NationStates Jolt Archive

"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."

What on earth does this mean? Americans feel it is their right to own guns because of this amendment, but I don't see it. Is not a "well regulated militia" something different from armed citizenry? Is there not a difference between an organized military force using weapons and having a gun in one's purse?

In 1787, the militia was a group of American citizens, who served as part time soldiers, and they were "well-regulated" because they were subject to certain legal requirements, including supplying their own equipment (guns, horses ect). Now this kind of a militia does not exist, and instead the National Guard is the "well regulated militia". The National Guard has more limited membership, and their arms are supplied by the government, so gun control laws have no effect on them. So my question is, with these changes in the defense of the United States, how should one interpret the 2ed Amendment?

I don't want to know what your opinion on gun ownership is, what I want to know is if you think these words about freedom to carry guns is valid. Do you think it should be interpreted more broadly, to include the armament of regular citizens? Or do you think that this should only allow people in connection with such a militia as described above? Again, I don't want you opinions on gun ownership, just on how this amendment should be interpreted.

Dammit. Don't you know what a justification clause is?

In 1787, the militia was a group of American citizens, who served as part time soldiers
The definition of militia is...
"...all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

The 2nd Amendment is outdated.

1. No well armed militia nor an armed citizenry is a match for the might of the federal controlled US armed forces with its high-tech weaponry and fair training.

2. The fear of crime is often more dangerous than the perception of crime.

There are more I knew, but I have yet to remember them all. It is a bit late for me to be thinking philosophically...

insn't the second amendment 'thou shalt not worship false idols'?

"a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State..."


Personally I just want to know on what basis is it asserted that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a Free State? Did they have any historical precedent in mind, or was it all just supposition.

The 2nd Amendment is outdated.

1. No well armed militia nor an armed citizenry is a match for the might of the federal controlled US armed forces with its high-tech weaponry and fair training.

2. The fear of crime is often more dangerous than the perception of crime.

There are more I knew, but I have yet to remember them all. It is a bit late for me to be thinking philosophically...
How stupid can one person be. You do realize that if even a quarter of the population of Iraq decided to fight against the US we would be royally screwed. There are over 80 million people in the US with legal guns. What do you think would happen if the army tried anything?

Personally I just want to know on what basis is it asserted that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a Free State? Did they have any historical precedent in mind, or was it all just supposition.

Only the revolution that they had just finished. A little fresh in the mind.
(This, of course, presumes that the 2nd ammendment was made very soon after the constitution was written.)

(This, of course, presumes that the 2nd ammendment was made very soon after the constitution was written.)
The Bill of Rights was ratified with the constitution. For all intents and purposes it is part of the constitution.

Only the revolution that they had just finished. A little fresh in the mind.
(This, of course, presumes that the 2nd ammendment was made very soon after the constitution was written.)

That is a somewhat different case, as the revolution was effectively a secessionist one, rather than a fight against a usurping power, which is the threat I believe (perhaps wrongly) the amendment to be aimed at dispelling.

How stupid can one person be. You do realize that if even a quarter of the population of Iraq decided to fight against the US we would be royally screwed. There are over 80 million people in the US with legal guns. What do you think would happen if the army tried anything?

Close to 160 million casualties. Or do you realy believe that the army, out of control would not be capable of that. In Iraq, there are political restrictions on their actions. If there were not, and the US military machine was to be unleashed, there would be an end to insurgency very quickly. It is that the political price for this, in civilian casualties is too high.

"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."
I think that fully nullifies all arguments on this matter. I don't get why people miss that part of the 2nd. Oh well.

That is a somewhat different case, as the revolution was effectively a secessionist one, rather than a fight against a usurping power, which is the threat I believe (perhaps wrongly) the amendment to be aimed at dispelling.

The Americans were held in thrall by the British armed forces, at least that was their view. If power is granted to anyone, and they abuse that power, then the populace had to have the means to remove them from power. This aplies as much to an internal rebellion against a leader as it does to secession.

Close to 160 million casualties. Or do you realy believe that the army, out of control would not be capable of that. In Iraq, there are political restrictions on their actions. If there were not, and the US military machine was to be unleashed, there would be an end to insurgency very quickly. It is that the political price for this, in civilian casualties is too high.
Well, if we assume that they are attempting to impose some sort of iron rule over the US it wouldn't work for the simple reason that taking out that much of the population would very quickly neutralize us as any sort of world power thus making it a useless gambit. Also, there is the question of how many soldiers would actually follow said orders given that they are volunteers.

The Bill of Rights was ratified with the constitution. For all intents and purposes it is part of the constitution.

Thank you, not being an american, my knowledge of this type of detail is limited.

Well, if we assume that they are attempting to impose some sort of iron rule over the US it wouldn't work for the simple reason that taking out that much of the population would very quickly neutralize us as any sort of world power thus making it a useless gambit. Also, there is the question of how many soldiers would actually follow said orders given that they are volunteers.

