated Militia'?

(i) The Militia Act of 1903

'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes — the organized militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia.
The third section defines the " organized militia " as the regu- larly enlisted, organized, and uniformed militia which shall here- after participate in the annual militia appropriation (heretofore only one million a year). It gives the President authority to fix the minimum number of enlisted men in each company.'
https://archive.org/details/jstor-25119439/page/n1/mode/2up

The actual text of the Militia Act of 1903 - https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001.2012yapam90993/?sp=1

(ii) '10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.'

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246


So...there are two kinds of militia - according to US law.
The organized and the unorganized.

And since the 2'nd Amendment refers SOLELY to 'a well regulated Militia'?
Than, the 2'nd Amendment cannot POSSIBLY include the 'unorganized militia'.
It is not possible for a 'well regulated Militia' to be 'unorganized'.

And since the ONLY organized militia refers ONLY to the military?
The 2'nd Amendment does NOT include ANYONE whom is not in the military.
By law.



And for those whom wish to argue that the 'Militia' is NOT the subject of the sentence?

2'nd Amendment
'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.'


First -
'The subject of a sentence will never be in a prepositional phrase.'
https://www.english-grammar-revolution.com/subject-of-a-sentence.html

'A propositional phrase will never contain the subject of a sentence'
https://www.chompchomp.com/terms/prepositionalphrase.htm


Second -
'A prepositional phrase is a group of words that lacks either a verb or a subject, and that functions as a unified part of speech. It normally consists of a preposition and a noun or a preposition and a pronoun.
Remember the following rules for prepositional phrases and you will find that using them becomes much easier.
Prepositional phrases always consist of two basic parts at minimum: the object and the preposition.'

https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/preposition/prepositional-phrases/
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/grammar/prepositions

Third - 'of the people'
IS a prepositional phrase.
It starts with a preposition and ends with a noun.
It CANNOT be the subject of a sentence.

Or - 'to keep and bear Arms'
IS a prepositional phrase.
It starts with a preposition and ends with a noun.
It CANNOT be the subject of the sentence.

Fourth - 'A well regulated Militia'
is NOT a prepositional phrase.
'A' is an 'article' - NOT a 'preposition'..
'well' is NOT a 'preposition'.
'regulated' is NOT a 'preposition'.

Therefore:
The subject of the sentence IS 'a well regulated Militia'.


Finally?

I do not even begin to care how the SCOTUS or legal 'experts' or ANYONE else has 'interpreted' the 2'nd Amendment.
Or what ANYONE assumed the Founding Fathers meant by it.
Or what ANYONE's, unsupported opinions are on this.
If your reply does not include a link to a respected site to back up your point - I am not going to waste my time reading it.
I am NOT getting into the trillionth, nonsensical, hyperventilating discussion that people have about US gun rights.
:rolleyes:

All I care about here is how the Amendment is written and how it applies to US laws and the English Language.
 
Last edited:
The militias are typically not "unorganized".

BTW you missed this part, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
 
AProudLefty said:
The militias are typically not "unorganized".
Click to expand...
I guess you did not read the whole post.

2'nd Amendment - 'A well regulated militia...'
It is impossible for a militia to be 'well-regulated' and also 'unorganized'.

BTW you missed this part, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
Click to expand...

No, I didn't.

I dealt with it in the post 'Third'.
 
This could only be true if the words "the people" mean something different in this one sentence than it does in every other part of the document, and you and I both know that isn't true.

In the language of today it basically says: Because the government can call on an armed group of folks at will (currently a standing army, back then an armed militia), the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
 
McRocket said:
I guess you did not read the whole post.

2'nd Amendment - 'A well regulated militia...'
It is impossible for a militia to be 'well-regulated' and also 'unorganized'.
Click to expand...

Correct. A militia that is not National Guard can be organized and well regulated.

No, I didn't.

I dealt with it in the post 'Third'.
Click to expand...

It is not a prepositional phrase.
 
Damocles said:
This could only be true if the words "the people" mean something different in this one sentence than it does in every other part of the document, and you and I both know that isn't true.

In the language of today it basically says: Because the government can call on an armed group of folks at will (currently a standing army, back then an armed militia), the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This is settled law. Not just the placement of the comma, but the background.

SCOTUS doesn't rule on a single paragraph. They study the history and as many documents of the time as possible to discern what the Founders, signers and ratifiers meant by the Amendment.

There's no question that our Founders understood that every American citizen had a right to both self-defense but also, by name, to keep and bear arms. Arms meaning firearms.
 
From Congress.gov

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ii/interps/99
Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Damocles said:
This could only be true if the words "the people" mean something different in this one sentence than it does in every other part of the document, and you and I both know that isn't true.

In the language of today it basically says: Because the government can call on an armed group of folks at will (currently a standing army, back then an armed militia), the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
Click to expand...

Third - 'of the people'
IS a prepositional phrase.
It starts with a preposition and ends with a noun.
It CANNOT be the subject of a sentence.

Rules of the English language.

https://www.chompchomp.com/terms/prepositionalphrase.htm
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top