First, sorry for having taken so long to get back. I wasn’t skulking trying to work out my revenge on gun owners; my ISP fucked up my internet connection for a few days and i couldn’t get onto the web.
To Demise
I checked out those FBI statistics, and they do indeed show a decrease in crime. I also agree with you 100% that economic circumstances are crucially important in addressing such issues. I would still argue, however, based on international statistics (check out the government and law enforcement web pages of any of the countries i mentioned in the previous posts) that for any given set of economic and social circumstances, the number of people killed will be a reflection of the number of guns owned by the population.
Another problem i have had in the past (and i want to stress that i don’t accuse anyone on this thread of doing this) is that so many of those with whom i have debated the gun issue have also shown an unwillingness to concede the economic motives behind crime, and been even less willing to countenance the sort of societal changes that would help redistribute some of the wealth of society and hence maybe reduce crime. It seems to me that another freedom that modern society gives people is the freedom to starve, and some people are quite happy for that to continue.
But even if i am right about gun and death statistics, or about crime and economics, and even if you and others concede that i am, it’s not going to solve the issue, because there is so much personal investment in this argument. If the statistics were 100 times more in favour of my argument i still wouldn’t change your mind, would i? And i’m not saying that this makes you stupid or irrational, because if you showed me figures equally in favour of your argument, there’s a good chance you wouldn’t change my mind on the issue either.
In one sense, xenophon41 is right when he accuses me of social pragmatism. But i think that he misrepresents this position if he thinks that this distingishes itself totally from social idealism. Anyone who has read the work of the father of pragmatism, William James, will know that his was an idealistic position. And when i argue for tighter gun control on the assumption that fewer people will end up dead, then surely even if you disagree with my reasoning or my argument, you must at least concede that this desire is motivated by “social idealism”. Idealism comes in more than one form.
Xenophon41 also made reference to the importance of weaponry to a free people, and this is, i think, where i take most exception to the issue. Not because of what it assumes about America, but what it assumes about everywhere else. Definitions of freedom differ for different people, and i’m sure you would find very few people in Australia or Canada or England who consider themselves less free than Americans, despite the tight gun controls in those countries.
I’m not denying the manner in which guns might symbolize freedom for people on this thread, or in the US more generally (although i would be interested to see what % of Americans actually takes this view), only suggesting that not all “free” people feel the same need for them. Surely any “social idealism” should take that into account also, both nationally and internationally.
This is a misreading of my post, which only sought to point out to a previous critic that just because an argument is old doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
I’ve decided not to add any more right here, because looking back at Beeblebrox’s OP, i see that he specifically wanted a debate which would not deal with the constitutionality of the Supreme Court’s (in my opinion erroneous) interpretation of the Second. If you accept this a priori condition and are willing to debate based on that, then many of the posts made on this thread have valid arguments. I’m not willing to assume it as a given, so i’ll leave you alone now.
I couldn’t agree more. Having recently debated this issue from a different angle however, I was made aware of the possibility that the right to bear arms is an extension of a basic human right to protect your rights, and despite my personal antipathy towards firearms I have to concede that there is some merit to a right to guarantee your rights through resistance. Resistance is, after all, how Westerners got their rights in the first place. (Its actually kind of funny how US conservatives base pro-gun arguments in what is essentially a far left concept - armed people’s revolution and resistance)
I am still hopeful that a pro-gun advocate will address my previous post…
I am also an Australian and pretty much agree with Dave Stewart’s post.
I am not widely read on the 2nd Amendment and won’t presume to add my arguments on guns. It tends more to the “thou shalt not have the right to bear arms” side of things.
But I have a question. It seems fairly clear that one of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment was to give citizens the ability to over-throw a tyrannical govenment. The US has just about the most sophisticated armed forces in the world. I wonder at why you would want to limit the type of arms you have the right to bear.
If the goal of this Amendment is to give parity, then surely the right to bear claymores, tanks, triple-A etc is actually desired?
Then you could bring in Dave’s idea of storing the lot of it.
A few people have quoted xenophon and this quote:
Perhaps the original writers did have that in mind when they drafted the document. Perhaps that is why the 2nd Amendment is worded the way it is.
