The Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795 clarified what the 2nd Amendment means.

[brush]

Last edited Sun Oct 8, 2017, 02:04 AM - Edit history (1)

It was never meant to mean that citizens had a right to own and bear arms, period.

The Acts cleared all that up. It meant that white male citizens at the time were required to own arms to form militias to protect the country when called upon.

A further act of 1862 allowed for African American males to also bear arms in defense of the country through militia service.

The point of all the militia acts was for citizens to be a part of militias to defend the country, period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

A subsequent militia act of 1903 created the National Guard to be the militia so ordinary citizens were no longer needed to form militias or required to own and bear arms.

So the 2nd Amendment's actual meaning, misinterpreted for so long, needs to be clarified in the minds of the country, especially the gun fetishers, as gun ownership has certainly gotten out of hand and needs to be reined in, tracked and some sort of insurance and registration is a must in light of all the mass killings that happen regularly now.

[jmg257]

1. I am sure the likes of Jefferson, Adams, Richard Henry Lee, and all the other

Members of congress (who just went through the revolution) were thrilled to learn they had no right to own arms.

Them being immune from militia service.

[brush]

2. Why would they be immune? Did you go to the link and read.

The Acts were passed by the US Congress.

What's the snark about?

[jmg257]

3. You sure you read it?

II. And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years.


Awful lot of important people to have no right to arms, a huge junk of which being the same ones who wrote the law, and amendment.

[brush]

6. So what's the snark about. The acts were passed by the Congress.

[jmg257]

7. Yes, and pretty sure their intent was not to give up any rights in doing so.

But instead to secure their right, and all the people's.

[brush]

8. Your interpretation differs from what Congress passed.

The Militia Acts and the 2nd were never meant to enable insane MFs like Paddock or anyone else to have unrestricted, unlicensed ownership of as many deadly, automatic fire weapons that he wanted.

Even you must admit it's gotten out of hand.

[jmg257]

9. Congress wrote/passed the militia acts. They also wrote/debated the amendments.

Do you really think they made it so only those in the militia had the right to arms?

Exempting themselves (and so many others) from that right???

Not very likely.

[brush]

10. So you think things are just fine? The next mass shooting will happen with things the way they are.

[jmg257]

11. Well you see, that is an entirely different point than the one we were just discussing.

And one I didn't comment on at all.

[brush]

13. Certainly a related point. The point being that the 2nd Amendment was not meant to be...

unrestricted ownership of deadly weapons by non-militia members, whether sane or not, which is what we have now through, IMO, misinterpretation of the 2nd.

[jmg257]

18. No doubt related. But the 2nd was to explicitly secure a right of the people.

The militias already had the right to arms secured in Article 1...

1789 HoR Debate on the article which became the 2nd...

Mr. SCOTT objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He said, if this becomes part of the constitution, we can neither call upon such persons for services nor an equivalent; it is attended with still further difficulties, for you can never depend upon your militia. This will lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, as in this case you must have recourse to a standing army.

There is no doubt why the right was secured for the people - the 2nd states that. All because there was fear the new congress would use their powers to render the militias ineffective, by disarming the people.

[Angry Dragon]

20. perhaps you could list the 2nd Amendment so we know what it says

[jmg257]

23. Sure but is there sme doubt?

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.

[Angry Dragon]

26. Not in my mind

to me it says that the government has the right to regulate

[jmg257]

32. Well, lets not call it a right, but a power...its articulated well in Article 1...

Congress shall have power to:

provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Part bolded equals "regulate"...power for coming up with guidelines for organizing arming and especially training...as Hamilton would say...'to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia'.

For the OP and the Militia Act, this regulating/disciplining was via Von stuben's Blue Book.

[ClarendonDem]

50. Are you claiming that the 2d Amendment

Somehow embodies the government's right to "regulate" - well, what exactly can the government "regulate" based on your reading of the 2d Amendment? The concept that "well regulated" means "constrained" or "subject to rules" doesn't alter the second clause of the 2d Amendment. For instance, assuming your interpretation is correct, you could restate the 2d Amendment to read something like "a militia subject to government regulation being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The 2d Amendment would still bar the government from infringing on the right of "the people" to "keep and bear arms."

