A Well Regulated Militia

[Dirty Socialist]

Gun humpers tell me that the 2nd Amendment covers all guns. Connie constitutional “experts” have also argued that. Like a fool, I took their word for it. But I finally decided to read the amendment. It CLEARLY STATES the amendment is for militias.
“A well regulated militia, necessary for the security of the state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s it. Finis. Nowhere does it mention regular citizens, hunters, or white men with small penises. I have just realized yet another massive Connie hoodwink.

[Blues Heron]

1. you're missing a couple of words

Text of the 2nd 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.

re-read that, it's pretty clear. The only solution is to remove the amendment, as the experiment in universal gun access has clearly failed.

[Dirty Socialist]

2. To me it would mean universal IF

It does not include “A well regulated militia”.

[Blues Heron]

4. It says "the people"

that's pretty universal. There's not a lot of ambiguity there.

[Dirty Socialist]

6. After re-reading it

I think it’s vague, so it’s poorly written. Should there be an “and” somewhere? Or a “for”?

[Paladin]

18. Poorly written, and not, nearly, enough, commas.

(Sarcasm simile, because on gun-related threads, one is always needed.)

[Caliman73]

72. Perhaps it is poorly written.

It has been interpreted and adjudicated in many different ways. There is a good deal of case law there. Doesn't mean that the issue is completely settled, but as it stands, it has been interpreted as a relatively universal right, that is subject to certain restrictions.

As others have said, the best way to deal with the situation is to include more case law that favors more specific restriction OR to change or eliminate the amendment.

One person on a forum, claiming to have "the correct" reading, will not make much difference in this decades long argument.

[brewens]

7. To me it was always that to have a well regulate militia, the people have to be allowed to own guns.

Even if it was mainly to enable slave catchers, they still probably had people using their own guns in mind, rather than setting up a system to supply them.

I say bad wording considering what it's turned into.

[Claire Oh Nette]

27. Militia over a standing army

The Founders feared a standing army, hence, the citizen militia.

The media has dubbed the rural, right-wing, extremist, domestic terrorist vigilante gangs to co-opt the name militia. None of them report to any sort of governing authority. They are street gangs. Only I trust street gangs not to go after civilians like me.

We've got national guardsmen in each state, multiple layers of police, sheriffs, and state troopers, and we have multiple branches of military in our standing army.

2A says zero about hunting, self defense, sporting clays, standing one's ground, or open carry as a means of overcompensating for uh, shortcomings.

[brewens]

30. A pretty small percentage of people owned guns in the first place in the Colonies. Take away that

number owning them only for controlling slaves, and it way smaller no doubt.

People have this image that everyone was Daniel Boone or a Minuteman. No way. Most of the people were too poor to even own a gun, and couldn't hunt anyway.

[hack89]

57. Do you have anything to back up that assertion? Nt

[brewens]

61. Yeah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_History_of_the_United_States#:~:text=2003%20hardcover%20edition%20%20%20Author%20%20,A%20People%27s%20History%20%208%20more%20rows%20

[hack89]

66. I don't see a specific mention of gun ownership rates in colonial America

Can you please point in the proper direction?

[ShazzieB]

78. Is there a specific passage you can point to?

Last edited Fri Nov 5, 2021, 02:05 AM - Edit history (1)

It's a long, wordy article, and I don't have time for a close reading right now. I skimmed it, but nothing jumped out at me. Is there a specific passage in there that you're referring to?

EDITED TO ADD: On second thought, Did you mean that The People's History of the United States is your source? It's a little hard to tell for sure.

[AndyS]

14. All the hoopla over 'the people' is, ahem,

bullshit. At the time the amendment was written 'the people' could be interpreted as a collective of all people. If that's not enough read the writings of Madison (author of the 2nd) in the Federalist Papers in which he clearly describes what a militia is and it's NOT all able bodied men of arms.

The mythology surrounding the 2nd dates all the way back to 1970, the gun industry coup in the NRA and the radical mentality that came with it.

Rant all you want, and you will, that's the truth.

