General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI Support the Second Amendment
Especially the "Well Regulated" part.
When I end up arguing the gun issue with a gun nut, I always ask if they can recite the amendment, word for word, that they cite.
Very rarely can they respond correctly. They all know the "the right to bear arms" part, but few, if any, can cite the "well regulated" part.
So, here's my argument: The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"Well regulated Militia" can be interpreted one of two ways. It means the National Guard and "the People" who are part of that Militia are the only individuals with that "collective" right. That's not my interpretation, but I understand and respect that position.
My interpretation is that at the time of its ratification, the United States did not have a standing army. Each state had to provide their own defense. It was a rural and agrarian society. Therefore, all able-bodied men (in 1789, it was a male dominated society) were required to protect themselves, their families, their state or their community. If not by law, by culture. As a result of my interpretation, everyone was considered part of the Malatia as described in the second amendment. So, if we extend that original position, all current Americans can be considered part of a "Militia."
Under my interpretation, every American has the right to own a gun, but the government has every right to regulate that ownership in any way it sees fit. The gun should be registered. The owner should be trained and licensed. Assault weapons should be banned. Gun ownership should be for those citizens who have obtained 21 years. Ammunition should be regulated. Automatic weapons should be banned. And why the fuck should any civilian own body armor? Where is that protected in any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Concealed carry needs to be approved by a magistrate.
You know. "Well regulated", just like it says.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
no_hypocrisy
(54,908 posts)of the 2d Amendment.
ramen
(862 posts)
Sancho
(9,205 posts)The Second Amendment: A Biography
At a time of increasing gun violence in America, Waldman’s book provoked a wide range of discussion. This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers.
The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the twentieth century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.
The present debate picked up in the 1970s—part of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of “originalism,” Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions.
In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.
multigraincracker
(37,651 posts)was Shays Rebellion.
multigraincracker
(37,651 posts)it is enforced according to the color of one’s skin or gender. It was written for old White men and still is.
BubbaJoe
(27 posts)If you are part of a well regulated militia, you can have all the single shot flint lock firearms you can carry.
RocRizzo55
(980 posts)gives people the right to OWN arms, but to only keep and bear them for the militia. As far as I can understand, it is the well regulated militia that actually owns the arms, and the people in it, get to keep and bear such arms should the militia be called to duty.
No right wingers I know even understand the first clause of the Second Amendment. They just think it gives everyone to own as many guns as they want. Neither do they realize that the arms being talked about in the amendment were flintlock style arms.
So, when they tell me that the Second Amendment allows them the right to as many arms as they want, I ask them, "Where's my shoulder-mounted, nuclear rocket launcher? According to you, anyone should be able to own them." They look at me like I have three heads.
Seinan Sensei
(1,546 posts)Dictionary definition of "Arms" refers to any/all weapons.
Not just guns. But bombs, grenades, tanks, planes, howitzers.
Arms = any/all tools of war for self-defense or military action.
We talk about "an arms race." We talk about "arms exports."
We have Arm-ies (warriors who wield tools of war).
The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)The point is we already have Arms control.
lastlib
(28,269 posts)...being REPEALED!
It is an anachronism, just like that three-fifths of a man bullshit. and the Electoral College.
Model35mech
(2,047 posts)If the number of reps was allocated according to population as the Constitution originally mandated (one rep per 30000 population) large population states and metropolises would be equitably represented.
Unfortunately THAT would give the House a membership of about 10,000 members which presents problems difficult to deal with. ANd even with all those extra reps votes could still come down to extremely small numbers that could be used by rogue reps to blackmail the rest of the institution.
But all the problems shouldn't really stop equitable proportionment of 1 Rep per -picked # of thousand citizens. If every state got 1 rep per, say, 300,000 citizens that would create a House with 1000 members. Most urban High School auditoria could deal with that number. It's an idea that has been discussed:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/07/18/its_time_to_increase_the_size_of_the_house_of_representatives_146095.html#!
