Why the pro-gun crowd lies about the 2nd amendment

[Selwynn]

Because if they told the truth, they would be forced to be strong supporters of tough gun laws.

Everyone likes to spout off the part of the second amendment that says "the right to bear arms." But that's not exactly what it says, is it? It says:

"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."

It limits the scope and parameters of the "right" to bear arms to a well-regulated militia. Regulated. The very fact that the framers stipulated that a "well regulated" militia was the scope and parameters of the "right" to bear arms only reinforces the truth that they never intended the second amendment to be used like the NRA tries to use it - to oppose every single kind of regulation on gun ownership, no matter how much sense it makes, simply on a misguided principle. The founders make it clear in their own words in the second amendment that they never intended it to extent blanket license to anyone to stockpile any kind of weapons they want in any quantity with no guidance and no, here's that word again, REGULATION.

No the second amendment is a classic example of the "with rights comes responsibility" doctrine. The right to bear arms is balanced by the responsibility of being well regulated and organized, not an excuse to do anything on want with any kind of gun without any kind of regulation.

I support well-regulated gun ownership. That is all.

[Lefty48197]

1. Careful you might piss off the right wingers in the NRA

They are prepared to spend the rest of their lives completely twisting every bit of the 2nd amendment. I think they've concluded that well regulated militia means that all the pretend warriors should dress in the same clothing.

[wyldwolf]

2. Careful you might piss off the DU'ers in the NRA

But I agree with you.

[arewethereyet]

3. well it COULD mean that

but thats not what it says.

Clearly the militias are to be well regulated and that makes perfect sense. But there is no language to tie the militia thing to the rights of the people thing.

Check out soe of the other areas where they refer to the people and their rights (speach, assembly for example), no caveats, no restrictions. Same authors dealing a consistant message.

That being said, noone needs automatic weapons, SAM's, street sweepers and the like but the NRA isn't questioning that.

Anyway, thats the read of this non-NRA english major. Its a free country and I'm sure other folks see it differently.

[Selwynn]

4. Wrong. But I guess you'd have to understand grammar

Well, not only could it mean that - it in fact DOES mean that, and there's no way around it.

The fact that other places when protecting OTHER rights they make no quallification is irrelevant. This is not the same right. Every right is different. This particular right is about guns and it comes with some resitrictions.

The phrase "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is a fragment on its own. But here it has a comma after it. It is a DEPENDANT clause. Now in modern times, we rarely write in such a way where our dependant clauses come before the main clause, but it does not change the meaning in the slightest. You cannot separate the dependant clause from the main clause - it depends on it.

If you were to reverse the order, which is the more common modern way, it would say:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, (as/because) a well-regulated militia (is) necessary to the security of a free State."

The purpose of the right to bear arms is the maintaining of a necessarily well-regulated militia. The words well regulated are no less important than any other words in the consitution. They were put there for a purpose.

One of the inescapable realities of the 2nd ammendment is that the words well-regulated have every bit as much meaning as the words "right to bear arms." You can't separate them. You can't try to pretend they don't relate to each other without ignoring rules of grammar. You can't rationalize them away.

The rights to bear arms granted by the constitution were for the purpose of a citizen militia, which was to be... be... you know... be...

WELL REGULATED.

[arewethereyet]

7. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

as I said in my original post it was my take. you are entitled to your take every bit as much as I am to mine.

It is still a free country.

[Llewlladdwr]

11. Interesting. Is English your second language?

'Cause you seem to be a bit confused on the whole grammar thing yourself. The phrase "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is not only a fragment but a complete thought in and of itself. Making it a dependant clause only strengthens the argument that in fact the proposition put forth in this 'fragment' applies to the fragment only and not to the clause on which it depends.

Let's face it, the ONLY logical interpretation of the Second Amendment is that a well-regulated (whatever that means) militia is a good and neccesary thing, and therefore the right of the Citizenry (who make up said militia) to own weapons shall not be infringed. How you can turn this into a cry by the Founders for draconian gun regulation is simply beyond me. The phrase "well-regulated" does in fact have meaning, as vague as it may be, but is applicable only to the militia and not to the weapons owned by private citizens.

On edit: added 'a' before fragment.

[Selwynn]

15. Sadly, you are wrong.

It is not a complete thought in and of itself. This is evidenced by the word "being"

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

That fragment is not a sentence and can not stand on its own, Mr. English as a second language. It is dependant on the subject and verb which it is attached to. Your next statement is nonsensical. Making it a dependant clause means that it is inseparably linked to what follows it.

We do seem to agree that the intention of the founders (as obviously and clearly stated in their own words) is that a well-regulated (which means with sufficient regulation - hard to quibble over that)is necessary to the preservation of democracy, therefore the right of individuals to bear arms (in conjunction with a well-regulated militia as already stated) shall not be infringed upon.