It is not likely to happen with the current military set up. (It happens that I am pro gun control by the way)
The soldiers being volunteers are more likely to follow orders than they would be if they were conscripts.

Destroying half the population of the USA would still leave plenty of people to provide to the dictators needs. Do not think rational mind here, think megalomaniac psychotic. The US world status depends upon many things beyond its population. Primarily it depends upon its military power, which would not be seriously affected by such a coup.

"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."
I think that fully nullifies all arguments on this matter. I don't get why people miss that part of the 2nd. Oh well.

Exactly.

Exactly.

But hoplophobes will jump on any wording or excuse to justify removing the rights of citizens. Or, if one can't be found, will invent new words and excuses.

*It's meaning is clear, if you understand proper grammar.

http://www.tsra.com/lawsof.htm

Gun control advocates taking shots at U.S. District Judge Sam Cumming's ruling that the Second Amendment gives individuals, and not just organized militias, the right to bear arms should review the laws of grammar which govern the English language.

The Second Amendment 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.



The amendment is unique. Unlike the other nine originals, it has an opening clause which states the purpose and a second clause which states the amendment itself. The first clause is subordinate, while the second is independent. In other words, the first clause cannot stand alone, but the second one can.

David E. Johnson, in "Taking a Second Look at the Second Amendment and Modern Gun Control Laws," writes that, "If the amendment consisted solely of its independent clause ... then there would be no question whether the right is individual in nature."

Those who would like to shoot down the Second Amendment point to the first clause and dismiss the second, even though the first is the one which cannot stand alone. They argue that the first clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing limitations on the people's right to bear arms.

If that were true, the framers of the amendment would have granted the right to bear arms to the states rather than to "the people." The subordinate clause does not qualify the right. It was included to show why the right of the people to bear arms should be protected.

"The right exists independent of the existence of the militia," Johnson writes. "If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized."

The issue of the phrase "the people" also is raised by gun control advocates. Were the framers of the amendment referring to the people individually or collectively?

Those who suggest the Second Amendment offers a collective right fail to read the amendment within the context of the Constitution and the other amendments. The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase to have the same meaning as the same phrase in the Preamble to the Constitution.

The meaning of the phrase "the people" in the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments is not that of militias. The framers of the Second Amendment as well as the other amendments were referring to a class of people -- the country. The Bill of Rights is not a bill of states' rights. It is a bill of individual rights.

There are those who argue that the Second Amendment must be tempered with what could be called social prudence -- the idea that allowing the people to bear arms comes at too great of cost to the public in terms of crime and violence. But the truth is that all rights come with social costs.

Protecting free speech comes with the cost of allowing speech some might deem offensive or harmful. Protecting the rights of criminal defendants comes with the cost that some criminals will be set free. Protecting the right to worship freely comes with the cost of allowing religions contrary to our beliefs.

Protecting the Second Amendment comes with a price, but it is a price worth paying if this country is to remain free, for an armed populace is the ultimate check on tyranny.

Noah Webster declared, "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty," Patrick Henry said. "Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up force, you are ruined."

When Americans give up the Second Amendment, they give up force. When the people's right to bear arms is gone, we are ruined.

You understand the nature of the position of gun control advocates, right? Back in the Revolutionary Day owning a rifle was part of life; it served all sorts of purposes. Today's America is different, and the consequences of a firearm are different as well, especially in light of the many problems that are associated with them.

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 way I see it, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means the people can own guns.

You understand the nature of the position of gun control advocates, right? Back in the Revolutionary Day owning a rifle was part of life; it served all sorts of purposes. Today's America is different, and the consequences of a firearm are different as well, especially in light of the many problems that are associated with them.

I'm not especially fond of letting full-autos on the street (and I wouldn't really support that), but I think the 2nd amendment is a good thing. If the war on drugs ended, it's very likely that gun related crimes would be cut in half, if not more. Our problems are in the laws we have, not the guns itself.

I also interpret it to mean that, in conjunction with the part of the Declaration of Independence that says that the people can revolt against an over-controlling government, it sets up a fourth, independent element into the system of checks and balances.

I would just stick to it's direct grammar and context.

Anyone that has studied the founding fathers will know it was obviously intended that way. The assault on it's meaning is just a means of manipulation, and nothing more.

I'm not especially fond of letting full-autos on the street (and I wouldn't really support that), but I think the 2nd amendment is a good thing. If the war on drugs ended, it's very likely that gun related crimes would be cut in half, if not more. Our problems are in the laws we have, not the guns itself.

And we should make all violent crime punishable by death.

The first man punched the second man....
the first man is killed the next month by a jury of his peers.

