The Straight Dope on the 2nd Amendment

Great Debates
1

Whenever some mental-defective or jilted lover gets his hands on a gun and perpetrates criminal revenge against his perceived enemies or a crime of passion against a “loved-one”, the gun-control lobby comes out of the woodwork to take advantage of the tragedy.

What is troubling, is that the majority of the establishment media’s commentary is decidedly biased in favor of stricter gun-control legislation and is based on a distorted interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Equally troubling is the percentage of the population that willingly embraces this distorted interpretation of the amendment. An obvious indictment of the establishment media’s allegiance to the orthodoxy of liberalism and the public education establishment’s failure to properly teach the purpose of the “Bill of Rights”.

Not that those who determine editorial policy or public education’s curriculum do not understand the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers, for they do understand. What the intelligentsia of the Left cannot tolerate is the fact that the Founding Father’s concept of America is not compatable with their vision of a collectivist utopia.

To properly understand the purpose of the Second Amendment one must go back in history to the time that the delegates to the first Constitutional Convention went back to their respective states with the original draft of the Constitution.

When this new Constitution was presented to the state conventions for ratification, the attending delegates basically said, “This is all fine and dandy, but there is no provision within this document that restricts this central government from infringing upon our “inalienable rights”.”

Thus was born the “Bill of Rights”, ten amendments to the original Constitution, each one a restriction and limitation of power, binding the newly formed “Federal Government” to the few powers enumerated within the Constitution.

The Second Amendment, stated in full, reads as follows:

  • “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.*
    Those who favor stricter gun-control legislation, point to the phrase, “A well regulated militia…” as license for the the Federal Government to intervene and “regulate” the private ownership of firearms. This is a deliberate misreading of the framers intent purpetrated by those advancing the gun-control agenda.

The word “regulate”, in the lexicon of the 18th century and in context with the Second Amendment, is more closely akin to “trained and equiped”. To use “regulate”, as in to “control the limits of” would be contradictory to the phrase, “shall not be infringed” that resides within the same sentence. Finally, the purpose of the “Bill of Rights”, as intended by the framers of the Constutution, puts regulation of the private ownership of firearms out of the purview of the Federal Government.

Those who support the right to private ownership of firearms point to the phrase, "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", as the defining phrase of the amendment. It is a more correct assessment of the amendment, as it is the phrase that places the explicit limitation on the Federal Government. However, the primary phrase that really gets to the crux of the amendment is, “…necessary to the security of a free State”. And just what was it that the Framers of the Constitution were concerned that the State be secure against and free from?

A reading of most any of the historical documents relating to the Constitutional debates and “the forming of a more perfect union” reveal that the Framers of the Constitution were greatly concerned with a government’s tendency to assume powers not specifically denied it, to usurp powers not delegated it, and to limit individual freedoms and God-given rights.

I still marvel at the insight of the Founding Fathers.

George C. Collinsworth

A liberal’s worst nightmare; A redneck with both a library card and a concealed-carry permit.

2

IMHO, times change. There are two reasons that the founding fathers wanted the 2nd amendment.

  1. The founding fathers meant the militia to revolt against the government in the event that it gets oppressive.

  2. The founding fathers meant the militia to act as a standing army in order to repel foreign invaders. Remember, at the time, nations didn’t have large permanent armies.

Of course we wouldn’t need a milita anymore if 2 was the exclusive reason. Having even a sizeable militia (5,000,000+) wouldn’t be able to resist the power of the US military. The government has enough air and ground power to wipe out even that size of an army. Thus, the only way for a miltia to be effective would be too give it heavy weaponry. And I don’t think anyone would endorse that.

Guns don’t really serve their original purpose anymore. The only use now is as crime-control, and I haven’t heard any studies that they are very effective.

If you haven’t seen Bowling for Columbine, that is an excellent movie that addresses this very subject.

Anyway, this is just my uninformed assertion.

3

IMHO, times change. There are two reasons that the founding fathers wanted the 2nd amendment.

  1. The founding fathers meant the militia to revolt against the government in the event that it gets oppressive.

  2. The founding fathers meant the militia to act as a standing army in order to repel foreign invaders. Remember, at the time, nations didn’t have large permanent armies.