Such an increase would more than double the number of districts that would be created in mostly metropolitan areas where in fact most Americans live and face similar problems which need urban-centric legislative action (such as the regulation of firearms in high population density areas, sewage treatment/pollution, energy efficient mass transit, etc ).
plimsoll
(1,690 posts)It's a rural/exurb party, better apportioning would force them to deal with the fact that rural America is heavily over represented.
Model35mech
(2,047 posts)I've got 14 years of experience without democracy under their uncompromising Teahadist ram-it-down-their-throats control
They already SCREAM in pain at the possibility of sharing government.
COL Mustard
(8,222 posts)You support the Second Amendment? Fine. Join the militia, come to drills, and on drill days you can draw your weapon from the arms room.
Even the Army, where everyone is issued a weapon) and trained on it) doesn’t walk around with their hubs at the ready. But Billy Bob Yahoo wants to be able to do just that, and without any training. Frightening.
lastlib
(28,269 posts)"A well-regulated militia (comma) being necessary to the security of a free state (comma) the right of the people to keep and bear arms (COMMA) shall not be infringed."
By standard logic (which is utterly alien to the gunners), the phrase "A well-regulated militia" is the superior clause of the sentence; THAT is what "shall not be infringed." "The right to keep and bear arms" is a SUBORDINATE clause--it MODIFIES (in the broadest sense) the superior clause. It could be taken completely out without changing the logic of the whole sentence.
That's why I interpret it as being a protection of states' right to have a "well-regulated" militia.
Buckeye_Democrat
(15,526 posts) plimsoll
(1,690 posts)That puts you in a distinct minority of Americans.
There's a profound difference between being able to read a sentence and understanding it.
The Grand Illuminist
(2,040 posts)It is why we need Article V to remedy it.
plimsoll
(1,690 posts)It's not Old English, it's not even Middle English. It's late Early Modern English, Shakespeare being Early Modern English. Interesting note that is also true for the King James Version of the Bible, except that the KJV uses lots of Middle English vocabulary to make it seem older.
paleotn
(22,218 posts)First, from simply the language. Secondly, the historical context. Why "originalists" can't grasp that, I'm not sure. Ulterior motives perhaps? Trips to nice places paid for by the blood money of gun manufacturers? Who knows?
The text of the Second Amendment unambiguously explains its purpose: “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.” When it was adopted, the country was concerned that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several states.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/john-paul-stevens-court-failed-gun-control/587272/
NNadir
(38,049 posts)...repeal.
It is an artifact of another time put together by men, white men, some of them slaveholders, who had profound flaws. It's not an element of a law that was sent down by some god to saints.
getting a majority vote in both branches of 34 state legislatures.
And two thirds of both branches of Congress.
NNadir
(38,049 posts)...it will be in spite of its gun culture, not because of it.
A culture that encourages the murder of children in their schools is not worthy of survival.
I have fought against many cultural ideas that were obscene, and I've seen some wins.
Good luck in the continuing worship the worst of all parts of the so called "Bill of Rights" that I personally find as a restriction on the right of many people to live.
Pototan
(3,132 posts)but I still temper my idealism with a strong dose of realism.
The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)Except for the first FOUR words. They completely ignore that part of the Amendment.
During his retirement in 1991, Burger said of the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
Repeal the 2nd! Start over. Understand that repeal of the 2nd does not mean guns are banned.
JanLip
(862 posts)For posting this. Very good interpretation. Makes sense to me. Never could understand people who saying liberals want to take our guns. My brother used to tell my mom and me that every time we were together. I’d tell him I didn’t want his guns, I didn’t have a gun and didn’t intend on buying one. I was traumatized when I was a kid. My dads brothers would come out to the country where we lived and get drunk and shoot up everything they could. I spent my time when they were there under my bed. Never got over it.