I'm guessing you would imply a little more violence than this (to kill a man)? I don't have a firm opinion on the death penalty, though...so I can't really comment.

What do you think would happen if the army tried anything?

Well, I am sure the people would actually collaborate. Granted, there would be a few armed risings but not in sufficient regularity or organisation to guarantee the defeat of the army. No offense but America is a very fearful country, and the probabilities suggest that most would stay in their homes rather than fight.

The 2nd Amendment is outdated.

1. No well armed militia nor an armed citizenry is a match for the might of the federal controlled US armed forces with its high-tech weaponry and fair training.

2. The fear of crime is often more dangerous than the perception of crime.

There are more I knew, but I have yet to remember them all. It is a bit late for me to be thinking philosophically...

You'll be happy to know then, that the reason violent crime dropped in my jurisdiction by 33 percent in the first year, and an additional 12 percent in the second year is because we started to allow both concealed and open carry of firearms by civilians.

As an interesting side effect, the neighboring jurisdiction (which is just as affluent, if not more) experienced a 33 percent rise in their violent crime rate, and another matching 12 percent the second year.

I interview felons as a part of my pro bono work. The felons cite the concealed carry law as a serious deterrent to them if they are deciding to do a crime that involves personal confrontation.

They don't want to take the chance that the potential victim may be armed.

Most criminals who commit violent crime in the US do not use firearms. They are robbing you with either no weapon, or something ad hoc like a screwdriver. They fear meeting an armed person, so they go 10 minutes away to Montgomery County, Maryland, where the laws have explicitly disarmed all law-abiding citizens. The felons know two things: one, it's safe, because the victim will not be armed; and two, the police will not arrive until well after the crime is committed.

So it would seem that our jurisdiction (which has also seen a drop in the murder rate, despite the proliferation of armed civilians walking around) is preventing violent crime just by the mere presence of armed civilians. Think of it as adding ten thousand undercover guards without paying anything out of the taxpayer's budget to achieve a pronounced deterrent effect.

Without firing a shot.

Sir Peter the Sage and Ramissle, you are correct - it is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," *not* the right of the militia.

A 2nd amendment thread with no flames?!

Very nice, guys. :) I'm seeing well reasoned debate, a touch of humor here and there, and nobody getting angry.

As of this post, this thread gets an official Keruvalia Thumbs Up(tm).

As to the topic at hand, well, I'm still on the fence. I believe people should have an uninfringed right to bear arms, but I also believe that the "Militia" - even if that term means simply all able-bodied citizens - should remain "well regulated". However, I'm sure everyone agrees that a free, unchecked arms market would be a Bad Thing(tm).

We don't want the crazies buying Uzis and we don't want junkies with AKs, etc etc. I like the regulation, I think it's at a comfortable level in the US. I'm glad for the background checks - even at gun shows. I've sold a gun or two in my day from my garage, and I've always copied the driver's license of the person who buys it - under advisement from Texas DPS. There is no gun registration in TX, and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not, but every new gun purchased in TX does come with one expended cartridge that is shipped to the FBI's crime people so the ballistics of said weapon is on file.

No law abiding gun owner, however, should fear or be infringed by regulation.

Ok ... enough of my babbling.

I am in full support of a normal citizen's right to own and operate a firearm (or sword if your into that sorta thing :D ), but there needs tho be regulations.

I see no problem with a person owning a gun (for defence or recreation), but does a person honestly need an uzi to defend thier house?

I am in full support of a normal citizen's right to own and operate a firearm (or sword if your into that sorta thing :D ), but there needs tho be regulations.

I see no problem with a person owning a gun (for defence or recreation), but does a person honestly need an uzi to defend thier house?

An Israeli settler in the West Bank?

As a fairly anti-gun person, I accept that the wording of the 2nd amendment is unambiguous. People get to have and carry guns, period.

So, next time I'm in the states, how about I carry a shotgun onto the plane? That's protected in the 2nd amendment.

Carrying a crossbow down Main Street is also protected, as is wearing samurai swords when I'm in the fans section of a football game.

They can't stop me from carrying an uzi into the local school after downing a case of beer.

They can't stop me from buying a gun no matter what my criminal record is. They can't even force me to licence my gun or go through a waiting period.

No amendment has given the US any right to stop me from doing that, so how can they make those things illegal?

Surely the constitution needs to be changed to make the 2nd amendment less sweeping, because I doubt you would find too many people who would argue with too many of the laws stopping the above behaviour.

I don't see registration or background checks as infringing on anyones right to bear arms. I'm a liberal and am in favor of allowing all law abiding citizens to have guns. Because if this country swings any further to the right I'm gonna need them.

infringe = To encroach on someone or something

They're not a great infringement, but they are unconstitutional.

So, are you in favor of letting anybody buy a gun, regardless of background? And of having no way of tracking where it goes, or if it's used in a crime?

