Friday, June 27, 2008

Usually not political on here but...

That darn 2nd Amendment seems to be getting interpreted again! I thought, what are the actually words. People have a messy habit of only saying part of a sentence, half of the idea to suit their particular need.

"Amendment II
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."

Hmmm, interesting. I always seem to hear "The Right to Bear Arms." That seems to be only a portion of the complete sentence. I'm always skeptical of people that only use part of an entire sentence. Sort of like when people use part of a bible verse to back their point. They sometimes forget why it was being said, when it was being said and then apply it to today's world (which doesn't always work well.)

Interpretation is a funny thing. I work in the world of contracts and it's all about interpretation. Believe me, you say one thing and the complete opposite can be done if interpreted as such.

I just ask everyone to take a close look at the full sentence. Remember what sort of country we were when it was written (started in 1776.)

"A well regulated Militia" Does the guy down the street belong to a "regulated Militia"...not that I know of.

"being necessary to the security of a free State". So the Militia's is only necessary when the security and freedom of a State is being threatened.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" Notice it is the people (lowercase) of the Militia (uppercase) that have the right (when "security of a free State" is being threatened) when necessary. When items are in uppercase, it makes them a proper noun. So here, the people would not mean the "People" as citizens, but "people" of the "Militia" (which being in uppercase would mean an official group...hmmm, do I hear "well regulated"?)

"shall not be infringed." Ok, so if it's necessary for a State to protect the security of it's freedom then it can develop a well regulated Militia and those Militia people have the right to have guns.

One last thought:
In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified. Due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation, the likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a gun. The mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.

Hmmm, "Guns don't kill people, People do" Again, it's one of those phrases that I think is missing the FULL Sentence.

"Guns don't kill people, People do, using a gun"


Blogger Mark Tanaka (Ultrailnakaman) said...

I second your editorial, so to speak. It would be, oh so ironic, if Scalia or one of his right-wing S.C. buddies, got shot to death in D.C., huh?

5:22 AM  
Anonymous Phil Snelgrove said...

We're running a video campaign on behalf of Nike who are looking to appear on sites like,
and I'm enquiring if you would be interested in posting the film, which is targeted at your readers.
The film is about Kelly Sotherton the British Heptathlete in a Nikelab to prove her belief in herself.
We are looking at a live date very soon, please see the clip here:

Please let me know if you're interested in this opportunity.
Many thanks and I look forward to hearing from you soon
best regards

Phil Snelgrove


3:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If citizens cannot have Arms, who will create the Armed Militia when freedoms are threatened? The right to bear arms is protected because the fear is of tyranny from officials, that means the right for citizens to bear arms must be protected from regulatory practices to protect against tyranny from official bodies.

9:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the Second Amendment, the term "well regulated" does not mean "controlled" or "overseen" by some government official or entity. Would that have made sense in the context of a people who recently fought against their own tyrannical government? Hardly. The term "well regulated" was used in the sense of "to put in good order." In other words, for the people of this nation to ultimately be able to defend their freedoms, they (the militia, which included all able bodied citizenry, and more specifically the men) should maintain a good stock of weaponry and keep it in good order in case they needed to once again fight tyranny in their own government at any point in the future. In the context of the times, this is the only interpretation that makes any sense. Do you honestly believe a people recently freed by their own blood, sweat, and tears would opt to hand over their rights to own the very means of achieving their newly won freedoms to ANY government? If that's what you think, you don't understand much about history or about what the Founding Fathers themselves had to say about the topic. Do some research before you throw out nonsense.

10:13 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home