Strictly interpret Second Amendment

  • Follow Letters

The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads: "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." Note the beginning: "A well-regulated Militia."

Thus, emphasis on gun ownership has been misplaced. The right to bear arms is based upon well or good regulations. That means at least the following:

- The bearer shall demonstrate the proper use and care of the weapon.

- The bearer shall demonstrate the proper physical and mental capacity to be a member of an organized militia.

- The bearer shall be registered so as to be available for any call to duty as a member of a well-regulated militia.

- The bearer shall be able bodied, sufficient to be a member of a well-regulated militia.

- The bearer shall take an oath equal to and consistent with that taken by members of a well-organized militia.

- Such a well-organized Militia, shall be duly recognized, authorized and governed by the state in which the bearer holds citizenship.

The bottom line is that the bearer of arms must be trained, and disciplined to protect not only one's self and family, but one's state and country. To do less is unconstitutional.

Tom Zwemer, Augusta

Comments (39) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
DrGunby68
1
Points
DrGunby68 03/25/08 - 02:39 am
0
0
Now, from where did these 6

Now, from where did these 6 bullet pts come?

namaste
0
Points
namaste 03/25/08 - 03:01 am
0
0
Yes, please, do tell...even

Yes, please, do tell...even I'd like to know that.

SoonerorLater
0
Points
SoonerorLater 03/25/08 - 03:59 am
0
0
WOW, Mr. Zwemer just rewrote

WOW, Mr. Zwemer just rewrote the 2nd Amendment. The amendments typically are aimed at individual rights, if you look at each one and see they provide rights to individuals. The amendment says "the right of the people", somehow the writer made a loop and an assumption from which he drew his comments. Since I am soon to be an Army retiree, I have met the qualifications that Tom has rewritten, therefore I will be keeping my weapons.

JohnCarllStrauss
0
Points
JohnCarllStrauss 03/25/08 - 04:50 am
0
0
Maybe one must be trained and

Maybe one must be trained and registered to talk as well. Why not put the same requirements on the first amendment as well?

christian134
1
Points
christian134 03/25/08 - 04:55 am
0
0
I have always regarded the

I have always regarded the "right to bear arms" Mr. Zwemer as just that the right to bear arms. When it comes to protecting my home and loved ones I will do so at all costs. We may not have a foreign invader on these shores but we do have enough criminals roaming our streets just looking to kill and steal at will. That constitutes an invading army in my opinion.

dhd1108
1
Points
dhd1108 03/25/08 - 05:25 am
0
0
those looking to join a

those looking to join a militia in case the supreme court DOES as mr. zwemer suggests can contact me and become part of the "harrisburg gun totin' property protectin' thug shootin' militia"

DeborahElliott2
4
Points
DeborahElliott2 03/25/08 - 05:35 am
0
0
That is YOUR opinion and you

That is YOUR opinion and you have a right to it. The correct interpretation is "a well regulated MILITIA" Meaning the state appoints men to protect that State and its borders. Yes, they even made a constitutional right to bear arms, but even that must be with wisdom of the bearer. People back in those days had to protect their families from England, hunt for food (in which now we have to shop for it), and keep savages from attacking them. But we aren't back in those days anymore now are we? I don't have a side arm and I don't ride a horse into town (Otherwise I would save a bunch of money on my car insurance and gas expenses).

christian134
1
Points
christian134 03/25/08 - 05:44 am
0
0
DeborahElliott2 I have to say

DeborahElliott2 I have to say the word savages pretty much sums up the criminal element who are currently roaming large areas in the county as well as the country. That alone gives me the right to bear arms.....Savages mean those who tend to harm anyone or anything just for the sheer fun of it or just because they want what you have....That is not a term for the old days; it is very much relevant in this day unfortunately.

