# The 2nd Amendment, Militias, and the threat of secession. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 30, 2010, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003 "2010-06-30T00:08:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/21 "2010-06-30T03:26:39Z")
> [@](#): > > One of the reasons many are upset with the ruling is that even the four dissenting justices regarded the 2nd amendment as dealing with an individual right: not one of the 9 justices gave any creedence whatsoever to the idea, held by many armchair jurists, that the 2nd amendment referred to state militias. That idea seems now dead and buried. But before it’s completely forgotten, I’d like to hear opinions on a thought experiment I came across today: what if that view had prevailed? I’d have to say it’s not a view that had any real chance of prevailing. There’s legitimate room for debate over some varying interpretations of the Second Amendment. But I don’t any ground within its text that would support a states right interpretation. The Constitution defines the “militia” as being under Congressional control at two other points. And it explicitly forbids the states from maintaing military forces. So the two realistic choices are either gun ownership is an individual right or gun ownership is a collective right with a federally controlled militia. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/22 "2010-06-30T03:33:15Z")
I just finished reading the linked article in the OP, and it appears that rather than arguing FOR a states-rights approach to the Second Amendment, it uses that as a rhetorical device to point out flaws with that theory. IOW, pretty much what I and **Little Nemo** said. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/23 "2010-06-30T03:34:12Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > The same problems you have at the state level, you have at the federal level, Der Trihs. How is it that making it federal magically makes it immune to corruption? Not immune, just more resistant. A single corporation or other wealthy organization can’t overshadow the federal government the way it can a city, and it is much less powerful relative to the feds than to the states. As well, moving issues down to the state level breaks up the efforts of civil rights groups; divide and conquer. And the federal government is under more of a spotlight. The Right has always pushed for more “states rights” because that allows for greater corruption and more violations of civil rights. > [@Todderbob](#): > > All it does is removes the ability of people to govern themselves, instead relying on the country as a whole to know what’s best for small segments. No; it prevents locally powerful groups from crushing and exploiting people they don’t like. > [@Todderbob](#): > > Nonsense. Im one of those states rights people, and ose are the issues (although not specifically or only) that Im referring to. > > Or is it your case that you know better than i do what my opinions are? Ah, a standard right wing defense; unless everyone in a (right wing) group is identical, you can’t criticize that group. Even if you are telling the truth, you don’t matter. What matters is what the vast majority of states rights supporters are like. > [@Todderbob](#): > > Because that’s the generally accepted definition that fits with the most logical intention of the framers. Assuming that to be true, why should I care? They also didn’t consider blacks human. Why should I care about their view of “state’s rights” more than I care about their view of race relations? And the Civil War pretty much overturned whatever such intentions they had, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/24 "2010-06-30T03:34:19Z")
Since “states rights” in American politics is, exclusively, a code for anti-black racism, it has nothing to do with any side of the gun issue. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/25 "2010-06-30T03:41:06Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > Because that’s the generally accepted definition that fits with the most logical intention of the framers. Says who? It is very convenient for your politics, but if I cite Publius and you cite Tench Coxe, how did you get to “accepted definition”? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/26 "2010-06-30T04:00:15Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > “Well regulated???” What the heck does that mean??? It can mean anything you want, but it doesn’t mean ignore the rest of the sentence, which says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/27 "2010-06-30T04:04:37Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > It can mean anything you want, but it doesn’t mean ignore the rest of the sentence, which says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As part of a “well regulated militia”. ---
**Author:** ![Punisher\_11B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9de0a6/32.png) [@Punisher\_11B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punisher_11B)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/28 "2010-06-30T04:12:13Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > _Armed_ men with ideas are more dangerous then unarmed men with ideas if they feel that being armed partially validates their ideas. A man with a claw hammer can kill just as easy as a man with a gun, he just has to be closer. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/29 "2010-06-30T04:13:08Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > As part of a “well regulated militia”. A well working, independent militia comprised of able bodied men (and women) from. The ages of 17 up who use their own firearms to comprise it in time of need. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/30 "2010-06-30T04:13:21Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > It can mean anything you want, but it doesn’t mean ignore the rest of the sentence, which says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I won’t ignore the last half of the sentence if you won’t ignore the first half. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/31 "2010-06-30T04:13:58Z")
> [@Punisher\_11B](#): > > A man with a claw hammer can kill just as easy as a man with a gun, he just has to be closer. :rolleyes: There’s a reason they arm soldiers with guns and not claw hammers. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/32 "2010-06-30T04:14:31Z")
> [@Punisher\_11B](#): > > A man with a claw hammer can kill just as easy as a man with a gun, he just has to be closer. No he can’t. Which is why we no longer fight wars with hammers. ---
