Yeah I was wondering about that: I thought it might have been American spelling, and I perpetuated it.
Hiya, Dave…
Could be. I’m not going to disagree with this. However, my own viewpoint sees the whole 2nd Amendment - as with ALL of the Bill of Rights - as being something for “The People”, not “The States” (what other Amendments deal with the States?). My reasons for saying this is because a State government can become tyrranical, too, as long as the Federal Gov’t climate allows it. What would be the point in protecting the people against abuses from one manifestation of government, but not another? That’s not a rhetorical question, by the way. 
Using this same logic (and no, I’m not being sarcastic in calling it “logic”), it can be said that the “Freedom of Speech” can be limited simply to the spoken word… not writing, not TV, not the Internet, not art, not music, etc. etc.
The 2nd Amendment clearly states that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure the security of a free state. This security can not be reasonably ensured with muskets and gunshot… neither from a possible tyrannical government, or from those individuals who would choose to break the law. Remember, maintaining security is two-fold in that sense.
Possibly, but the civilian population is far larger than the military. I believe that the sheer numbers would balance things out. But that assumes “The Worst” - i.e. a tyrannical government has already seized control. At that point, expect the end of the world. No, the theory of “an armed populace is security against tyrrany” holds that if the population is strong, and armed, and informed, it will ensure that a tyrrannical government doesn’t arise in the first place.
It is just as valid to say that you are “maintaining your freedom/security” by repelling a home invader. A person’s property is his own… when that property, and his life, are threatened, he is allowed to protect it.
To say that the 2nd Amendment only allows for protection from the government (as you are hinting at), or to say that the 2nd Amendment only allows for home protection against individuals (as others have said in the past, scoffing at the notion of protection from tyrranny), or to say that the 2nd Amendment only allows for a person to own hunting/sporting weapons (as still others have stated)… are all equally folly. The 2nd Amendment allows for all of these things. Just because it only has ONE modifier - maintaining a free state - that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t also allow for other uses. “Shall not be infringed” means “shall not be infringed”.
Don’t feel bad. We Americans have sticky “I” buttons on our keyboards.
Don’t ask why… you don’t wanna know.
Hiya Spoofe
Eh? I hadn’t looked at it like that before, and I’m not sure how you can…
I had read it as the one sole and exclusive reason. It doesn’t say “amongst other things”. Its express inclusion limits the scope of the amendment. If it had no rider, then this would suggest there was no express purpose for the amendment, which gives it a limitless interpretation. But the rider gives it its purpose - the only constitutional purpose to bear arms.
You can have lesser legal rights to own firearms, of course, for whatever purpose, but you only have a constitutional right to bear arms for the express purpose of preserving “the security of a free state”. You say:
…but the amendment says “security of…state”, not of “person” or “family” or “home”. Its not there in the Constitution. Another law might allow you to do such a thing: but that law isn’t the US Constitution.
I’m with you entirely. The thing should shift with the times. Times have changed: weapons have become more sophisticated. Why limit it arbitrarily to weapons that are operated by a single person? This is carving into the amendment a limitation which shouldn’t be there.
(Sticky “i” button? You deviant bastards )
<Hi, my name is xeno, and I… I have a sticky “i” key…>
mhendo: Your objections to my interpretation of the 2nd are quite valid on a purely grammatical basis. And of course, as you pointed out, Mr. Copperud’s interpretation matches yours. However, I believe a full reading of the text of the Constitituion (particularly Article 1, Section 8) supports my interpetration of the presupposition by the framers that the formation of militias was a states’ right not to be abridged.
Your responses to Beeblebrox’ questions (particularly to question # 4) were terrific. I take exception to a bit of it, however (just because I’m contrary by nature). I agree with you that tyranny takes many forms, but I think the question of resistance to tyranny is the general purpose of the BoR amendments (see the preamble to the BoR), addressed by them collectively rather than by any one of them specifically.
Dave Stewart: One of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment was clearly to protect the primary (at that time) means for individual states to exert their autonomy. It was popularly supposed that state militias would refuse to muster for a federal government if that government became oppressive. However, the 2nd is also unambiguous in stating that “the right of the people” is protected; their justification for protecting that right, while important, should not be taken as a limitation of that right.
By the way, just in case anyone wants to argue it, I fully realize my interpretation of “well regulated” was horribly simplistic and incomplete. My point was merely that the meaning of the term is not limited to “subject to controls and structural constraints”, but also refers to the standards of uniformity such an organization must have to be effective. (Some good comments here in a militia history and law faq.)
As did I. Sigh. Mea culpa and all that, thanks guys. 
I was actually going to bring this up, but could not find the cite I needed in a timely manner, so I didn’t bother. “Well-regulated” could also mean “well-kept” or “well-maintenanced”, refering to the equipment. In the link I posted above, Mr. Copperud seems to disagree, but the cite I was searching for quotes a Revolutionary War historian. Oh well. Just some food for thought.