PTHS2
0
Points
PTHS2 03/25/08 - 05:54 am
0
0
dhd - The supreme court will

dhd - The supreme court will rule in favor of private ownership. I might like to join your militia anyway. ;-)

Brad Owens
4715
Points
Brad Owens 03/25/08 - 05:55 am
0
0
Bollocks! Completely off

Bollocks! Completely off target (pun intended) and wrong. Tom is a REALLY smart guy but he is a bit too smart on this one. There is no need to create meanings for words that already hold meaning. "the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall NOT be INFRINGED". I would say by any measure you put forward that is just plain ol' english and is not too open to 'interpretation' like Tom did here.

PTHS2
0
Points
PTHS2 03/25/08 - 06:07 am
0
0
Seriously folks, here are my

Seriously folks, here are my personal feelings on what was intended by our founding fathers. I am not a Supreme Court justice - nor do I play one on TV. In order for states to be able to form a well-regulated militia when needed, there must be a core group of citizens to draw from. Citizens would need to have their own firearms, be familiar with them and be proficient in their use to be ready to be called to duty. I learned to shoot an AR-15 on the range years before I joined the military for example. It would be impossible to form a militia with a bunch of folks who do not understand, and do not own, firearms. That is why the right to own and carry should never be infringed. Okay, there you have my feelings in a nutshell. I'm heading back to R&R where I belong.

ColdBeerBoiledPeanuts
8957
Points
ColdBeerBoiledPeanuts 03/25/08 - 06:45 am
0
0
PTHS I agree with you whole

PTHS I agree with you whole heartedly on this. The intent is that people shall be able to respond within Minutes should it be necessary.

critter
2
Points
critter 03/25/08 - 07:01 am
0
0
What junk....this isn't even

What junk....this isn't even an argument. Going back to cleaning my gun....

fd1962
26
Points
fd1962 03/25/08 - 07:51 am
0
0
Right on, critter, but that
Unpublished

Right on, critter, but that idea about being trained and registered to talk has potential. Maybe trained to write would be helpful too.

justus4
103
Points
justus4 03/25/08 - 08:24 am
0
0
This article points out two
Unpublished

This article points out two things: 1) interpretation of the Constitution depends on one's level of education 2) everyone should not be allowed to handle firearms. Another point never considered is whether the Second Amendment refers to handguns or rifles, or both. There is a difference. Owning a rifle should be every citizens' right, however a handgun is different. It's mostly designed for personal defense and in contemporary America, ya gotta pack some heat.

wantchangecashadollar
0
Points
wantchangecashadollar 03/25/08 - 08:39 am
0
0
It is amazing that the same

It is amazing that the same people who do not want the First Amendment read literally...wants the Second to be taken by the words...remember these are also the same people who got "Separation of Church and State" from a letter Jefferson wrote a friend...did the writer of this find a yet unseen letter of Jefferson to get this information...you can not read one Amendment litterally and not the others...Liberals know no bounds...

patriciathomas
42
Points
patriciathomas 03/25/08 - 08:46 am
0
0
Yet another that feels the

Yet another that feels the constitution is a "living, breathing document". History tells us Germany had all of the guns registered just before they were picked up.

RollTide
0
Points
RollTide 03/25/08 - 08:49 am
0
0
PTHS, I see you did sleep in

PTHS, I see you did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night though. Good thoughts bud.

mojo
0
Points
mojo 03/25/08 - 09:01 am
0
0
Apparently Mr. Zwemer is a

Apparently Mr. Zwemer is a typical liberal freak who thinks he knows all. OK Mr. Zwemer I'd like you to note the comma between the two parts of the sentence you quoted. Since your education clearly failed in the understanding of punctuation department, let me explain (note the clever little punctuation device called - called a comma). A comma (,) is used in many contexts but principally to separate items in a sentence. Meaning if the writers of the constitution had wanted to limit the rights of citizens to bear arms - they would have done so. Instead they deliberately chose words and phrases like "to bear arms" note they didn't say "own", "carry" or "possess" - instead they chose the most aggressive verb available. So Mr. Zwemer - like it or not the constitution gives us the right to bear arms and mentions no requirements for doing so.