The rights afforded to private citizens have to do with the establishing of well-regulated militias. It is not possible to divorce the right to bear arms from this fact. It is not possible to separate the "meaning" of well-regulated militia from the "right to bear arms, and to do so is to lie, distort the constitution and fail to grasp basic sentence construction.

So once again, in the true and proper spirit of the constitution, I am for responsible gun ownership I am for well-regulated gun ownership. Owning a bazooka is not necessary or appropriate. Stockpiling 375 guns with no licensing is not appropriate. Not having mandatory federal waiting periods and background checks across all 50 states is not appropriate. Requiring gun owners to have a license that reflects gun safety training, seeing as how you can't drive a car in this country without a license, is appropriate. Then after you've done those things you can, LIKE I DO, enjoy your gun.

Sincerely, a happy gun owner.

[BullDozer]

19. If you want to play the grammar angle

Then read this and get back to us
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1444

" Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying " militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.




< Copperud:> (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Llewlladdwr]

20. Touche!

Although I would beg to disagree in as much as the concept expressed by the phrase "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", while not a grammatically correct English sentence, does represent the complete thought of "A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state".

I completely agree with you on the Founders thoughts vis-a-vis the neccesity for a well-regulated militia (though I still assert that 'well-regulated' is almost so vague as to be meaningless). You also seem to accept that the Constitution clearly states that the rights of private citizens to keep weapons ought not to be infringed. Where I'm getting lost is that you then assert that "well-regulated" applies not only to the militia (which is my understanding), but also to private ownership of weapons (which I feel it does not).

I'm confused even more by your last paragraph. I do not see where any of the things you describe as 'appropriate' for the Federal government to do are in fact so, and I would argue that a proper interpretation of the Constitution would prohibit the Federal government from taking ANY of those actions since each and every one constitutes an infringement of a private citizen's Second Amendment right. Your argument that driver's license requirements are somehow analogous to weapon ownership restrictions rings hollow as well.

Still, I can agree wholeheartedly that gun ownership is a happy thing. I just hope we continue to enjoy it for many years to come.

[DoNotRefill]

28. I think you're having problems....

understanding the word "infringed". You might look it up in a dictionary.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

36. Absolute Clause

I'm not sure what Copperud was saying (but then again, the author of that article edited "in" his questions, so it's hard to tell what was garbled in the translation). But grammatically speaking, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is an absolute clause that modifies "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It's basically saying that because a well-regulated militia is necessary, the government may not infringe upon that right. It's pretty plain that the founders intended (in the final version, anyway) to preserve the right of the people to own firearms.

That being said, there are copious examples of constitutional rights that are situational. Your right to free speech stops at publishing my medical records on the internet. You right to freely practice your religion ends at polygamy. Having a right enshrined in the constitution doesn't make it absolute.

What's more, there's plenty in the Constitution (slavery leaps to mind) that would never pass muster in the twenty-first century. So while there is a Second Amendment guarantee to keep and bear arms, exactly how that guarantee plays out in practice is a matter of legitimate debate.

[DoNotRefill]

52. Who said our interpretation is absolute?

First Amendment rights aren't absolute. You can't use them as a shield to commit crimes. Fraudulent speech, perjury, et cetera are not protected. Yet the basic right to speak freely is still protected.

Same deal with the Second Amendment. You can own guns, but you can't use them to commit crimes. That's why homicide, brandishing, and armed robbery are illegal. Yet the basic right to keep and bear arms is protected.


In case you didn't realize it, slavery is no longer constitutional. See Amendment 13, US Constitution. Did they repeal the second Amendment and I miss it? If not, then the right to keep and bear arms is still constitutionally protected and will remain so until the Second Amendment is repealed.

[1a2b3c]

47. HAHAHA

No shit, the laugh out loud funny post. I love it when i read one of these.

[Llewlladdwr]

60. Okay.

infringe pres. part. infringing past and past part. infringed v.t. to fail to conform with, violate, to infringe copyright regulations || v.i. to encroach, to infringe on someone's rights infringement n. (fr. L infringere, to break)

What am I not understanding?

[Llewlladdwr]

61. Oops!

My bad. I thought #28 was directed at me, not realizing it was meant for Selwynn. My apologies DoNotRefill.