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Not the right of the militia, the right of the people.
From the link I posted above:
I could see how you would make that interpretation… after all, in this day and age, we are accustomed to legal documents being VERY specific about the Do’s and Don’ts. However, since I value internal consistency, I view the broad interpretations often denoted to the 1st Amendment as a justification for a broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Like I said, if “speech” can include “being naked in public”, why can’t “arms” refer to “modern guns” or “security” mean “owning guns for self-defense”?
I also find your comments ironic (not wrong or inaccurate, just ironic), because in past Gun Debates, pro-control people have kept insisting that the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with protecting against tyranny. Just shows how different points of view can make things interesting, eh?
I can’t argue with this. All I can say is that the Bill of Rights also explicitly mentions that there are other rights not specifically referred to in the Constitution. In other words, just because they aren’t written down, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. However, I do completely agree that some “rights” are lesser in degree or extant than others.
This is true. The only way I can defend my comments about self-defense ownership is by using a broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Using a very specific and narrow interpretation would lead us to conclude that, yes, people should not be allowed to own guns for self-defense or hunting, that people should not be allowed to own anything more advanced than a musket.
However, that would also mean that the only sort of “speech” that is protected would be stuff that is actually spoken - no TV, radio, books, Internet - and that the only religions that are protected would be those that existed as of the late 1700s. Granted, if we took that last bit, we wouldn’t have Scientology… that almost would make it all worth it.
Spoofe:
I don’t see how any pro-control person could successfully argue that. They might take a different tack, and argue that the amendment should be repealed on the basis of a change in society, the inherent danger in increasingly more pptent firearms or whatever. But the purpose of the amendment as it stands seems pretty clear to me, at least.
Make no mistake, I’m ardently in favour of imposing very strict controls on firearms, and my government in my country has done that. But the more I look into this issue, the more I realise that there are significant cultural differences between Americans and other Westerners on this point. My personal preferences don’t invalidate yours, and the fact that I struggle to comprehend your view on guns only serves to highlight these cultural differences. The cultural difference is embodied in your Constitution, and has arisen as a result of your singular history. Fair enough. I’m just trying to take a good honest look at the amendment, and I’m calling it as I see it.
I was with you right up until the last point, because you’ve broadened “security of [the] state” to simply “security”. That goes beyond the intent of the drafters and the purpose of the amendment.
Demise says:
With respect, I think this is wrong. The amendment is drafted with an express conditional rider, giving a purpose to the amendment. The militia don’t have to exist: they can be called into existence for the specific purpose/express circumstances. But there are/is express circumstances/ a specific purpose giving rise to the need for the right.
As a slight aside, I had always thought the amendment was lacking in clear grammatical structure, but someone (a gun advocate, if I recall correctly) in another thread on these boards stated that such a structure was typical of legal drafting at the time (rider plus base).
Just for the record, the militia does in fact always exist. It is specifically defined in U.S law (10 USC 311):
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
And there lies the crux of the matter. You say it’s wrong to interpret the 2nd this way, others (including language experts) say it’s right. Around and around we go, and it never stops. I’m getting dizzy.
Let me use an example from the article I linked. Dave, how would you interpret this sentence?
“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
Would you think that this would guarantee only “A well-schooled electorate” could read books? Or would it guarantee “the right of the people” to read books, because this in turn would mean that “A well-schooled electorate” would exist?
Demise:
I seriously doubt that the FFs were concerned with the minutia of equipment maintenance or how “regular”-ly the militia members met and trained. It does make sense that they would have been concerned that any old armed group could be a threat to their community unless they were answerable to a reponsible body such as a state–or at very least local–government, rather than just themselves.
Right, because you want your militia fighting tryanny with rusty guns that fall apart when you fire them while they are running in circles because they have no clue what to do. :rolleyes:
Ok, I understand where you’re coming from now, but I think we’re at crossed purposes (unless I’m being particularly dim at this hour of the morning).
There are 4 elements:
- the (existence of a) militia
- the purpose of security of a free state
- the right of the people to bear arms
- no infringement on that right
As I understand it, you’re looking at #1. You’re saying that the existence of the militia (#1)isn’t necessary for the overall objective, the right of the people to bear arms(#3) which shall not be infringed (#4). That’s fine, if that’s what you’re saying: no problem with that. I’m not bothered by the existence or non-existence of a militia at all.
I’m looking at #2, as the overall sole and exclusive reason for the amendment. In the absence of the express purpose in #2, you could bear arms for whatever reason. But the entire amendment has an express purpose, set out in #2.
Thinking about it a little more, perhaps you’re going further and saying that #1 and #2 are a subsidiary (in interpretation) method of achieving #3 and #4, i.e. #3 and #4 are paramount. #2 is subsidiary to #1, which is in turn subsidiary to #3 and #4. Sorry Demise, I’m trying to get my head around your interpretation. If my understanding of your position is correct, you say the freedom of the state justifies the existence of a militia, not the right to bear arms. But even by this reasoning, #2 is still the *foundation * for the #1, the existence of the militia, which is the reason for #3, the right to bear arms.
