But, a well-regulated Militia is NOT necessary to the security of a free State

[BrainGlutton]

The Second Amendment is premised on the assumption that "well regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State" -- but it's not -- is it? There are countries all around the world that manage to have both freedom and security without any such thing. The police and the Army are so necessary. But the reserve militia is not -- you can tell by the fact that it has never, ever been mobilized. In fact, not even the state National Guards are strictly necessary to our freedom and security -- they're good to have, certainly, in event of natural disaster or civil unrest, and as a reserve of trained troops for wartime -- but we could probably get along without them.

Our Founding Fathers were wrong about some things, and this is apparently one of them.

[Whack-a-Mole]

The Founding Fathers (and the country as a whole) were not very keen on standing armies.

The militia was their answer to have an available armed force handy if needed without maintaining a large standing army.

[adaher]

Armies have a tendency to take over states. I don't think that we really know that much about what makes a democracy a success or not given that most of the ones without a militia but with a standing army have been around less than 100 years. Let's see what happens when they go through some serious adversity.

[Latro]

Originally Posted by adaher

Armies have a tendency to take over states. I don't think that we really know that much about what makes a democracy a success or not given that most of the ones without a militia but with a standing army have been around less than 100 years. Let's see what happens when they go through some serious adversity.

What ?

[adaher]

Democracies with standing armies are a relatively new concept. We don't know how it will all turn out.

[Latro]

Parsing this backwards;

Let's see what happens when they go through some serious adversity.

So after say 200 years is it then safe to form an opinion? Or will you also say 'Meh, let's see what happens'?

I don't think that we really know that much about what makes a democracy a success or not given that most of the ones without a militia but with a standing army have been around less than 100 years.

there were no democracies before 1913 with regular armies?

Armies have a tendency to take over states.

Okay, then you can quickly give me list of all those regular armies taking over states.
Right?

[Randvek]

Originally Posted by Latro

Okay, then you can quickly give me list of all those regular armies taking over states. Right?

It's actually a relatively long list, but those nations tend to have one thing in common: they were two-bit, corrupt democracies in the first place. If anybody thinks that the only thing stopping the Army from taking over the US is citizens with guns, they are sadly mistaken.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Our Founding Fathers were wrong about some things, and this is apparently one of them.

I could see why they thought a militia was necessary back in 1787. It wasn't until 1903, over one hundred years after the U.S. Constitution was adopted, for the militia to be abandoned and replaced with the National Guard. Heck, according to the 1903 law the militias weren't disbanded they were just reorganized.

Of course the world isn't the same in 2012 as it was in 1787. Thankfully the framers of the Constitution made it possible to amend the Constitution according to our changing needs.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by Latro

Parsing this backwards;


So after say 200 years is it then safe to form an opinion? Or will you also say 'Meh, let's see what happens'?

As a Chinese official once said when asked about the effects of the French Revolution: "It's too soon to tell."

there were no democracies before 1913 with regular armies?

Not a whole lot. And 1913, there are still people alive from then, I wouldn't exactly call that long term in the sweep of human history.

Okay, then you can quickly give me list of all those regular armies taking over states.
Right?

Outside the West, happens all the time.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Odesio

I could see why they thought a militia was necessary back in 1787. It wasn't until 1903, over one hundred years after the U.S. Constitution was adopted, for the militia to be abandoned and replaced with the National Guard. Heck, according to the 1903 law the militias weren't disbanded they were just reorganized.

Of course the world isn't the same in 2012 as it was in 1787. Thankfully the framers of the Constitution made it possible to amend the Constitution according to our changing needs.

Well, clearly we don't need the 2nd Amendment any more, at least, not for the reason the authors stated therein. The National Guards have guns issued to them, and if the "reserve militia" ever is mobilized it will need the same -- their personal hunting rifles will not play any relevant role. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" has no relevance here.

Can anyone think of any other good reason for the Second Amendment? I can't. I have no brief for any particular regime of gun control, and I can see why private gun ownership has some practical value. But I do not see why it is important enough to warrant its being set above ordinary electoral/legislative politics and given constitutional protection. This should be an ordinary policy question, not a constitutional one.

[John Mace]

I don't think things have changed on this subject since April of this year.