[Dirty Socialist]

15. I guess I will have to read Madison

[Politicub]

19. The second amendment is an awful, poorly-worded sentence.

I don’t know if this was on purpose, but the wording has caused so much carnage and death.

It’s like something written by a prototype internet troll or the modern legislature of Georgia. It has caused permanent damage at this point, and has become a talking point to juice right-wing fundraising.

[Blues Heron]

20. to me its crystal clear - which is why we need to erase it from our constitution

what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is even slightly unclear? It couldn't possibly be any more explicit.

[Politicub]

21. I agree that it should be repealed.

While the sentence you wrote is clear, it is not the second amendment. That’s the problem and will continue to be a problem.

The amendment is written so poorly that grammarians cannot even agree how to diagram the sentence. This is meaningful because phrases can act as modifiers. It is absurd to try to divine meaning from nonsense, and even worse when said nonsense is used to make laws*.

*there is a lot of nonsensical language in law, so the 2a isn’t unique… just especially awful.

[Blues Heron]

22. to me the first part just explains why

Doesn't seem like a huge mystery to me.

[lagomorph777]

63. The quote is a clause, not a sentence, and it's deliberately removed from its context.

That's the kind of intellectual dishonesty that has fueled the massacre industry since the 1970s.

[maxsolomon]

24. What does "keep and bear" mean? What are "arms"?

To me, those refer to a military context. Armaments are weapons used for war, arms are kept in an armory (hence the name), they are borne in battle.

That makes sense in light of the 1st portion of the sentence, which lays out the purpose of the keeping and bearing: to provide security for a free state in the form of a well-regulated (properly armed and disciplined) militia.

But, you know, I'm in a minority. Guns fever! Pew pew! Go Team America.

[Blues Heron]

26. I think it means own rifles and handguns

whatever the typical soldier would have c.1776

[maxsolomon]

28. I'd guess the average militiaman did not own a flintlock pistol.

But a hunting musket.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/13/the-men-who-wrote-the-2nd-amendment-would-never-recognize-an-ar-15/

[The Magistrate]

39. At The Time, Sir

To 'bear arms' meant to carry a weapon as a soldier. A man might spend a lifetime hunting, might even have shot a threatening trespasser, and never once have borne arms by the meaning of the phrase then, unless he had been mustered into active militia service, or enlisted as a regular.

There is little honest doubt, either, that at the time this was written, the 'right of the people to keep...arms' was a community right, not an individual one, to maintain a stock of weaponry for equipping a duly mustered militia, and envisioned an individual's possession of arms capable of military use being for the purpose of his turning out to muster already equipped. Whatever civil use the weapon might be put to meantime was not the point. That is modern concoction.

[The Magistrate]

48. You Are Refering To Individual State Constitutions At The Founding, Sir?

[The Magistrate]

51. Without The Text, Sir, It's Hard To See What Meaning May Be Conveyed

I claim no more than some familiarity with authors of the time. I am something of an antiquarian in my interests.

[The Magistrate]

55. Defense Of the State Is Defense Of The Citizen Himself, Sir

"For defense of yourselves, your country and laws, in defense of King George and the Protestant cause."

It's a tag-line from a patent drawing of an eighteenth century run at automatic fire. The citizen and the state defend one another mutually. No one questioned the right of self-defense against criminal menace, it wouldn't have occurred to anyone that might need any foundational guarantee. It was not the point of a guarantee citizens may keep and bear arms, any more than hunting was. It is an incidental use when possession is individual, as opposed to arms being stored in a town arsenal of some sort for ready issue at muster.

In a way it is hard to conceive nowadays the adult male populace at that time was part of the country's armed forces, and capable of an impromptu performance as soldiery sufficient to deal with local disorder, and possibly even able to overwhelm regulars if sufficiently numerous and enthusiastic. Picking up a rifle doesn't make a soldier of a peaceable citizen any more.

Judging by actual asymmetric campaigns in our day, people of the 'it's meant to ward off tyranny' persuasion would be well advised to look towards free availability of high explosives, rather than fripperies like hunting rifles and handguns.