(Getting back to OP, by either interpretation, there is no restriction on the level of armament to be borne by the people. My interpretation says it should be at the level of tyranny’s army: yours, if I understand it correctly, provides no limit at all because there is no conditional rider on the amendment as a whole.)
Demise wrote:
Well, don’t feel too bad. “Ordnance” and “ordinance” are both real words, and they’re pronounced (almost) the same way. And they both come from the medieval French word ordenance, which means an act of arranging.
Pretty close. I’m saying that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment because it makes the existence of the militia possible, which is necessary to the security of a free state.
So, in your numbering scheme, #4 applies to #1, #2, and #3 equally. Because #3 is guaranteed, #1 can exist, which leads to #2 as a result.
I’ve stated my view on what “Arms” are guaranteed by the 2nd. IMHO, it means that things such as fully-automatic rifles should be legal to own without the current restrictions and maybe grenades as well, but not weapons that are less personal in scale.
Um, Demise, did you just characterize grenades as “personal in scale”? Could you explain your thinking there a bit, as I’m confused about your standards for “personal” weaponry?
Yes, a single person can carry and use one, they generally aren’t made to damage structures and are mostly only fatal to people in the same immediate area as the person tossing one. Therefore, a grenade is a weapon that is personal in scale. “In scale” being the important distinction.
Not that I want to bother owning grenades or that I think it would be desirable for everyone to have them, but I was tossing it out as a weapon that might be covered by the 2nd as something the militia would use.
Bolding mine.
“Area effect” usually has connotations of something more than “personal weapon”, but that’s just me. I have no qualms about giving up grenades or automatic weapons… in return, we get to keep our handguns, rifles, and shotguns. That’s the compromise, right?
Right?
Dave:
What logic are you using? Are you implying that under the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd. people are limited to the arms capable of being produced with late 18th century technology? My statement:
is fairly consistent with 99.999999+% of the available selection of firearms at 99.999999+% of the gun stores in America.
I didn’t arbitrarily draw the inference to individually wielded weapons from the amendment; the passage “…keep and bear arms…” implies arms that can be borne (by an individual). That would indeed have been muskets at the time of the Constitution’s writing. But no legal precedent has upheld that the internet or the television industry are exempt from 1st Amendment protection just because they weren’t invented at the time of the writing of the Constitution! Just the opposite, in fact. It has even been extended to the hate speech of Neo-Nazis, reprehesible as their message is to 99.999999+% of Americans. And that wasn’t around at the time of the writing of the Constitution, either.
By extension, it can can be construed to apply to the 2nd. as well. To imply that somehow firearms available to citizens be frozen at late 18th century technology is ludicrous.
Incorrect. Let’s keep the terminology straight here. I said it was man portable. A pistol is hand held. Perhaps some lighter rifles, by a strong man.
A .50 caliber machinegun is man-portable; no man that I know of could carry it in his hand (note the singular inference). If he could, he wouldn’t have much need for a machinegun. Note that Rocket Propelled Grenades and Stinger Missiles are man portable, but they are operated by 2- to 4-man teams, with various personnel being assigned as ammo carriers, loaders, spotters and such. Even though there is ultimately only one man holding and firing the weapon doesn’t make it an individual weapon; it takes a team of men to effectively employ a a rocket or missile launcher.
This only breaks down when we come to something like the M-203, an M-16 with a 40mm grenade launcher attached beneath the barrel. There is typically one of these per infantry squad; its operator is called the “grenadier” and is considered a specialist.
Yes, well quantity has a quality all its own. Those helicopters and jet fighters have to land sometime. Even tankers must come out of their armor for fuel, food and ammo. When they do, they are just as vulnerable to a .30-06 as any other human being. Of course, in the event of a “tyranny” coup, the states (National Guard and Air National Guard) would have the ordnance necessary to support civillian militias operating in a guerilla mode. Watch The Patriot; while not being a historically accurate portrayal of Revolutionary militias in general, it is an accurate depiction of the militia concept in implementation.
Although, under the “level playing field” interpretation of what armaments civillians may possess, the right to grenade launchers, RPGs, SAMs and such would be unrestricted.
And that, my friend, is quite possibly the only logical basis for debate; if the pro-control crowd had acknowledged historical evidence and legal and cultural precedent, and relied soley upon that argument alone, then they may have achieved their goals in the lates 60s/early 70s. But their sophistry has instead alienated tens of millions of their fellow Americans, touched off a cultural war (urban/cosmoploitan .vs. rural/traditional) and engendered a furiously heated partisan debate that cannot, in its current incarnation, be “won” by either side.
I was going to address your “4 elements of the 2nd. Ad.” but Demise already dropped that one through the hoop without touching the rim from half-court for three.