So, next time I'm in the states, how about I carry a shotgun onto the plane? That's protected in the 2nd amendment.

They can't stop me from carrying an uzi into the local school after downing a case of beer.

They can't stop me from buying a gun no matter what my criminal record is. They can't even force me to licence my gun or go through a waiting period.

The airlines are not run by the gov. Private property which means the owners of said property can tell you to fuck off.

True, and nothing stops any of the teachers from blowing your head off if you did so given that in that situation you are a direct threat to others.

Actually, if you were convicted of a violent felony they could.

So, are you in favor of letting anybody buy a gun, regardless of background? And of having no way of tracking where it goes, or if it's used in a crime?

No. I'm in favour of amending the constitution. I think the 2nd amendment, being enshrined in the defining document for law in the US, is far too sweeping and probably should be removed entirely. As it stands, any laws affecting free weapon ownership are technically unconstitutional.

Personally, I'm actually against gun ownership at all. That's tangential to my point though.

The airlines are not run by the gov. Private property which means the owners of said property can tell you to fuck off.

True, but the government's the one setting the laws at the moment.

True, and nothing stops any of the teachers from blowing your head off if you did so given that in that situation you are a direct threat to others.

Actually, if you were convicted of a violent felony they could.

Does a previous conviction mean you're an imminent danger at all times in future? I'm not sure I agree with that, although an uzi and a case of beer would be fairly good circumstantial evidence no matter what my past.

Does a previous conviction mean you're an imminent danger at all times in future? I

Edit into the possible sentences of all violent felonies that they can no longer own guns. Perfectly legal.

Edit into the possible sentences of all violent felonies that they can no longer own guns. Perfectly legal.

There's nothing in the constitution that specifically allows the state to limit ex-cons' rights, is there? There is something that says the state can't limit gun ownership. If they really are seen as necessary for defence it could even be argued to be cruel and unusual punishment, since they can no longer adequately defend themselves.

Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate, but using the 2nd amendment to support gun ownership can easily be taken to extremes that nobody is comfortable with. And it's all written into the constitution.

Some interesting tidbits:
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist. "That was 230 years ago." -Thomas Jefferson

So, are you in favor of letting anybody buy a gun, regardless of background? And of having no way of tracking where it goes, or if it's used in a crime?

I am perfectly inclined with this. Criminals dont get their guns from places that perform background checks anyway. Yet, criminals dont seem to have any problem getting a gun.

The only people whom background checks impinge upon are lawful citizens. And thanks to the background check system, the FBI has a record of all gun purchases. A record that they are refusing to destroy despite their destruction being part of the law that required said background checks.

Now, you might not think it is a big deal for the FBI to have this record(and frankly, it doesnt bother me too much either). But if there ever came a day when the people were in armed resistance to the govt, the govt would now have this list and could individually target gun owners.

Think about it, before the govt would have to do something drastic before the people to revolt. Before it got to that stage, the govt could have sent people to gun owners homes and confiscated their weapons. Then, if it did reach the point of revolt the people would have no arms with which to revolt.

Of course this is a silly fear when you consider that there are enough materials and tools in your average garage to make a firearm.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to the Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."


-Mahatma Gandhi, Autobiography. Translated from the Gujarati by Mahadev Desai. Public Affairs Press, Washington, D.C. 1948.