Of course we wouldn’t need a milita anymore if 2 was the exclusive reason. Having even a sizeable militia (5,000,000+) wouldn’t be able to resist the power of the US military. The government has enough air and ground power to wipe out even that size of an army. Thus, the only way for a miltia to be effective would be too give it heavy weaponry. And I don’t think anyone would endorse that.

Guns don’t really serve their original purpose anymore. The only use now is as crime-control, and I haven’t heard any studies that they are very effective.

If you haven’t seen Bowling for Columbine, that is an excellent movie that addresses this very subject.

Anyway, this is just my uninformed assertion.

4

Gee, glad you started this thread. This issue have never been beaten to death on these Boards before, and your arguments have not been raised ad nauseum in the past.

I don’t know what we did before you joined the boards, Razorsharp. You are our Messiah.

Sua

P.S. The search engine is your friend.

5

**

Shucks, we’re so happy you felt the need to bitch and moan about opening thread that didn’t have an original topic. You’re aware that we’ve got multiple threads covering homosexuality, communism, religion, nuking Japan, the Civil War, the RIAA, prostitution, the war in Iraq, the 2000 presidential election, and Clinton? New threads covering old topics certainly isn’t anything new around here and after 5,000 post you ought to be used to it.

**

With a wonderful attitude like that I’m sure more people will feel like joining the boards. You might want to try sending new people a fruit basket instead of being rude.

Marc

6

It’s amazing how people convince themselves of the most preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their prejudices.

7

Well, my two cents.

Personally, I feel that the 2nd amendment was a guarantee to the states that they could have the resources to protect themselves from the federal government. The “A well regulated militia” covers that part, but the really hardcore pro gunners think “well regulated” means any person with any fire arm (and a six pack ;-).

If the states decide to fund their own militias, and regulate them as they seem fit, then the federal government could not legally stop ownership of arms by the members of the said state’s militia.

Being that no state has such a militia, the federal government can regulate firearm ownership of the public in general.

Now since this is my two cents, I will state that I think that the federal government has no business dealing with firearm regulation. I think it should be the responsibility of the states.

8

C’mon, Sua, lighten up. Yeah, this has been beaten to death, but, what the hey. BTW, theclam citing BtC as a credible source ain’t gonna help your cause. Here’s a couple of debunks for ya…One and Two.

9

I don’t think a work of fiction is that good of a reference…

10

A few quick nits, MrTuffPaws.

  1. How in da eck did the Federal govt got to be on the recieving end of the “right to bear arms”??! If anything, the right to bear arms is to facilitate the ability to repel enemies both foreign and domestic and the govt (oith state and federal) do not meet the qualifications of enemy of the constitution.

  2. The state is regulated by the federal level of govt. Its what constitutes the United portion of the U.S.A. If the states go about their merry own way, then they might as well be separate countries and would have to provide everything for themselves, not just their militia but their energy, food, riparian resources and money etc.

  3. The federal govt is the only body that can have any business dealing with the primary precepts of the US constitution which the 2nd ammendment is part of.

11

Umm… The National Guard?

12

Are you saying that Joe Six-pack with a cheap handgun is part of a “well trained and equipped” militia?

I mean, I’m all for gun ownership, but the claim that citizens with pistols and rifles are going to fend off invaders and tyrants is a joke. The real armed forces are far better trained and equipped.

13

Pop quiz for ya, Razorsharp. Where did the language of the second amendment originate? Who came up with it, and what was it based on? Law loves precedent.

14

Phoenix Dragon: I though Moore rebutted those statements. Too lazy to find a link though.

15

I don’t think nitpicking qualifies as debunking.

16

Just a quick observation – whatever the meaning of the opening clause, the operative main clause of the Second Amendment is pretty clear, and has been violated by numerous states (to whom it would presumably be extended by the Fourteenth Amendment) and by the Federal government in the Brady Law.

Now, I can legitimately see arguments that such laws are in fact a good idea in A.D. 2003, that in the places where the majority of Americans live, the unfettered right to bear arms is a danger from the criminal and unscrupulous rather than a guarantee of a fundamental freedom.

But the proper step to take is not to ignore the text of the constitutional provision, but to create a functional replacement for it that better reflects the will of the people.

