How to explain the second amendment

[Red_Eagle]

"Recognizing that a well regulated militia is neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Most anti-second amendment advocates refer to the first half of the clause, saying it only applies to militias. They are exactly correct, but not in the way thay think they are. What is a militia? At the time of the constitutions writing there were no security forces such as the police angecies we recognize today. Internal security was carried out by the militias of the various states and counties.
So what is a well regulated militia (internal security force)? A well regulated militia would have thier authority held in check. There would be controls in place to ensure thier behavior was well within contitutional norms and that they did not be come a law onto themselves.
So why do the people need to be armed? Because an armed force is only regulated for as long as they choose to be regulated. And the only thing that can truely contain an armed force is another armed force. Once a militia / security force choose to follow their own path (or that of a currupt leader) ,instead of thier duty to guard and obey the constitution, there is no way for an unarmed populace to stop them. Just because it has never happened here, does not mean it can't happen here. Most of our soldiers and policemen are dedicated public servants who whould never let thier loyalty to one official or party come between them and thier oath to protect and defend the constitution. Let's hope it stays that way. But giving up the freedom enumerated in the 2nd amendment would seem couter to that goal.

 

[Rifleman1776]

I gave up trying to debate the 'anti's' a long time ago. You simply cannot penetrate a closed mind with reason.
One definition of "regulated" at the time the Constitution was written meant 'well supplied'. Then trying to debate the punctuation marks (commas and such) is an exercise in futility. The 'rules' of English seem not to have existed at the time. Reading texts from the time is very difficult. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for much of the capitalization, punctuation, spelling, etc.
Save yer energy but live the life of a good example of an honest, gun owning, American citizen. That will speak louder than any debate.

 

[cannonfire]

mi·li·tia
   /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Show Spelled[mi-lish-uh] Show IPA
–noun
1.a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

2.a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

3.all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

I like #4 the best. That is from dictionary.com. I try to tell them that a militia isn't something that is always around, that is why it is a militia and not an army. Militias are around full time, according to #2, "only in emergencies". So although you may not be in a dedicated group now, if there would be an invasion or oppressive government, would you fight back? If so, then I'd say you are, for lack of a better term, part of an off-duty militia. Its nothing more than a group of people who will fight for rights and freedom when that is endangered. Completely different from a gang which is out for territory and money.

 

[Red_Eagle]

I gave up trying to debate the 'anti's' a long time ago.

Debating gun rights with "antis" is like discussing free market capitalism with Bolsevichs. It's the 50-80% that may have an opinion on guns, but the opinion has not yet formed into a hardened belief that we need to reach.

 

[Webleymkv]

Actually, Justice Scalia explained it fairly well in his dicta from the Heller decision. He says that the best way to read it is to add the word "because" so that it reads "Because a well regulated militia is neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The preferatory caluse is an explanation of the purpose of the amendment rather than a qualification for the operative clause.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Most anti-second amendment advocates refer to the first half of the clause, saying it only applies to militias. They are exactly correct, but not in the way thay think they are. What is a militia? At the time of the constitutions writing there were no security forces such as the police angecies we recognize today. Internal security was carried out by the militias of the various states and counties.

This is NOT correct. The question has been settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. If you read the decisions by Justices Scalia in Heller and Alito in McDonald, this is discussed and Justice Alito, especially, made it clear that the militia clause is (as we have always said) an explanatory, prefatory clause that does not alter or affect the intent of the main clause. While you are correct that "back then" the militia was the primary self-defense force, Federal law still includes a Militia Act which, if what you are proposing were correct, could be used to limit firearms ownership and carry to members of the Militia. As an example, I am a Vietnam veteran and a senior citizen. I am beyond the age range set forth in the Militia Act. By your reading, then, I should not have a RKBA.

Sorry, but I disagree. Fortunately for me, so did Mr. Justice Alito.

 

[Chris_B]

The wording is so often debated and suggested and implied and misunderstood. is it a State constitution or the US constitution?

How about this:

Every Right is important both in and of itself and as a whole. An attack on one is in fact an attack on every Right. Rights are not choices, Rights are the structure by which and on which our society is built. Weakening one leg of that Structure weakens the whole by necessity: as soon as one Right is 'not necessary' then the question of any Right being necessary is valid. As soon as one Right is contrived and construed and constricted and confounded, then they all suffer the same damage

If you believe in ANY Right as a US citizen you must believe in and support them all

Second, Third, First...the number is irrelevant

In regards to antis quacking about a militia, ask them why a non-federally regulated institution such as a "militia" is defined by them as needing to be a federally regulated body under amendment to the US Constitution.

Think about it- a "militia" in their definition is the US military. It's an idiotic argument; they say "oh what about drills and muster and organized bodies". Um, well, that's the National Guard and the Second Amendment existed before the National Guard, while the act that made the National Guard never erased the Second Amendment. The 2A is 1791, the National Guard is based on events starting with the Militia act of 1792 and the National Guard wasn't created until 1903, and that event also did not erase the 2A.