[hansberrym]

58. There are no restrictive clauses

(quoting Selwynn)
We do seem to agree that the intention of the founders (as obviously and clearly stated in their own words) is that a well-regulated (which means with sufficient regulation - hard to quibble over that)is necessary to the preservation of democracy, therefore the right of individuals to bear arms (in conjunction with a well-regulated militia as already stated) shall not be infringed upon. (my emphasis in boldface)
(end quote)

If the phrase you inserted was actually in the amendment, the amendment would have the meaning that you urge. But it is not there, nor are there any other phrases that would link the independent clause to what precedes it in a way that would restrict the meaning of the right.


The second amendment:
"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 that there are no qualifiers attached to "the right" or to "the people". Nor are there any linking adjectives (e.g. those, such, etc.)


All of the following are examples of qualifying phrases in boldface
that would limit the right of the people to service in a well-regulated militia.

The requisite right of the people...

The thus outlined right of the people...

The right of such persons...

The right of the people in actual service...

The right of that portion of the people...

The right of the people to keep and bear arms in conjunction
with a well-regulated militia as already stated...

The right of the people to keep and bear arms to
defend the state...


There are no such qualifiers or linking adjectives that would justify the interpretation that you propose. Therefore, the Preamble, as it is sometimes called, is best interpreted as a rational for the non-infringement of the right that it recognized. As in your proposed modern rewriting of the second amendment

(quoting Selwynn from an earlier post)
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed, (as/because) a well-regulated militia (is) necessary
to the security of a free State."
(end quote)

the Preamble(now placed at the end)is an argument against the infringement of the right. In order to remake the Preamble into a qualifying phrase, we would have to totally change the sentence structure as shown below

The right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a well-
regulated militia necessary to the security of a free State shall
not be infringed.

Only by rearranging the structure, inserting words such as "as part of", and deleting other words can this be accomplished. But this is not interpretation, this is simply rewriting or editing to reach the desired effect.


Though it can be said that the preamble supplies context that can be used when interpreting the extent of the right in question, the grammatical structure does not support the claim that the right is restricted to service in a well-regulated militia.

All of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are interpreted by thier meaning as terms of art (such as "the freedom of the press")or by thier common law meaning, or by thier usage over time. No serious person would make the claim that the Freedom of Speech is an impediment to the passage of reasonable restrictions that serve legitimate purposes such as maintaining the peace or protecting copywrite. By the same token, no serious person should claim that the Second amendment forbids reasonable restrictions for public safety.

[kbelzner]

13. actually, we dont forget the militia clause

Check out a recent book by Akhil Amar Reed, professor of law at Yale, titled _The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction_. BTW, Reed's politics are somewhat to the left.

Beginning on page 51, he explains: "Several modern scholars have read the (second) amendment as protecting only arms bearing in organized 'state militias,' like SWAT teams and National Guard units. ...

"This reading doesn't quite work. The states'-rights reading puts great weight on the word militia, but the word appears only in the amendment's subordinate clause. The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to 'the people,' not the states. As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical: when the Constitution means 'states,' it says so.

"Thus, as noted above, 'the people' at the core of the Second Amendment are the same people at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment. Elbridge Gerry put the point nicely in the First Congress, in language that closely tracked the populist concern about governmental self-dealing at the root of earlier amendments: 'This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government.'

"What's more, the 'militia,' as used in the amendment and in clause 16, had a very different meaning two hundred years ago than in ordinary conversation today. Nowadays, it is quite common to speak loosely of the National Guard as the 'state militia,' but two hundred years ago, any band of paid, semiprofessional, part-time volunteers, like today's Guard, would have been called 'a select corps' or 'select militia' -- and viewed in many quarters as little better than a standing army.

"In 1789, when used without any qualifying adjective, 'the militia' referred to all citizens capable of bearing arms. The seeming tension between the dependent and the main clauses of the Second Amendment thus evaporates on closer inspection -- the 'militia' is identical to 'the people' in the core sense described above. ... This is clearly the sense in which 'the militia' is used in clause 16 and throughout The Federalist, in keeping with standard usage confirmed by contemporaneous dictionaries, legal and otherwise. As Tench Coxe wrote in a 1788 Pennsylvania essay, 'Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?'"

Remember that federal actually defines the term "militia" at Title 10, Section 311 of the United States Code. "The Militia of the United States consist of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age ... " Given the advances in gender jurisprudence, it undoubtedly would include women were the issue ever to come before the Supreme Court.

[ConsAreLiars]

21. This "militia" word is key.

I see the second amendment as being written in the time when a popularly based military revolt against tyranny had just succeeded. "Militia" in that context must mean something more than "agents of the state." But "well-regulated" also seems to place restrictions on gun ownership. No nutcases, no bandits, no agglomerations of homicidal bigots, etc.

[DoNotRefill]

26. And here I thought...

that "people" was the key word... ;-)

[ithacan]

5. priorities

the fact that Bush has "first amendment zones," but would never in a million years accept "second amendment zones" (that is, restrict the possession and use of guns only to specific, government approved areas), shows the priorities of this gang of thieves.