People of the 'it's for hunting and defending against criminals' school ought to acknowledge that view is not the original intent of the clause which has by now been distorted into license for a weird mix of maniacal hoarding and fetishistic exhibitionism, which puts a great strain on civil comity.

[maxsolomon]

49. that's my point.

at the time this right had a specific purpose, and those terms: bear, arms, keep, well-regulated, all had specific meanings.

now they're anachronisms.

[dameatball]

3. The term "well regulated" can cover many things, including what types of firearms are regulation. So

there, put me on the Supreme Court. I will even buy my own robe.

[Amishman]

17. 'regulated' had a somewhat different meaning then

In that context it would be more like 'capable', 'well trained', or 'well armed'

The real question is are we and should we be bound by that original meaning, or is that right open to reinterpretation based on our modern world? In other words, is Originalism a stupid sack of bullshit?

[maxsolomon]

25. Originalism is only applicable when a Conservative says it is.

But in the case of the muzzle-loader era 2nd Am., maybe these anachronistic words need to mean what they meant then.

[LiberatedUSA]

5. Glad you realized this.

Now go, RUN, and grab those guns!

[Dirty Socialist]

8. Now I think it's poorly written

[Crepuscular]

9. open to intepretation

"An informed electorate, being necessary for a strong democracy, the right of the people to engage in political discussions shall not be infringed."

Prefatory vs. operative......

[brewens]

10. They probably should have said that we can own guns for the purpose of serving in a well

regulated militia. Then as soon as governments decided to supply the arms, that would no longer apply. That wouldn't ban guns, owning them for other purposes just wouldn't be a Constitutional right. Had that been the case all along, I bet hunters would still have their guns. We just would have had the benefit of more sane laws all along.

[The Jungle 1]

11. We can regulate weapons we already do.

It is not a question of if we can regulate. We have numerous gun and weapon regulations. Felons, children, mentally ill, etc. I am not allowed to buy a stinger missile and I want one. It would be great for deer hunting. Also I might need it to protect myself from an out of control government. (sarcasm)
Trump banned bump stocks and whole classes of guns from Russia. The gun nuts hate to admit that trump banned way more weapons than Obama.
It is not that we can't regulate guns we just don't want to. Sick people walk into schools and kill small children and we do nothing!!!!!
When America must have armed guards in churches we are a failed society!

[Dirty Socialist]

12. True that

We have some laws controlling guns. Not enough, IMO.
I know a LOT of white boy gun humpers who believe there should be absolutely no gun laws.

[hack89]

31. But it is not the 2A that is preventing gun control

It is hard to imagine any gun law short of an absolute ban is perfectly constitutional.

[hack89]

13. The 2A allows strict gun control

Including AWB, registration, mandatory training, and storage requirements. The ONLY right the 2A covers is the right to own a handgun in your home.

Time to stop using it as an excuse.

[LakeArenal]

16. I take well regulated to mean:

Charters, rules of establishment, registration of said militia, members and regulations for the militia.

Not some group of hot heads buying guns and running amok.

[pwb]

23. Todays well regulated militia is each states National Guard.

And every weapon they have is under lock and key until needed, well regulated.

[former9thward]

73. The 2A had nothing to do with the National Guard.

It stands or falls based on what was written when adopted in 1789.

[Zeitghost]

29. It helps to quote the entire thing.

The 2A, for better or worse, explicitly gives the right to keep and bear arms to "the people".

[pecosbob]

32. I contend that morons allowed open carry does not qualify as a "well regulated militia".

[MissMillie]

33. Yeah, the RWNJs always forget everything that comes before the comma (n/t)

.

[LiberatedUSA]

34. Just keep in mind...

…police are regular citizens, not military personnel. So if those guns are really battlefield guns and you really feel no citizen should have them, then you’ll not carve out an exception for a group of people we regularly protest for shooting us.

Otherwise you are saying “I was lying. These guns do actually belong in civilian hands when not on a battlefield. Just certain ones I trust (when they aren’t killing unarmed people anyway!).”

