Why do some people have a problem with the first phrase of the amendment, but think the last phrase is the bees knees?
This sounds more like a GD topic, but here is the Great Master Cecil’s take on the Second Amendment. I generally agree with him of course.
I agree with Cecil that a new amendment is called for to clarify what is meant by the right to bear arms. In my opinion the Second Amendment as written refers to a militia, not to all citizens. If they meant all citizens, as careful of language as the framers were, they would have cut the reference to a Militia.
Before the first ten amendments were made, Article I of the Constitution defined the government’s right to raise armies and navies and defined militia, as it seems to me, separately from those, even to the extent of delegating selection of officers, equipping, disciplining and training militias to the states. Hence the term “well regulated.”
Italics and underlining mine: DG
This has been argued endlessly, of course, and it isn’t likely to be settled until Congress gets down to business and creates a new amendment. Of course they may be too busy in the near future with more important stuff like defining marriage. :rolleyes:
Moving this to Great Debates.
10 Ammendments essentially about citizen freedoms from the government and the 2nd one is actually about the government and not citizens. Not only are anti-Second Ammendment types some of the most pro-tyranny and anti-freedom zealots that one can find. But pretty dumb as well.
I will repeat here what I have written in other threads.
Each state should reconstitute its official militia. The National Guard is disbanded as an admisitrative body, and control of it is given to the states.
Those who wish to own a gun the state would have to sign an affadavit acknowledging the increased responsibility to society which with gun ownership endows them, and pledge to show up at least once during each month for militia training. anyone who displays a pattern of not attending has a choice of showing up, or landing in jail under suspicion of intending to use a weapon against the interests of the state.
Why would this be palatable? Think of it this way: How often could there be an emergency in which the Militia is called up? Most of the time, it’s basically just another gun club with the occasional line drill. Only now, since the US gummint needs to be able to rely on these guys during the occasional emergency, they’ll need/get to be given training on a variety of high-end US Army weaponry.
To me, it looks like a win-win situation. The lefties get real regulation of firearms, and the righties get a state-tax-supported gun club on steroids, plus the public’s opinion of them as Defenders of the State Sovereignty rather than a bunch of gun-totin’ yahoos.
Still, I have yet to get any takers on this.
This is Great Debates, not Great Ridiculous Statements Pulled From Various Bodily Cavities. 
OTOH, the Ammendment specifically says “the people”. As careful of language as the framers were, would they have intended “the people” to have a different definition from that used in other Ammendments that mention them?
The problem I see with your proposal, scotandrsn, is that while local service is the main function of militia it is not the only one. Traditionally the militia has also served as a pool of trained personnel to fill the ranks on short notice. In order for this to occur the reserves must follow similar training regimens because differences can have unexpected consequences. In the book I am reading now ( Fred Anderson’s The Crucible of War ) the French commander reenforced his regulars by ordering militia into the ranks. The Canadian militia unlike the regulars they were fighting beside were trained in woodland warfare but not open battle which left the French little chance of winning the fabled Battle of Montréal. Unit cohesion was lost as soon as the order to advance was given. Regulars started marching towards the Anglo-Americans under Wolfe while the militia broke into a run. Nor did the reserves have the training to stand their ground and reload in ranks so even if Montcalm had held his ground his army would have fallen apart after the first volley.
It seems to me that we need a national militia for at least one reason if no other: to provide soldiers with the proper training to reenforce the regulars on short notice. I do think your plan can work in conjunction with the National Guard. We already have the State Guards. I see no reason they can’t be modified to include all would-be gun owners.
The Bill Of Rights was originally intended only to apply to the Federal Government. The 14th amendment later on was interpreted as incorporating most of the Bill of Rights with regards to State action as well.
In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal Government. They may not prohibit a State from having a militia. The very purpose of the amendment was explained in the first part of it. A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State. Not a bunch of unorganized rednecks running around with guns.
Touché. That’s why a clarification (as in “new amendment”) might be a good idea. The framers may well have thought it proper for citizens to own firearms, including handguns. But they could not have forseen the multi-shot, rapid-fire handguns of the 21st century. Someone carrying even a brace of flintlock pistols couldn’t, even with malicious intent, do as much damage as a teenager with a Tech-Nine semiautomatic pistol. I’m thinking here of Columbine. Can we agree that the right to self-protection might not include the ability to make war individually?