I apologise if I am repeating a stupid argument. I have not read any of the previous gun control threads yet, though I am headed there next. Nor do I presume to know much about the American Consititution. But I was curious about this part of the debate.
Another thing puzzles me. mhendo took a beating on his original post. I looked at it, laughed and moved on. I don’t know if it was intended that way, but I gotta say you are all a very serious bunch here.
I believe the types of arms the 2nd Amendment refers too are the type that an infantryman might carry. In other words, Assault rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Although I believe potential purchasers of assault rifles, because of thier full auto capability, should have a background check done. But of course, thats the law already. Members of the militia should have weapons roughly equal to the members of the military which they may have to face one day.
Also, on a side note. How many commas does the second amendment have? I’ve seen it with 1,2,3,and 4 commas. It would tend to change the definition depending on the number of commas used.
Well, i said i was going to leave you alone on this thread, but evidently i lied. But at least this time i’m here to directly address the issue that was brought up in the OP.
I have to agree with Dave Stewart on this, Gene - how do you know that such weapons are what the amendment was referring to? Beeblebrox has already declared that he doubted that the founding fathers would have batted an eyelid at people owning cannons, and i don’t know what formed the basis for that opinion.
It seems there are two possible debates here:
(a) What did the 2nd actually mean by “arms”? This, presumably, would be an argument for strict Constitutional constructionists who believe that the the only way to determine what is right today is to work out what they meant back then.
(b) If we concede that the whole issue needs sorting out in terms of the present situation, then what arms should and should not be covered under the “right to bear arms” rubric?
Beeblebrox’s OP reference to the advancement of weapons technology leads me to believe he is concerned with part (b) more than part (a). I’m not saying that (a) is not worth looking at, it just seems that the two are essentially different and largely unreconcilable as a framework for debate on this issue.
Also, Gene, while i definitely agree with you about background checks, i don’t recall the 2nd mentioning those either. Nor did the amendment differentiate between arms that required some sort of check and those that didn’t. And if it was about having the type of arms that the military might have, then why not tanks, rocket launchers, grenades, F18s, or nuclear bombs?
But on the other hand, why not look at the definiton of the word “arms”. All definitions in the complete Oxford English Dictionary suggest that the term refers essentially to weapons that can be carried and used by one person, which would rule out stuff like planes and nuclear weapons. But what about rocket launchers, or grenades?
A relevant section of the OED reads:
And an example of usage from a period not long after the American Revolution says:
Now i know this Trusler guy was probably English, but even if America had thrown off the shackles of colonial rule in the late eighteenth century, the language used there was still derived almost emtirely from English usage.
So does this solve the problem of Beebelbrox’s? Propbably not, but it seems to me to be a reasonable way to examine the issue. And it also provides an argument to those who don’t support the idea of neighbours who have a “cache of surface to air missiles or started planting claymores along their property line”.
But there is another line we might take, historically. LinoleumInnocence wrote:
While there was, as Demise and others have pointed out, considerable suspicion of organised goverment in the revolutionary period, much of the language that led to the 2nd was premised on a suspicion of the potential “tyranny” of a standing army. And while a standing army might generally represent a government, they are not exactly the same thing.
Of the states that ratified the Constitution, five demanded a bill of rights, and all five also demanded that the right to bear arms be included in such as bill. Here’s what they said, from this website:
Given the concern that “standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty” that lay behind much of the thinking on the 2nd, why not give people the sort of weapons that would allow them to defend against today’s standing army?
Finally, i’m having a bit of trouble working out how one’s interpretation of the 2nd might change based on where and how many commas there are. I have two books on my shelf that contain the constitution; one has one comma in the 2nd, the other has two, and there seems to be no difference in meaning as a result. Adding others to make three or four would seem to do little but make the sentence read less smoothly.
First, on looking at it again, it seems that the very first sentence of the OED definition that i quoted could mean any “Instruments of offence used in war”. So maybe my argument about definitions suggesting hand-held weapons only needs to be revised.