[NickB79]

35. Are there any other Amendments that speak of a collective right?

The 1st doesn't talk about the collective right to free speech, but of individual rights. As far as I've read, all other Amendments are for the right of the individual.

It would be incongruous that one Amendment was collective in this mix.

[EX500rider]

44. Exactly, it was the Bill of Rights, and they are individual rights. nt

[lagomorph777]

64. Um, yes. The First.

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.

All of those are collective rights.

[NickB79]

68. So Americans don't have an individual right to free speech, or free religion?

So in this portion:

right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government

If I as an individual wanted to petition the Government, on my own, I have no right to do so? I can only petition as part of a group?

Cornell Law clearly says it protects individual rights.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

[lagomorph777]

69. Fine, "the people" of course applies to all people.

But even if the "well-regulated militia" is unique phrasing in the Constitution, does that somehow invalidate it? I don't get what kind of logic that would be.

[NickB79]

70. I said it was incongruous with the other Rights

I didn't say it was slam-dunk proof. That was all. But, it does then put the onus on those who consider the 2nd a collective right to explain convincingly why it's the only one in the entire Bill of Rights to be written as such.

[lagomorph777]

71. No - it's written as it's written. I don't have to defend the Founders here.

[manicdem]

77. Collective vs ind

I'd think if the first was a collective right, then you only have free speech when part of a community or organization. Like a rally or letter penned by the organization. This would result in your possible persecution for stating your own opinion, holding a sign by yourself on the sidewalk, or posting on the internet.

[BusterMove]

36. The 2nd covers guns expected to be used by the militia - i.e. uniform military-grade arms.

(and their accoutrements). Which of course makes the militias more effective.

It also covers "the people" - who were the militias.

I highly doubt in 1792 anyone expected VP John Adams, all the members of congress, and ALL the numerous other govt agents, etc etc. to give up their right to arms, simply because they were all exempt from militia duty.


Yes - much later the govt usurped power to redefine the militias. They did not take it to change the amendment. And the people still get a bone in being codified as the unorganized militia.

[usonian]

37. From Scholar Carol Anderson: "a constitutional right to form militias to put down slave revolts"

In her new book, Anderson, the chair of African American studies at Emory University, shares a history of the Second Amendment that few of us ever heard, arguing that it was included in the U.S. Constitution after demands by slave states for a constitutional right to form militias to put down slave revolts. Anderson details how Virginia's Patrick Henry and George Mason expressed fears that the federal government would not help them defeat slave uprisings, and demanded that the Second Amendment be included so they could deal with such revolts themselves — an acute concern in the slave-owning oligarchy of that time.

https://www.salon.com/2021/07/12/scholar-carol-anderson-on-the-anti-blackness-coded-into-the-second-amendment/

This is a good argument against "Constitutional originalism" -- interpreting the Constitution as the founders (many slave holders) intended.

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/constitutional-originalism-supreme-court

Incidentally, Thomas Jefferson's anti-slavery passage was removed from the Declaration of Independence, "mostly fueled by political and economic expediencies" according to the History Channel. This sure sounds familiar.

https://www.history.com/news/declaration-of-independence-deleted-anti-slavery-clause-jefferson

[Rhiannon12866]

53. Very interesting, especially the removed passage by Thomas Jefferson!

Thanks for posting and welcome to DU!

[hack89]

58. That makes no sense. There was no federal issue at stake.

If Virginia, for example, wanted to organize a militia to put down a slave revolt within her borders, the federal government had no say in the matter. How would a lack of a federal 2A stop them? They had a right to bear arms in their state constitution - that was enough.

[SYFROYH]

59. Anderson isn't wrong about one of the southern state motivation, but she ignores the fact..

...that northern states, even abolitionist Pennsylvania, had "right to keep and bear arms" protections in their state constitutions prior to the Bill of Rights.

Article I, section 21 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution states: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/state-right-to-bear-arms-in-pennsylvania/

[Mr.Bill]

38. I read recently someone who had an interesting angle on the 2nd amendment.

It says the right to bear arms, but nowhere does it say the right to own guns. The word "own" is not in the 2nd amendment.

