2nd Amendment question

R

ronc0011

New member
I am currently gathering material for a project and have run into a question that I’m having difficulty finding an answer to. I know the caliber of members on this board and figure this is the best place to find genuinely substantive answers. The question is this; I have always had just a passing familiarity with the 2nd Amendment and had always associated the 2nd Amendment with the right to self protection and the right to preserve home and country against enemies both foreign and domestic. Well now that I am actually trying to write something on this I went and looked up the 2nd Amendment which 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.”

No where in here does it reference anything about protecting home and country. In fact there is no language that that would imply anything like this.

I have read a number of editorials, opinions and other treatments on the 2nd Amendment and this association with the idea that one of its purposes is to defend against enemies foreign and domestic is pretty common. The problem is that I don’t see where this comes from or where this is established.


Can someone pleas enlighten me as to where this connection is made in our founding documents.
 
M

miboso

New member
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Click to expand...
That pretty well says it all. No restrictions, no limitations, no reason needed, no infringement by ANY governmental entity within These United States.
 
R

ronc0011

New member
Well yes I’m getting that but I had always thought that there was something that listed the reasons. You know, officially, and that among those reasons was the defense of the country from enemies both foreign and domestic.

I find a lot of opinion from Jefferson and Adams and others but they are opinions and not part of any official document.

It’s just that I had always thought that there was some legally binding iteration of these ideas.

So it seems that brevity is the order of the day.
 
J

johnwilliamson062

Moderator
THere are some quotes, excerpts from larger papers, that come from the founding fathers which support this view, but it is not written anywhere as a government document. I believe the closest you may get is the Federalist Papers, which, I believe, touch the subject on several occasions. I think the reality is the founding fathers, being surrounded by people who went through the Revolution, never foresaw a time where a significant amount of the population would think infringing on the right to bear arms would not limit general freedom. Even on these boards you will find people who do not believe in the second amendment as 'a bulwark against tyranny.' Quite a few actually. To many here it is all about CCW and HD.
 
Last edited:
I

Ian0351

New member
"Being necessary to the security of a free state"

I think it says it all right there. The framers of the constitution never intended for America to have a large armed force, but rather for citizens to be trained and equipped to join the state militia in times of need, or to defend their homes and farms (the police were a lot more than a few minutes away back then) against crime or tyranny. One must also consider that many of the drafters of the constitution believed that standing armies were as large a threat to liberty as an unarmed populace. In the following quote Thomas Jefferson writes about this (and other) principles considered when writing the Bill of Rights to his fellow statesman, James Madison:

"The general voice from north to south... calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty generally understood that this should go to juries, habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modifications of these suited to the habits of all the States. But if such cannot be found, then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of habeas corpus, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies in all cases, than not to do it in any. The few cases wherein these things may do evil cannot be weighed against the multitude wherein the want of them will do evil." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:96
Click to expand...

It wasn't exactly the quote I was looking for, but Thomas Jefferson is about the second most misquoted American in history, after Benjamin Franklin.

There are many other great letters and speeches by Mr. Jefferson (my favorite American statesman/inventor) at this website, hope it helps your research!

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0950.htm
 
Last edited:
B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
You might read the recent Opinions in District of Columbia v. Heller. It is long; but they explore these issues in depth.

If you need even more detail, take a look at the amici briefs filed for the same case. After reading all of those, you will have more expertise on the subject than most law school professors.

If you need something a little easier to digest, reading-wise, www.guncite.com is an excellent resource on the Second Amendment.
 
Last edited:
B

BlueTrain

New member
It still bothers me, when people discuss the 2nd Admendment, that although the admendment is only one line long, they only quote half the line, as if that were all that were there, the other half having no bearing whatsoever on the issue, being superfulous to the right. Likewise, quotations from the Federalist Papers, quotations from letters or other writings of Jefferson, Madison, Mason or Washington are irrelevant, as they were not the result of discussions in congress and written into law or the constitution, even though they will shed light on the thinking that went on at the time.

I wonder if the Confederate States had 2nd Admendment rights?
 
E

Evan Thomas

New member
BlueTrain said:
I wonder if the Confederate States had 2nd Admendment rights?
Click to expand...

