Second Amendment: What does "well regulated" mean exactly?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@XT

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 And, to paraphrase Cecil, the right thing to do is to either amend the Amendment if it’s out of date or get rid of it (both of which we have mechanisms for), instead of this ridiculous and continuous attempt to reinterpret it to mean something that the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.

But we do reinterpret what they wrote without passing new amendments all the time.

At the time of its writing the FFs were fine with anyone owning any weapon on the planet. Theirs was a different world. As I noted above “arms” covers all weapons. So would you suggest we rewrite the amendment to cover any new weapons as they come out? Are pro-gun folks pissed that the constitution seems to grant them the right to own a nuclear weapon and until a new amendment it passed to cover that their right should not be infringed?

[Scumpup]

@Czarcasm

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.

Nobody, least of all me, is trying to deprive you of participation in this board. I simply decline to discuss this topic with you specifically.

[Czarcasm]

@Scumpup

Nobody, least of all me, is trying to deprive you of participation in this board. I simply decline to discuss this topic with you specifically.

Well, that’s one way to deal with a different viewpoint than yours, I guess.

[Scumpup]

@Whack-a-Mole

But we do reinterpret what they wrote without passing new amendments all the time.

At the time of its writing the FFs were fine with anyone owning any weapon on the planet. Theirs was a different world. As I noted above “arms” covers all weapons. So would you suggest we rewrite the amendment to cover any new weapons as they come out? Are pro-gun folks pissed that the constitution seems to grant them the right to own a nuclear weapon and until a new amendment it passed to cover that their right should not be infringed?

Could we not use the personal ownership of nukes absurdity in this thread? There are enough indiscriminately lethal weapons that are, if you have the money, in the realm of possibility for personal ownership that they could make the point you wish to make.

[James52637]

@foolsguinea

OP, you’re not going to get a serious critical answer from most Yanks, even most Yanks on this board. The “right to bear arms” has passed into a religious tenet, the constitution into a holy text. Analysis of what the framers were actually trying to say is unwelcome.

Excuse me, from what country do you hail?

[Czarcasm]

I think Id be in favor of rewriting the 2nd to separate clearly the right of a well-regulated militia from the right of the individual to own arms if it could be shown that the founding fathers discussed these as separate matters independent of each other.

[James52637]

We can’t re-write it into clearer terms that serve the original purpose, because the country can’t decide what the original writing meant without bickering.

[Lumpy]

@Whack-a-Mole

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.

Actually, Article One Section Ten Clause Three gives guidance on this issue also, in it’s ban on states keeping “ships of war” in peacetime. If, as seems plausible in context, the purpose of this provision is to reserve to the Federal government a monopoly on the power to wage foreign war, then the states and presumably private citizens as well can be forbidden to possess strategic weapons systems designed to project military power against a foreign nation. Exactly where you draw the line is debatable, but certainly long-range delivery systems would count and a good case could be made for weapons of mass destruction (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) as well.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Scumpup

Could we not use the personal ownership of nukes absurdity in this thread? There are enough indiscriminately lethal weapons that are, if you have the money, in the realm of possibility for personal ownership that they could make the point you wish to make.

Any weapon means just that so nuclear weapons is still under the umbrella of “arms”.

I use nuclear weapons precisely because the thought of allowing private ownership is patently absurd. It illustrates the point just fine.

[Latro]

@James52637

We can’t re-write it into clearer terms that serve the original purpose, because the country can’t decide what the original writing meant without bickering.

Of course you can write it clearer.

In order to have a well regulated militia, which is necessary to the security of a free State, the people must have the right to keep their militia weapons at home and bear them, so they can train with them.

[Czarcasm]

@James52637

We can’t re-write it into clearer terms that serve the original purpose, because the country can’t decide what the original writing meant without bickering.

“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”, with the “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” either rewritten into its own amendment or discarded as unnecessary. Any problems with this approach?

[Latro]

@Czarcasm

“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”, with the “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” either rewritten into its own amendment or discarded as unnecessary. Any problems with this approach?

Yes. Because the primary intent is to have a militia, not just an armed populace.

[Czarcasm]

@Latro

Yes. Because the primary intent is to have a militia, not just an armed populace.

But it’s been said that they are one and the same. What do you think the founding fathers meant by “militia”? Does such a militia require that individuals store their military armament at home instead of a central location?

