This is why I favor gun control

Great Debates
21

2nd Amendment: 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.

It all depends on how you read this amendment.

Most of the Bill of Rights have to do with individual liberties, this particular right seems to have elements that go beyond merely guaranteeing individual rights.

As far as I can tell, this amendment recognizes that violent physical force is a basic building block of power.

This means that we don’t let the Federal government regulate guns in case the states ever want to overthrow the Federal government.

It seems a reasonable read of the second amendment to say that this right is given to the citizenry to protect State rights and so the States are free to at least regulate (but probably not ban) the citizens right to keep and bear arms (normally States are restricted by the Constitution in the same way that the Federal Government is (especially when it comes to individual rights).

There is an ancillary argument that this right preserves the ability of the citizens to revolt against all levels of their government, so even States should not be able to infringe on this right.

Overall, I would support 2nd amendment rights more vociferously if we had more bloody revolutions or had to fight off outside invaders more often. As it is, I see this right as being just slightly more relevant than the 3rd Amendment.

Originalists could just as easily interpret this amendment in any number of different ways because of the way the military was run back then and the legislative history of the Constitution and the Amendments.

This right is a bit antiquated but until we get a Constitutional Amendment, I don’t see how the Federal government can ignore the plain meaning of the Amendment and “infringe” on the People’s right to keep and bear arms (they can tread very carefully and try to limit interstate transport of firearms and control national sales of firearms but they’d have to be pretty careful not to overreach). Until we get an amendment that eliminates or alters the second amendment, feel free to protest regulation of the right to bear arms but don’t expect me to join any of your marches.

22

An eye-opening insight from a post in a thread on another board:

“Well regulated” had nothing to do with being under someones control. It had to do with the person being proficient in what he was doing. I can send you a copy of the manual of arms of the time showing what a “well regulated” soldier or militiaman was expected to do.

With this understanding, and likewise understanding that the militia (note lower-case “m”) consisted of every able-bodied citizen, the appearance of contradiction in the amendment evaporates. Every individual citizen has the stated right, just like it says.

23

Given what the 2nd Amendment says - the only honest approach is to enact yet another amendment revoking it, too much time and effort is expended trying to twist it around via syntax and other absurdities. In every instance, “the people” in the bill of rights means an individual, not a collective right, and not “the national guard” which didn’t come into existance but 100 years later. “Well-regulated” in those days, meant something akin to a watch, for an example which was precision built and kept good time and any inevitable error was noted as a +/- figure in so many seconds and allowed for if utilizing for any serious use, like navigation. What “well-regulated” did not mean was 57,000 conflicting and overlapping absurd laws restricting law abiding citizens from self-defense whether at home or travelling, nobody has to channel the founding fathers to understand this. What’s happened is a cultivated belief that the constitution cannot be interpreted but as through a middleman, who will explain what the constitution really means. Failing that, we are told that the constitution is a “living breathing document” which, stripped from its verbiage really means that as far as our rights go, words mean nothing and so ostensibly we have a contract that nobody would agree to on its face, since it is outside the boundaries of a rational definition…

24

A few years ago an old highschool friend planned a reunion of 7 old friends. I was shocked to find out in the bar that I was the only one not carrying.

25

[QUOTE=ExTank]
Wrong.

Read Miller. All the way through. Then read subsequent circuit courts that claim to cite Miller. In those sunsequent citations, there are snippets, at best, of Miller. In one (3rd Circuit, IIRC), the court fabricated a whole new interpretation of Miller out of thin air.

I can similarly use snippets of your own words from, say, a post in a thread about domestic violence to make it appear that you not only favor domestic violence, but actually engage in it (having read your posts on this board for some time, I can safely assume you are against domestic violence).

[/QUOTE]

You’re proof that one can disagree without being disagreeable. It’s nice to read such rational thought from someone even though I may disagree with you. I’m working on a rebuttal- may take me a lunch hour or two. And thank you for assuming that I am against domestic violence.

26

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
You’re proof that one can disagree without being disagreeable. It’s nice to read such rational thought from someone even though I may disagree with you. I’m working on a rebuttal- may take me a lunch hour or two. And thank you for assuming that I am against domestic violence.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry for the delay in responding, I forgot to subscribe to the thread. :smack:

IN anycase, you’re welcome for the assumption on my part. It’s generally a safe assumption here on the Board, so I didn’t go far out of my way in making it.

Some further elaboration on the Miller case:

Judge Hearstill Ragon, justice for the District Court for western Arkansas, was the real impetus behind the 2nd Amendment challenge to the Miller/Layton indictment. Miller’s and Layton’s lawyer, Paul Guttensohn, didn’t seem to have much of an opinion on the matter, one way or another, but seems to have followed Judge Ragon’s thinking (lead?) on the matter.

The Supreme Court, in rejecting the “shotgun as ordinary militia/military equipment,” seriously overlooked very recent military history in which shotguns had played their role. The did, though, delve into American history, citing various colony’s and state’s militia laws, in which militia members were required to be properly outfitted with “muskets in good working order,” thereby strengthening their position that for a weapon to be considered “ordinary military equipment,” it should be of a type and kind in ordinary use by the military.

The argument is somewhat self-destructive, until one realizes that the court simply said that “it was not within their notice” that shotguns with barrels of laess than 18-inches were part of such ordinary military equipment.

Eh, gotta get to work, more later.