The right to bear arms is a natural one (part of the right to self-defense, if not the defense of loved ones) and thus does not require approval from the government. However, the need to defend one’s country is not part of natural rights, which is why the Second was written. It uses the right to bear arms as part of self-defense to justify the need to bear arms to defend one’s country.
Since there were already militias present, and since the army was still small, regulated militias were necessary. I think the definition is seen in Art. 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution and the Militia Acts.
Given that, it is likely that the Second was replaced by the last Militia Act, the formation of the National Guard, and the removal of conscription.
Finally, natural rights may be abridged by law, which explains the presence of gun control.
Hardly. Whether you care to buy it or not, that definition is well documented.
Fanciful thinking? No, straightforward reading.
The National Guard is essentially a branch of the U.S. Army. It’s not the same thing as the militia.
Gosh, the Supreme Court must have gotten it all wrong. Please contact them right away and instruct them that you know its true meaning. Let them know you can set them straight about “well regulated” and “militia” as well.
Subject to rules and regulation. I am fairly sure the 2nd was not aimed at individuals, but rather communities. That communities had the right to maintain there own little armies, as long as things stayed proper and orderly. And these little armies could defend the community from red coats, crazed natives, or a higher level of government run amuck.
And it is easily argued that these local militias have morphed into our local police departments. So there is no individual right to bare arms. The Feds just cannot prohibit entire communities from the right to self defense.
But…our community militias (the police) have somehow morphed into paramilitary organizations that care for nothing but statistics. How many citations did we write? How many felonies? How many did we throw in jail? How much money confiscated?
So, the second amendment gave the right to have armed militias to protect us from the government (among other things). But now the militias are the government…(I have been reading ‘Under the Dome’ …some police departments are great, but others…) So what now?
As stated previously, I am all for banning handguns. They are mostly useless except for murdering people. But long guns? Including ‘assault rifles’. It is good for the people to have at least some means of resistance.
So then the 1st Amendment should only apply to actual printing presses?
The things a militia man might have carried at the time were the most advanced weapons of the day. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t talk about the right to wield swords and muzzle-loaders, rather it was wisely written with a broad term that would naturally adapt to changing technology.
I think it’s safe to say that all of the U.S. constitution, including the first 10 amendments, has been extensively hashed out by various legislators, lawmen, executives, and courts with sometimes very different interpretations. This isn’t at all unique to the 2nd amendment.
davidm and I are not the ones who brought 18th century definitions into this argument. You were. I was pointing out it was illogical to do so. You want to use the 18th century definition of well-regulated, an now apparently “speech” or “press”. All I said was to be consistent you must then use the 18th century definition of arms.
I’m not advocating the use of any of those definitions.
But let me ask you a question. Do you believe an ordinary citizen should be allowed to own and carry a shoulder fired missile? That is among the most advanced weaponry a soldier can carry today I’d think.
Now you’re being ridiculous. That only applied to a term that has fallen out of favor and thus is easily misunderstood by those who who have no clue what it meant when it was written.
It’s the same as the 21st century definition: weapons.
Modern weapons are no more excluded from constitutional protections than modern communications media.
I agree, but this whole debate about the ins and outs of militia service and what “well-regulated” means is simply missing the point. The right of “the people” to keep and bear arms is not conditioned on membership in the militia, well-regulated or otherwise. The militia clause is simple prefatory or explanatory as to why personal keeping and bearing arms shall not be infringed.
There is no restrictive language in the amendment that only militia members can keep and bear arms. The right remains no matter what type of militia, or even if there was no militia today.
How about Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist #29 (where, incidentally, he consistently uses the word “militia” in a context that makes it clear that he’s referring to the populace at large):
Why did the practice of mustering the militia become moribund? Because other than a “select” militia of the usual volunteers, the states didn’t want to train the populace at large, and the citizenry didn’t want to be bothered with it. A modern version of the mustering requirement might be requiring all gun owners to take gun classes and marksmanship tests.
A modern rendition of the Second Amendment might say “the right to own and carry weapons”. Or are you claiming that the meaning of the amendment changes as the most common definitions of the words change??
P.S., I posted this response recently in another thread asking much the same question as this OP.
With all due respect, if “militias” was immaterial, why was it put in the amendment?
