The Second Amendment

[turkeycall]

I know this is a sensitive and even volatile subject for many people, and I have given this some serious thought before posting. Let me state up front that I bear no ill will against either pro or anti-gun people. I own a hunting rifle but haven’t hunted in years. It is not my desire to come down on either side of the gun ownership argument. The regulation of firearm ownership just isn’t an issue for me. I’m not a lawyer, my ox isn’t being gored, and I don’t have an ax to grind. But I do hope there is impetus for intelligent discussion.

The problem I have is that pro-gun people argue that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that they may own any type of firearm they desire and that neither the federal nor State governments may infringe upon their “right to bear arms.� I’ve also heard that the Supreme Court will be taking up some cases which involve the Second Amendment.

The whole of the Second Amendment reads as follows: “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.�

To make sense, several words or a phrase should not be lifted out of context to try to make a convincing argument, but the whole statement should be made to speak for itself. For example, the words engraved on the headquarters building of the NRA, I’m told, reads, �the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.� It seems to me that this phrase has been lifted out of its context.

The first phrase, “A well regulated militia,� sets the stage. From this, I gather that this is what the amendment is really all about.

“Well regulated� means that there is an organization that is governed by a framework of rules and regulations, what is expected of its members, what is expected of the organization, discipline, a hierarchy and chain of command which acts under a recognized authority to function as such, etc. There are official records and paperwork, something to prove its existence and activities.

The word “militia� gives some people heartburn. The militia of yesteryear is the State National Guard of today. The homepage of The Illinois National Guard and Militia Historical Society states: The Illinois National Guard and Militia Historical Society is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to promoting and developing the heritage of Illinois' citizen-soldiers. . . . The Society actively supports and raises funds for operation of the Illinois State Military Museum at Camp Lincoln in Springfield, Illinois. . . . The current exhibit highlights the history of the Illinois National Guard since its beginnings as the state militia [[My emphasis).

Could it be that “ the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed� means that, collectively [[sorry Bats), the citizens of each state are entitled to a well-regulated militia, a National Guard? Can the meaning of the amendment be stretched out to mean that in order for an individual to bear arms, he or she must be a sworn member of the “well regulated� militia or National Guard?

By the way, I think the term “state� in the amendment refers to a sovereign nation, the United States, not individual States.

I look forward to a good, thoughtful discussion.

[elganned]

This should be good.

I have thoughts on the issue, but no time to elaborate them right now. I'll get back to you.

[MCP-001]

I'm surprised that this hasn't already stirred up a hornet's nest yet, but hey, the day is still young.

Yes, there is a lot of teeth gnashing from the Anti's regarding the McDonald v. Chicago. Much of this has already been hashed out in Heller v. DC, so I personally do not see the SCOTUS making a decision any differently this time around. As a matter of fact, since the main difference here is that DC is not a state, while Illinois is, things are looking even more grim for the Anti-crowd.

The background you've cited is a little skewed, but for the most part, correct.

Militias initially were not exactly entities of the individual states. There was a slight problem back then with royal governors not wanting to raise a force against their King. Militias eventually evolved back into state entities near the end of the Revolutionary War, and with the passing of the Militia Act of 1792, began improve their on their effectiveness [[sort of).

One more interesting thing about militias, people back then didn't need to be sworn into anything. If you were an able-bodied, free white man, between the ages of 16 to 45, and you weren't part of an exempted group [[i.e. preachers, doctors, teachers or public officials), you were in.

[Bobl]

Good luck, turkeycall. Duck, and cover.

“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.�

Logic, courtesy, the ability to consider two sides of an issue, all will be set aside on this thread!

[humanmachinery]

Here's a neat little commentary on the subject, provided by H2G2.

For those unaware, H2G2 is the BBC-online project to recreate the "standard repository for all knowledge and wisdom" on the BBC website.




The website is created by just a couple of guys who know where their towel is.