By the way, all of this is academic. Even under Scalia's interpretation of the 2d Amendment in Heller the government can pass any number of laws restricting the use and/or ownership of firearms. An assault weapon ban, universal background checks, licensing requirements, a national registration requirement, purchase waiting periods, all likely are constitutional. The only thing Heller prevents is a ban on private ownership of handguns for home defense.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

70. I don't think you understand what you're implying

Firstly, the BoR was debated and ratified a couple years after the Constitution was passed. The BoR has a preamble:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Please note that throughout the founding documents including the BoR that the exercise of government authority is referred to as a power.

Next, also consider that the term "right" never appears in conjunction with a reference to government actions but only to the actions of individuals.

Finally, answer why a government would have the need to announce in an amendment a power which is covered by the body of the Constitution. The power didn't change. Why would it have?

[Angry Dragon]

71. How about this..........

Anyone that has purchased a gun has in essence joined the citizen militia. If they use said gun to attack someone, they have attacked this country. Use of force by an armed militia. That would be Treason.

I have nothing against people owning and using guns. I might even have some. The government has the power to regulate its citizen militia. I would take that to include the guns the militia uses.

Common sense has left the First Amendment debate

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

75. Two points:

Militia: If you're 17 or older, you're in the militia. No need to buy anything. Do not pass go; do not collect 200 bullets.

Treason: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open Court."



And also: "Common sense has left the First Amendment debate"
Who was debating the First Amendment?

[Angry Dragon]

80. that was my mistake ......... I should have written Second Amendment

My example would prove Treason

[fallout87]

74. Yes...

Gun Control is a losing position on a national level. There are plenty of democrats that are gun owners and dont want to see rights being taken away.

[Doreen]

4. From what I can see in the wikipedia women were

never supposed to own firearms. Wonder how the gun humping women would feel about that? Of course the gun humpers would try to prove it says something entirely different or say it is a lie.

[Pope George Ringo II]

5. 10 U.S. Code Section 246 is the statute today. "Unorganized militia" covers a lot of people by law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

(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.

[Stonepounder]

12. What happened to the "well regulated" part? n/t

[Igel]

43. Keeping the militia up to snuff

isn't a requirement. The basis for the militia is having a stock of weapons among the population.

Drilling the militia and making sure they're in good order may be a big deal, but nowhere does the Constitution require that it be done or that Congress ensure it. In fact, the militia was the province of the states, not the federal government.

Note that it's the militia that's to be well-regulated, not the right to bear arms.

[jmg257]

46. Sure it is...note that "well regulated militias are "necessary".

Keeping the militias trained and effective is certainly a requirement. The congress could not ignore them, nor could the states.

Without well regulated militias, there could be no way to fullfill the purposes laid out in the preamble, or to keep the guarantees articulated in the constitution.

Establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, helping the common defense, securing the blessings of liberty, guaranteeing a republican form of govt, etc. were all the responsibilties of the militias.

[Pope George Ringo II]

59. Well, the "organized militia" brings us back to the National Guard

Also known as the United States Army Reserve. Article I grants Congress the power to raise and maintain an army, so the "unorganized militia" is pretty much all the Second Amendment could conceivably apply to. It is also helpful to recall that the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and that "well regulated" is part of a subordinate clause.

I'm okay with repealing it, but I have a real problem arguing that parts of the Bill of Rights grant power to the government.

[cstanleytech]

14. While I do not object to common sense gun laws to try and prevent things like the las vegas shooting

I think the other area we need to focus on as well is the illegal and unregistered ownership of guns and or modifications to them to say make them full auto that people make and we need stiffer penalties there especially if a crime is committed with an illegally owned, unregistered or modified weapons.

[brush]

15. Agreed.

[longship]

16. It's the "well regulated militia" part that 2nd amendment fans ignore.

And therein lies the problem.

And the words are there for fucking anybody to read!!!

But the 2nd amendment fans conveniently ignore those three words, like they aren't even there.

That's the problem!

[brush]

17. Yes. The militia acts further clarified what "well regulated militia" meant.

The second one even broke it down into battalions, companies, etc. so that there was no question as to what was meant.

[longship]

22. It's obvious in the original text.

That's why the bills passed constitutional muster.