[kanicbird]

I've pondered and prayed about that saying, and as many of you know me, I feel there is a spiritual meaning along with the physical meaning to all laws, and all laws are mediated by God, not just scriptural laws, but all laws of nations and states. Part of the weirdness of how it is worded is IMHO because it is a spiritual law.

For all those who care, this is my interpretation of the 2nd in the spiritual:

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.

The first part, 'a well regulated militia' refers to the ability of (demonic) ruling powers being able to control (regulate) it's citizens (with anything from fear of jail to bureaucratic red tape).
The middle part 'being necessary to the security of a free State' is a bit of a oxymoron, a form of doublespeak. In the spiritual 'security' is oppression and confinement. So the 'security of a free state' means the ability to oppress people in the free state so they are no longer free.

'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' is God's mediation, it allows anyone the right to use God's own weapons against these demonic rulers so they will not be subject to the security/oppression measures and can enjoy the free state without hinderance.

As such in the spiritual interpretation is has little to do with the right to obtain physical arms, but all to do with the right to overcome oppression even without physical arms, a right of the people guaranteed by God. Actually like so many spiritual things it is exactly opposite the worldly meaning. In the worldly meaning man depends on guns for his freedom (which is the conventional interpretation of the 2nd), in the spiritual man depends on God even in the absence of guns for his freedom.

So as for my own interpretation, yes the well regulated militia would be necessary to the oppression (security) of a free state.

And as always YMMV

[Vinyl Turnip]

Yeah, well, that's a lot of nonsense that you made up.

[astorian]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Can anyone think of any other good reason for the Second Amendment? I can't. I have no brief for any particular regime of gun control, and I can see why private gun ownership has some practical value. But I do not see why it is important enough to warrant its being set above ordinary electoral/legislative politics and given constitutional protection. This should be an ordinary policy question, not a constitutional one.

Even if you're right, and this SHOULDN'T have been in the Constitution, the fact remains that it IS.

You want it out, you'll have to get both houses of Congress and 38 state legislatures to agree with you.

Good luck.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by astorian

Even if you're right, and this SHOULDN'T have been in the Constitution, the fact remains that it IS.

You want it out, you'll have to get both houses of Congress and 38 state legislatures to agree with you.

Good luck.

I'm merely trying to show why amending the Constitution to delete the 2nd Amendment would not be any threat to American liberty, nor security.

Not that I expect that to happen this decade. Politically impossible -- and not all that important, we have much more urgent political things to worry about, constitutionally and otherwise. The Second Amendment is Mostly Harmless. But it remains a Bad Idea.

[Kearsen]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Well, clearly we don't need the 2nd Amendment any more, at least, not for the reason the authors stated therein. The National Guards have guns issued to them, and if the "reserve militia" ever is mobilized it will need the same -- their personal hunting rifles will not play any relevant role. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" has no relevance here.

Can anyone think of any other good reason for the Second Amendment? I can't. I have no brief for any particular regime of gun control, and I can see why private gun ownership has some practical value. But I do not see why it is important enough to warrant its being set above ordinary electoral/legislative politics and given constitutional protection. This should be an ordinary policy question, not a constitutional one.

To prevent Tyranny.
An armed populace is a whole lot less likely to be dominated by ANY government

[adaher]

Plus there's the right to self defense, a basic human right. I'm not sure if the founders had that in mind when writing the 2nd amendment, but they covered for whatever they may have forgotten when they wrote the 9th.

The right to defend oneself is about as basic a human right as you can identify. I'd say it's definitely covered under the 9th, if not the 2nd.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Kearsen

To prevent Tyranny.
An armed populace is a whole lot less likely to be dominated by ANY government

The Iraqis under Saddam Hussein were armed. Didn't help. The police and the army are always armed better, and, more importantly, organized and trained better. Historically, the only really effective check on government is the rule of law, which is itself a governmental thing. Yes, a lawyer is more important to your freedom than a militiaman.

[adaher]

It depends on how far a tyrant is willing to go to keep the populace down. The US army, far better equipped than Saddam's military, went through hell trying to defeat an insurgency. If the US army tried to put down the American people with the same tactics used in Iraq, they would fail. Now if they used Saddam's tactics, that's a different story.