And Beeblebrox’s OP quoted the 2nd with three commas, but it seems to me that the last one, by most grammatical standards, is awkward at best and completely redundant at worst. I can’t see how removing would do anything except make the sentence sound better.
Yep, that about sums it up. In general, I like the second amendment. However, my take on it is that a strict interpretation allows all weapons, even those of mass destruction. This has engendered some conflicting views and opinions within me.
I didn’t start this thread to express my views on possible controls, but rather to begin a somewhat narrowly defined debate to flesh out my own opinions and hopefully reconcile the contradictions. This is also why I didn’t post yesterday - I had nothing to say.
Allow me to post some related questions, pay special attention to numbers 3 and 4:
1.)How do we protect against tyranny and still maintain public safety? Should we draw a line to ban some weapons and not others?
2.)If we agree that a line needs to be drawn, how do we draw it when any line may conflict with the original intention of the second amendment?
3.)Does anyone know of a case where the second amendment was applied to something other than a firearm?
4.)Is the court system capable of being the sole interpreters of what constitutes “arms” and how the citizens can possess them? (think EMPs and computer viruses)
5.)If no, then what possible wording could we use in new laws or amendments to maintain public safety yet still protect against tyranny?
6.)Does mhendo know that “I”, when used to refer to the first person, should be capitalized? linoleuminnocence, mhendo’s initial post took a lot of flak because it assumed gun ownership = penile inadequancy. It’s mildly offensive and has been offered far too often in terms not meant to be humorous. mhendo’s usage was meant to be humorous, the joke is just old and tiresome.
mhendo, with the exception of your initial post, I have found your comments intelligent and reasonable. I believe you may have further things to add, and I welcome you to stay.
-Beeblebrox
For thousands more years the mighty ships tore across the empty wastes of space and finally dived screaming on to the first planet they came across - which happened to be the Earth - where due to a terrible miscalculation of scale the entire battle fleet was accidentally swallowed by a small dog
I don’t agree with Beeblebrox’ interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which allows for private ownership of weapons of mass destruction. However, I think it’s no wonder that people (particularly those of other nationalities) are so unsure about the 2nd Amendment; there’s quite a bit of valid disagreement about original intent, about its relevance to the nation today, and about the degree to which it mitigates government restrictions on ownership, transfer and distribution of firearms. Since this last point is the focus of the OP, and since it really bears on Beeblebrox’ latest round of questions, perhaps a discussion regarding original intent and present relevance would serve to illuminate the debate regarding limitations.
Original intent
Capitalization and punctuation in the above quote appear precisely as they were originally written. Comma placement throughout that document (url=“http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/constitution.html”]US Constitution) seems to have been fairly idiosyncratic, but we can take a legitimate stab at the intended meaning in this sentence. It seems to me that the Congress intended to differentiate between the clauses “well regulated Militia” and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”.
The separation of these clauses seems (at least to me) to imply that both concepts enjoy protection; that is, Congress felt very strongly that the presence of civilian militia groups was key to the security of an independent and self-determined popular state, and that therefore (by reasoning I’ll explain below) individual citizens must have the right to keep arms which they could carry into service. If we reconstruct the sentence into a modern format, it might read: Because the security of a free state necessitates the existence of a well regulated militia, neither this nor the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed.
The importance of militias to the security of a free state can only be understood in the historical context. Civilian militias, in colonial and revolutionary America, were not fully equipped battle corps. They were ad hoc paramilitary assemblies organized to address particular exigencies facing the discrete political districts of the time. Their utility was more along the lines of exerting states’ control over their own interests, rather than a protection against tyranny (which seems to be a red herring introduced by gun rights absolutists based on their reading of revolutionary rhetoric rather than constitutional language).
Individual members of such militias typically supplied their own muskets or small arms and shared powder and shot; larger military ordinance (cannon and mortar) were within the purview of armies organized by the larger colonial (or later the state and federal) governments. Thus, it was clearly understood that these militias were locally organized and individually equipped, and that their interests were independent of any national military interests. By the time of the Revolutionary War, these militias had for over fifty years represented their districts in service on various contingent bases as England, France and native Indian nations pursued power struggles throughout the northern and eastern parts of the continent.