[K-W]

6. A look at the documents from that time

doesnt show it to be that clear cut. They did want people to have the right to have guns. But, unlike most of the other freedoms in the bill of rights this one related to a much much different society than we have now.

[Gman]

8. I started a gun thread last year

and it went to over 150 posts arguing both sides. I had no intention of starting that big of an argument nor did I even expect one.

I avoid them now because there are strong feelings here at DU on both sides and we have bigger things to worry about.

[Jerseycoa]

12. I do, too

I was taken by surprise. I guess I am on another planet, but I had NO IDEA there had been this shift on the left in favor of being armed and dangerous.

[CarinKaryn]

43. Its really sad Bush & Co have brainwashed progressives

into thinking they need to have bazookas in order be safe and secure. It remindes me of scared little bunnies who are trying to obtain bigger "teeth" than the wolves.

[1a2b3c]

48. How old are you?

Who said there was a switch? Maybe there have always been liberals who read the second as a right to bear arms against anything they feel they need a gun against, and they choose to exercise that right. You cannot be a liberal and be FOR a ban on guns, atleast not in my mind. Youre taking away a persons means of protection against government and criminals. Not very liberal if you ask me.

[MrSandman]

9. A recent thread on this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=26508

[Cory Steiner]

10. Just Trying to Learn

I wonder if it's possible to agree that conservatives and liberals really are both equally anti-crime and that firearms in the hands of the law-abiding aren't even remotely the problem. My opinion is that gun control itself is flawed in that it only takes guns away from those who follow the law and has zero effect on the desired outcome.

[1a2b3c]

50. I thought you was a poster named CarinKaryn

i was gonna give you the thumbs up for some common sense on the issue. Welcome to DU, glad to see some common sense. :thumbsup:

[happyslug]

14. The issue is what was meant by "Well Regulated"

There are two ways the Supreme Court has used to interprets the Constitution. First is to look at the Federalist Papers. This is weak in Bill of Rights cases for The Federalist Papers were written during the period of the Ratification of the Constitution by the States and thus BEFORE the Bill of the Rights was adopted. It is a start for the Militia was addressed by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Number 29 (See www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/#Federlist).

Hamilton writes in Federalist 29 that he would prefer two different classes of Militia. The first (and preferred by Hamilton), the one Hamilton calls a "select corps" of paid Militiamen (much like our present National Guard) and would have used it like we use the present day Army Reserve and National Guard.

As to the rest of the Militia (now referred to as the "reserve Militia"), Hamilton put a lower value on it but even to Hamilton it had some value:

"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year"

Thus we see Hamilton while preferring something like our National Guard today, still believed in the General Militia and thus the equipping that Militia.


The Second method of interpreting the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) is to look at how the First Congress addressed what it could do and what it could NOT do under the Constitution. Unlike the First Amendment, which the First Congress did not violate (It was the 3rd or 4th Congress that passed the Alienation and Sedition Acts) the Second was addressed by the First Congress in the Militia Act of 1792 (See http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm for copy of that act).

The key is the first section, which calls for all White Citizens to own a .69 Caliber Musket (This was the same weapon and caliber used by the Regular US Army of 1792, it was the Assault Rifle of its day. The Act uses the term "18th part of a pound" to define its weapon of choice, but that was the style of the time, today we would call it .69 Caliber).

The act goes on and to include a demand for each militiaman to have basic load of Ammunition and what is today called TA-50 equipment (tent and back backs). Congress than had the states do the actual forming of the Militia.

Based on this, what the First Congress thought its power over the Militia can be seen, the ability to set up a book of Regulations on HOW the Militia was to be formed so that it could be used interchangeability with Regular forces. The First Congress also saw as it duty under the Constitution to set the Type and Caliber of Weapon and the basic load a Militiaman was to have. Notice NO ONE was prohibiting from being a member of the Militia, the Act set the minimal standards and than left certain citizens NOT mentioned even though they would also serve in the Militia.

Thus the Dependent Clause is meant to perserve Congress's POWER to organize the Militia, and that the Right to Bare Arms would NOT interfere with Congress's right to Form the Militia and set forth what weapon the Militia is to have. The Dependent Clause was NOT intended to be a restriction on WHO or WHAT weapons are protected by the Rest of the Second Amendment.