Arguing that the National Guard is the Militia is silly. "The People" are not "The National Guard". "The People" are however, the folks who would form a militia. And how do they form that militia? By applying to the National Guard? No, with the Arms they have the Right to Keep and Bear.

Duh.

 

[Red_Eagle]

By your reading, then, I should not have a RKBA.

I don't understand how you got that from what I wrote. The whole thrust of my post was that the 2nd amendment is not about forming, maintaining, or equiping a militia. It is about restraining it's power and authority (regulating)with a reasonable deterent (armed populace). All the militia act serves to do is formalize the proceedures for which the President may "Call forth the militia". That is a seperate and largely unrelated to the 2nd amendment.

 

[Spartan23]

"Recognizing that a well regulated militia is neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Most anti-second amendment advocates refer to the first half of the clause, saying it only applies to militias. They are exactly correct, but not in the way thay think they are. What is a militia? At the time of the constitutions writing there were no security forces such as the police angecies we recognize today. Internal security was carried out by the militias of the various states and counties.
So what is a well regulated militia (internal security force)? A well regulated militia would have thier authority held in check. There would be controls in place to ensure thier behavior was well within contitutional norms and that they did not be come a law onto themselves.
So why do the people need to be armed? Because an armed force is only regulated for as long as they choose to be regulated. And the only thing that can truely contain an armed force is another armed force. Once a militia / security force choose to follow their own path (or that of a currupt leader) ,instead of thier duty to guard and obey the constitution, there is no way for an unarmed populace to stop them. Just because it has never happened here, does not mean it can't happen here. Most of our soldiers and policemen are dedicated public servants who whould never let thier loyalty to one official or party come between them and thier oath to protect and defend the constitution. Let's hope it stays that way. But giving up the freedom enumerated in the 2nd amendment would seem couter to that goal.

Let's see what Communist countries did.
They "dissolved" the police, and they created Militias, with persons selected for ideological criteria, but because they said "Militia", they said they armed the people.
Also most countries had mandatory Military Service, so they said that the people is armed and ready to fight the capitalists!

In reality, they selected the most fanatic Communists for high rank officers in the Army and Police and even soldiers needed a good Communist Loyalty and Secret Services where also filled with fanatics, so these governments secured their selves from a possible Military coup.
Having the people disarmed and the Armed Forces that actually where "Ideological Armies", duble-secured them from a Civil Revolt.


But the Right to keep and bear arms is not given by any government or people, Washington or Jefferson didn't gave that Right, not the USA did. The Right keep and bear arms is a natural right, given to Humans by nature since the dawn of time. Or if you prefer, God himself given that right.

Humans have to keep and bear arms to protect their Families, their Nations, their Rights, their Freedoms, their Dignity and to protect the children, the future of the nation, and everything else worth protecting.

In more difficult times of war or disaster, a gun is what will bring you food and will protect you night and day you and your family, and everyone who's life is protected by you. A gun is what will kill the enemies of your nation in times of war, not the words of some "hippies" about peace.

Everyone who loves peace must keep the arms to defend it. Otherwise, an unarmed Nation is an easy pray and your freedom will not last for long.


And personally, i believe to hear that a "crazy, fascist trigger-happy gun-nut American" killed a whole Al-Qaeda cell, than to hear that the damn terrorists bombed the whole city...

C'mon, this is ridiculous... United States have enemies. No foreign power has occupied American Soil since many years ago, but we all remember 9/11... Not to mention high crime rates, you guys have global terrorism working against you and you are talking about disarming the people? This is suicide!



And for me, these is no matter at all. Is said loud and clear. "Recognizing that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" some people don't understand?

Americans have to be armed, is meant to be armed, is their right and responsibility. There is Military, Law Enforcment, FBI, Secret and Intelligence Agencies, National Guard and there is also a Militia that every Citizen is part of it.

If a citizen is The right to keep and bear arms, then he stands against freedom, he stands against United States and he stands against his Country and People. He is a traitor. His citizenship mus he revoked and he must be exiled.
That's right. If you don't like it, don;t come to United States, don;t become a citizen, or if you are citizen, leave, you don't deserve it to be a United Sate citizen. Go to Brazil or Greece to understand why you should protect these rights and why is important to have the right to carry a gun.

 

[Jo6pak]

I like this explaination

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50

 

[Kreyzhorse]

Another way to understand the 2nd Amendment is to look at various state constitutions written during the time period.

Kentucky's written in 1799 states "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned."

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't understand how you got that from what I wrote. The whole thrust of my post was that the 2nd amendment is not about forming, maintaining, or equiping a militia. It is about restraining it's power and authority (regulating)with a reasonable deterent (armed populace).

