Posts
In Webster's English
Stephen P. Halbrook
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/164311
Halbrook, an attorney and research fellow at The Independent Institute, Oakland, Calif., is author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms."
Anticipating the Supreme Court's expected late June decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which will decide the constitutionality of a D.C. law restricting gun-ownership rights, many analysts have turned to the Founders' writings in an effort to understand the Second Amendment. What analysts need to do -- recognizing that language and word usage change over time -- is turn to America's first dictionary.
The Second Amendment states simply, "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."
The Supreme Court questioned whether the D.C. statute "violate[d] the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."
For the answer, turn to Noah Webster.
Known as the Father of American Scholarship and Education, Webster believed that popular sovereignty in government must be accompanied by popular usage in language. In "A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1806, and "An American Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1828 and adopted by Congress as the American standard, Webster defined all the words in the Second Amendment.
"People" were "the commonality, as distinct from men of rank," and "Right" was "just claim; immunity; privilege." "All men have a right to secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property," he wrote.
Thus in the language of Webster's time, "the people" meant individuals and individuals have "rights."
"Keep" was defined as "To hold; to retain one's power or possession; not to lose or part with ... To have in custody for security or preservation"; "Bear" as "to carry" or "to wear; name; to bear arms in a coat"; and "Arms" were defined as "weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body."
Only civilians would "bear arms in a coat" -- soldiers carried muskets in their hands, while officers carried pistols in holsters.
Thus the words "keep and bear arms" suggest a right to hand-held arms as a person could "bear," such as muskets, pistols and swords, but not cannon and heavy ordnance that a person could not carry.
"Infringe" was defined by Webster as " ... to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance."
"Militia" was defined as "able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers ... and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations" and "Regulated" as " ... subject to rules or restrictions." A well-regulated militia consisted of civilians, not soldiers.
What about the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State?"
"Necessary" was defined as "that must be; that cannot be otherwise; indispensably requisite";
"Security" as "protection; effectual defense or safety from danger of any kind ... " and "Free" as "In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord."
"State" was defined as "A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of government ... ." A free state, we must conclude, therefore, encompasses the entire body politic.
During most of our history an exhaustive analysis of the Second Amendment would never have been necessary. The meaning of each word would have been obvious to citizens of the time.
It was only in the late 20th century that an Orwellian view of the Second Amendment gained currency. Within this distorted language prism, "the people" would come to mean the states or state-conscripted militia; "right" would mean governmental power; "keep" would no longer entail custody for security or preservation; "bear" would not mean carry; "arms" would not include ordinary handguns and rifles, and "infringe" would not include prohibition.
The Founders worded the Second Amendment in an easy to understand manner. Individuals have a right to have arms in their houses and to carry them for protection, and the government may not violate that right.
Modern contortions of language can't change that meaning because we can still refer to Noah Webster.
----------------------------
Now that is something that I cannot see anyone argue, unless they change the definition of our words.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Cowards in the cradle of our nation?
Dear God, I pray that you will look over those so overcome by fear that they do nothing against the criminals of our country. Amen.
OK people, I was reading newspapers online from all across our East Coast. I saw more stories of crime than good. I have never seen such a thing. Do they not care about their or others safety? Are they so beaten down that they sit home afraid every night? What creates cowards in this nation so wide spread that criminals overtake our states?
Is it cowards, or bad laws that prevent people from doing good for themselves and others?
Why, and really I ask, why is it in so called Blue states crime rates are higher than so called Red states? I wish I knew the answer.
When people of our nation quit looking for the easy way out and run from tough times, we might see the nation our founding father envisioned.
I do not give a shit how you vote, but if you vote as a pussy and allow bad things to grow, you are a fool. Put people in office who will actually make a difference. Screw party lines if your Blue option is a wuss, and the same for those Reds out there.
I gave 10 (ten) years of my life chasing shit bag criminals. I know I made a difference. In saying that I challenge you to do something.
Start giving a shit and doing shit and quit being a piece of shit!!!!!!
OK people, I was reading newspapers online from all across our East Coast. I saw more stories of crime than good. I have never seen such a thing. Do they not care about their or others safety? Are they so beaten down that they sit home afraid every night? What creates cowards in this nation so wide spread that criminals overtake our states?
Is it cowards, or bad laws that prevent people from doing good for themselves and others?
Why, and really I ask, why is it in so called Blue states crime rates are higher than so called Red states? I wish I knew the answer.
When people of our nation quit looking for the easy way out and run from tough times, we might see the nation our founding father envisioned.
I do not give a shit how you vote, but if you vote as a pussy and allow bad things to grow, you are a fool. Put people in office who will actually make a difference. Screw party lines if your Blue option is a wuss, and the same for those Reds out there.
I gave 10 (ten) years of my life chasing shit bag criminals. I know I made a difference. In saying that I challenge you to do something.
Start giving a shit and doing shit and quit being a piece of shit!!!!!!