NavyVet
0
Points
NavyVet 03/25/08 - 09:48 am
0
0
Mr. Zwemer, Why do you insist

Mr. Zwemer,
Why do you insist on using todays common definition of "Well Regulated" when you could use the definition that was common at the time the BOR was debated, written and approved?
At that time "regulated" meant practiced, or trained. Today regulated in the context of firearms still (among others) means being able to shoot to a point of aim, as in regulating a double barreled shotgun so both barrels shoot to the same place of aim. That is where that meaning came from, it is not a "new' construction.
Ciao,

imdstuf
10
Points
imdstuf 03/25/08 - 10:00 am
0
0
We have the right to bear

We have the right to bear arms. Period. Now if you use your arms the wrong way, let your kid get ahold of it, then you bear the responsiblity that goes along with it and can face punishment. There, its that simple.

sjgraci
2
Points
sjgraci 03/25/08 - 11:04 am
0
0
My Second Amendment rights

My Second Amendment rights are being infringed upon. I can not bear arms. Where are my thermal nuclear warheads? I'd settle for an anti-tank weapon or a few grenades. What fun they were to play with.

darth_froggy
0
Points
darth_froggy 03/25/08 - 01:43 pm
0
0
He shouldn't try to trick

He shouldn't try to trick other people into his line of thought by portraying his interpretation of the 2nd amendment as the ONLY interpretation.

darth_froggy
0
Points
darth_froggy 03/25/08 - 01:48 pm
0
0
Then it would be called

Then it would be called brainwashing.

darth_froggy
0
Points
darth_froggy 03/25/08 - 01:53 pm
0
0
By the way, the part about

By the way, the part about "baring arms" was created for and applies to Chuck Norris, because his arms are as deadly as any gun. Oh! The continuation of Chuck Norris jokes... uh.... continues!

426Hemi
0
Points
426Hemi 03/25/08 - 02:02 pm
0
0
I am my own Militia. My

I am my own Militia. My family is their own Militia. The community is its own Militia. Back then, anybody could be called upon for "duty."

johnsmith
9
Points
johnsmith 03/25/08 - 02:16 pm
0
0
Wow, that's a neat trick:

Wow, that's a neat trick: just decide what you think a text means, and then tell everyone that that's what it means. Cool. MY belief is that the second amendment means that everybody ought to send their guns to ME. After all, I can only guarantee that I, myself, am "well-regulated," so... The letter writer is wrong. The LTE is wrong because the body of the Constitution makes a clear distinction, as do the first 10 Amendments, between "the people" and "the States." In fact, the 10th Amendment specifically mentions both entities, thus showing that they are two different things. This may seem to be a basic point, but don't let anyone try to sneak it by you: When the Constitution or any of its Amendments refers to "The People," the reference is to you and me, to the citizens of the U.S., and NOT to some organized body, not to the states, not to a militia. It is true that the "justification" for the 2nd Amendment is the need for militias, but note that the text does NOT say: "Members of such militias shall not be deprived..." The framers could have written THAT, if THAT were what they meant... It's STILL not rocket surgery, folks...

darth_froggy
0
Points
darth_froggy 03/25/08 - 02:24 pm
0
0
Johnsmith, you seem to

Johnsmith, you seem to uppercase your words for emphasis with an obsessive zeal I have never seen before.

darth_froggy
0
Points
darth_froggy 03/25/08 - 02:24 pm
0
0
...

...

darth_froggy
0
Points
darth_froggy 03/25/08 - 02:25 pm
0
0
... ...

... ...

Back to Top

Top headlines

ARC to honor 1956 championship team

Because the championship year of 1956 has never lost its glory in Richmond Academy football lore, the team will be honored Thursday at the third annual ARC Hall of Fame banquet, where 10 alumni ...
Search Augusta jobs