Much discussion has taken place in this forum regarding the importance of the words “well regulated”. Many posters have argued in past threads that this phrase permits national or state regulation of firearms, and restrictions on their use and capabilities. Other posters have countered that the phrase merely modifies the term “militia” and therefore cannot be applied to individual rights. While I believe that restrictions on private arms are indeed necessary on a national level, I think there’s been much more meaning read into “well regulated” by my liberal compatriots than was originally intended.
As I understand it, the term refers to the regularity of members and equipment necessary for the proper functioning of a militia. The wording is meant to convey that militias have minimum standards of individual effectiveness in order to be effective military units. The arms employed by militia members were almost universally privately owned rather than issued equipment, thus the Congress’ concern for the protection of private ownership of arms. Relevance today
While the importance and effectiveness of civilian militias to states interests is quite arguably a thing of the past, the “right of the people” is still a vital concern. I’m led to believe, by various attorneys who’ve posted to these gun debates, that US case law and Supreme Court decisions support the proposition that the right to “keep and bear arms” is an individual right. In light of this interpretation, which really is almost a consenus among legal authorities, we can disregard the singular question “Do US citizens have the right to bear arms?”, and move to the critical questions of a) what do we mean by “arms” and b) what constitutes infringement of the right to bear them.
Outside of the context of a civilian militia, it’s unclear what guiding purpose is served by the right to keep and bear arms. We must take as a contextual basis the overall “spirit” or intent of the Bill of Rights, and of the Constitution itself.
The preamble to the Constitution claims as the purposes of the document the formation of a “more perfect” union of states, the establishment of justice and insurance of peace, the provision for common defense, promotion of general welfare and the security of continued liberty. The language of the first 10 (Bill of Rights) amendments is unremittingly forceful in stressing the freedoms of the citizenry to express their will, to practice their beliefs and to be secure in their persons and belongings. We are left with no doubt that an American citizen is to be allowed by the government to peaceably participate in governance, to conduct their own lawful affairs without interference from the government and to assure their own security and the security of their property.
The 10th Amendment specifies that any powers not delegated to the federal government or prohibited to state governments, are reserved to the individul states, or “to the people” themselves, while the 9th Amendment protects nonspecific rights “retained” by the people. I believe the right to self defense is among those rights, and that those “arms” which can reasonably be termed weapons of self defense are therefore protected by the 2nd Amendment.
While the protection of individual property from attack by unlawful elements (of “unreasonable” search and seizure by the government) is mentioned repeatedly, this is specifically listed as a responsibility of Congress, empowered in Article 1, Section 8 to provide for such defense. I think we can assume that “arms” necessary for the support of military efforts are not those which the people shall “keep and bear” without infringement.
What is unclear, and what seems to face continual redefinition by the courts, is the “infringement” issue, which hinges on the concept of what is a “reasonable” weapon. I think it’s critical that the “reasonable” standard remain open to reinterpretation by the courts. This is the way our system is set up to deal with the specific application of civil rights; too much specificity in the constitutional wording would also tend to narrow the scope of protection and restrict the adaptability of the country.
Excellent post xeno. You have proved, to me at least, that you have a good understanding of the 2nd Amendment, and I respect the research you have put into the subject.
Here is a link to an excellent essay about the 2nd Amendment. The site it is on is decidedly pro-gun, but the essay itself originated elsewhere.
I think the 2nd refers to individually wielded weapons. When the 2nd Amendment was drafted, there could not have been any reasonable expectation that the militia would have access to such things as cannons. Remember, the militia had to provide their own weapons. Distinctly military ordinance would not be covered by the 2nd, such as caissons, cannons, etc., and by extension, today’s tanks, jets, nukes, and so on.
Personally, my interest in the 2nd Amendment mostly lies in the fact that it serves to protect my right to own a firearm to use to defend myself. I somehow doubt that I’ll have to help overthrow tyranny, though I suppose it is theoretically possible. I own a handgun so that I may defend myself in the manner most likely to preserve my life. It is “…immoral to deny people the means to defend themselves with the same tools that people who might pose a threat to them will likely be wielding.”