**Author:** ![Punisher\_11B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9de0a6/32.png) [@Punisher\_11B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punisher_11B)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/33 "2010-06-30T04:23:29Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > No he can’t. Which is why we no longer fight wars with hammers. Well, I think the last army that used hammers was the barbarians and if my memory in history is correct, they were pretty victorious. And yes, if you are 3 feet away with a hammer or a gun, you can still kill. The only true killer is a human with motive, what tool he/she uses is their discretion. If the government took away firearms from it’s citizens ONLY THE LAW ABIDING WOULD TURN THEM IN. Do you really think criminals would just hand over their weapons? No, they would hear Cha CHING! in their heads with a big grin because now there is no opposition. Only terrorized unarmed people hoping the cops show up at the right time. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/34 "2010-06-30T04:25:29Z")
> [@Punisher\_11B](#): > > If the government took away firearms from it’s citizens ONLY THE LAW ABIDING WOULD TURN THEM IN. Which is one reason I do not advocate banning guns. Few people do. But you don’t have any constitutional right to own a rocket propelled grenade, or Stinger missile. Not even if YOU TYPE IN ALL CAPS or even stamp your foot. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/35 "2010-06-30T04:26:35Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Which is one reason I do not advocate banning guns. Few people do. But you don’t have any constitutional right to own a rocket propelled grenade, or Stinger missile. Not even if YOU TYPE IN ALL CAPS or stamp your foot. No one said we do. Edit: maybe some people do. But I’ve not seen many/any of them. ---
**Author:** ![Punisher\_11B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9de0a6/32.png) [@Punisher\_11B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punisher_11B)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/36 "2010-06-30T04:32:56Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Which is one reason I do not advocate banning guns. Few people do. But you don’t have any constitutional right to own a rocket propelled grenade, or Stinger missile. Not even if YOU TYPE IN ALL CAPS or stamp your foot. Ok, I agree with you and am glad we think alike on that part. But what if I cross my arms and get “huffy”. (I don’t know why I wrote in all caps) I’m over it though. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/37 "2010-06-30T05:24:18Z")
> [@Punisher\_11B](#): > > If the government took away firearms from it’s citizens ONLY THE LAW ABIDING WOULD TURN THEM IN. Do you really think criminals would just hand over their weapons? Doesn’t matter; those law abiding citizens are the primary source of guns for those criminals. Did you think they were robbing the military? > [@Punisher\_11B](#): > > Only terrorized unarmed people hoping the cops show up at the right time. As opposed to dead armed people, or the dead friends and relatives of those armed people. Do you really think you and your gun are going to scare criminals? Do you really think that you are going to beat some guy in a gunfight who will almost certainly shoot first, and likely from behind? Being a bad guy and all. As far as crime goes, the only thing that America being awash in guns does is ensure that guns are easily available and commonly used by criminals. It doesn’t make you safer; it does make it easier to kill people by accident though. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/38 "2010-06-30T06:37:53Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I won’t ignore the last half of the sentence if you won’t ignore the first half. The first half says ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State’. I haven’t ignored it. It is straight forward. It doesn’t say anything about negating the second part. It doesn;t say ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except where it doesn’t apply to the militia’. That simple clause states very explicitly that we need a well regulated militia to ensure our security, and that requires that people have the right to keep and bear arms, and no law can change that, save for an amendment to the constitution. I have never heard a reasonable explanation of why the first part somehow creates an exception to the second part. It doesn’t even allow wiggle room in the first part. The necessity of a well regulated militia is defined and can’t be overridden either. Without amendment, it states inequivocally that there is a necessity for a militia, and because of that necessity no law can deny the people the right keep and bear arms. It doesn’t say the militia has a right, or the state has a right, or that bears have a right, it says the people have a right, you, me, and those other guys. Maybe they should have written it differently, but they didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/39 "2010-06-30T10:30:44Z")
> [@furt](#): > > So, then, the debate. Which is a greater threat to the republic: a nationwide citizenry with limited and regulated small-arms ownership, or state militias without oversight from the federal government? New York State has a Militia, with both sea _and_ air wings. That are not part of the national guard. Individual units of it have existed since before the Revolution. > **[New York Guard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Guard)** > > The New York Guard (NYG) is the State Defense Force (SDF) of New York State, and is one of the four branches of the New York Military Forces (NYMF), the other three branches being the New York Army National Guard, New York Air National Guard and the New York Naval Militia. Originally called the New York State Militia, it can trace its lineage back to the American Revolution and the War of 1812. > The organization now has a unified command structure, while formerly it contained an Army Division a... I’m not seeing the threat here. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/40 "2010-06-30T11:10:29Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Under a states-rights reading of the 2nd amendment, if Alaska or Wyoming or Alabama wanted to have a assault-rifle-in-every-home militia along the lines of Switzerland or Israel, there’d be little Washington could do about it. Small but persistent correction - Israel does not have a militia, and reservists don’t keep rifles in their homes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003.md?page=3)