[Mioshi]

17. Militia defined in current law

Title 10 of United States Code in Section 311 states exactly what the militia is. In fact there are two militias, the organized militia and the unorganized militia. A careful reading of this shows that if you don't belong to the organized militia, you automatically belong to the unorganized militia if you are between the ages of 17 and 45. Here is what current law says:


Search USC, About Database, Download USC, Classification Tables, Codification



-CITE-

10 USC Sec. 311 01/05/99


-EXPCITE-

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A - General Military Law

PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA


-HEAD-

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes


-STATUTE-

(a) The militia of the United States consists of 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.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard

and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of

the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the

Naval Militia.


-SOURCE-

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),

Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V,

Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)


-MISC1-


Historical and Revision Notes

1956 Act

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at

Large)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

311(a) 311(b) 32:1 (less last 19 June 3, 1916, ch.

words). 32:1 (last 134, Sec. 57, 39

19 words). Stat. 197; June 28,

1947, ch. 162, Sec.

7 (as applicable to

Sec. 57 of the Act

of June 3, 1916,

ch. 134), 61 Stat.

192.

-------------------------------

In subsection (a), the words ''who have made a declaration of

intention'' are substituted for the words ''who have or shall have

declared their intention''. The words ''at least 17 years of age

and * * * under 45 years of age'' are substituted for the words

''who shall be more than seventeen years of age and * * * not more

than forty-five years of age''. The words ''except as provided in

section 313 of title 32'' are substituted for the words ''except as

hereinafter provided'', to make explicit the exception as to

maximum age.

In subsection (b), the words ''The organized militia, which

consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia'' are

substituted for the words ''the National Guard, the Naval

Militia'', since the National Guard and the Naval Militia

constitute the organized militia.


1958 Act

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at

Large)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

311(a) 32 App.:1. July 30, 1956, ch.

789, Sec. 1, 70

Stat. 729.

-------------------------------

The words ''appointed as . . . under section 4 of this title''

are omitted as surplusage.

AMENDMENTS

1993 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103-160 substituted ''members'' for

''commissioned officers''.

1958 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85-861 included female citizens of

the United States who are commissioned officers of the National

Guard.


-CROSS-

CROSS REFERENCES

Congressional power to provide for organization, equipment,

discipline, and government of Militia, see Const. Art. I, Sec. 8,

cl. 16.

Declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United

States, see section 1445 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.




Search USC, About Database, Download USC, Classification Tables, Codification

[MojoKrunch]

32. Ok... so "militia" is

"Males at least 17 years of age"
"Under 45 years of age"
"Female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

Got it.
That clears things up a bit.
Thanks.

So all you kids, old guys and women not in the National Guard.
You're SOL.

Mojo

[the_acid_one]

16. It's not a qualifier....

It's just one reason.

As we all know the 2ndAmmendment says:


"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"

How I read it is thus: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Why?

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

It doesnt mean "Only the militia shall have arms" The militia thing is just one reason why the people shall have arms.

If the founders meant only the milita shall have arms, why didnt they just say it? If the intention strictly militia related, they would have said that. They didnt.

Seriously. Are we expected the believe that the founders accidently said "the people" when they meant "the militia"?

It's a joke. There's no beating around the bush in the second ammendment. You can argue that it's outdated, you can argue that society is radically differant and the 2nd A doesnt really apply anymore.

But to argue that it doesnt mean exactly what it says is ludicrious. It says the people, it means the people. They wouldnt put something ambigous in the bill of rights, which all throughout the document, refers to the rights of the people, as in the citizens,, when it really means the state milita.
It's a desperate spin by the anti-gun side to side step that annoying, archaic, Second Ammendmant.

It's the equivilent of corrupt judges using their "interpretation" of the law, to say that even though the law says, quite frankly, "this", the judge "feels" that it means "that", Instead.

But when you get right down to it. I, personally, dont care. if the Founders came back to life and said to me "Whoa, Kat...we didnt mean that YOU could have an Uzi, and an Ar-15...just the milita" then I'd say "Oh..well..It's unfortunette that we dont see eye to eye...But I dont care." The constitution isnt the word of god.

I believe the founders would agree more with the individual right. But if they dont. Well, thats ok. I really do bealive that "All men are created equal". As such, I dont see any reason why some government lacky can be trusted with a gun, but I, or anyone else who's proved themselves responsible, cant.


But How about this, I'll pay my taxes, I'll do my thing off where you wont hear it or see it and wont hurt a soul, and I wont even use any social service programs, and we'll say the 1/3rd of my income I cough up every year is my "Leave me the fuck alone" Tax.

If some crusty old social vampires (Read: Politicians) dont want me having a knife taped to the end of my gun, or threads capable of accepting a dreaded "flash suppressor". Then they're more then welcome to come tell me "No" in person.

Not that that's going to happen. It's easier to pass stupid laws when you have a legion of acronymic agencies with agendas to enforce them for you.