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by Kearsen

To prevent Tyranny.
An armed populace is a whole lot less likely to be dominated by ANY government

I fail to see any coloration between gun ownership and resistance to authoritative rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Well, clearly we don't need the 2nd Amendment any more, at least, not for the reason the authors stated therein. The National Guards have guns issued to them, and if the "reserve militia" ever is mobilized it will need the same -- their personal hunting rifles will not play any relevant role. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" has no relevance here.

I don't know, even back then a militia might have an armory with guns, rifles, powder and ammo. The British were attempting to seize/destroy one such armory in Concord, Massachusetts in 1775. Anyway, my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that bearing arms is an individual right.

[adaher]

I don't think there's any question about that. In the Constitution, "the people" always means individuals. If the right to bear arms was a right of the people collectively, it would have no real meaning. It would simply be a government enumerated power. And it's already in the Constitution under Congress' powers:

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;

So it's specifically covered already. If the 2nd amendment just reiterated that, there'd be no point to it.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Odesio

I don't know, even back then a militia might have an armory with guns, rifles, powder and ammo. The British were attempting to seize/destroy one such armory in Concord, Massachusetts in 1775.

That was my point. Those were not the weapons the militiamen kept at home.

Originally Posted by Odesio

Anyway, my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that bearing arms is an individual right.

Which does not mean it has any value. Free-speech rights and voting rights have value to and in a democracy; the right to bear arms -- defined as private personal ownership of arms -- does not. There are some practical reasons why it should be allowed, but they don't rise to a level meriting constitutional protection.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

I fail to see any coloration between gun ownership and resistance to authoritative rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

I think you meant "correlation."

[Chimera]

1st Amendment: The Right of the People
2nd Amendment: The Right of the People
4th Amendment: The Right of the People

As I have said before, if the 2nd Amendment doesn't refer to everyone when it says 'the right of the peope', then it could likewise be ruled that when the 1st Amendment says 'the right of the people to peacably assemble', this could be construed by a tyrranical government as only applying to licensed political parties.

[adaher]

Yeah, try to apply the 4th amendment as only being a collective right. Makes no sense.

I agree that the militia function of the 2nd amendment MIGHT be outdated. But the right to bear arms is also based on the right of self-defense, and many of the other things written by the founders about the right to bear arms still apply today, such as the tree of liberty needing to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I'm merely trying to show why amending the Constitution to delete the 2nd Amendment would not be any threat to American liberty, nor security.

And you're wrong, as usual. Without the 2nd Amendment, the Federal, State, or Local government could....and some definitely would...ban the private ownership of guns. That would be a horrible thing.

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I think you meant "correlation."

I might have.

[adaher]

Not only that, but gun bans tend to be a slippery slope. Most nations that ban private ownership of guns also ban private ownership of non-lethal personal security devices. Guns go, then stun guns, then pepper spray.

[Latro]

Originally Posted by adaher

As a Chinese official once said when asked about the effects of the French Revolution: "It's too soon to tell."


Not a whole lot. And 1913, there are still people alive from then, I wouldn't exactly call that long term in the sweep of human history.


Outside the West, happens all the time.

So, basically, you admit you´re just pulling it out of your arse

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

And you're wrong, as usual. Without the 2nd Amendment, the Federal, State, or Local government could....and some definitely would...ban the private ownership of guns. That would be a horrible thing.

Yes it would be a terrible thing for the local democratically elected representatives to pass laws that a majority of their constituents desire.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by Latro

So, basically, you admit you´re just pulling it out of your arse

No, just pointing out that your time horizon might be too short.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

Yes it would be a terrible thing for the local democratically elected representatives to pass laws that a majority of their constituents desire.

Such as laws banning abortion? Or gay marriage? Or stamp collecting?

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by adaher

Not only that, but gun bans tend to be a slippery slope. Most nations that ban private ownership of guns also ban private ownership of non-lethal personal security devices. Guns go, then stun guns, then pepper spray.

Can you name a country that has a ban on private ownership of firearms?

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by adaher

Such as laws banning abortion? Or gay marriage? Or stamp collecting?

I'm not saying they should be able to pass laws in conflict of the 2nd amendment. I think the 2nd amendment serves no useful purpose and if it were to be repealed local governments should be allowed to pass laws as their constituents desire.

Want to ban guns repeal the second amendment.

