General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy 2nd amendment argument
"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."
In this sentence the phrase "of the people" means exactly the same as the opening to the constitution "we the people".
"the people" means all of us, collectively, not any particular individual.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TexasDem69
(2,317 posts)Is interpreted in the 1st and 4th Amendments, which also protect the rights of “the people” and have been interpreted to protect an individual right as opposed to a collective one.
brush
(61,033 posts)which is obviously what they meant since they were referring to a militia, a force formed to protect a free state — if they had written that instead of "of the people" to keep and bears arms, we wouldn't be in this mess today where gun humpers, the NRA and their clients, gun manufacturers, prefer to interpret the 2nd Amendment as the right of anyone who wants a military-style killing weapon to get one and keep it near in case he/she/they get the urge to use it to kill — or to buy one that very day to kill.
We really need to update parts of the Constitution to reflect today's realities where there are easily accessible military-style, killing weapons instead of the one-round-per-approximately-two-minutes-or-so muzzle loading weapons that were state-of-the-art then.
We have become a nation where one has to think twice about going to places where a lot of people gather. And we're talking about necessities such as grocery stores, banks, schools, houses of worship and on and on.
We're descending rapidly into a state of armed dystopia where mass shootings happen daily.
It's scary.
kentuck
(114,825 posts)...that mention "militias" purpose as to stopping insurrections against our government, rather than supporting insurrection?
brush
(61,033 posts)and assault weapon should be able to get one.
It's pretty obvious the Second Amendment is intended for a well regulated militia to have access to arms to protect a free state, not for every nut with a gun fetish who might get triggered one day to use it to kill as many people as he or she can before being stopped.
The 2nd's phrasing should be updated so it's meaning is not ambiguous, so it's clear that is was directed towards well-regulated militia, which is now our National Guard.
Right now it's interpreted in more than one way, Scalia's Heller decision in 2008 insured that anyone, even those bordering on insanity or already over the edge, can stock up on as many weapons, rapid firing, military-style assault ones too, as they can get their murdering hands on.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(130,072 posts)TexasDem69
(2,317 posts)Meant what they said in the 2d Amendment—it protects the right of the people, not the milita, to keep and bear arms. But the correct interpretation is irrelevant to most gun control laws. About the only thing that the government can’t do after Heller is ban handgun ownership. A ban on assault weapons is probably constitutional (though who knows with the current Supreme Court) but there’s no will to pass one at the national level so it’s up to the states. Background checks, red flag laws, etc. are all permitted after Heller.
brush
(61,033 posts)It's just the opposite, which is why it starts with "a well-regulated militia" and later, not the first mention mind you, "the people." It's ambiguous, unclear phrasing, which led to Scalia's Heller decision in 2008 insuring that"the people", individuals — which includes gun nuts near and far, crazy or not — have the right to stock pile as many rapid fire, military-style, assault weapons they can get their hands on.
It's glaringly obvious we need common sense legislation on guns that, frankly need to ban AR-15-style weapons, mean only for killing people, while preserving the right for ownership of handguns or shot gun for home protection. We've actually got some states now where one can carry a gun around in public with no permit or training needed. That's absolutely crazy.
It can done if we vote out the republicans who refuse to move on sensible gun control legislation but are quick to offer thoughts and prayers after every mass shooting, which happen just about daily now.
We can do much better as a nation.
f_townsend
(260 posts)and to no one else. The "preamble" isn't so much a preamble as it is a condition.
There is no other part of the BOR which contains any preamble/explanation. The 2A's preamble is there for a reason; the Framers did not want it separated from the rest of the sentence.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,445 posts)The standard of review set in Bruen will make it very hard for any type of ban to survive. California's assault weapons ban is about to get declared unconstitutional at the District Court level again. The Judge who will make the ruling already did so once prior to Bruen. After Bruen, SCOTUS vacated the ruling upholding the ban and ordered the 9th Circuit to look at the case again in light of the Bruen ruling and the 9th Circuit decided to kick it back down to the District Court. Scotus vacated other rulings upholding California's magazine capacity limit, NJ's mag limit, and MD assault weapons ban too.