My problem with the Second Amendment is that pesky initial phrase. It seems to me this is an important enough issue (not to say divisive enough issue) for first Congress and then the state legislatures to address it again in 21st century terms. I will abide by whatever they decide.
Regulation, as in militia, seems to me key. In Switzerland there is both regulation and personal possession of even military style arms as I understand it. But in Switzerland the entire male (I know, I know) populace is a well-regulated militia. Swiss males are required to join the military at age 18, and they remain members of their “militia” thereafter, with periodic training. The majority of Americans receive no military training at all, and even those who have served, unless they are in the reserves, receive no continuing training once their hitch is up.
I would like to see, at a minimum, a law which requires all purchasers of firearms to show that they have had an approved course in their use and safety. What we have now, even with registration, is millions of gun owners who may or may not know what the hell they are doing. It’s like allowing people to drive cars without requiring them to learn the basics of handling and the rules of the road.
What they knew about were weapons that could overthrow government powers at the time. While I don’t think they would be so friendly about cannons or rocket launchers, I’m sure they were well aware of common possession of weapons that would enable revolt. Foresight, schmoresight 
I can agree that even an automatic pistol is not able to make an army of one, no matter what the Army commercials might have you believe.
I think the second amendment is tricky. But the most important context is that the constitution limits the government’s power or otherwise explicitly defines it; that is the general purpose of the consitution, that the people (and states) have powers that the government must be given. It would be very strange to think that they intended to give the federal government the power to remove guns from law-abiding citizens. But beyond that… we should all be able to agree that a clearer amendment is totally necessary and politically unfeasable. 
This is an excellent idea. Have any states put this into effect, do you know?
As far as I know, registration has been the default position in every state. Can someone verify that, or cite a law requiring training in another state than California? It seems that most states would rather regulate, register or forbid (as in drugs) than to educate, even though in the long run education would work better and probably cost less.
The problem with this is that the stated reasoning is absurd on its face. A well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state. A well-regulated army is necessary, an honest and well-disciplined police force is necessary, but a militia is not necessary. What ever made anybody think it was?
I’m not clear what you’re driving at, BrainGlutton. Merriam-Webster’s 1 seems to be pretty clear on the issue. What distinction are you trying to make, exactly, that is supposedly obvious in the text?
BG– Perhaps what the Framers called “militia” is basically what we call “police” today. They are citizens (civilians), they bear arms, they enforce the peace, and they are not controlled by the Federal government.
Could the second amendment simply be a declaration that the Feds can’t interfere with civilian police forces that are armed?
A militia is necessary for several reasons.
The army can be an instrument of the state. As such, it is subject to abuses by the state aginst the people. Such abuses would definately count as violations of a people’s and thereby the country’s security. A militia can be an effective check on such abuses.
A police force has some of the same problems, but I don’t think this entered into the thinking at the time the ammendment was written. The Constitution was originally envisioned as applying only to the Federal Government, and there was no intention to create a national police force.
Police and Armies have the drawback that they cannot be everywhere at once. Expecially in times of national emergency (although admitadly more so before transportation technologies imporved) police and armies can find themselves badly outmanned in particular areas. A militia made up of every able bodied male does not suffer from this problem. Militia’s therefor can be necessary to fill in for the army or police in an emergency.
Some of these conditions no longer apply. But the main principle that armies can be dangerous to their own people, and that police cannot be everywhere, still do apply. It is certainly arguable, as scotandrsn seems to do, that only those willing to submit to state controlled activities should be members of the militia and therefore only they should carry guns. The thinking at the time, was that to enforce a state run training regimine on the whole population was too much intrusion. It was therefore a comprimise between enforced participation in a national (or individual state) army and no defence at all, that lead to the principle that all citizens should have the right to own and bear arms.
That’s my point. However you define militia, it is a useful thing to have but not something we strictly need to safeguard “the security of a free State.” We need the regular Army, we need the police, but we don’t need the militia.
No it can’t, pervert, not unless the militia is ready to rise and face the Army in open revolt – a solution worse than the problem under practically all conceivable circumstances, and under most circumstances no solution at all. The Army will always win.
Uhm, I’m not exactly sure I take your point. The militia you so derisively speak of did in fact beat the army in the Revolutionary war and the War of 1812. Many here think that the Iraqis are doing a fine job of waging war against our own mighty army right now. I’m not sure how you come to the conclusion that “The Army will always win”. They will always have an advantage, surely. But they will always win in every situatio imaginable? Are you sure?