As to the so-called 2nd amendment "originalists", I don't know what the fuck they are smoking. Suffice it to say, I want none of it.

[Angry Dragon]

21. I agree

[jmg257]

24. Why would they ignore it? Thats the part that allows for the keeping

Of arms related to the keeping of an effective militia.

Things like ARs, M-9s and the like. Uniform, effective, (and associated accoutrements - mags, bayonets etc) just like articulated in the Militia Acts

[brush]

25. All that was superceded by the Act of 1903 though that created the National Guard.

[jmg257]

30. Ah now you are getting to the meat! :) The Congress usurped power

To redefine the militias of the several states into the militia of the United States...the NG. (And be more the select militia as envisioned by Hamilton).

Now the militia, which had been well defined entities of the States in 1789, would be recreated as a reserve to the federal armies and be ARMED by the federal govt. tootally against the thoughts of the framers.

All because the people realized the best security of a free state is a huge standing army and a kick ass Navy.

So the 2nd's original primary intent of protecting the people's duty to serve as the militia was obsoleted.

And yet, it is still the law of the land.

[brush]

33. So you're saying that since it's obsoleted, we need to disregard the clause about...

"the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"?

We certainly don't need insane MFs like the guy in Vegas owning 40-some unregistered guns.

[jmg257]

35. No it will not can not just be ignored. but maybe it could be amended?

As I said, as of now it is still the law of the land. (Including its current interpretaion by the USSC - which does allow infringements).

Eta: Madison knew any amendment would be disregarded if against the decided sense of the people, unless it was so without doubt...

I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public; and after repeated violations in extraordinary cases, they will lose even their ordinary efficacy.

These days getting enough people to agree to 'ignore' the restriction is possible, but most any infringement is going to be challenged.

[longship]

28. While ignoring the "well regulated" part.

I will stand by my post.

[jmg257]

36. Yep - they may think being well armed is 'well-regulated', or

By running around with a bunch of others shooting up the woods.

But clearly not the militias intended in the 2nd, ehich were always state entites expected to muster and train per the same regulations as the armies.

[longship]

37. Eeee-yup! nt

[ClarendonDem]

51. How does the "well regulated" language

Actually impact the right to "keep and bear arms"? The 2d Amendment doesn't state the "right of the militia members" to bear arms shall not be infringed, but the right of "the people" -- i.e., you and me -- shall not be infringed.

[longship]

64. Well, here's one thing we can all agree on.

Somewhere between a pea shooter and a thermonuclear bomb there is a line of demarcation between legal arms and illegal arms.

Where one chooses that line is subject to discussion and debate.

Given the number of mass shootings in the USA in the past many years, it beggars rational argument how anybody can support no restrictions on firearms.

That's my position.

If one disagrees, than I am wholeheartedly against them.

We've had enough firearm violence.

[ClarendonDem]

72. I'm completely on board with the notion that there's room for further regulation of firearms

I've been following DU since the early 2000s, and the gun control discussions (IMO) often focus on the wrong issues. As a history buff, the arguments about the founders' intent regarding the 2d Amendment are interesting, as well as the discussions about the quirky wording. But what the drafters intended, or the meaning of "well regulated" or "the people" or whether the 2d covers only muskets is largely irrelevant to what laws can be passed, as is whether Scalia was right in Heller.

All kinds of firearm restrictions are permitted under the 2d Amendment and Heller, regardless of what that idiot Wayne LaPierre claims. Congress could enact universal background checks or training requirements, or even an assault weapons ban, tomorrow and those laws would be constitutional. So instead of arguing about whether we should repeal the 2d Amendment, or replace Thomas with a justice who will overturn Heller, Democrats should focus their efforts (and money, because the NRA certainly spends a lot of money), on electing representatives who will work to pass such laws.

Unless of course people want to ban firearms completely, but most folks on here insist that isn't their goal.

[TomSlick]

19. Unfortunately, this is a decided issue.

SCOTUS decided in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right unconnected to a militia - well regulated or not.

[brush]

27. SCOTUS should have codified registration, insurance, background checks, quantity limitations...

requirements for trigger locks/gun safes — you know, common sense gun laws and maybe we wouldn't be having Sandy Hooks, Orlandos and Las Vegases every year or so, with smaller mass shooting happening daily just about in the country.