MarineCombatEngineer
(16,294 posts)So there's that.
f_townsend
(260 posts)Is more accurate.
MarineCombatEngineer
(16,294 posts)courts disagree, not just the SCOTUS, so, again, there's that.
jmbar2
(7,390 posts)
Freethinker65
(11,201 posts)IMO, It seems that a well regulated militia was thought to be necessary to ensure the security of a free State. That makes sense. States were allowed to have their own LE/militia to help protect their people.
Because guns were necessary for the State militias for security and protection, people in these regulated militias would have the right to keep and use those guns.
So, the Federal government cannot take guns away from those in well regulated State militias.
I don't think it means everyone has the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say they can or cannot.
(It also doesn't say what happens if the well regulated State militias, that are are created, become used in the future to threaten the freedoms of State residents.)
brush
(61,033 posts)is what was meant, and "the people" constituted member of the militia to be called up if necessary.
It needs to re-phrased and updated because now every gun fetisher and nut job can get his hands on military-style, rapid-firing assault weapons. That's crazy. Sensible control legislation could re-phrase the 2nd A and undo what Scalia's Heller decision insured — individual gun owner ship for everyone, crazy or not.
bucolic_frolic
(52,914 posts)"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." Militia is the first and most important operative noun of that sentence. The people keeping and bearing arms is subsidiary to the militia.
How differently this reads: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, being necessary to the security of a free State, a well regulated Militia, shall not be infringed." Here the two operatives are reversed. Militia is secondary.
SYFROYH
(34,212 posts)You can't get around that.
f_townsend
(260 posts)SYFROYH
(34,212 posts)f_townsend
(260 posts)"or the people" simply means that the elected state government expresses the will of the people.
kentuck
(114,825 posts)America was growing out into the Wilderness and a hunting rifle was needed for survival, for killing game and animals for food. It was a necessity.
They were the people that were asked to be the "militia", to gather together to protect their homes and villages, from outside attacks, wherever they might come from.
The new country, and the government, did not wish to infringe upon that right. It was to their benefit, as well as the collective "people".
It was necessary for the people to remain a "free state".
The "government" wanted to know who had a gun in their home and who did not? Those that had a gun were required to be part of the "militia". In that sense, it was "well regulated".
That is my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
C_U_L8R
(48,346 posts)It's not about personal armament - as it's been twisted.
hack89
(39,181 posts)You need to study the history of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The BOR was specifically created as a limit on government power and were very much about protecting individual rights.
kentuck
(114,825 posts)And what is defined as an "individual right"? If it harms the general society, is it an "individual right"?
hack89
(39,181 posts)but to do so requires a very strict legal standard. That is the way it has always been. The 2A can be restricted - that is the law of the land according to Heller.
Individual rights are never by default subservient to the group as a whole - how can have minority right is that is the case? The default should be that individual rights are precisely that - rights enjoyed by the solely by the individual. It means the government cannot tell me what to say, what god to worship, cannot search my home with no cause, cannot put me in jail without due process.
f_townsend
(260 posts)"The BOR was ... very much about protecting individual rights."
The first two proposed amendments that Madison submitted to Congress, and which were approved by Congress, and then submitted to the states for ratification (with both falling just short), didn't have the slightest thing to do with "individual rights": expansion of the House of Rep, and a prohibition of Congress to change their own pay just before an election.
Are you sure it's the previous poster and not you who needs to study the history of the Constitution and the BOR?
hack89
(39,181 posts)If it is not in the Constitution then the government can’t do it. It is what prevents the government from creating new powers for itself that can encroach on personal freedoms.
Not sure why you think your comment about the first two amendments is relevant. The BOR was debated as a whole and adopted as a whole. Not every amendment has anything to to with individual rights but the BOR has everything to do with individual rights.
f_townsend
(260 posts)As though there's no difference between the federal and state governments.
The 10A grants powers to the state government if those powers are otherwise unenumerated in the US constitution. It does not "prevent the government from creating new powers for itself that can encroach on personal freedoms".