[sub]Thanks to pldennison for that last quote.[/sub]
1.) The terms used in this question are so slippery and subjective that i’m not sure you can say where protecting against tyranny starts or where maintaining public safety ends. For example, even those with whom i was debating the issue of gun fatalities earlier seemed ready to concede that the US has many more gun deaths than countries with similar democratic political systems. Given that this is the case, what i’m interested in (and this also is going to involve highly individual assessments) is exactly how high gun death figures (from any and all causes - accident, murder, self-defence, suicide) would have to get before you would consider the right to possess arms in itself a threat to public safety?
Note that this argument can’t just be avoided by pointing to declining (or rising, if that were the case) crime statistics. It is a philosophical argument that reflects the issues Beeblebrox was trying to address in starting this thread.
And again, i really have to point out the value of a comparative perspective on this. I don’t see tyranny making its mark very obvious in places like Australia, Canada, UK, Sweden (unless you count that Ikea furniture that you just can’t work out how to assemble), Japan etc. These places are all far from perfect, but their faults don’t seem to me to be engendered by a lack of guns.
And here in the US, how are you going to define tyranny. For example, it seems tyrannical to me that the average worker in 1998 was earning less, adjusted for inflation, than under Richard Nixon in the early 1970s. So does this:
Or what about the fact that in 1980, an average company CEO earned 42 times the pay of an average worker, while by 1998 the CEO was earning 419 times as much. (These figures from this article and this one.)
I’m not trying to turn this into a debate simply about wages (i could have looked at many other issues), only pointing out that tyranny comes in many forms and is defined differently by many people. What i see as tyranny, some others might see as just the cost of doing business. And i haven’t seen the militias storming the gates at Citibank or General Motors or Disney. Or, for that matter, the gates of the government that makes life so easy for these wealthy corporations.
Survey after survey over the past ten years or so shows that anywhere between 50 and 90 percent of Americans (depending on when each survey was done) feel that government is run by the very wealthy in the interests of the very wealthy. Do gun-owners on this thread feel this? And if so, isn’t it the sort of tyranny you should be trying to reverse with a resort to arms? I’m not being facetious here, only pointing out that a constant referral to the intentions and ideas behind the 2nd should lead to asking what the consequences of those intentions might be for gun-owners in the early twentieth century.
And in answer to the final part of that question, you know that my answer about banning some weapons is going to be a resounding “yes”; it’s just that i draw my line in a different place. But again, this is a personal viewpoint that is probably not going to be reconciled through appeals to the 2nd, to statistics, etc.
2.) This goes to the heart of the whole issue, i think. Something that is very rarely brought up by defenders of the 2nd is the idea of repealing the amendment and replacing it with a newer, more specific one. (Although Beeblebrox does open the door for this issue in question 5.) Its not like this would be without historical precedent - the 18th amendment (Prohibition) was repealed by the 21st.
Nor is this an attempt by me to sneak in again with the idea of banning guns altogether (although you know i’d be happy enough about that). Why not agitate for repeal of the second and its replacement with a 28th amendment that brings the whole thing up to date? You could get rid of the ambiguous reference to the “well-regulated militia” and decide exactly what types of weapons would be allowed, and even insert a clause that allowed for new weapons to be included or excluded as they were invented.
Of course, such arguments will not convince the strict constructionists who don’t want to play around with the constitution. But these people also sometimes forget that the 2nd amendment, indeed the whole Bill of Rights, is itself an addition and an alteration to the Constitution as adopted by the original thirteen states. And again, before someone accuses me of opposing free speech, or freedom of religion, or whatever, i’m not saying that at all. I’m just reiterating that the Bill of Rights (like the Constitution itself) is a socially constructed and historically contingent document that should be able to stand revision in light of new circumstances. If you don’t believe that, then you also don’t believe that women should be allowed to vote(19th), or that slavery should have been revoked (13th), or that income tax should be allowed (16th ). They are called “amendments” for a reason - they amend the Constitution in line with changed circumstances.
