# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/41 "2012-07-26T22:52:13Z")
> [@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. ---
**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, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/42 "2012-07-26T22:57:06Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/43 "2012-07-26T23:03:10Z")
> [@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. ---
**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, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/44 "2012-07-26T23:13:50Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/45 "2012-07-26T23:21:25Z")
I think everyone should read this article **The Embarrassing Second Amendment by Sanford Levinson** [http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm](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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago) ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/46 "2012-07-27T00:50:04Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Tell that to Rosa Parks. I don’t have to. People already did. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/47 "2012-07-27T01:06:39Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > > [@Oakminster](#): > > > > > [@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. > > I don’t have to. People already did. “Get to the back of the bus,” they said. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/48 "2012-07-27T01:17:24Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/49 "2012-07-27T01:19:39Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/50 "2012-07-27T01:23:11Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/51 "2012-07-27T01:28:47Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > **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. No **Oakminste** r’s point was that if the federal laws didn’t exist people might make decisions he personally found terrible. I don’t think anyone is really arguing federal law doesn’t trump local laws. The debate is about the federal law. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/52 "2012-07-27T02:07:26Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > No **Oakminste** r’s point was that if the federal laws didn’t exist people might make decisions he personally found terrible. > > I don’t think anyone is really arguing federal law doesn’t trump local laws. > > The debate is about the federal law. No, **Peremensoe** accurately restated my point. Your post seemed to suggest that locally elected officials enacting laws a majority of their constituents desire was always a good thing. History proves that premise is false. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/53 "2012-07-27T02:23:57Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > No, **Peremensoe** accurately restated my point. Your post seemed to suggest that locally elected officials enacting laws a majority of their constituents desire was always a good thing. History proves that premise is false. Funny this is what you said. [QUOTE=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 [/QUOTE] I guess I really missed the point because I said terrible instead of horrible. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/54 "2012-07-27T02:30:01Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Funny this is what you said. > > I guess I really missed the point because I said terrible instead of horrible. That was in reply to **Brainglutton.** The Rosa Parks bit was the reply to you, and contains the point illustrated above. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/55 "2012-07-27T02:54:08Z")
> [@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. It might have its downsides. But it would not be a threat to American liberty, nor security. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/56 "2012-07-27T03:17:37Z")
I’ve never figured out what counts as fulfilling an imperative with a justification attached if the justification is false. If my boss tells me “Since we have a hundred customers today, you need to cook more steaks,” but my boss was misinformed, am I disobeying his order if I don’t cook more steaks? Arguably not, since his order came with a justification which seems to presuppose a _condition_. Since the condition is not fulfilled, the order does not apply, so by not cooking the steaks, I don’t disobey. By that reasoning, we would not be breaking the second amendment if we made a law that says no one may own a firearm… ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/57 "2012-07-27T03:22:44Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But it remains a Bad Idea. In your opinion. As this has been done to death, I have nothing fresh to bring to this. Then again, neither do you. The sides are well-known, the positions have long since been staked out, where’s the debate? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/58 "2012-07-27T03:33:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It might have its downsides. But it would not be a threat to American liberty, nor security. Sure it would. I would be less free under a country foolish enough to enact a gun ban, and my home would be less secure. You will likely respond with something about how you are looking at a bigger picture, that America would be no more likely to be invaded by foreign powers, etc. I’d counter by asserting individual liberty is a precious thing. Being free to bear arms is a significant part of my personal freedom. A government that would deprive me of that right might also deny my right to speak freely, publish as I will, peacefully assemble, suffer no state religion nor be prevented from practicing one or more of my choosing, avoid self-incrimination, etc. A government should not have that power, and ours does not. If you put the 2nd Amendment on the chopping block, why not the 1st? 4th? 5th? 6th? For that matter, why not call a Constitutional Convention and start over? I am confident you would not like the result any more than I would (though likely for very different reasons). I do not believe the current Bill of Rights (as interpreted by caselaw) would obtain a super-majority in the current political climate. Even something as basic as the Establishment Clause would have significant opposition. I think there would be a non-zero chance of another Civil War, followed by a theocracy. Government power should be strictly limited, and maximum liberty preserved for the citizens. Personal liberties should not be surrendered to Government absent compelling need. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/59 "2012-07-27T03:44:00Z")
> [@](#): > > But, a well-regulated Militia is NOT necessary to the security of a free State It’s not today…but it was when that Amendment was written. If you want to remove that part from the Amendment I don’t think anyone would object (though today, ‘militia’ roughly equals National Guard and Reserves, which are still quite important). > [@](#): > > 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? Again, it was when it was written. We did have a regular army, but the founders didn’t trust regular armies much, considering the rather negative view they had of the British military at the time. They relied quite heavily on militia both during the revolution and after…and you needed that militia to be ‘well regulated’, i.e. under control and duly constituted. In the early days…yeah, it was ‘necessary to the security of a free State’. > [@](#): > > There are countries all around the world that manage to have both freedom and security without any such thing. Today there are. But when that Amendment was written there were no crystal balls about what the future would hold…AND the whole democracy thingy was in serious doubt as to whether it would be able to survive, thrive and keep to it’s core beliefs, especially without armed citizen soldiers that were ‘well regulated’ and able to protect and defend the republic. > [@](#): > > 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. Next time you are in a major disaster area, remind yourself how unnecessary the National Guard is. 😉 > [@](#): > > Our Founding Fathers were wrong about some things, and this is apparently one of them. Well, that’s your assertion anyway. Even if it’s true today, so what? It’s far from certain that in the early days of the republic that it would have survived without a well-regulated militia, or that it’s security would have been ensured without one. But, you know, if it bothers you now, 200+ years later, feel free to take that part out of the Amendment, and just leave in the actual intent part…i.e. the right to keep and bear arms. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-a-well-regulated-militia-is-not-necessary-to-the-security-of-a-free-state/629472/60 "2012-07-27T04:15:00Z")
**XT** , the point is, the “actual intent” part you mention is _predicated_ on the necessity of the militia. If the militia’s no longer necessary, the status of the “actual intent” part is unclear. If it’s predicated on a falsehood, it is arguably null and void. [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=2) [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=4)