[XT]

@Whack-a-Mole

But we do reinterpret what they wrote without passing new amendments all the time.

We (or the courts) certainly reinterpret Amendments…but not to change the very intent of the original authors. Except in the case of the Second of course. Otherwise, we use the mechanisms given us to amend the Amendments or get rid of them if they are no longer applicable. That hasn’t been the tactic used by the anti-gun crowd, sadly. Instead, it’s this endless parsing of the phrase and attempts to reinterpret the thing so that it means what the anti-gun folks WANT it to mean, instead of what is pretty clearly the original intent of the folks that wrote it.

At the time of its writing the FFs were fine with anyone owning any weapon on the planet. Theirs was a different world. As I noted above “arms” covers all weapons. So would you suggest we rewrite the amendment to cover any new weapons as they come out? Are pro-gun folks pissed that the constitution seems to grant them the right to own a nuclear weapon and until a new amendment it passed to cover that their right should not be infringed?

That’s not true, but even if it was it’s irrelevant. There is nothing in the Second Amendment that says you can’t regulate what arms a citizen can bear…or even when and where they can bear them. ‘Arms’ could cover whatever the people want it to cover. WRT the original intent, it means personal arms…rifles, pistols, swords or other personal weapons. THAT would be an interesting public debate, and it would be a rational review of the Amendment. But let’s not kid ourselves here…that’s not what the anti-gun folks tried to do. They tried to reinterpret the Amendment to be an ever tightening of reinterpretation with the goal of a total ban on ALL ‘arms’, regardless of how one defines the term…and THAT is what sets people off.

No sane and rational person believes that the Second gives any private, individual citizen the right to a nuclear weapon…or a fighter jet. Or an air craft carrier or armed APC or MBT. Nailing down what does or doesn’t constitute ‘arms’ is a legitimate debate on this subject, and you will get a wide ranging view on that from the purported ‘pro-gun’ posters in this thread and on this board. But, again, let’s not pretend that this is what the anti-gun folks were trying to do, unless you think that interpreting ‘arms’ to me ‘those two things hanging from your shoulders and nothing else…well, maybe a dull pocket knife, but only if it’s registered!!’.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Lumpy

Actually, Article One Section Ten Clause Three gives guidance on this issue also, in it’s ban on states keeping “ships of war” in peacetime. If, as seems plausible in context, the purpose of this provision is to reserve to the Federal government a monopoly on the power to wage foreign war, then the states and presumably private citizens as well can be forbidden to possess strategic weapons systems designed to project military power against a foreign nation. Exactly where you draw the line is debatable, but certainly long-range delivery systems would count and a good case could be made for weapons of mass destruction (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) as well.

Maybe.

I may be wrong but I thought it was common at the time for merchant ships to be armed.

Didn’t privateers still exist? Pretty sure they were used in the War of 1812 so at least till then there was private ownership of warships.

[Latro]

@Czarcasm

But it’s been said that they are one and the same. What do you think the founding fathers meant by “militia”? Does such a militia require that individuals store their military armament at home instead of a central location?

Apparently.
Having the weapons in a stocked in a central location would make it easier to deny the militia to have access to them.

A militia and an armed populace are not the same. thats what The bearing part is all about. Them having the right to assemble in the town square (f.i.) and do their drills.

[Czarcasm]

@Latro

Apparently.
Having the weapons in a stocked in a central location would make it easier to deny the militia to have access to them.

I can see that…but I can also see where having them in a central location would make them easier to maintain by having them checked and repaired regularly by trained personnel.

[Latro]

It takes practice to operate a musket and to do close formation manouevres. That’s what makes a militia “well regulated”.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@XT

Instead, it’s this endless parsing of the phrase and attempts to reinterpret the thing so that it means what the anti-gun folks WANT it to mean, instead of what is pretty clearly the original intent of the folks that wrote it.

Seems to me that can cut both ways.

The anti-gun folks are pointing to some text in the document and saying it means something because the FFs bothered to put it in there.

The pro-gun folks point at that same text and proclaim it doesn’t mean anything.

And it seems to me pointing at some text the FFs put in and proclaiming it means nothing is the very definition of ignoring the FFs intent.

It is unfair to say only one side is playing a parsing game here.

[Latro]

@Czarcasm

I can see that…but I can also see where having them in a central location would make them easier to maintain by having them checked and repaired regularly by trained personnel.

Isn’t it easier if every member is a trained weapons cleaner?