You’ve got to understand what the militia is. In May of 1792, five months after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment, the Militia Act was passed. That act distinguished between the enrolled militia and the organized militia. Before the passing of that act, there was only the enrolled militia, which was the body of all able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 44, inclusively, and it is that militia to which the 2nd Amendment refers. It couldn’t refer to the organized militia because it didn’t exist yet. The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that this body of citizens is armed and that’s why the Founding Fathers thought to place it in the Bill of Rights. Legally, both militias still exist.
By law, if you're an American citizen, male, between the ages of 17 and 44, United States Code still says that you're in the militia
Some might say then that only people between 17 and 44 are allowed guns.
But, that’s just the ages of the body of men constituting the militia. The amendment says the people can both keep and bear arms. It’s usually been construed to mean all the people.
If you don't believe it means "all the people," then perhaps we could go back to the First Amendment and look at its usage of "the people".
It's enlightening to read the original Militia Act. It explains what the militia meant to the Founding Fathers. It also shows that the 2nd Amendment came before Federal law created the organized militia and provide evidence that what they referred to as the enrolled militia—the body of citizens—were allowed to arm themselves.
Some might say that all that happened 200 years ago,and that Militia means something else today. Some say it means the military.
But no, the law hasn’t changed. But even if we decide the word means something new to us, you can’t use the new definition to change the intent of the Amendment.
Some may say that times have changed and we need new interpretations of the words and of the Constitution.
But it’s not just my opinion. The Supreme Court has ruled that the words in the Constitution mean what the Founding Fathers said they meant, and we can’t go changing or amending the Constitution by giving new meanings or new shades of meaning to the words. And, if you think about it, it makes sense; otherwise, our rights really mean nothing. Congress or any other governing body can deny you the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a trial by jury, or whatever else it wanted just by claiming the words now have a new meaning. An oppressive government could change the Constitution without ever having to go through the bothersome ritual of submitting it to us, the people, for our approval. And, in the end, the Constitution and, in particular, the Bill of Rights are there for our protection, not for the benefit of the government or those who run it.
Some people don’t buy into these definitions of militia. They don’t believe the 2nd Amendment gives me or anyone else the right to privately own guns. They think this interpretation is just a well-presented opinion and that the 2nd Amendment really refers to the powers given to the states.
That’s okay. Even if you’re right and the 2nd Amendment refers only to the National Guard, the state police, or some other uniformed military or police organization we’d still have the right to keep and bear arms. We don’t need the 2nd Amendment.
Because the Founding Fathers believed we had that right. They spoke about it and wrote about it. And that’s enough.
The whole question of gun rights hinges on what the 2nd Amendment means. If it means the right to bear arms belongs to the states, then it means you and I don’t have any right to individual gun ownership.
Sol, let’s start with this. Can you find anything in the 2nd Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that says the individual can’t have arms?
That’s not an answer. Just keep in mind my question is not whether you think the Constitution allows individuals to carry guns but whether or not there’s anything in it that says they can’t?
And do you also understand that the Bill of Rights is not the source of our rights. It’s not even a complete list of our rights.
I’m asking you if you understand that we do not get our rights from the Bill of Rights.
I’m saying this because the Founding Fathers did not believe we got our rights from the Bill of Rights. Nor did they believe they came about as a result of being American, Christian, of European decent, or white. They believed everyone had these rights even if they lived in Europe, China, or the moon. They called them Natural Rights. Where these rights were not allowed, they believed they still existed but were denied. This was upheld by a Supreme Court decision in 1876.
It’s a question as to whether or not our rights exist apart from government. Let me ask you this. In a country where children have no civil rights, do they still have a right not to be molested? Do women in countries where they have a second-citizen status have the right not to be abused by their husbands, even if the government won’t protect them?
Then is it too much of a stretch for you to understand that the Founding Fathers believed everyone has the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to fair trials...?
I've heard Zeppistan use this same argument to say that the detainees at Guantanamo have rights - even if the US government is using its own interpretations of loopholes in treaty and law - Zepp believes that people have natural rights.
In other words, it’s a question as to whether the rights of the citizens in China are at the pleasure of the government or if they have them but are being denied, or if the Jews had basic human rights in Germany even if Hitler didn’t let them exercise them.
All I want to know is if that’s hard for you to see.
Take it a step further. If the government passed a law tomorrow that said we didn’t have the right to free speech, or the right to free worship, or freedom of the press, would those rights no longer exist, or would they be simply denied? If the Constitution is amended depriving us of our rights, do those rights cease to exist?
The answer, according to the guys who set up this country, is yes, we would still have those rights. We’re just being denied them. Because of that, it’s the way we have to look at the Constitution.
It may be, that in reality, rights are a figment of our imagination. But the Founding Fathers believed they existed and that’s how this country was set up. Rights are something that come with being human. The Founders never believed we got them from the government. If and when the United States goes away, the rights will still be there.
So why a Bill of Rights?
You’re not the first person to ask that. Men like Alexander Hamilton asked it. He and many others thought having a Bill of Rights was dangerous.
They were afraid that the existence of a Bill of Rights as a part of our Constitution implied that the government not only had the right to change them, but that any rights not listed there were fair game for the government to deny. And, as a matter of fact, that’s exactly what has happened. The government seems to have set itself up to be an interpreter of our rights; it acts as if it is also the source of our rights, and whatever rights weren’t mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the government has seen fit to declare exist only at its discretion.
