Would dropping it effect us in any other way, or is it totally superfluous?
Thanks, XT. Pretend I said Madison instead of Jefferson. :o
I poked around Wiki a bit, but I can’t tell - did he do that kind of rationale and justification for the other Amendments?
Regards,
Shodan
ISTM it’s entirely superfluous. Certainly it is with regard to the second amendment, and I can’t think of any other ripple effect it would have elsewhere in the document.
Well there are other laws regarding militias. But in isolation, I believe the 2nd amendment requires it. You could parse it to say the security of a free state is not a requirement I suppose, but I don’t think that would go over well. It’s kind of moot. We’ve always has a well regulated militia.
Dropping it would mean that forming a militia might be harder. But it wouldn’t affect the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
Regards,
Shodan
Seems to me, including the earlier drafts XT cited, that the FFs were explicitly including a rationale for that law. Something I do not think they did anywhere else in the constitution which suggests to me it is not superfluous and mere flowery rhetoric. It was quite intentional and put there for a reason because they did intend it to mean something.
Aren’t all dependent clauses merely explanatory and superfluous? And further do positive grants of rights expire when the original purpose vanishes (assuming that a militia is no longer needed). What if the second amendment read:
Freedom from Indian attacks, and suppression of Negro slave uprisings, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Would you argue that there is not a current RKBA?
What do you suggest it means then? What interpretation invalidates the primary clauses which state the right shall not be infringed, period?
I don’t see how early drafts or anyone’s stated intent is relevant. The intent was to write the Constitution the way it stands, and for the the law to be interpreted the way it’s written.
The one that says “Individuals have the right to possess arms for the purpose of participating in the National Guard, but the Constitution is silent on any other purpose.” Is that so hard?
Another thing that’s endlessly amusing is the notion that the lack of a written right means a ban.
In order to form a militia the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If there is no need to form a militia then there is no need to keep and bear arms.
And of course no right in the constitution is absolute and have all sorts of infringements so there is no “period” to it. If not then the right to keep and bear “arms” would include any weapon you can think of. When it was written you could own any weapon on the planet if you wanted to but the FFs certainly never contemplated nukes and missiles and such. If you want to be strict about it though then the 2nd Amendment guarantees you the right to own a nuke.
The Founding Fathers were great believers in militia. Standing armies were something they viewed as a tool used for government oppression.
There’s a whole bunch of stuff on this page about militia and what well regulated means. All of it with cites. I offer it with no great hope of any of it being accepted, as more debates on the topic than I can count, here and elsewhere, have always ended with neither side budging an inch. Facts don’t matter. Cites don’t matter. If you are of the opinion that the reduction of arms in civilian possession is a desirable goal, you probably really don’t care what Hamilton, Adams, et. al. thought.
I certainly do care what they thought and it is relevant.
That said their world was a very different one from today’s world. For one thing we do have a standing army now…a really big one.
Well, obviously (to me) they meant it to be a two distinct parts. They felt that militias were important (they were, at the time) but needed to be ‘well regulated’ (i.e. duly constituted and under the authority of the state). Originally they felt that persons that had religious objections to serving in the military needed to be protected, but decided to eliminate that part. They also felt that the right to bear arms by citizens needed to be protected, because that was also important.
Look at the First Amendment:
They are talking about multiple things here (separated by semi-colons…just like the original draft of the Second was)…freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. They are all distinct and protected rights and none are dependent on the others to BE rights.
But no matter what they thought or what their world was like, we need to reduce the number of weapons in civilian hands, right?
One of those 5-4 decisions the recent court is known for… I will be thrilled if Obama gets to replace one or more of the activist judges*** before his next term is out for a lot of reasons. This is the least of them, to be honest.
*** That is a loaded phrase but it’s also what Justice John Paul Stevens alluded to in his dissenting opinion:
Bolding for emphasis, mine.
Your reply has nothing to do with what he just said. If the founding fathers were against standing armies are you also against standing armies? If not, what is your justification for disregarding their original intention?
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
That said their world was a very different one from today’s world. For one thing we do have a standing army now…a really big one.
[/QUOTE]
Very true. And, to paraphrase Cecil, the right thing to do is to either amend the Amendment if it’s out of date or get rid of it (both of which we have mechanisms for), instead of this ridiculous and continuous attempt to reinterpret it to mean something that the original authors never intended. THAT’S what pisses off pro-gun folks, because, as we’ve covered here endlessly, it’s pretty clear what that original intent was…which is to protect the individuals right to keep and bear arms.
I’m well aware of your views on this subject and if I wish to discuss them with you, I’ll be sure to pm you or address you directly.
And I’m well aware that I am a member of this message board, with just as much a right to participate as anyone else. If you have a particular problem with my question please let me know what it is.