# But, a well-regulated Militia is NOT necessary to the security of a free State **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 26, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472 "2012-07-26T17:37:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/21 "2012-07-26T21:38:18Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/22 "2012-07-26T21:43:05Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/23 "2012-07-26T21:46:56Z")
> [@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. > [@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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/24 "2012-07-26T21:49:14Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > I fail to see any coloration between gun ownership and resistance to authoritative rule. > > [Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country) I think you meant “correlation.” ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/25 "2012-07-26T21:50:56Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/26 "2012-07-26T21:53:50Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/27 "2012-07-26T21:55:54Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/28 "2012-07-26T22:00:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I think you meant “correlation.” I might have. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/29 "2012-07-26T22:01:50Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/30 "2012-07-26T22:06:13Z")
> [@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 ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/31 "2012-07-26T22:06:28Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/32 "2012-07-26T22:07:30Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/33 "2012-07-26T22:08:35Z")
> [@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? ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/34 "2012-07-26T22:10:22Z")
> [@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? ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/35 "2012-07-26T22:15:45Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/36 "2012-07-26T22:17:01Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/37 "2012-07-26T22:24:13Z")
> [@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? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/38 "2012-07-26T22:25:50Z")
Nevermind ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/39 "2012-07-26T22:28:47Z")
> [@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? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/40 "2012-07-26T22:34:15Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472.md?page=3)