[whathehell]

31. +1000. n/t

[ClarendonDem]

52. That's not the Supreme Court's role

Congress, or the state legislatures, are responsible for passing those types of laws. But Heller does state that reasonable restrictions are ok, so Congress could enact those types of laws consistent with Heller. It just hasn't.

[dchill]

29. Well, then, that would be obviously wrong to anyone who can read.

Not to mention that the "arms" referred to in the Constitution were single-shot muskets. Gun-humpers should be allowed one bullet, in their pocket. Like Barney Fyfe.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

40. That would also eliminate...

most of the cross-fire hazards and deaths during hunting season, LOL.

[ClarendonDem]

54. That's not how courts interpret the Constitution or statutes

The Bill of Rights isn't limited to the technology that existed in the late 18th Century. And an AR-15 is much more comparable to a musket than the internet is to a printing press.

[dchill]

88. The innocent victim of a musket ball OR a 7.62 bump-stocked bullet...

has inarguably had his or her civil rights violated. Whether or not he or she has an opinion on the term "well-regulated." Whether or not he or she has even read the bill of rights.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

39. So, if I read you guys right that have thoroughly researched this issue...

it all falls back into the lap of Congress to eliminate the conflict between the 2nd Amendment's language, and all the other later laws establishing the NG and standing military.

Why wasn't that conflict considered when they established the NG?

Can that even be fixed without amending the Constitution?

[TomSlick]

81. It falls back to Congress, State legislatures, and (maybe) local governments

to attempt to regulate weapons as suggested in Heller - then SCOTUS will determine whether those regulations are "reasonable."

While SCOTUS would certainly deny, it is aware of and heeds (sorta) public sentiment. I think Congress and State legislators could forbid automatic weapons in the hands of civilians (as well as tanks, anti-tank weapons, etc.). If Congress or a State legislature attempted to regulate - say - the number of rounds in a magazine, who knows?

[leanforward]

34. So, there is more clarification of the 2nd Amendment

"A well regulated Militia," that I had thought was being ignored. Time for research.

[jmg257]

38. See Hamilton/federalist 29 for a good definition of well-regulated.

And an intersting take on his 'select militia' and its role (which wasnt used).

And yes, the Militia Acts spell out exactly how that regulating was to occur.
Including arming, organizing and training.

[Docreed2003]

41. Our country is blind to its own history...

The 2nd amendment was created specifically because the founders had a stong fear of a standing national army that could potentially overthrow a democratic government, and so they supported the idea of state militias. When the amendment was being written, the original wording by Madison, and I would strongly urge each of you to read this, offended the likes of people like Patrick Henry who urged Madison to revise the wording because of the implications it would have to southern Militias, which, at the time, were slave patrols. There’s plenty of documentation to support that, mainly in the form of correspondence between the two. Make no mistake, the preservation of these slave patrols had a huge impact on the 2nd Ammendment wording. That fact needs to be acknowledged and we should be educating our children to that fact.

The individual right to own guns was not established until the Heller decision. We have allowed the gun lobby to corrupt and to bastardize any and every attempt to regulate weapons in this country. When will enough deaths be enough?

I’m a gun owner...I’ve grown up around guns and hunting...we have long passed the rubicon on gun regulations in this country.

[Igel]

44. The individual right wasn't established until Heller.

But for well over a hundred years the issue wasn't really decided one way or the other. And even then it was decided in ways that were sort of tangential to the issue.

When people say that the individual right wasn't established until Heller it always sounds to my ears as though they want the listener or reader to think that there was a 200+ tradition of it being a collective right reserved to organizations under the control of the Federal government.

[jmg257]

47. The Miller decision didn't go against Miller because he wasn't in a militia,

But because no evidence was presented that his sawed off shotgun was an effective militia arm.

Hardly supportive of this notion that the right to arms was always recognized as a collective right. {Or that military-style weapons weren't covered.}

"the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
1.The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2.The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4.The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

[Pope George Ringo II]

60. I've often thought that SCOTUS avoids Second Amendment cases because of Miller

It is a fairly sloppy decision and I think they're just reluctant to go there again after setting such a lousy precedent. ISTM all somebody has to do to make SCOTUS look like idiots over Miller is show up with a picture of an M4 carbine or M26 shotgun and say, "See? Short barrels are militia-type stuff! You guys really screwed this up!" To avoid embarrassment, they just avoid the subject as much as possible.