Plus thousands of volunteer contributors from everywhere.

Check out the entry for The Second Amendment of the US Constitution and its Meaning

To wit:

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America 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.

These 26 words have been the final word on the regulation of firearms in America for over 200 years. Gun control, as defined by Black's Law Dictionary [[the standard in American law practice), is the laws 'which regulate the sale and use of guns and firearms in a variety of ways such as prohibitions against carrying concealed weapons or requiring a license to buy or possess a handgun or any type of firearm.'

These 26 words have already banned handguns in Morton Grove, Illinois. Yet the same 26 words have sparked the enactment of a requirement for all households to own at least one gun in Kennesaw, Georgia.

Why is America so focused on gun ownership that it was important enough for the Founders to make it an irrefutable right? How is such an extraordinary dichotomy derived from the same law?

The rest of the entry attempts to make sense of the nonsensical.

H2G2 is like Wikipedia, except with a a sense of dry humour.

[MCP-001]

Where's my Point of View gun when I need it?

{I know it wasn't in the book, so cut me some slack here.}

[Sstashmoo]

I don't know see how "one must be a member to bear arms" is being extrapolated. It is the right of the people to keep and bear. Believe me, if it was that easy, the Clinton's would have had their way.

Quote: "The first phrase, “A well regulated militia,” sets the stage."

And that may be whomever or however anyone wishes to start one. There is no limit on how many militia's there may be.

Quote: "I’ve also heard that the Supreme Court will be taking up some cases which involve the Second Amendment."

No doubt. They are scrambling their asses off to rewrite the laws and quell conventional understanding of them, just as others have revised history.

[ccbatson]

By itself, regardless of the constitution, it is now a catch 22. Regulating more only decreases possession by law abiding citizens, not the "bad guys" which empowers the law breakers.

[Ray1936]

By itself, regardless of the constitution, it is now a catch 22. Regulating more only decreases possession by law abiding citizens, not the "bad guys" which empowers the law breakers.

Right on, Bats.

[lpg]

One only has to look at what happened when Prohibition was passed. The aim was to eliminate the problems caused by alcohol. The lesson was you can't legislate morality. People obey the laws they choose to. If a law was passed outlawing the private ownership of firearms, how would it be enforced?

[oladub]

I too have some problems with the clarity of the sentence structure of the Second Amendment. For clarification, eliminating the second clause "being necessary to the security of a free state" might be helpful.

"A well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.�

It could be taken to be a list of two items that shall not be infringed.

If the second Amendment was about transportation/cars instead of militias/guns and read as follows-
"A Department of Highways, the right of people to keep and drive cars, shall not be infringed."
or
"A Department of Highways, being necessary to promote public transportation, the right of people to keep and drive cars, shall not be infringed."
what would the meaning be?

[Sstashmoo]

The real question is, what was their intent? Their intent was for everyone to own a firearm so as to rise up against an oppressive government if need be. Defend their property and country. Because they knew without guns, the people would be sitting ducks. These were some far looking folks, that is for sure. Or they knew something that has been forgotten/hidden.

[elganned]

Sstashmoo, I think when trying to discern the founders' intent it's a pretty far reach to go from allowing people to own guns to intending that everyone should own one.

And I don't know that "rising up against an oppressive government" was the primary reason.

Remember that at the time the Constitution was written the French and Indian War was a living memory for most of the framers. Washington cut his teeth as a military commander in the Virginia militia serving under Braddock in that man's disasterous campaign to take Fort Duquesne, now Pittsburgh. Travel was so difficult and communities so isolated that any quick response by a central Federal army to guerilla attacks by Indians or the French or British loyalists would be ineffectual, and local militias were vital to community defense. The alternative would have been a large standing army with many outposts, which the framers were unwilling to finance and which went counter to the inherent British-inherited suspicion of a large standing army.

The ability to resist a tyrannical central government was a side benefit, to be sure, but I don't think it was the main focus.