Jan
Glaisne
(645 posts)the Constitution is a foundational document and a framework. It is meant to grow and adapt, that is why we have amendments. It is not 1789 anymore. The able bodied men of the separate state militias of the colonial period are now the National Guard. The correct modern day interpretation of the second amendment is that only individuals in the National Guard have the collective right to bear arms. The government has the exclusive right to regulate weapons and ammunition as it sees fits. I do not see this as infringing on the right of individuals owning a gun for personal protection or a hunting rifle. But the state has the right to regulate that as much as it wants and the federal government has the right to establish any standards, limits and regulations that is necessary to protect public health.
Pototan
(3,132 posts)
unblock
(56,198 posts)the right of "the people" in the aggregate to keep and bear arms is not infringed if a few violent or unstable individuals are denied that right, nor is it infringed if they have to wait a few days to buy yet another weapon, or register the gun, and so on.
the right of "the people" would only be infringed if so many individuals were denied the right to buy guns that a state couldn't assemble a reasonable militia. but that's absurd these days with so many people owning so many guns.
furthermore, in the constitutional interpretation, some provisions and goals of the constitution come in conflict with another, and rarely does the supreme court say one single passage is absolutely inviolable. the first amendment guarantees people the right to free speech, yet there are quite a few things one could say that would get one into legal hot waters. threats, inciting riots, defamation, conspiracy, etc.
no one believes the constitutions guarantees everyone completely free speech. everyone accepts that there are a few exceptions.
yet right-wingers look at the second amendment and think the government can't to one single thing ever. ok, maybe that's an exaggeration, they probably are fine with saying the government can deny a black person the right to buy guns after a conviction on a bogus marijuana charge....
Irish_Dem
(81,271 posts)A frightened populace is a docile one.
Also a way to divide and conquer.
So all the discussion about the pros and cons of the 2A misses the point.
The GOP couldn't care less about it.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)It is SCOTUS and SCOTUS alone that decides what it means .
Pototan
(3,132 posts)is with Democratic Presidents and Senate.
the only way to establish that is to convince more voters to vote our way, over time.
We fucked up in 2016 and we are paying the price today. We can't afford to fuck up again.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Hillary got far fewer votes then either Obama and Biden. Had she matched Obama, she would have won.
It wasn't gun nuts that abandoned Hillary but voters who tend to vote Democrat and generally support gun control laws but didn't like Hillary for whatever reason
Pototan
(3,132 posts)That's the difference between winning and losing.
When I discuss issues with "Gun Nuts", persuadables are within ear shot.
That's what the discussion is about.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)you then get into a very long discussion with that person about your own interpretation as to what it says and you do this within ear shot of several other people that may or not be swing voters?
Where do you have these discussions at and how do you identify which person's are gun nuts? And who qualifies as a gun nut?
Pototan
(3,132 posts)...anyone who thinks owning guns should have no regulations or restrictions.
Further. I worked for 20 years as a political director of a labor union. Discussion at union meetings, in workplaces and among members were common in my employment. Right to work and other work-related issues were the priority, but occasionally a member would say they couldn't support our endorsed candidate because of the second amendment. A lot of these discussions were in groups of 6 to 10 people. So, I hope that answers your question.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Best of luck with your efforts. Everything helps!
snot
(11,804 posts)in the interests of logic: perhaps you mean that "well regulated" applies to the right, not to the militia – but that's certainly not the way the text reads.
Alternatively, your interpretation presumes that the Founders intended the right to keep and bear arms to be allowed ONLY for use in a "well regulated Militia" in order to further security of a free State, i.e., that the latter clause was intended as a limitation rather than merely as an example. Do you really believe that the Founders thought that citizens should have no right to keep and bear arms for any other purpose? What if a robber or worse broke into their home?
To me, the strongest argument for increased gun regulation relates to an adage my dad attributed to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "my right to swing my arm ends at the other fellow's nose." I doubt any of the Constitutionally-protected rights are absolute, because sooner or later they run into conflict with some other Constitutionally-protected right; in those situations, the courts have generally tried to find some kind of reasonable compromise between the rights involved.
In this case, the right of persons who should not be trusted with arms to bear them in all settings conflicts with victims' right to life, etc.
Pototan
(3,132 posts)...but I hold to mine.