[Angleae]

42. It says "keep and bear arms"

So unless you have some weird way of defining the work "keep" then keep = own.

[Mr.Bill]

43. "Keep" can mean other things than own.

Last edited Mon Oct 11, 2021, 10:56 PM - Edit history (1)

It could mean maintaining, storing, etc.

https://www.google.com/search?q=keep+webster%27s+definition&source=hp&ei=d8NkYdnRHKixggfLjYHYBw&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYWTRh0roJ46riqe4NCzIesYPy2f5U3iS&oq=keep+webster%27s+definition&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYATIFCAAQgAQyBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB46CwguELEDEIMBEJMCOgUILhCABDoRCC4QgAQQsQMQgwEQxwEQowI6CwguEIAEEMcBEKMCOgsILhCABBDHARDRAzoLCC4QgAQQsQMQgwE6CwguELEDEMcBEKMCOggIABCxAxCDAToICC4QsQMQgwE6CAguEIAEEJMCOggILhCABBCxAzoICAAQgAQQsQM6CwgAEIAEELEDEIMBOhEILhCABBCxAxCDARDHARDRAzoLCC4QgAQQxwEQrwFQ7wtY8Clgt0doAHAAeACAAZwBiAGEDZIBBDAuMTKYAQCgAQE&sclient=gws-wiz

[maxsolomon]

74. Depends what "keep" means in relation to arms.

Remember Armories? That's literally where Arms were kept.

[dutch777]

40. Yes, thank you!

Maybe not perfectly written originally but it is certainly conveniently abridged currently.

[Brainfodder]

41. So much law loophole jumping, it's why our society is out of wack.

We need a wipe and drop (means fresh start) for the country, and most countries probably need this.

What sounded like enough/correct in the 1776-1900's, wasn't made with today's tech and such, so it really is time to redo all that!

Status Quo fans (aka. billionaires) are in the fucking way and taking full advantage for FUN I guess?

Doing some pretty simple calculations, 1 billion is more money then 1 person should have, it clearly creates diseases of the mind and chaos, this planet is 100% proof of that concept?

[Captain Stern]

45. Interesting take on the 2cnd, that's been done to death.

The whole militia argument has been beaten to death. It's an interesting argument, but it just doesn't matter. Because most of the folks in our country don't want ownership of guns to be banned. That's just the truth.

If somehow the 2cnd Amendment was declared unconstitutional, and we had to have a national vote to replace it...without the militia stuff...things would end up just like they are now.

If the choices on the vote were:

1) Every law abiding citizen should be allowed to own guns

or

2) No one should be allowed to have guns

Choice one would pass by a lot. It would not be close.

That's just how it is. Trying to do some sneaky end-around past the 2cnd amendment looks foolish every single time.

The bottom line is that the vast majority of folks in this country want to be able to own firearms. That's a fact.

[lagomorph777]

65. Nice straw man.

Most people (excepting conservatives) are capable of understanding nuance and moderation.

Obviously, it would make no sense to offer the two silly choices you list.

Wiser options would include bans on large magazines, any mechanism for repeat firing, armor-piercing ammo, rocket launchers, grenades, nukes, etc.

[Captain Stern]

67. I didn't build a straw man..nice, or otherwise.

I responded to the opening post.

The opening post was about militias, so I responded about militias.

The opening post wasn't about large magazines, or any mechanisms for repeat firing, or armor-pieircing ammo, or rocket launchers, or grenades, or nukes, etc.

So, I didn't address those things at all. You're the one that brought those things up.

My point was, and still is, the whole 'well regulated militia argument is futile"

What I'm saying is that if we stripped the 2cnd amendment of the 'militia' part , and asked the country to vote on it again...it would still pass.

[maxsolomon]

75. You offered a Binary choice. Guns: Yes or No?

The False Dilemma Fallacy.

I don't want to ban guns, but I also don't want them in the hands of yahoos and crazy fucks. That's not yes and it's not no. I want them regulated well. I don't believe they are currently regulated well.