This is the very danger that Skapedroe seems to point out in most of his posts.
Have you ever read the Bill of Rights? Specifically, have you ever read the 9th and 10th Amendments?
It’s important to understand what they say and know why they are written the way they are because they tie in with how the Founding Fathers viewed our rights and how they expected us to view them.
They were put there to quell the fears of men like Hamilton who were afraid that any rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights would be usurped by the government. The 9th says:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This means that any rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights are not to be denied to the people.
The 10th says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So any powers not specifically given to the Federal government are not powers it can usurp.
So it’s enough to show the Founding Fathers thought we had a right for it to fall under the protection of the 9th or 10th Amendment. This means that the Founders didn’t even have to specify we have the right to free speech, religion, jury trials, or anything else. To understand what they felt our rights were, all you had to do was show what they said our rights are. Any rights in the first eight Amendments are just redundant with what the Founding Fathers considered Natural Rights.
So why do we have a Bill of Rights?
Because even though Hamilton and others feared having one, most of the Founding Fathers were sure that without one the government would eventually take all of our rights.
Just getting off the gun issue for the moment, there are actually rights not mentioned in the Constitution that we’ve been denied.
The Founding Fathers felt we had a right to unrestricted travel. So, now we have driver’s licenses, automobile registrations, and passports. They also felt we had property rights, so Civil Forfeiture or Civil Seizure laws, now exercised by the Feds and the states, are actually illegal under both the 9th and 10th Amendment.
And, if the Congress or even the Supreme Court decides the 2nd Amendment only refers to formal military organizations, we still have the right to keep and bear arms, because the Founding Fathers considered it a natural right. And if you don’t believe it, read what the Founding Fathers said in their papers, their letters, and their debates in both Congress and the state legislatures.
You know, weapons have always been important. In Greece, Rome, and even under Anglo-Saxon law, when slaves were freed, part of the ceremony included placing a weapon in the man’s hand. It was symbolic of the man’s new rank.
Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense.
That was said by John Adams in A Defense Of The Constitution.
The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
That was said by Samuel Adams, John Adams’ second or third cousin, during Massachusetts’ U.S. Constitution ratification convention in 1788.
If you really want to hear what they had to say, here are a few by Jefferson:
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government.
And here’s another by him:
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
He wrote this as part of the proposed Virginia Constitution, in 1776.
And here’s one more. It’s Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria—a Milanese criminologist whom he admired who was also his contemporary—in On Crimes and Punishment:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
I think it’s pretty clear that Jefferson felt we had the right to keep and bear arms for both personal protection and as a safeguard against tyranny.
Here’s one by Thomas Paine that comes from his Thoughts On Defensive War written in 1775:
Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
And here’s one from George Washington:
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.
That was from a speech he made to Congress on January 7, 1790.
But that’s not the only quote from him. In response to a proposal for gun registration he said:
Absolutely not. If the people are armed and the federalists do not know where the arms are, there can never be an oppressive government.
I think that’s pretty clear.
Here’s one of my favorites:
To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
That was by George Mason when the Constitution was being debated.
And who, you may ask, was George Mason? He’s the most underrated and unsung of all the Founding Fathers. Jefferson drew on him when composing the Declaration of Independence; his doctrine of inalienable rights was not only the basis for the Virginia Bill of Rights in 1776, but other states used them as the models for their own Bill of Rights, and James Madison drew upon them freely while composing the Bill of Rights for the United States.
Even though a Southerner, Mason recognized the evils of slavery and the fact that slaves were entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity. He also feared the Constitution because it didn’t do a better job of limiting the powers of the Federal government. He believed local government should be strong and the Federal government kept weak. He firmly believed in the power, the rights, and the integrity of the individual.
He suffered bad health and had all kinds of family problems, so he never attained any office outside of Virginia—other than his membership to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. But he was the most vocal of the Founders on individual rights, and the other Founding Fathers recognized him as a force to be reckoned with. Without him, I can guarantee you that the United States would not be as free as it is now.
Here’s a quote by Elbridge Gerry, a representative to Congress from Massachusetts during the debates over the Bill of Rights. He’s also the man for whom gerrymandering is named because, as governor of Massachusetts, he tried to rig districts to favor his party. In this quote he was specifically referring to what we now call the 2nd Amendment:
What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
That should also give you insight as to how the Founders defined the militia and why they thought it was important.
There’s one more. It’s kind of a long one, but it’s by James Madison, the guy who wrote the Constitution and actually put together the Bill of Rights.
The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
I’ve got more, but I think that’s enough. But I think you can see how the Founding Fathers felt about the right of individuals to have weapons. In fact, this whole debate over the right to arms is a recent one. In the last century, Americans would have been as amazed to find their right to have weapons a subject of debate as they would to have found their right to free speech or religion debated. There was no question to them, or to the Founders, that the right to keep and bear arms was one of the most fundamental—perhaps the most fundamental—of all civil rights.
You might ask if any of the Founders on record saying they don’t believe individuals should have guns. But there are none, and I’ve actually looked for some.