[jmg257]

62. Agreed - Miller died, so no evidence was presented. But imagine if he had a BAR? Would autos still

be unregulated?

[bdjhawk]

42. Even if you believe it means that all have a right to bear arms,

it is preposterous that these gun zealots (who think anyone should have availability of an unlimited supply) claim to be fervent believers in the Constitution yet completely ignore the words WELL REGULATED and will fight to the bitter end to prevent even the slightest additional regulation to be added.

And they claim to be supporters of the police yet put up every barrier to a modern, efficient database of guns so that those used in crimes can be .

The way people have allowed themselves to be manipulated into extreme paranoia is ridiculous!!!

[MichMary]

45. The Bill of Rights

was established to limit the power of the government over individuals. It is hard to believe that in that context, only one amendment was intended to limit the rights of individuals.

Also, since it was listed second only to the one encompassing freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, and religion, it must have been considered mighty important to the founders.

[aikoaiko]

48. Not the game changer you hoped it would be.

The establishment of organized militias doesn't preclude the need to for the people to keep and bear arms in case they are needed in an unorganized militia and to ensure that the federal government doesn't infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

[brush]

58. Like someone needs to own 40-some, unregistered guns. We get Las Vegas, Orlando...

Sandy Hook, and will keep getting them until there is serious, comprehensive, sensible gun control legislation.

[aikoaiko]

65. Maybe, maybe not.

Certainly, a universal background check won't do anything to stop mega-mass shootings.

Banning all semi-auto rifles might lessen the carnage, but not do anything to prevent double-digit mass shootings from happening. Don't count on an Assault Weapons ban to do anything. The rifle used in Sandy Hook was compliant with CT's AWB.

Registration won't do anything because many of the firearms used in mega-mass shootings were lawfully owned or stolen.

You'll be lucky to get bump stocks off the market.

But maybe these mega-mass shootings may go away without more gun control. They are almost like a sick fad. Overall homicides with guns as the weapon declined significantly since the 1990s and that dip seems unrelated to gun laws.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

68. It is wrong thinking to believe that "LAW" prevents "CRIME"

I. The control part of gun-"control" is a myth.
II. Laws do not control those with criminal intent. Laws serve to provide criteria for their conviction in court.
III. Personal NEEDS do not play any role in the contemplation and articulation of individual rights.
IV. There is virtually no control beyond self-control.


If you want to ban bump-fire equipment, trigger cranks, heroin, pot, TATP, RDX, claymores... go ahead.
Technology is moving ahead. Things like 3-D printers and explosives recipes online will take over as the means for intended mass killers.

Maybe we should have better laws about psychoactive drugs:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-las-vegas-shooting-through-the-eyes-of-a-mental_us_59d66ac1e4b0cf2548b3354d

Maybe we should have better laws about cops and guns:
http://abc7.com/sheriffs-deputy-shoots-self-in-leg-while-serving-warrant/2492922/

Maybe we need laws that have the cops go house-to-house for every house in the country.

[brush]

73. Google Australia and how that country dealt with guns and mass shootings

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

76. No thanks, no need, I'm quite familiar

If laws prevented crime we wouldn't have any.

Laws are not intended to prevent crime and they never will.

[brush]

77. Ridiculous bit of broad brushing. Banks couldn't stay in business if there was no law against...

Last edited Sun Oct 8, 2017, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)

robbing them.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

78. I don't know about you but...

...if was legal to rob a bank, I'd be there. There would be gun-control laws so I couldn't get a gun but I could take a hostage and threaten paper cuts with nice magazine.

[brush]

79. Even you had to make a joke of your broad brushing, huh?

[ileus]

49. Well there you have it...send out the trucks starting tomorrow.

I can't believe this has been overlooked for so long.

[HAB911]

53. 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.

[ClarendonDem]

55. You are qualifying the language in a way the the drafters of the 2d Amendment did not

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.

