The NRA Tweeted this:
What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand? #NRA #2A #DefendtheSecond pic.twitter.com/dVgZbyRhrH
— NRA (@NRA) June 4, 2018
Several people, including Piers Morgan, responded with this:
What part of 'A well regulated militia' do YOU not understand? https://t.co/TIVszyi9rT
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) June 4, 2018
I could go into Heller and Article I of the Constitution.
Historically, the Militia was armed citizens, separate from a formal and commissioned military.
The words that I’m going to focus on here are the forgotten ones.
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.
Why that language? Why “a free State?”
If the purpose of the Militia was to defend the nation from foreign invasion, why not say “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security the State?”
Because the duty of the Militia was to defend “a free State” from all forms of oppression, be it foreign invader or domestic tyrant.
“A free State” exists as a separate idea from the United States. At the time they were one and the same, but if the United States ever drifted from that, the Militia was supposed to defend “a free State” and not necessarily the State.
The militia was not supposed to be a tool of State oppression. This is where the Militia stands in direct opposition to the Armies and Navy created by Congress.
The operative word in all of that is “free.” The Militia defends freedom not the tyrannical government, “the free State” not “the State.”
This is just my humble, non-law school opinion. But if we are going to pick apart every word of the Second Amendment looking for meaning, I think this is an important point to make.
The only place in the Constitution does the term “free State” show up is the Second Amendment. I believe is for that very reason. To make it clear that the right to keep and bear arms exists as a bulwark against tyranny by making the Militia – free, armed citizens – defenders of a free America and not a tyrannical American government.
I have often pondered if changing the words from:
“…the security of a free State…”
to:
“…secure a State of Freedom…”
would have been a more precise statement.
Try it on for size and tell me what y’all think:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to secure a State of Freedom, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Idiots like piers often mistake Militia to mean military. Its getting very very old.
We the people know the true meaning. State of Freedom….hhhmmm not bad,only problem is changing it cause that would take congress and we all know we can trust them…
They not only (deliberately) misinterpret “Militia” but also misinterpret “well regulated” as justification for regulating firearms possession. In the language of the 18th century, “well regulated” as applied to the militia, meant well trained, and well equipped, especially with common or regular arms.
One of the reasons for this phrase, is that during the revolution, militia units showed up, untrained, and armed with a variety of arm ranging from small caliber hunting rifles, to fowling pieces to brown bess muskets. No commonality of calibers, no military discipline, and little training in the tactics of the day. To be effective, the several states’ militias needed to be ready to quickly join with the (small) national army in case of an external threat, or to band together with other states to oppose tyranny from within. Hence, “well regulated”.
Very accurate! When I tell people that “well regulated” means “well trained”, it usually takes a few minutes of explanation before they believe me. Good explanation here!
Ironically, for now anyway, the threat comes not from the federal government but FROM those states.
“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.”
Notice it say’s “the right of the people” and not the “the right of the militia”. Piers is just playing word games to obscure what the actual text says. He’s an idiot from an Orwellian hellhole. #FreeTommyRobinson
So Penis Morgan is still at it. You have to be pretty awful, pretty totalitarian, and pretty condescending to get your show cancelled on CNN, but he managed to do it, and he’s learned nothing.
Neil Schulman (in “Stopping Power”) has a detailed discussion about the wording of the 2nd Amendment. (One detail is that the text as usually quoted has two extra commas in it that muddle things for modern readers.)
It is of course important that the militia is all of us (more precisely, all the people except for some office holders). But even more so is the grammar. The construction of that sentence isn’t a limitation, as the enemy would try to make us believe. The first clause is an explanation — an example of why the independent clause is needed. The meaning is unchanged if you delete the first half.
Piers should contemplate how “peaceful” and “free” Britain is without firearms.
Crawford421, if you ask a fish “How’s the water?” the fish will answer “What water?”
Tell Piers Morgan our well regulated militia kicked the ass of his despotic Redcoats.
We would be happy to do it again if he does not mind his own business. He really should be more concerned with the muslim violence problem in the UK.