And it needs to be remembered that in terms of geographic area, there is a great deal of this country in which the right to have firearms in self-defense or against wildlife remains a virtual necessity. What’s right and proper in Manhattan at 9:00 on a Friday night is not necessarily what’s right and proper on the upper reaches of the Grizzly Gulch River, Montana, at 2:00 on early Monday morning.

17

So you expect me to believe that you have all the answer when your OP is filled with subjective terms like “liberal media” These opinions are irrelevant to me, no matter how well educated.

So, I will give my opinion. I don’t think it is fact, but I don’t think the OP is full of provable objective facts either.

Our constitution is old. The idea of owning a gun today is far different from what it was back then. I believe that owning a gun back then was important for hunting, and as a means for the power to untimately be at the hands of the people. In the late 18th century, people didn’t own guns for self-protection against other people with guns so much as they did for hunting, I don’t think. What are the benefits of owning a gun today? I think that the main intent of the founding fathers was for the people to have as much power and control over the government as possible. Remember the Articles of Confederation? That was very wild. They realized that it was too chaotic and not controlled enough. The spirit of the founding fathers was definitley at the power eventually lying with the people.

But today, guns give us no political power. Back then, the government would have had a hard time transforming itself into something that the people didn’t like because if the people collectively felt that it was going bad that they could overthrow the govt. Now, no matter how well armed you are, the government cannot be overthrown. So with the advantage of that political power having withered, what purposes do guns serve us today? If I were to own a gun, what good would it serve me?

Protection? yes
Political power? no
Other liberties? no.

But the only reason I need protection is from other people with guns. I am simply arguing that we could go along very well without guns. The need for the average person to have a gun is gone of nobody else has one. (outside of hunting).

Anyway, I don’ t understand why we consider the Founding Fathers to be so wise. I don’t doubt that they were smart men, but it is hard to formulate a set of rules to live by for over 200 years. Why didn’t they include anything about slavery? What good is the electoral college today? It is imporatant that we have a set of rules to live by, but just because our founding fathers were wise enough to come up with a system that could work for 200 years doesn’t mean that we should think they were right about everything. After having seen how socities work without guns and how they really offer no political power today, do you think these men would want people to have guns just because they wrote it 200 years ago? Would they have supported single-member districts today or rather a proportional representation? Things have changed. Maybe if they saw how some parties with legitimate agendas (like the greens or reform) get no voice in our government, while they could get some voice in a proportional representation. I think the two party system is good for dramatic problems we have as a democracy, but the smaller problems get ignored until we have to deal with them.

I think people should have the right to do anything they want as long as it doesn’t interefere with other people’s rights. I think having a lot of guns around does interefere (to a minor extent) with my right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness. I think a referendum should take place, so we can stop all of the argument.

18

All of them? Not that I’ve seen. The only one he “rebutted” was the claim about Eric and Dylan going to bowling class that morning. He says he interviewed several witnesses, but never gives any names, and the police say that all the people they interviewed at that class did not recall seeing them. In any case, he misrepresents it by saying it was the last thing they did before starting their spree. Unless it was a 5-hour-long class, it was not.

There was some conflict over wether his scene about getting a rifle from a bank was true or not, but that was not contested in the article I cited.

19

Perhaps the “establishment media” would not be so confused about the intent of the Second Amendment if its defenders were more openly forthcoming about this interpretation. In the vast majority of pro-gun literature I’ve encountered, the issue is one of personal protection. Clearly, the Constitution doesn’t care whether your house is broken into or your family menaced by criminals, which is the typical justification for owning firearms. Instead of claiming deceptively that unrestricted ownership of firearms is necessary to deter crime, the gun lobby should state forthrightly, “We need our guns in case we ever need to shoot American soldiers or police officers.”

20

My two cents:

1 - The Constitution clearly establishes the right of individual Americans to own fire-arms.

2 - The Constitution should be changed.

Sure the founding fathers believed in gun ownership. But most of them also believed in slave ownership too; they weren’t perfect. The times change and one thing the founding fathers clearly believed in was that the Constitution should be changed to reflect the times. Guns overall nowadays do much more harm than good.