Sometimes I wonder why I obey stupid laws.... Then I remember why.... I dont want to go to guantanamo bay and rot for a couple years hoping I get a trial eventually.

Firearms are the teeth of the people. They give numbers to the outnumbered, and strength to the weak.

My gun might not stop a tank, but neither will your catchy rhyming protest sign.

Obviously..it probably wont come to that. But even against lesser scum. My gun will own all over your cell phone in the event of a rape, robbery, or attempted murder.

If some people want to de-claw themselves. Cool by me. That's Your choice. But dont push your choices on me.

I guess it's easier to support gun control, when you dont have to go around confiscating peoples property yourself.

[Tinfoil]

37. acid one

BRAVO

[1a2b3c]

51. Hey what is this shit?

It's a joke. There's no beating around the bush in the second ammendment. You can argue that it's outdated, you can argue that society is radically differant and the 2nd A doesnt really apply anymore.

But to argue that it doesnt mean exactly what it says is ludicrious. It says the people, it means the people. They wouldnt put something ambigous in the bill of rights, which all throughout the document, refers to the rights of the people, as in the citizens,, when it really means the state milita.
It's a desperate spin by the anti-gun side to side step that annoying, archaic, Second Ammendmant.

Is DU now allowing more than one common sense post in a single thread about guns? Im hitting alert. ;-)

[Emoto]

18. sorry...

The introductory phrase is merely explanatory, not limiting. "Well regulated" meant properly functioning, not having a bunch of laws. Even liberal legal scholars such as Tribe see it this way.

Recalling the fact that the first shots of the revolution were fired at troops trying to confiscate our guns ought to put to rest much of the gun "control" foolishness.

[mikehiggins]

22. So let me get this straight

The Second Amendment states that "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."

Therefore, if there is a well-regulated militia, then there is a Constitutionally recognised right to keep and bear arms. The militia, of course, shall be well regulated, but nothing in the Amendment states that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall be.

Thus, if a well-regulated militia does exist, then everyone has a uninfringeable right to keep and bear arms!

Isn't English a wonderful language?

So, according to Selwyn's interpretation, as long as there is a Florida National Guard in existence, my right to keep and bear a thompson sub-machine gun should not be infringed upon at all.

You may not agree, but it makes at least as much sense as saying what the anti-gun folks claim it does.

Of course, the easy solution would be to propose an Amendment rescinding the Second Amendment and follow the legally prescribed method for changing the law of the land. If the anti-gun folks are so convinced of the correctness and reasonableness of their position, why not take that route?

[beevul]

23. Interpretations differ. To be specific, mine.

"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."

Or, with 4 commas:

"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."

=

"A well regulated militia because its necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Or, with 4 commas:

"A well regulated militia, because its necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


That pretty much sums it up. That WAS the mindset and intent of the framers.


Well regulated mechanics being necessary to the maintainance of a tuned vehicle, the right of the people to keep and bear tools shall not be infringed.


Or, with 4 commas:

Well regulated mechanics, being necessary to the maintainance of a tuned vehicle, the right of the people to keep and bear tools, shall not be infringed.

Would you say this limits the scope and parameters of the "right" to "keep and bear tools" ONLY to well regulated mechanics?



A well regulated choir being necessary to the pleasure of a sound performance, the right of the people to keep and bear voiceboxes shall not be infringed.

Or, with 4 commas:

A well regulated choir, being necessary to the pleasure of a sound performance, the right of the people to keep and bear voiceboxes, shall not be infringed.(more later on the 4 commas)

Would you say this limits the scope and parameters of the "right" to "keep and bear voiceboxes" ONLY to a "well regulated choir"?

Subordinate clause.....No, I think not. More like an explanitory affirmative clause. If you have to exert any more effort in the interpretation of the second than you do in the interpretation of the first, you're interpreting it wrong. We could sit around all day trying to find "mitigating" ways to interpret all the amendments. Its plain and simple language. The intent of those who wrote that language is CRYSTAL CLEAR. They were in the first half of the second amendment, explaining WHY the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." How come the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"? Because, "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" or in modern language, because a well regulated militia, IS necessary to the security of a free state. The first half of the amendment is an explanation why "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed", nothing more, nothing less.

I support crime control, not gun laws that remove guns ONLY from the hands of the law abiding. That is all.

Just a nitpick here, the amendment is actually written like this:

"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."

No offense, not trying to be a spelling/punctuation nazi, my spelling/punct sucks. Just thought it important to be exact where constitutional amendments are concerned.

4 commas instead of 2. Not really relivant to my argument, but may be to someone elses.