Second Amendment is not about weapons,
Second Amendment is not about weapons, but about basic right of self-defense
June 2, 2008
Larry Goodson
The letter in Wednesday's edition, "Restrict weapons," is yet another display of a well-intentioned person who has absolutely no knowledge of firearms or facts.
She refers to the Second Amendment as giving guns to too many irresponsible people. I guess, and primarily due to the major media historically having an anti-gun agenda and choosing to not report on them, she is unaware of the 2.5 million times each year in our country that an average person stops a crime due to the mere presence of a gun, and in most cases not firing it.
Does she also suggest that too many people are abusing some of the other amendments, such as the right of free speech and religion because of all the hate mongers and race baiters we are exposed to daily?
The Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. It is primarily about self-defense, which is a far greater right than even that bestowed by the First Amendment. Studies and statistics show that if more good people had guns, there would be far less crime.
If our society could effectively deal with such core issues as the glorification of violence in music, movies, the Internet and video games, a turnstile justice system that coddles criminals, an education system that no longer teaches values and respect, and the lack of parenting, there would no longer be a "gun problem," as there was none when I was growing up. I will fight for my constitutional right of self-defense.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-pbmail805pnjun02,0,360095.story
June 2, 2008
Larry Goodson
The letter in Wednesday's edition, "Restrict weapons," is yet another display of a well-intentioned person who has absolutely no knowledge of firearms or facts.
She refers to the Second Amendment as giving guns to too many irresponsible people. I guess, and primarily due to the major media historically having an anti-gun agenda and choosing to not report on them, she is unaware of the 2.5 million times each year in our country that an average person stops a crime due to the mere presence of a gun, and in most cases not firing it.
Does she also suggest that too many people are abusing some of the other amendments, such as the right of free speech and religion because of all the hate mongers and race baiters we are exposed to daily?
The Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. It is primarily about self-defense, which is a far greater right than even that bestowed by the First Amendment. Studies and statistics show that if more good people had guns, there would be far less crime.
If our society could effectively deal with such core issues as the glorification of violence in music, movies, the Internet and video games, a turnstile justice system that coddles criminals, an education system that no longer teaches values and respect, and the lack of parenting, there would no longer be a "gun problem," as there was none when I was growing up. I will fight for my constitutional right of self-defense.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-pbmail805pnjun02,0,360095.story
Monday, June 2, 2008
Here is our choice...
Regardless of what happens between Obama and Clinton, here is the only choice for 2nd Amendment Rights.
John McCain at the NRA Annual Meeting in Kentucky.
John McCain at the NRA Annual Meeting in Kentucky.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Wow, in the New York Times...
Normally major newspapers and media sources ignore news involving non-criminal use of handguns. Swap out the officer for any Concealed Weapons Permit holder, and you will understand my points made repeatedly here.
----------------------------
At His Door, Officer Kills Armed Man
By JENNIFER 8. LEE and JASON GRANT
Published: June 2, 2008
The NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/nyregion/02shooting.html?ref=nyregion
An off-duty police officer fatally shot a man who pulled a gun on the officer’s wife and 3-year-old daughter outside the door of their Bronx apartment, the police said on Sunday.
The confrontation began when the officer’s wife and daughter left the elevator to go to their third-floor apartment at 314 East 201st Street in Bedford Park just before midnight on Saturday.
A man who had been in the elevator with them followed them out and pointed a pistol at them, the police said. The woman’s screams alerted her husband, identified as Officer Luis Perez, who ran into the hall with a gun.
Shots were fired as the man, whom the police identified as Carlos Rios, 47, of Amsterdam Avenue in Upper Manhattan, ran down the stairs into the lobby, witnesses and the police said. He was hit in the shoulder, the police said.
According to a witness, Mr. Rios was found under a minivan outside the building and medics tried to revive him on the sidewalk. He was taken to Montefiore Medical Center, where he was declared dead at 12:26 a.m.
The police said that a silver automatic pistol was recovered and that Mr. Rios had an arrest record. They did not give details.
Peter Girvan, 42, an administrator at Fordham University who also lives on the third floor, said that shortly before midnight he heard a woman yelling for help in Spanish. He looked through the peephole of his apartment door and saw a woman in a black jogging suit giving “bloodcurdling” screams. “She was screaming ‘Ayudame! Ayudame!’” he said.
He said he then saw Mr. Rios dart past his door and run down the stairs. Mr. Girvan said he heard a single shot followed by a rapid sequence of five shots. After a minute or so, Mr. Girvan said, he walked into the hallway and saw Officer Perez, dressed only in boxer shorts, coming up the stairs with his gun.
The police said that the pistol the officer used was not his department-issued weapon.
Another neighbor, Ken Ferrara, 53, who teaches learning-disabled children and is a tai chi instructor, said he heard Mr. Perez identify himself as a police officer. He added, “I believe it was the perpetrator who fired the shot as he was running down the stairs, and then the officer returned fire.”