The 2nd offers a rationale for the right to "keep and bear", and that is because a militia is necessary. The anachronistic language (and general uselessness of a unorganized militia in 2021) makes the intent open to broad interpretations.

No one seems to question why Fully-Automatic firearms are not available for general purchase. Are those not arms? Is that not an infringement?

[Captain Stern]

76. I didn't offer a choice at all.

I made a statement.

I said that IF the country now had to choose between between replacing the 2cnd amendment with one that says all folks can own guns, or one that says folks can't own guns, the first choice would win, easily.

My point is, the whole 'militia' argument is stupid. By saying stuff like the founders only meant the right to bear arms was meant to only apply to people that were training to be in a militia is pointless. Because the majority of the people in this country DON"T agree with that.

If somehow the Supreme Court were to actually rule that the 2cnd amendment meant only folks that were in real militias could own firearms......a brand new amendment, would be written, and passed by the states in record time. It would be an amendment that didn't include the 'militia' stuff at all.

[SYFROYH]

46. The people have the guns to form a well regulated militia

The Bill of Right protects the civil liberties of citizens from governmental overreach.

Having said that regulations for public safety are reasonable.

[HAB911]

60. How is Meatloaf's 'I'd Do Anything for Love' like the 2nd Amendment?

(But I won't do that)

So what is “that”? “It’s the line before every chorus,” explained Loaf. “There’s nine of them, I think.

The problem lies because Jimmy likes to write, so you forget what the line was before you get to ‘I won’t do that.'”

(Some of the things the song says he won’t do: forget the way you feel right now; forgive himself if you don’t go all the way tonight; do it better than he does it with you, so long; and stop dreaming of you every night of his life.)

On the other hand.....................

“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 happened to the first part?!

The 2nd amendment is one of, if not the most, debated Amendments in the United States Constitution. Most noteworthy, until the late 1960s, restrictions on the 2nd Amendment were not questioned. The NRA itself, in the early 20th Century, not only favored restrictions they publicly announced them. The completely changed their tune in the late 1960s.

The Amendment has actually been changed in the past 20 years. Those that fully support the Amendment have erased the first part from the collective memory.

Think about it, when you hear someone (that fully supports this right) quote the Amendment, they only include “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…” Every so often they will throw in the last part about infringed when they are trying to make a point. They rarely, if ever, mention the very first part that includes the very important phrase “A well regulated Militia.” They do this for a very good reason. It completely destroys their argument that every man and woman in the United States has a right to own a gun.

The simple reason for this is because the 2nd Amendment does not actually give citizens a right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment guarantees a citizen the right to bear arms if they serve in a militia. It is right there in the Amendment.

Take a look at the Bill of Rights for a moment. One theme that should pop out to you is that the language in the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments is not vague. To put it another way the wording is not confusing. Every part of the Amendments is laid out in such a way that is easy to understand. Except, somehow, the 2nd Amendment.

This is the main reason why I do not believe that the Amendment is left vague or confusing. It is really simple and straightforward.

Let me re-arrange the wording to help out:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms for a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.

Does it make more sense now? Despite the NRA’s attempts, the two sections of the Amendment are not meant to be separated, 'cause linguistics. If the Founder’s had wanted the two sections to work independently of each other they would have included a very important word. And. Take a look.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, AND, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[ShazzieB]

79. Well done. 👍

Thanks for laying it out so clearly. Some of these comments have made my head hurt.

I've come to the conclusion that some people are just not going to get it no matter how it's explained to them. This kind of explanation might just help some of hose with more open minds, though. At least I hope so.

[HAB911]

80. Thank you

I have posted this more than once, and it almost always gets ignored (too complex?) or flat out denied on semantics.

However, it remains my belief it is true.

And, the militia of which this speaks, is now called the National Guard, not the cosplay fat boy private militias. The private variety needs somehow to be made illegal.

[lagomorph777]

62. Yup. But gun-humpers (even here) will give you all kinds of excuses to ignore the first clause.

I generally put them on Full Ignore because I have no patience for nonsense.