Want to ban gay marriage amend the constitution to do so.

Want to ban abortion amend the constitution to do so.

Not everyone gets what they want.

[adaher]

Complete 100% bans, none I know of. However, many countries make it nearly impossible for an average citizen to get a gun, such as Britain. That's functionally a gun ban.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Which does not mean it has any value. Free-speech rights and voting rights have value to and in a democracy; the right to bear arms -- defined as private personal ownership of arms -- does not. There are some practical reasons why it should be allowed, but they don't rise to a level meriting constitutional protection.

That begs the question, Brain. What standard do you use to determine whether something merits constitutional protection?

[Odesio]

Nevermind

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by adaher

Complete 100% bans, none I know of. However, many countries make it nearly impossible for an average citizen to get a gun, such as Britain. That's functionally a gun ban.

Not only that, but gun bans tend to be a slippery slope. Most nations that ban private ownership of guns also ban private ownership of non-lethal personal security devices. Guns go, then stun guns, then pepper spray.

Very scary slippery slope you've established here. What's this say about the number of countries that ban pepper spray but not firearms? Are they climbing the hill?

[adaher]

If the average person cannot get a gun, then you have a gun ban for all intents and purposes. I'm sure pepper spray isn't totally banned, but that's no easier to get in many places.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

.....Can anyone think of any other good reason for the Second Amendment? I can't. I have no brief for any particular regime of gun control, and I can see why private gun ownership has some practical value. But I do not see why it is important enough to warrant its being set above ordinary electoral/legislative politics and given constitutional protection. This should be an ordinary policy question, not a constitutional one.

Except that the 2nd Amemdment does exist so this is a "Constitutional" question, whether you want it to be or not.

When the Bill of Rights was drawn up, the representatives of the thirteen colonies agreed that firearm ownership was important enough to be an unalienable right. The voters in the soon-to-be-States also agreed that all ten Amendments should be unalienable rights.

If you believe that the 2nd has outlived it's usefulness, you'll just have to create another Amendment to override the 2nd and then get it passed. I doubt that a majority of the voters will back your efforts.

[adaher]

And since another poster mentioned that there are no actual gun bans, you don't need to change the Constitution. Gun regulation is allowed, as long as it doesn't prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining firearms. The only reason you'd need to repeal the 2nd would be if you want more than just some prudent gun regulation.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

That was my point. Those were not the weapons the militiamen kept at home.

Which does not mean it has any value. Free-speech rights and voting rights have value to and in a democracy; the right to bear arms -- defined as private personal ownership of arms -- does not. There are some practical reasons why it should be allowed, but they don't rise to a level meriting constitutional protection.

Incorrect. Firearms, flints, powder, and shot were commonly found in many colonial homes in 1789.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

Yes it would be a terrible thing for the local democratically elected representatives to pass laws that a majority of their constituents desire.

Tell that to Rosa Parks.

[JoelUpchurch]

I think everyone should read this article

The Embarrassing Second Amendment by Sanford Levinson
http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

Of course the article needs some updating to cover McDonald v. Chicago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Tell that to Rosa Parks.

I don't have to. People already did.

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

I don't have to. People already did.

"Get to the back of the bus," they said.

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

"Get to the back of the bus," they said.

Yeah and she said wow you people are a bunch of stupid bigots, lets shine a spotlight on this and let the whole country see what you're doing.



I hardly think gun rights are equivalent to civil rights.

Yelling 'help help I'm being repressed' is even more comical when you're the one waving a gun around.

[adaher]

Gun rights are part of civil rights. That was one of the ways that whites in the south used to oppress blacks, was by denying them the right to own guns.

Guns are an equalizer between weak and strong. Making it hard for the weak to protect themselves is actually a civil rights issue, at least until you can figure out a way to get police to a site within 10 seconds of a person being in danger.

To quote the hit Dixie Chicks song, "Goodbye Earl", "Earl walked right through that restraining order and put her in intensive care."

Of course, as the song says, poison is a great equalizer as well, but if you poison a guy you're less likely to be able to plead self-defense.

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

I hardly think gun rights are equivalent to civil rights.

Oakminster's point was that federally-upheld rights trumped "local democratically elected representatives [and] laws that a majority of their constituents desire."

In that sense, they are very much alike.