The first clause explains a/the reason for the 2d Amendment -- a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The second clause protects the right of "the people" -- not the right of "the militia" -- to keep and bear arms from government infringement. So even assuming that the sole reason for the 2d Amendment is to ensure the efficacy of the militia, it still protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms separate from service in any militia.

If you think the need for the militia has gone by the wayside because we have a standing army and national guard, then revise/repeal the 2d Amendment, but that's a job for our elected representatives, not the courts.

And once again, just about any sort of gun control you want is constitutional under Heller, the only thing the government cannot do is enact an outright ban on the ownership of handguns for home protection. Heller isn't the reason we don't have the type of gun control you advocate (unless you are calling for a ban I suppose).

[jmg257]

56. "the 2nd Amendment does not actually give citizens a right to bear arms." Well - you got that right

at least.

It simply, and VERY specifically, secures that right from infringement. (obvious that right already existed).

Why would the 2nd do such a thing? Well that is clear too - because the state militias composed of the people, were vital to our freedom. (Clearly people didn't trust the govts not to abuse their new power over them - by disarming them - they added an amendment to prevent the very thing).

"The 2nd Amendment guarantees a citizen the right to bear arms if they serve in a militia. "


One word YOU added is CLEARLY NOT THERE - "IF".

Meat Loaf is cool though.

[Marengo]

63. When and where has militia membership as prerequisite for the private ownership of firearms

By free citizens been enforced?

[hack89]

57. Ok. So what?

What gun control law you desire is unconstitutional right now?

[Marengo]

61. When and where has militia membership as a prerequisite for the private ownership of firearms by

Free citizens been enforced.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

69. In the hopes and dreams of gun regulators everywhere

[Initech]

66. But facts won't matter to the gun humpers.

Maybe I think the rest of the world needs to hold an intervention for us.

[Marengo]

84. When and where has militia membership as a prerequisite for the private ownership of firearms by

Free citizens been enforced?

[Alea]

67. And SCOTUS clarified it in 2008 n/t

[bdamomma]

82. The "formed militia"

is this which was posted:

A subsequent militia act of 1903 created the National Guard to be the militia so ordinary citizens were no longer needed to form militias or required to own and bear arms.


it can't get any clearer than that!!

[brush]

83. You would think but guns have become sacred totems to fetishers of a certain demographic segment...

It's like paraphrasing Charleston Heston's quote to that NRA eventy: "They'll have to be pryed from their cold, dead hands"

[jmg257]

85. And yet somehow they left the 2nd in place. And made it even more confusing

By inventing the "unorganized militia" as a subset of the militia of the United States which covers so many people not in the "organized militia" - the National Guard.


And STILL left them subject to being called forth in federal service. (No matter how unlikely).
Apparently their right to arms still mattered/s.

[bdamomma]

89. if only the 2nd can be abolished

and keep it to only a "formed militia" in this case the National Guard. That would make the gun lobby and manufacturers and gun nuts go crazy. The whole thing sound very ambiguous.

[roamer65]

86. It all boils down to the composition of the SCOTUS.

They are the body that interprets the Constitution.

Change the composition and you change the interpretation

[TheBlackAdder]

87. 2A is for self-defense. It is for militias, as Federalist 29 and even anti-federalists discuss.

Even in modern 2017 NJ, rural sections that are under State Police protection in the evening will see police response times upwards of one hour. One hour--in the most densely populated state in the US. People harp on Sanders being from Vermont and supporting 2A, where similar police response times occur, especially in bad weather. A shit load of things can happen in 5-10 minutes, much less an hour. I had a small farm in one of those enclaves, and transients would damage property and hurt livestock. The next step was our home, just a few hundred feet away. Most rural and suburban townships have minimal police presence due to the ratables and tax structure. Home defense falls onto the homeowner. I now live in an area with 3 minute police response, and even then, my primarily Democrat township has a higher possession of firearms than Camden and Newark, NJ. This is according to a state trooper down the street, who ran the stats before he bought here.

Seventy-five years after the 2A was crafted, many citizens lived in suburban and rural areas, with little to no protection. U.S. territories had district courthouses and sheriffs. It might take a day or two to get someone out to a location, but first, someone had to travel to alert them of the problem. Of course people learn to rely on firearms and embrace their need, which then becomes a cultural issue.