"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."

What on earth does this mean? Americans feel it is their right to own guns because of this amendment, but I don't see it. Is not a "well regulated militia" something different from armed citizenry? Is there not a difference between an organized military force using weapons and having a gun in one's purse?

In 1787, the militia was a group of American citizens, who served as part time soldiers, and they were "well-regulated" because they were subject to certain legal requirements, including supplying their own equipment (guns, horses ect). Now this kind of a militia does not exist, and instead the National Guard is the "well regulated militia". The National Guard has more limited membership, and their arms are supplied by the government, so gun control laws have no effect on them. So my question is, with these changes in the defense of the United States, how should one interpret the 2ed Amendment?

I don't want to know what your opinion on gun ownership is, what I want to know is if you think these words about freedom to carry guns is valid. Do you think it should be interpreted more broadly, to include the armament of regular citizens? Or do you think that this should only allow people in connection with such a militia as described above? Again, I don't want you opinions on gun ownership, just on how this amendment should be interpreted.

It means that they want the people to have the chance to form their own army to reform the united states if they thought that it needed to be changed. that was jeferson's view on what it should be like and he got that from john locke.

Wow. Looks like no one will tangle with my post (#44) in this thread.

Either that, or its way too long to read.

"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."
Everything before "the right of the people" is a reason, not a restriction. The Founding Fathers would not have written "the right of the people" if they hadn't meant it.

The 2nd Amendment is outdated.

1. No well armed militia nor an armed citizenry is a match for the might of the federal controlled US armed forces with its high-tech weaponry and fair training.

2. The fear of crime is often more dangerous than the perception of crime.

There are more I knew, but I have yet to remember them all. It is a bit late for me to be thinking philosophically...
Even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. It's still the law.

You understand the nature of the position of gun control advocates, right? Back in the Revolutionary Day owning a rifle was part of life; it served all sorts of purposes. Today's America is different, and the consequences of a firearm are different as well, especially in light of the many problems that are associated with them.
Gun-grabbers don't (by and large) argue in favour of repealing the second amendment. They try to claim it says something it doesn't. It's intellectually dishonest, to say nothing else.

Well, I am sure the people would actually collaborate. Granted, there would be a few armed risings but not in sufficient regularity or organisation to guarantee the defeat of the army. No offense but America is a very fearful country, and the probabilities suggest that most would stay in their homes rather than fight.
The NRA alone has four million members, and hundreds of thousands more in the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, Gun Owners of America, etc. You've got significiant militias and survivalist groups as well, and gun ownership rates are as high as 88% in the inland West and Mid-West. I think you, sir, are seriously misunderestimating Americans!

I am in full support of a normal citizen's right to own and operate a firearm (or sword if your into that sorta thing :D ), but there needs tho be regulations.

I see no problem with a person owning a gun (for defence or recreation), but does a person honestly need an uzi to defend thier house?
Do you need a Chevy Suburban to pick up groceries from the store? No, but it's more effective for that task than a Ford Festiva.

I don't see registration or background checks as infringing on anyones right to bear arms. I'm a liberal and am in favor of allowing all law abiding citizens to have guns. Because if this country swings any further to the right I'm gonna need them.
What if registration and background checks were required before you could exercise your first, fourth or fifth amendment rights?

Yeah, I thought so. :rolleyes:

And of having no way of tracking where it goes, or if it's used in a crime?
Criminals don't register their guns. :rolleyes:

And here’s one from George Washington:
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.
That was from a speech he made to Congress on January 7, 1790.


Actually, Washington never said that. It is one of many false quotes attributed to the founding fathers. But I completely agree with the principal, even if "liberity teeth" sounds stupid.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

Either that, or its way too long to read.

Too painful to read, actually. Formatting, paragraph breaks, and a clear structure would help. I made it through, but didn't really understand what points you were trying to make.

And Battlestar Christina is correct in the meaning of the wording to the 2nd amendment. The militia clause has no legal relevance.

Well, an obvious bit of info is the legal defintion of militia, you might be surprised about what it is.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

If you are an American male between the ages of 18 and 40 with no major disabilities, you're a member of the Militia of the United States.

The liberals want to seize the guns from peaceful law abiding people. Of course the criminals are perfectly allowed to keep them because crime (according to the liberals) is justified if a criminal had a bad youth, or something like that. :rolleyes:

Because a well armed populace would prevent the liberals from achieving their dream of a Marxist state, therefore they want to get rid of the guns.

And beyond that the definition of "A free state" is debatable.

While currently it is commonly interpreted to mean a free state government (Ohio, Minnesota, etc.)

The more traditional interpretation is that it refers to a state of being, so, yeah.

And beyond that the definition of "A free state" is debatable.

While currently it is commonly interpreted to mean a free state government (Ohio, Minnesota, etc.)

The more traditional interpretation is that it refers to a state of being, so, yeah.

Initially, Britain percieved the American states as 'free sovereign and independent states,' which essentially they still are...although few government officials or Americans would likely admit that.

This was in the 'The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783'.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/treaty-paris.htm

Criminals don't register their guns. :rolleyes:

True, we don't have to be cleared to exercise those rights, but some of rights can be removed if you break the law. Why not gun ownership?

If you have a registered gun and report it stolen, it can be traced. This can be helpful when investigating a crime committed with the gun. The criminals path can sometimes traced. Of course criminals don't register, but you have more likelihood of recovering a stolen gun if it's registered.