Keep in mind, the law to this day, is specific:

U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of 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.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/10/subtitles/a/parts/i/chapters/13/sections/section_311.html

Oh yeah, one question. Why would the framers have placed any limitations on "the people" in a document(the BOR) that was CLEARLY intended to contain and confine the scope and parameters of government?


I agree with the_acid_one and Emoto on the "interpretation".

[hijinks]

24. Its the gun grabbers who ignore half of the amendment...

...The reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is to ensure a militia.

The definition of militia is all of the people. To say that the national guard, a professional army controled by the federal government is a militia is to ignore the meaning of the word!

You can argue all you want about the 'well-regulated' nature of the militia, but its still ALL of the people.

[DoNotRefill]

25. Then please explain Miller.

If the Second Amendment only applies to the State Militias, why didn't the fact that Miller wasn't in the State Militia cause a result of "The Second Amendment doesn't apply to him" instead of the "absent a showing" bit about weapons being militarily useful? IIRC, Miller wasn't ABLE to be in the Militia becuase he had a previous felony conviction which would have disqualified him.

[happyslug]

30. See Miller for details

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=307&page=174

[MrBenchley]

27. Well said!!

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. Perhaps next time you ought to quote the Amendment correctly

The ACTUAL amendment reads as follows:

"Amendment II

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 comma you left out. It is significant.

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

[MojoKrunch]

31. I've always asked myself why the FFs bothered to put that line in

there in the first place.

How hard would it have been to just say, "every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms", period?

Quite obviously the "well-regulated militia" part was considered necessary or it wouldn't be in there, right?

That or they were all really drunk and tired from arguing over the point and concocted this moronic sentence as a compromise.

I used to be completely and totally anti-gun... but over the years I've mellowed a bit and find the concept of gun-ownership within the context of a State or Federal militia perfectly acceptable.
Proper training.
Proper oversite.
Proper regulation.
Said militia wouldn't even have to come under the auspices of the military, AFAIC.

Mojo

[Romulus]

33. VA Const. sheds some light

on what the US Const. means:

Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

http://legis.state.va.us/constitution/a1s13.htm

[MrBenchley]

34. Jeepers rom....

funny how you didn't emphasize "a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms"....and didn't emphaisze this at all "in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power"

Sure doesn't sound like it's got anything at all to do with yokels wandering around with their own assault rifles...and makes itself quite clear that gun control is not only constitutionally proper but required..

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulus]

39. well

The quote says "the body of the people" makes up the militia, and that they should be trained to arms - meaning that the govt. must ensure that the populace is able to function as a militia by ensuring that they are trained. That's the only "gun control" being referenced - making sure people can hit their targets.:evilgrin:

The second part discusses the dangers of a "standing army," an entity distinct from the "militia," and how that standing army must be governed by the civilian authorities.

What's the issue? :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

42. Not hardly

but thanks for playing "what's my RKBA fantasy"

[Emoto]

44. Contempt for the individual is the sign of a totalitarian

"yokels wandering around with their own assault rifles"

In my opinion, this is but one more example of your elitist attitude toward the average citizen. In post after post, it appears to me that you make it clear that you are of the opinion that individual citizens can only be regarded as too stupid and irresponsible to be given any important decisions to make on their own.

This attitude is anti-democratic in the extreme and goes against everything this country stands for. It is the people that make this country great, and we are the source of the government's power. When you put down the people, you put down the concepts of freedom and liberty that are the foundation of this great nation.

[MrBenchley]

49. And contempt for fact, common sense and honesty

is the hallmark of the RKBA crowd. No argument too disgraceful, dishonest and silly for the "bullets for brains" bunch.

"In my opinion, this is but one more example of your elitist attitude toward the average citizen."
Amazingly, the average citizen doesn't buy the crap put out by the extremist turds of the NRA. The majority of Americans favor gun control.


"It is the people that make this country great"
Yeah, and special interests like the racist gun rights crowd that are doing their damndest to tear it down. Now go pimp for John AshKKKroft's dishonest revisionist fantasies to someone stupid and irresponsible enough to buy them.

[Cory Steiner]

53. One Might Argue That...

...gun control itself was founded on racist values and the leaders of the gun control movement are pawns used by New Jersey politicians to scare people into voting a certain way.
I somehow feel like I know you, Mr. Benchley.

[MrBenchley]

54. Yeah, but considering the racist pieces of shit pitching "gun rights"

one would have to be totally dishonest to make such a claim. Which of course, doesn't prevent the RKBA crowd from floating this bogus claim with monotonous regularity.