For example, an individual of a state may claim the individual right to walk around nude in public wherever he or she goes, but the state government, elected by the will of the people -- i.e. "...or the people" -- has the 10A right to enact legislation prohibiting such a thing.
So no -- the 10A does not prevent the government from creating new powers that can encroach on unenumerated individual personal freedoms; as far as state government is concerned, it can do the opposite.
As far as the first two proposed amendments -- I mentioned them because you claim that the BOR has "everything" to do with individual rights, when clearly that was not at all its only purpose. The 2A, in fact, has everything to do with individual state rights (guaranteeing the right of individual states to host armed state militias, albeit constitutionally-bound to support the federal government), the collective state rights (state militias, pooled together to defend one another), and only barely individual rights (an individual constitutional right to keep arms -- but only if one actually participated in one's well-regulated state militia).
The 2A also had a lot to do with federal rights, because by guaranteeing that states could host and support their own respective well-regulated militias, presumably now better armed and better regulated by the 2A, the federal government and its laws would be better protected and enforced by those same state militias, by means of Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16 (and the various Militia Acts).
hack89
(39,181 posts)President Obama, HRC and Bernie are all on record as saying the 2A is an individual right. The party platform when Obama was running discussed gun ownership in terms of individual rights - no mention of militias.
I am pretty comfortable saying my views are definitely mainstream within the Democratic party.
f_townsend
(260 posts)You simply deflected from what I wrote.
I'm familiar with the "debate" techniques of gun lovers such as yourself. Doesn't work with me.
hack89
(39,181 posts)But somewhat irrelevant. The reason I am both a gun owner and a Democrat is that I am not concerned that my party will take my guns away. I have been here for very long time - I have heard your arguments countless times. I have been told countless times how "this time it is different." Yet things never change.
We have nice academic discussions here and I certainly appreciate your passion. But I also appreciate how DU is not reflective of the country as whole. There are many non- mainstream povs on many issues here - that's what makes the place interesting and entertaining.
hack89
(39,181 posts)that was (is) also the official position of HRC and Bernie. Your view is not even mainstream with in the Democratic party.
LonePirate
(14,257 posts)
Chautauquas
(4,487 posts)and then some of them return to the gungeon until the next mass shooting.
CTyankee
(67,396 posts)Perhaps there is a good reason to have it. Perhaps saner voices there would prevail and we could provide a space for them here, I don't know. I don't think gun owners have been silenced by the media.
Kingofalldems
(39,946 posts)
if..fish..had..wings
(872 posts)
hunter
(40,102 posts)So was a lot of other stuff in our Constitution as it was originally written. I'm sure you'd agree.
Stop defending the indefensible.
Gun fetishes are disgusting.
if..fish..had..wings
(872 posts)I am very much opposed to the pro-gun arguments
ripcord
(5,553 posts)I know in California every man from 18 - 45 is part of the state militia.
https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-military-and-veterans-code/division-2-the-military-forces-of-the-state/part-1-the-state-militia/chapter-2-general-organization/article-1-composition/section-122-composition-of-the-militia-of-the-state
Kennah
(14,465 posts)The Federal Papers make clear that "well regulated" means well equipped and well trained.
Since the Militia Act of 1903, members of the reserves and national guard undertake a dual enlistment in which they enlist in both the US military and their respective reserve or guard unit.
Per the Supreme Court in Perpich, there are three militias: federal, state, and reserve or unorganized
The federal militia is the US military AND reserve and guard units when activated by the President. Federal call up by the President overrides a state call up by the Governor.
The state militia is reserve and guard units when under the direction of the Governor, plus any dedicated units that states have, which some do. If push ever came to shove, I suspect that state police and state patrol units would be considered part of a state militia.
Finally, there is the reserve or unorganized militia, which is everyone else capable of serving.
20 years of war in Afghanistan teaches us many things, but among them is that no one kills determined, trained, fit, young insurgents like the US military. The US military wasn't facing Meal Team Six in Afghanistan.
The idea that Meal Team Six--even if there some shit hot, military trained, SpecOps members among them--will stand against the US military with their AR-15s is just laughably silly.