The CSA had no bill of rights as such, but they pretty much lifted it verbatim and stuck it in Article I, Section 9, starting with No. 12.

Thus:
Article I, Section 9(13) 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.

Sounds vaguely familiar... for all the good it did them.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

Google is your friend. :)
 
J

johnwilliamson062

Moderator
...even though they will shed light on the thinking that went on at the time.
Click to expand...
That makes them extremely important as the amendments are all written much differently than they would be expressed today. The context is extremely important.
 
R

ronc0011

New member
So I guess the next question is; Are there any passages in our founding documents where the founders recognize the need to guard against the usurpation of power by our own government and plainly state this need?
 
O

OuTcAsT

New member
So I guess the next question is; Are there any passages in our founding documents where the founders recognize the need to guard against the usurpation of power by our own government and plainly state this need?
Click to expand...

being necessary to the security of a free State

Note: I think that the word "state" is likely being used as a transitive verb, rather than a noun in this statement.

The context is extremely important
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 
Last edited:
E

Evan Thomas

New member
OuTcAsT said:
ronc0011 said:
So I guess the next question is; Are there any passages in our founding documents where the founders recognize the need to guard against the usurpation of power by our own government and plainly state this need?
Click to expand...


being necessary to the security of a free State
Click to expand...

Actually, that's less clearcut than some would wish, I think. One of the reasons for needing that "well-regulated militia" was in order to avoid having a large standing army -- the primary function of which, if it had existed, would have been to ensure the "security of a free State" by defending the nation against foreign enemies... absent a standing army, that defense would fall to the militia... hence its necessity to the "security of a free State."

But I'm sure Tennessee Gentleman will be along at any moment to chime in on this... he's far more knowledgeable than I in this area.
 
Last edited:
E

Evan Thomas

New member
OuTcAsT said:
Note: I think that the word "state" is likely being used as a transitive verb, rather than a noun in this statement.
Click to expand...

I'm puzzled by this... transitive verbs don't typically take the indefinite article. If you mean "a state of freedom" rather than "a State" in the sense of "a Nation," it's a possible interpretation, I guess, but it's an abstract noun in that case, not a transitive verb. And I think that in 18c. usage, the capitalization of the word "State" suggests it wasn't meant as the former, but as the latter meaning of the word.
 
O

OuTcAsT

New member
but it's an abstract noun in that case, not a transitive verb.
Click to expand...

You may be correct, I was not an English Major :):eek:

However, the "State of freedom" is precisely what I was referring to. If taken in that context, it makes perfect sense. And capitalization did not seem to be consistent in documents of the period, at least by my observation. ETA: I do not believe the word *is* capitalized on the original document.

If you use the word state in the context I suggested, the entire article is quite unambiguous.
 
Last edited:
P

pnac

New member
Take your pick, I'm putting my money on definition #6.

state
Main Entry:
1state Listen to the pronunciation of 1state
Pronunciation:
\ˈstāt\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Middle English stat, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French estat, from Latin status, from stare to stand — more at stand
Date:
13th century

1 a: mode or condition of being <a state of readiness> b (1): condition of mind or temperament <in a highly nervous state> (2): a condition of abnormal tension or excitement2 a: a condition or stage in the physical being of something <insects in the larval state> <the gaseous state of water> b: any of various conditions characterized by definite quantities (as of energy, angular momentum, or magnetic moment) in which an atomic system may exist3 a: social position ; especially : high rank b (1): elaborate or luxurious style of living (2): formal dignity : pomp —usually used with in4 a: a body of persons constituting a special class in a society : estate 3 bplural : the members or representatives of the governing classes assembled in a legislative body cobsolete : a person of high rank (as a noble)5 a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign b: the political organization of such a body of people c: a government or politically organized society having a particular character <a police state> <the welfare state>6: the operations or concerns of the government of a country7 a: one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government <the fifty states> bplural capitalized : The United States of America8: the territory of a state
 
E

Evan Thomas

New member
My money's on #5: "a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign...", or possibly even #7.

The founders didn't always go in for the clearest, most concise English usage, but I think if they'd meant #1, the Second Amendment would read something like "...necessary to securing a state of freedom..." or just "...necessary to secure freedom..."

It requires too much of an effort of will for me to interpret the actual wording in that way -- although I get why it's appealing. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top