Jason Rodriguez, 23, who lives on the first floor, also said that he heard a single shot followed by five rapid shots. “I went to my hallway and all I saw was gun smoke,” he said. “It had just happened. I was devastated.”
Hours after the shooting, a trail of blood could be seen from the first floor out to the street.
The neighborhood is known as a place where many police officers live, residents said. Blanca Farmer, 52, the building’s superintendent, said that Officer Perez was an active and helpful neighbor. She said he had passed his business card to other tenants and told them: “If there is trouble in the building, call the 52nd Precinct. Don’t take the law into your own hands.”
-----------------------------------------
OK, I bolded one thing which is also usually omitted in a story regarding LAWFUL self defense shootings across this country. The criminal in this story, and almost all others like this, have a prior record.
I do disagree with one major part of this story. It is the final line of this story. "Don't take the law into your own hands."
Do a test where ever you may live. Have a stopwatch available. Call 911. Now, imagine how many shots can and could be fired by a criminal. Also, figure out how many shots you could fire to save you, your family, or others before the police arrive.
Taking your own life and the self defense of such into your own hands in most states is actually protected by law. Did you know that? There are laws in place to protect those whom have had to defend themselves or others. SO, taking the law into your own hands is not only something I advise, but support. If we could not do this, why do they have Citizens Arrest powers also in the laws?
In addition to all of this, you must realize and understand that the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that the police DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT YOU!!!!!! Bet most of you did not know that one.
Cheers,
----------------------------
At His Door, Officer Kills Armed Man
By JENNIFER 8. LEE and JASON GRANT
Published: June 2, 2008
The NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/nyregion/02shooting.html?ref=nyregion
An off-duty police officer fatally shot a man who pulled a gun on the officer’s wife and 3-year-old daughter outside the door of their Bronx apartment, the police said on Sunday.
The confrontation began when the officer’s wife and daughter left the elevator to go to their third-floor apartment at 314 East 201st Street in Bedford Park just before midnight on Saturday.
A man who had been in the elevator with them followed them out and pointed a pistol at them, the police said. The woman’s screams alerted her husband, identified as Officer Luis Perez, who ran into the hall with a gun.
Shots were fired as the man, whom the police identified as Carlos Rios, 47, of Amsterdam Avenue in Upper Manhattan, ran down the stairs into the lobby, witnesses and the police said. He was hit in the shoulder, the police said.
According to a witness, Mr. Rios was found under a minivan outside the building and medics tried to revive him on the sidewalk. He was taken to Montefiore Medical Center, where he was declared dead at 12:26 a.m.
The police said that a silver automatic pistol was recovered and that Mr. Rios had an arrest record. They did not give details.
Peter Girvan, 42, an administrator at Fordham University who also lives on the third floor, said that shortly before midnight he heard a woman yelling for help in Spanish. He looked through the peephole of his apartment door and saw a woman in a black jogging suit giving “bloodcurdling” screams. “She was screaming ‘Ayudame! Ayudame!’” he said.
He said he then saw Mr. Rios dart past his door and run down the stairs. Mr. Girvan said he heard a single shot followed by a rapid sequence of five shots. After a minute or so, Mr. Girvan said, he walked into the hallway and saw Officer Perez, dressed only in boxer shorts, coming up the stairs with his gun.
The police said that the pistol the officer used was not his department-issued weapon.
Another neighbor, Ken Ferrara, 53, who teaches learning-disabled children and is a tai chi instructor, said he heard Mr. Perez identify himself as a police officer. He added, “I believe it was the perpetrator who fired the shot as he was running down the stairs, and then the officer returned fire.”
Jason Rodriguez, 23, who lives on the first floor, also said that he heard a single shot followed by five rapid shots. “I went to my hallway and all I saw was gun smoke,” he said. “It had just happened. I was devastated.”
Hours after the shooting, a trail of blood could be seen from the first floor out to the street.
The neighborhood is known as a place where many police officers live, residents said. Blanca Farmer, 52, the building’s superintendent, said that Officer Perez was an active and helpful neighbor. She said he had passed his business card to other tenants and told them: “If there is trouble in the building, call the 52nd Precinct. Don’t take the law into your own hands.”
-----------------------------------------
OK, I bolded one thing which is also usually omitted in a story regarding LAWFUL self defense shootings across this country. The criminal in this story, and almost all others like this, have a prior record.
I do disagree with one major part of this story. It is the final line of this story. "Don't take the law into your own hands."
Do a test where ever you may live. Have a stopwatch available. Call 911. Now, imagine how many shots can and could be fired by a criminal. Also, figure out how many shots you could fire to save you, your family, or others before the police arrive.
Taking your own life and the self defense of such into your own hands in most states is actually protected by law. Did you know that? There are laws in place to protect those whom have had to defend themselves or others. SO, taking the law into your own hands is not only something I advise, but support. If we could not do this, why do they have Citizens Arrest powers also in the laws?
In addition to all of this, you must realize and understand that the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that the police DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT YOU!!!!!! Bet most of you did not know that one.
Cheers,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