3.) No, but i’m no expert in case law. And a search of some websites bore no fruit.
4.) Well, given that this whole thread is based on an acceptance of Supreme Court interpretations of the right to bear arms, as stated in Beeblebrox’s original post, the answer would surely be that the courts are the right place for this to be decided. Having stated that you don’t want to address the constitutionality of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 2nd, surely a question addressing who should make decisions about arms opens up this whole can of worms. If we call into question the right of the courts to be “sole interpreters” then mustn’t we question previous court decisions?
But moving beyond that issue, why not use the sort of device that many other countries use in thorny issues like this - a referendum. I’m not sure what provisions there are in the Constitution or federal or state laws for such a thing, but if you really want to get an idea of what American think about the issue, then why not ask them?
The problem you run into here is that there are times when rights and democracy appear to clash with one another rather than reinforce one another. You could run into a situation that John Stuart Mill referred to as the “tyranny of the majority”, where more than half of Americans might say “the hell with it, ban all guns”. I’m not saying this would happen, and i don’t know the statistics on actual support for gun control in America, but if it did happen you would surely be faced with a thorny philosophical issue. Does your belief in your rights take precedence over your belief in democracy and majority rule? (i’ll leave the electoral college out of this, of course )
Mill was opposed to the “tyranny of the majority”, and i can think of many potential cases where, in my humble opinion, the majority could go fuck themselves (but that’s for another thread). But if you do decide that America needs to move beyond the courts, then the next problem you face is where it moves to. Do you bounce the ball back to legislators? Do you ask legal and medical “experts” who, in their articles and essays on the issue, have shown little tendency to agree about the consequences of gun ownership? Do you ask the “masses”, as i suggested above? Do you ask only those who have guns, or only those who don’t, or everybody?
In short, the court system has showed itself contradictory and flawed on the issue of arms, as on many other issues. That’s only natural, as courts are run by people. But it is hard to believe that any other arena of interpretation in this debate would not show itself to be similarly flawed. I have no final solution.
5.) I think my answer to part 1. deals with most of my feelings on this issue. It would have to be a case of wording any laws or amendments not only to define what exactly constitutes arms, but what constitutes tyranny and public safety.
6.) Yes, i’m aware of the convention. But i choose to ignore it for a few reasons in informal situations like this.
(a) It seems to me to deflate one’s self-importance, which can be a good thing.
(b) I’m a slow enough typist already and every keystroke i can avoid makes life easier.
(c) I’m used to working on MS word, which capitalizes it automatically.
(You’ll notice that i still capitalize at the start of sentences).
Now, on to xenophon41.
Whoa!!!
I’m not going to argue with your historical overview regarding the origins and context of the 2nd, even though i disagree with some of it (but not much). And i’m not going to take issue with your interpretation of the present situation, which generally seems fair enough. And as i’ve said a few times, our opinions on many of these issues are ultimately subjective and won’t be resolved by appeals to this fact or that one.
But what i have to take issue with here is your syntactical interpretation. If you really believe that the placement of the commas allows the sentence to be recapitulated as you have in the above quotation, then those commas probably bear the heaviest burden of meaning of any piece of punctuation in the history of the written word.
I realise that you make clear in your post that this is your interpretation, and i’m not accusing you of making that interpretation in bad faith. And some of the websites about the gun issue talk about the fact that the issue of whether the first and the last clause of the sentence are meant to be read together or separately has also been debated in the courts.
But what i find hard to believe, given our knowledge of the time, effort, argument and deliberation that went into formulating the Bill of Rights, is that the authors would not have made it clearer if they really intended the two to be separated. In some of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, there is considerable use of semi-colons, as well as of connective conjuctions such as “and” and “or”, to make the wording clearer. The absence of such in the 2nd leaves open a very strong possibility that the first and last clauses were meant to be read together.
The sentence could thus read: Because the security of a free state necessitates the existence of a well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed.
I’m not saying that my reading necessarily reflects the thinking of the authors of the Bill of Rights any more than your does. But if we look at the sentence from a purely grammatical standpoint, then my interpretation seems to me to involve a much more direct translation that draws fewer inferences.