It could be just me, but I've noticed something weird. Conservatives typically resent gun ownership being traced, but are more likely to think that the government snooping on your library usage or random drug tests are okay. If you're not doing anything wrong, why shouldn't the goernment be able to use a sneak and peek search? But liberals typically tend to go the exact opposite. Neither way makes sense.

Okay, Christiana, you've convinced me. I'm rethinking my position on registered guns. Not that I'm totally convinced, but the afore mentioned paradox has gotten my attention. More study and thought is needed.

Okay, Christiana, you've convinced me. I'm rethinking my position on registered guns. Not that I'm totally convinced, but the afore mentioned paradox has gotten my attention. More study and thought is needed.

Wow...I love when someone says this. It's a true sign of character.

Because a well armed populace would prevent the liberals from achieving their dream of a Marxist state, therefore they want to get rid of the guns.

Marxists, inconveniently, avidly support having a well-armed populace. Lenin wrote in State and Revolution that the most fundamental question of the relationship of a government to its citizens was, "Has the oppressed class arms?"

Trotsky devoted a large part of his Fascism--What it is and How to Fight It to an analysis of how gun control contributed to the rise of fascism in France.

Trotsky and the other communist opponents of Stalin vigorously criticized his introduction of the Soviet Union's first gun confiscation program--in 1929--as a betrayal of Marxism.

The government of Cuba issues an automatic rifle with ammunition, several hand grenades, and a land mine to every adult citizen (who's not in jail or mentally retarded). When Fidel Castro visited Chile in 1971, he singled out Chile's failure to distribute guns to the populace as a focal point for criticism. Cuba also distributed guns to the individual citizens of Nicaragua.

This is one among many of the major differences between liberalism and Marxism.

Initially, Britain percieved the American states as 'free sovereign and independent states,' which essentially they still are...although few government officials or Americans would likely admit that.

This was in the 'The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783'.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/treaty-paris.htm

State sovereignty ended when "we the people" decided, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

If you have a registered gun and report it stolen, it can be traced. This can be helpful when investigating a crime committed with the gun. The criminals path can sometimes traced. Of course criminals don't register, but you have more likelihood of recovering a stolen gun if it's registered.

It could be just me, but I've noticed something weird. Conservatives typically resent gun ownership being traced, but are more likely to think that the government snooping on your library usage or random drug tests are okay. If you're not doing anything wrong, why shouldn't the goernment be able to use a sneak and peek search? But liberals typically tend to go the exact opposite. Neither way makes sense.



It is my understand that gun registration leads does not significantly aid(in any form) the police in solving crimes. More importantly, I dont think anyone has a problem with a gun store taking down the buyers information and the seriel number of the gun ect. The issue arises when the information becomes part of a national govt database. No one(at least I am not) saying that the govt should not be able to trace a gun found at a crime scene or check into the background/gun ownership of someone suspected of a crime. But why should the govt know about how many and of what types of guns a random citizen possesses? I am not comfortable with that, especially given how the govt has misused this information in the past(look up NYC gun seizures)

I have no problem(well, not that much of a problem) with sneak and peak searches because the govt is targetting someone who is suspected of a crime. 1) there are some(if not as many as I would like) checks and balances to this. Keep in mind, the govt(with the patriot act) doesnt have much more power now that it did since the mid 1980s..its only been extended to "terrorists" from drug dealers. Granted I think the govt has too much power in that regard anyway. But since I can live with from the 80s, i dont have much of a right to complain now.

State sovereignty ended when "we the people" decided, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

They thought the same thing with the 'PERPETUAL Articles of Confederation', which could only be changed with all states amending, but they suceeded from that. In other words, no law takes away state sovereignty, only people do.

In the case of the Constitution, it just so happens people believe that it [State sovereignty] doesn't exist; although even at the begining of this new union, many of the then leaders affirmed that succession was a valid means within the land (prior to 1860)...as they wouldn't even have a Constitution if they didn't succeed from the Articles.

The states give certain powers up, but they can also take them back. Whether society would let that happen is a different arguement.

If you have a registered gun and report it stolen, it can be traced. This can be helpful when investigating a crime committed with the gun. The criminals path can sometimes traced. Of course criminals don't register, but you have more likelihood of recovering a stolen gun if it's registered.
.
This has never been used in the conviction of a criminal nor have they ever been able to properly track it beforehand. Just like friggin ballistic fingerprinting.

The trick is to make sure, just in case, that you know how to kill someone with a pointy stick or a large rock, or to just strangle them with your hands.

"You can take our sticks, you can shatter our rocks, but you'll never take, our fingerrrrrs!"

*thwack*

"Oh my god, you took my fingerrrrrs!"

...

Clearly I need to study up on the "Black Knight" school of combat.