[ejames01]

Anyone would be a sitting duck going to battle against a government that has armored vehicles, tanks, armed drones, heavy machine guns, air support and artillery

The real question is, what was their intent? Their intent was for everyone to own a firearm so as to rise up against an oppressive government if need be. Defend their property and country. Because they knew without guns, the people would be sitting ducks. These were some far looking folks, that is for sure. Or they knew something that has been forgotten/hidden.

[elganned]

Just ask the students in Tiananman Square. Or the protesters in Guinea of two weeks ago.

Of course, the outcome would have been different if they'd all had .357 Magnums and AK47's...or would it? Bloodier, yes, but different?

[jiminnm]

Ah, how soon we forget turkeycall, your question has already been answered by the Supreme Court.

In 2008, in D.C. v. Heller, SCOTUS decided that the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right possess a firearm unconnected with a militia.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

So, the feds could not eliminate that consitutuionally protected right. The question now is whether a state can do so. I expect that the answer will be no, a state cannot do it [[just like the federally protected right abortion). So, also just like the issue of abortion, we will see years of litigation about how far states and the feds can go to regulate the ownership of firearms.

[ccbatson]

Yes, we have the right constitutionally, and it can't be revoked without emboldening criminals. At the same time, it is a bad personal choice to own one.

One statistic pushed by gun rights advocates is the large deterrent factor without firing the weapon. If that is true, a nonfunctioning model would suffice.

[turkeycall]

ccbatson quote: "One statistic pushed by gun rights advocates is the large deterrent factor without firing the weapon. If that is true, a nonfunctioning model would suffice."

Well, Bats, it's true only if the "bad guy" also has the business end of a nonfunctioning model up your nostril. Gee, that's not even as nice as an "ice pick lobotomy," is it?

[elganned]

My personal experience with people who own handguns is that the weapon in question:

1) Is involved in the shooting of someone in the household, either accidently or deliberately.
2) Is stolen and sold on the black market.

Enjoy your Second Ammendment rights.

[jiminnm]

Then I would say that your personal experience is extremely limited.

[elganned]

*shrug* It is what it is.

[Johnnny5]

The argument that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the individual always seemed a bit off to me. All the other Amendments have been accepted as applying to the individual and "the people" is used in the same manner as in the 2nd. It seems to me the "A well regulated militia" portion supports the need for the Amendment, not a description to whom the right should apply. Also as mentioned above the idea that the right only applies to those serving in the National Guard is negated by the fact that the organization did not even exist at the time.

[rb336]

The argument that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the individual always seemed a bit off to me. All the other Amendments have been accepted as applying to the individual and "the people" is used in the same manner as in the 2nd. It seems to me the "A well regulated militia" portion supports the need for the Amendment, not a description to whom the right should apply. Also as mentioned above the idea that the right only applies to those serving in the National Guard is negated by the fact that the organization did not even exist at the time.

the second makes it explicit, and the arguments surrounding its adoption make it clear that it is a collective right. the phrasing is important -- the term the people is a collective group [["the" makes the word a singular), people refers to individuals

[Johnnny5]

the second makes it explicit, and the arguments surrounding its adoption make it clear that it is a collective right. the phrasing is important -- the term the people is a collective group [["the" makes the word a singular), people refers to individuals

So "the people" in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th can be applied to the individual, but not the 2nd? Fortunately the majority of the Supreme Court Justices do not agree with your interpretation.

[rb336]

So "the people" in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th can be applied to the individual, but not the 2nd? Fortunately the majority of the Supreme Court Justices do not agree with your interpretation.

1st:
the right of the people peaceably to assemble. Can an individual assemble?

4th
The right of the people to be secure in their persons. here they emphasize individuals explicitly, as they do in #s 5 & 6. why didn't they in # 2?

9th & 10th
yes, the collective

Actually, the supremes have found that in practice it is impracticle/impossible to seperate the individual right from the collective right