Any grammarians or linguists out there who can shed light on this semantic issue?
Damn xeno. You’re becoming as long winded as I am.
Great post, though.
Generally Speaking to Y’all:
Let me, as a former U.S. American Military Servicemember, amplify a bit on the distinction between individual weapons and squad/support weapons. The reason these distinctions are necessary pertains to the difference between “arms” and “ordnance”.
Individual weapons in the U.S. Armed Forces tend nowadays towards either the M16 family of rifles (almost universally the A2 variant) or the Colt M9 (Beretta clone 9mm pistol). These weapons are what individual soldiers predominantly carry in the course of their prescribed duties (be they infantry, military police, armor, artillery, supply, admin, medical, etc.)
However, then as now, an occasional need for exceptional firepower was recognized. Thus cannon, mortars and grenades (yes, the Revolutionary war had hand grenades; they were notoriously unreliable, but devastating when they worked) were invented. As technology progressed, grenade launchers, rocket propelled grenades, man portable missile launchers and such were developed.
But it should be noted that these are specialty ordnance, not individual weapons that a soldier would carry upon their person while in the course of their duties. Even artillerymen and missileers carry M-16s, even while operating their heavy ordnance. Armored vehicle crewmen carry pistols (I carried the M-1911 .45) even while operating their tanks.
The FF recognized this, and the “right to keep and bear” never applied to such weapons. They are ordnance of war, not individual weapons.
The basic distinction is that individual weapons can be carried and operated by an individual; ordnance typically requires more than one person to carry and operate. Obviously man-portable grenade, rocket and missile launchers, being recent inventions, begin to blur this distinction, as do some of the light machineguns or heavier automatic rifles.
Tanks, artillery and mortars are right out, though.
Admittedly, as technology progresses, the line between the two may become more blurred, and an occasional re-evaluation of what constitutes apropriate level of civilian armament will be in order.
So ascribing the right to keep and bear nuclear/biological/chemical weapons, aircraft carriers, artillery pieces, (service) tanks and current service fighter jets (not outdated or out-of-service models for people with fat wallets) to the general “right to keep and bear” crowd is a straw man the size of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
I am beginning to side with the Australians. Perhaps it takes unbiased (I’m assuming) opinion to look at our country’s Constitution and translate it.
For a moment, clear your head and imaging yourself as one of the men drafting the constitution. You have just come out of a war in which your brothers and friends may have died. You yourself may have fought and been wounded, physically or emotionally. You have the daunting task of being partially responsible for the founding principles of your new republic. So what is of prime concern? Well, life and liberty of course. And what next? Since your most recent life events dealt with breaking away from a world power, perhaps the right to arm yourself in order to defend your new country.
Now here is a question: is the 2nd amendment geared at giving individuals the right to arm themselves as individuals against other citizens of the counry, or perhaps does it give the society the right overall to maintain arms in case a concerted effort of defense/offense is found necessary to defend the fledgeling country?
Perfectly true - i meant to have the word “not” in there. I actually cut and pasted the sentence from xenophon’s earlier post, but when i removed the part of his sentence with which i disagreed syntactically, i forgot to put “not” back where it belonged in the sentence. A stupid oversight. Please assume that i meant for the word to be there.
I know i asked for the advice of a linguist or a grammarian, and that it what i got from Demise’s link. Those who have looked at this will know that the linguist gave his own interpretation of how the 2nd might be interpreted today. Let’s look at them all.
Well, i don’t know about you, but it looks to me as if Copperud’s interpretation, apart from the reversal of the terms in the first half, and the substitution of “abridged” for “infringed” at the end, is almost identical to my own.
Much of what Copperud says in his comments on this issue seems reasonable enough to me, especially as i don’t claim to be a linguist or expert grammarian. I suppose what i would ask, then, is why, if the framers of the Second Amendment felt that the right to bear arms was a ‘natural’ right, not bestowed by government but inherent to the people, they felt the need to place what seems to be a condition on that right. I realise that Copperud contends that it does not make the right to bear arms conditional, but why mention the militia at all? Why not just say, following the language of the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms”?