[1a2b3c]

55. What a pantload

[Cory Steiner]

56. Gun Rights Are Not a "Pitch"...

..., but rather part of our Constitution that ensures life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Hopefully we'll never need that Right, but giving it up will ensure that we will. Gun Rights already exist. There is no need to "pitch" them.
Where, then, do our Rights come from? Do they come from God? Do they come from a piece of paper? It's my contention that they come from the blood of the men and women that fought to preserve them everytime that they were under attack.
By the tone and content of your posts it's good to see that you understand at least part of our Constitution.

[MrBenchley]

62. Sure they arre...

anf they're not fooling much of anyone.....

[hansberrym]

59. Rom, Note Also the similarities in the “preambles”

of the 1785 militia act of Virginia and the Second Amendment.

The purposes are the same, but the means employed to ensure the existence of a well regulated militia are different. One declares a duty to keep and bear arms that certain people must perform, and the other declares that the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.


Excerpted from US v. Miller:
The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785 (12 Hening’s Statutes c. 1, p. 9 et seq.), declared:

‘The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.’

‘All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,…shall be enrolled … Every private…shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer.’ (my emphasis)



Compare to the Second Amendment

“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 that the Second Amendment is expressed as a right rather than a duty. Also “the people” is a broader term than “all free male persons ages 18 to fifty years” .


In keeping with Miller the arms mentioned above should be of a type to support an effective militia. But there is no basis for limiting “the people” who might keep and bear arms except under due process (conviction or judgement) as is the case with other individual rights.

[slackmaster]

41. It's a justification, and explanation of why the RKBA matters

Or why it mattered at the time; nothing more and nothing less.

[Emoto]

57. Right

It's called the "Bill of RIGHTS" not the "Bill of What We're going to allow you."

[Liberal Classic]

38. Bill of Rights = Individual Rights

(repost from an eariler thread)

Consider the 1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government
for a redress of grievances.

and consider the 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

or the 10th amendment:

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.


Are we to say that the first amendment describes a collective right? Only the collective, as a distinct entity from its
membership, has the right to free speech? Only a collective has the right to peacable assembly and to petition the
government for a redress of greivances?

Are we to consider than the fourth amendment describes a collective right? Only the collective, as a distinct entity from its
membership, has the right to be secure in it houses and papers? The collective has the right to be free from unreasonable
search and seziure? What does "The right of the people to be secure in their persons" mean if 'people' means 'collective?'
The collective has the right to be secure in its persons? This is nonsense.

Now consider the tenth amendment. The powers not delegated by the people to the United States are reserved to the
several States or to the people. Does this mean powers not delegated to the federal government or state government are
reserved for the collective as distinct from its members? Do people have no rights at all apart from that which the collective
has?

No, of course not. The Bill of Rights describes the rights of the people, all of us, as a group of individuals. If we interpret the
rights described in the bill of rights as collective rights not given to individuals we destroy the meaning of the amendments
themselves. If the right of the people to keep and bear arms does not mean that you and I have a right to bear arms, then
the right to free speech means only the collective has the right to free speech, or only the collective has the right to be free
from unreasonable search and seziure. Collective rights apply to you and I individually, because only the most narrow
definition of the word 'collective' excludes the membership from the collective itself. In all other definitions of people, or
group, or collective things that apply to the collective apply to the membership of the collective or group. Collective rights
are individual rights, or put another way, rights that we all have!

We all have the right to free speech, and we all have the right to be secure in our persons and effects. Likewise we have a
right to bear arms. You and I have a right to own a firearm or a knife to employ for lawful purposes, just as we can use our
voice or public literature for lawful purposes. Just as slander and libel are against the law, so is assault with a deadly
weapon.

[slackmaster]

40. Interpret it however you wish, but IMO you are way off base

Your spin seems to me quite a stretch. I'd translate it into more modern English like this:

"Because the ability of the states to maintain effective militias is vital to their security, the federal government is hereby prohibited from any action that limits the ability of citizens to own and use weapons."

The authors clearly saw the existence of an unrestricted, individual RKBA as the present state of affairs at the time the words were written. The 2A does not necessarily preclude arms controls by the states, which to me is the central issue that ought to be decided once and for all by the federal courts. If the 2A is taken at face value in the context of the rest of the Constitution and BoR, all federal gun controls except those that directly concern interstate commerce in weapons are clearly unconstitutional.

Whether or not state militias are still essential is also debatable. Most states including California do address their own militias in their constitutions and codes, though most have fallen into disuse. The opening clause of the 2A might just as well say "The Moon, being made of green cheese,..." and the whole sentence would still prohibit the federal government from infringing on the RKBA.

That's not an "NRA" interpretation BTW; it's my interpretation.

[demsrule4life]

45. On the flip side

"Why the anti-gun crowd lies about the 2nd amendment"

[1a2b3c]

46. I thought that guns are regulated.

A criminal cant buy one.