“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.”
If I were to claim that the second amendment really was “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” you’d be WTF?
Help me out here. I’m not busting balls, but it really doesn’t appear to be as clear cut as “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Otherwise the second amendment would have not included the first two parts…
I don’t pretend to know what the drafters were thinking way back in the late 1700’s, but this was clearly the worst worded of the first 10 amendments. Read for yourself here: US Constitution--Bill of Rights--The First Ten Amendments
Common sense would say that if it was written into an amendment, there was a reason for it. Sure, maybe language and writing styles have changed, but the other amendments seem to me to be fairly straightforward and didn’t contain any “preamble” or “extraneous” bits that could be conveniently ignored. Yet for the second, somehow in the minds of some is simply “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Myself, I don’t see that as being logical.
And Terr, this is absolutely not directed at you, but I have had this discussion on SDMB and in real life where completely uneducated and ungrammatical folks suddenly turn into grammer Nazi’s debating the second, and then dragging in the whole “comma” controversy to grammatically “prove” their point that what the framer’s really meant was “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” despite what actually was written down and ratified.
I was simply pointing out to you that, contrary to your example, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” cannot possibly be the whole of it, since it is not a sentence. So if you claimed (as you posted in the hypothetical) that that is the Second Amendment, it would be immediately obvious that it wasn’t.
But “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” is a sentence.
If it was re-worded (IMO without changing its meaning) to: “Since a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” - the meaning would be clearer (I think) but the arguments about the “original meaning of militia” and “what is well-regulated?” etc. would still go on - although, IMO, would be completely irrelevant, since the explanation why it should not be infringed does not modify the fact that it shouldn’t be.
it depends on the explanation, doesn’t it? One could reasonably argue that if the purpose of the right no longer exists, then the right no longer exists.
If we had the right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves from wolves, then the lack of wolves might suggest no more need for arms.
I find American obsession with the Second Commandment too fascinating to discuss anywhere except in BBQ PIt, but I do wonder…
How widespread is the belief that restrictions on silencers should be removed?
I do agree with Stealth Potato that intrusions against other rights is very extensive – so extensive as to make focus on the Second even more bewildering.
I don’t see how under any construction this would be true. Suppose the amendment said, “Protection from wolves, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The affirmative part of the statement is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You would be giving it a meaning that is not ascribed to it like there was an asterisk at the end (*However, the people shall keep and bear arms only when in danger of wolf attack). Perhaps the lack of wolf attacks would be a good argument for repeal of the amendment in Congress, but one can’t write away a positive grant of rights on the grounds that technology has made those rights seem obsolete.
Could we ban pens and paper on the grounds that a person may publish and communicate their ideas on a blog?
Also, as SCOTUS correctly recognized, the right of self-defense is one that the people had at common law and predates the second amendment.
I find it amazing that a source of a positive grant of rights in the middle of the 1st, 4th, and 5th would be so easily discarded by free people.
However I disagree with the assertion that the other amendments are infringed on to a greater extent. Yes, we can argue about the limits of free speech and search and seizure and disagree to the level the government has intruded on it. However it pales in comparison to what some cities and states have done to guns.
The plain text says I may both keep and bear arms but in many places I need government permission to keep handguns in my home, and the government has a de facto ban on carrying guns when I go about my business. That is an astounding infringement.
Imagine that in a first amendment context. You may criticize Speaker Boehner in your own home with government permission, but you may not do it in public.
Or, your home may be free from random searches with a “No Search” permit issued by the government, but you can be searched at all times outside the home.
That would be the analogy to how the second amendment has been eviscerated.
We still need arms- the existence of armed police and soldiers bears testimony to that. As given by precedents in English history and law, and by the debate over the ratification of the Constitution, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent a government monopoly on weapons. That hasn’t changed.
I am a law abiding citizen. If an officer, or a group of officers, knocks on my door and wants to search my house I’m ok with that.
If someone combat breaches my house, as a law abiding citizen, I will respond in kind. Just because people yell ‘police police’ doesn’t give them the right to put me and those I care about at risk.
We are truly screwed. The populace needs a way to keep the government in check (aside from voting; which is another issue).
The government provides armored vehicles/combat weapons to police officers.
What is a citizen to do to be safe from that?