Or we can turn the issue around and look at the other amendments. So, before asserting the right to free speech etc. in the first amendment, why didn’t they write something like: “The frank and open exchange of viewpoints being necessary to the maintenance of a free state…”?
Or, in the third, which refers to soldiers not being quartered in people’s houses without consent in time of peace, why didn’t they write: “The full and uninterrupted use by a person of his own private property being essential to the well-being of a free state…”?
Or in the ninth, regarding excessive bail, and cruel and unusual punishments, why not: “An absence of the fear engendered by the possibility of arbitrary incarceration or torture being necessary to the peace of mind of citizens in a free state…”?
These are fairly crude attempts, but i hope you get what i’m trying to say. None of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights mentions what may or may not be “necessary” for the existence of a free state. They simply assert what shall and shall not be done, and what rights shall not be infringed.
One final thing for this post. As i have said on previous occasions, experts of various types seem unable to agree on this issue. I would be willing to bet that there are linguists who would disagree with Mr. Copperud. David Foster Wallace, writing in the April 2001 issue of Harper’s magazine, asks:
Wallace’s article, which is an extended review of a recent dictionary of American usage, as well as an overview of the current state of U.S. lexicography, discusses many of these controversies in detail. Reading the piece, it becomes clear that “scientific” consensus is as elusive among these people as it is among most professional groups.
This may sound like sour grapes at the idea that my interpretation of the second has been shot down by a big-time academic, but all i really want to do is concede that political ideas shape my interpretation of what people say, and ask that everyone else recognise this too. Does anyone think that a linguist is any more capable of separating his or her political beliefs from the work that he or she does with language? Language is one of the main devices we use to express our politics.
In the end, even reading Copperud’s “modern” rewriting of the second, it still sounds to me like the need for a militia exerts some conditional force on the right to bear arms. Again, i accept that this is a personal and political interpretation, but what other kinds are there?
Yay for us Australians.
What is the purpose of the amendment?
If the purpose is the continued sovereignty of each state, as xenophon seems to be saying (“Their utility was more along the lines of exerting states’ control over their own interests, rather than a protection against tyranny”), then that is a job for a state-appointed militia, not for private citizens. Either that, or a state can raise a militia from the citizenry to support its rights, and the state expects the militia to arm itself. So, the purpose of the amendment is to allow citizens the opportunity to combat federalism, when it over exceeds itself.
This raises the question - hasn’t that happened already? This goes back to the issue of “what is the trigger?”
If the purpose is the effect resistance against the State, then such resistance will be useless unless the citizenry can form militias with hardware equal to that of the State.Demise says no, you have to go back to the circumstances of the amendment:
Ex-Tankagrees:
I’m sorry, but by extension of this logic I think you are only entitled to be armed with muskets. What’s the difference? I can’t see why if you are going to draw “individually wielded weapons” from the amendment, you can just as validly limit it to “muskets and gunshot”. You’ve drawn a limit which is almost arbitrary save for the reference point of the historical fact that militia may have only had hand-held firearms (and even then, Ex-Tank correctly points out that a rocket launcher is a hand-held firearm nowadays). It disregards the purpose of the amendment. Ex-Tank’s comment:
…equally disregards the purpose, of fighting an enemy which may be equipped with ordnance. The enemy is either one of the two things above - a tyranny, or oppressive federalism trying to extinguish or curtail a state’s rights, depending upon whether Xenophon is correct or not. Either way, the enemy will have something more than individual-wielded weapons: the purpose is to enable the citizens to resist the enemy.
Neither of these options entitles citizens to keep arms for self-defence, that is, home protection. Xenophon, unless I have misunderstood him and he is talking about defence from government invasion and not crime, seems to disagree:
…with reference to something outside of the 2nd amendment.
By my reading, within the 2nd amendment, American citizens have a right to bear such arms as to resist the army. But, you have no right to protect yourself from home intrusion using firearms.
As I said, buy 'em and bury ‘em, and wait for the army, instructed by a tyrant government or a government intent on impacting states’ rights, to show up. But you have no right to use them until then.
)