You are discussing armed forces, and regulating of same. That's a militia. And the fact is, as both Justice Scalia and then Justice Alito wrote, the 2nd Amendment is not about militias. Which is to say, it is not about armed forces. Those may be included, but the conclusion of the U.S. Supreme Court is that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.

"Individual" is unrelated to any armed force, whether or not "regulated" and whether or not part of or related to service in a militia.

Further, the word "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment did not mean regulated as in "held in check," it meant regulated as in trained, practiced, and proficient. However, the meaning of the word "regulated" is a red herring, because the entire "well-regulated militia" clause is extraneous to the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Red_Eagle]

And after reading the heller decision I'd be interested in knowing exactly what we gained? Scalia also makes referance to "common use". Tenamount to a sporting purposes clause. Assault weapons bans, mag restrictions, gun registration, and byzintine licencing requirements are all held as constitutional. It looks to me like Heller vs. DC hurt us more than it helped.

 

[dusterdude]

here`s how i put it.if i remember my high school english correctly,you will notice that the sentences in the amendment are separated by comma`s.a comma is treated like a period in a sentence.so therefore every sentence that ends with a comma is a separate item.so each individual sentence is part and parcel of the whole paragraph.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It looks to me like Heller vs. DC hurt us more than it helped.

Before Heller, the antis were making the argument that the 2nd Amendment applied only to service in an organized militia, and that the 2nd Amendment did not constrain the states from enacting any gun control laws they wish.

Heller clearly affirmed that the RKBA guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, unrelated to service in a militia.

MacDonald then went on to clarify that (a) the RKBA guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment is not only an individual right, but a fundamental individual right, and (b) that the prohibition against infringing the 2nd Amendment applies to the states as well as to the Federal government.

Those are two very significant wins for our side.

 

[Red_Eagle]

Heller also codified that states and cities can impose any restriction they see fit, as long as there isn't an out right ban.

 

[cannonfire]

Let's also remember that there was still a federal army and navy when the US Constitution was written, it even states that the country must maintain and cannot dissolve the army or navy.

It was just the time period of "These United States" and not "The United States" in which the primary defense was dependent on the state, which had the militias, but there was still a National Army at this time. The War of 1812 helped to prove that the country needed to focus its defenses on a national level and not just a state by state level.

 

[44 AMP]

One definition of "regulated" at the time the Constitution was written meant 'well supplied'. Then trying to debate the punctuation marks (commas and such) is an exercise in futility. The 'rules' of English seem not to have existed at the time. Reading texts from the time is very difficult. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for much of the capitalization, punctuation, spelling, etc.

The rules of English most certainly did exist then. However, they are not all the same as the rules we (sometimes) use today. Spelling and punctuation were, indeed, treated differently than what is common use today. To understand documents written in that era, one must understand the usage of terms and grammar of that era.

"Well Regulated" in the Colonial era meant something that worked correctly. A well regulated clock kept accurate time (neither fast, nor slow). A well regulated machine worked without adjustment. A well regulated militia meant that militia members showed up for duty armed, with a certain amount of powder and shot, their basic camping gear, rations, and knowing the basic rudiments of military maneuver.

English scholars have, a long time ago, determined that the prefacing clause "A well regulated militia..." simply explains why the right to arms must not be infringed. it has nothing to do with resticting the right to arms to militias. That is a recent idea, espoused by those who believe (wrongly) that we do not have an individual right to arms, only a collective one.

And while the Heller v. DC ruling did include the govt's authority to regulate ownership of arms "not in common use" it did firmly establish in modern law that our right to arms is an individual right.

 

[carguychris]

Further, the word "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment did not mean regulated as in "held in check," it meant regulated as in trained, practiced, and proficient. However, the meaning of the word "regulated" is a red herring, because the entire "well-regulated militia" clause is extraneous to the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.

+1. FWIW some historians believe that the original intent of the militia clause was to prevent Congress from misusing its authority over the militia in Article 1, Section 8 by ordering the militia to disarm outright or by requiring the militia to use government-owned arms, which could be rendered nonfunctional or locked away in a distant arsenal, thereby accomplishing the same thing. Under this interpretation, the militia clause says that Congress cannot stop militiamen from providing their own personal arms, which they have the right to own just like other citizens.

This is perfectly consistent with the 18th-century meaning of "well-regulated"- e.g. "well equipped"- and quite different from the later collective-rights interpretation. However, the concept and operation of the militia in the USA has evolved so far since the 18th century that the militia clause has become obsolete and extraneous.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Heller also codified that states and cities can impose any restriction they see fit, as long as there isn't an out right ban.

No, it did not.

Go back and read it again. Any restrictions must be reasonable. And, taken with the finding in MacDonald that the 2nd Amendment RKBA is a "fundamental" right, that means the test of reasonableness will probably have to pass strict scrutiny -- intermediate scrutiny at the very least. Which means that an awful lot of city and state restrictions will be going away as they are challenged.