MikeRochenelle I keep seeing your interpretation of the second amendment, and I keep pointing out the same thing every time-how do you interpret the phrase “well regulated”? You see, it’s not a “militia” but a “well regulated militia”, and there’s the fly in the NRA ointment, as far as I’m concerned. Even if it just said “regulated militia” I could see as how it might just mean that we can’t have bazookas and nuclear hand grenades, but if the founding fathers went through the trouble of saying “well regulated militia”, surely they meant something more than that, right?
Well mangeorge, this is GD after all! Besides, I like to piss off both sides of a debate. It shows that I’m thinking more than they are. I’m pretty much flame-proof anyway, having been on Usenet for about ten years now. This place is quite tame in comparison.
Czar: Two points…
The first is that “well-regulated militia” occurs in the first part of the 2nd Am. Now, if you agree with my interpretation of the 2nd Am, then the first part is more or less an explanatory clause: we need to A so that we can have B. Where A is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and B is to have a well regulated militia. If you agree that’s the case, then it’s perfectly acceptable to say that although the militia itself is well regulated, the people still have a pretty unfettered right to own arms. For more in this vein, check out the ninth paragraph of this section of James Madison’s proposed amendments to the constitution:
http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_jmad.htm
The phrasing there is slightly different than that of the constitution, and pretty strongly suggests that Madison did indeed mean something more along the lines of what the pro-gun types say.
Second, some argue that “well-regulated” actually meant “well-equipped” and/or “well-trained” as opposed to “tightly controlled”. This would seem to make some sense in context of the 2nd - we need a militia, and they need decent arms (“well equipped/regulated”) to be a militia, so people get to keep and bear arms.
From http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm :
<i>IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped.” It does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “STANDING Army” to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the second amendment. (my personal opinion)</i>
Although http://www.rkba.org/research/founders-quotes is unlikely to be an unbiased source, it certanly seems like the people who wrote the constitution were at least moderately in favor of widespread private ownership of arms.
Some argue that with the establishment of a standing army (something many of the founders did not like one bit), the 2nd Am is outdated, an anacronism. Perhaps they are right. In such a case, we should do things right and repeal the 2nd Am. Of course, that would be massively politically unpopular, but never the less if people truly believe that the 2nd needs to go, they should honestly agitate for such an action.
-Ben
Are you actually arguing that regulated=regular, and that when the founding fathers wrote “well regulated” they really meant to say"lets make sure everybody has the most powerful weaponry available"? I’d sure like to see a cite that says that “regulated” meant the exact same thing as “regular” when our country was founded.
Well, “regulate” appears in the Constitution twice, with meanings similar to the current meaning, so it can’t just mean “equipped”
and also:
Similar restrictions do exist on the 2nd Amendment.
See, people have the right to keep and bear arms, but people are restricted from aiming those arms at innocents.
The Bill of Rights doesn’t “grant” nuthin’.
Each of the Amendments within the Bill of Rights is a stricture against the newly created federal government that forbids any “infringement” on the pre-existing rights of “the people” or purview of the states.
Yes, the militia can be “regulated”, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Now, what’s so difficult about that?
You’re right, Ryan, “A well regulated militia” has no bearing on the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”.
In the colonial days, the colonists exercised the right to keep and bear arms prior to the organization of any militias. Therefore, in the context of the Bill of Rights, the militia is dependent on the people’s right to have arms, not vice-versa, as those who wish to restrict the people’s right to bear arms wish to read it.
Furthermore, those who subscribe to the interpretation of the phrase “A well regulated militia” as license for the government to regulate firearms ownership, are willingly embracing a totally illogical interpretation.
To interpret “well regulated militia”, as license to regulate firearms ownership, followed by “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” in the very same sentence, can only be reconciled by those who have no compunction for twisting and perverting the Constitution for the sole purpose of advancing their personal agenda.
George C. Collinsworth
A liberal’s worst nightmare; A redneck with both a library card and a concealed-carry permit.
Czar:
Are you actually arguing that regulated=regular, and that when the founding fathers wrote “well regulated” they really meant to say"lets make sure everybody has the most powerful weaponry available"? I’d sure like to see a cite that says that “regulated” meant the exact same thing as “regular” when our country was founded.
No, I don’t buy that one myself. I posted it for the sake of posting it, but it’s not my view. I don’t think it’s a good argument for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that obviously it’s using a word in a way that doesn’t make sense in modern english. Possibly the people who argue that it means “well-equipped” are correct, but I don’t find myself convinced.
Secondly though, and more importantly, I think it’s mostly pointless to quibble over the wording of the first half. My position is pretty much that the first half of the 2nd Am is an explanatory clause - it explains why the right to bear arms in the second half is being protected. So it’s not particularly important what it says. The amendment could read: “The moon, being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and I would still say that the 2nd Am guarantees (better, Razorsharp?) an individual right to bear arms, even if the first half is complete nonsensical junk.
The amendment proposed by Madison at http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_jmad.htm pretty much sums it up:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
-Ben
But that’s not the amendment that was finally decided on, was it? Are there any other parts of the Constitution that we should ignore, or is the first part of the 2nd Amendment, the first part of the first sentence(not a seperate sentence and certainly not an afterthought, concidering that they started the Amendment with it) the only part we can discard?
Sheer nonsense. Even apart from the complete pointlessness of arguing whether a right is “natural” or “preexisting” in the absence of a government that recognizes and guarantees its existence (see Polycarp’s recent “What is a right?” thread), you are wholly incorrect as a matter of simple grammar. I refer you, sir, to the following provisions in the Bill of Rights, which quite clearly establish certain rights:
Assuming “regulated” means controlling the state militias, which is the crux of the latest definition in dispute, IMO…
Is the militia well regulated enough already? I’d say so. We’ve had no serious insurrections in going on 150 years. Problem solved? Great, I can have my global hypersonic drone attack plane now. 
I would argue that in this case the deconstructionists have a point. “Regulated” in the context of modern technology, military discipline, advanced communications, surveillance, and a gigantic all-consuming federal government cannot really be understood the way they understood the word back then. At least I can’t make all the mental leaps necessary to go back over 200 years ago.
Read the “Bogus” law review article. That is no joke. As I fancy myself an occasionally serious historian, that’s required reading. Slave rebellions and state rebellions are not things that I can factor into my frame of reference. Yet, I’m guessing that that had much to do with the wording of the “first clause,” as I’ve shorthanded it.
There was a certain element of discipline that was necessary to fight together as “regulars,” which is what the militia would try to act like if ever called up. I’ll just leave that to my general observations about historical temporal dissonance.
What a tired old red herring that is.
Ok. A secure state needs a militia which needs people (men) with guns. I don’t see much disagreement there. The quibble part, I think, revolves around “for other uses”. If you have a gun anyway, as guaranteed by the constitution, you might as well use it for other stuff. The 2nd doesn’t say you can’t, that’s for sure.
I think my question is, has the Second Amendment outlived it’s usfulness. Is a militia now necessary to the freedom of a free state.
Another arguement entirely, and still unresolved. IMO.
Security of a free state, that should read.
Ohhhhkay, I guess maybe I haven’t managed to expatiate on this subject heretofore.
-
I believe much, if not most, of the language of the Bill of Rights came from various provisions of State, Colonial, or even English law. Can anyone cite the various sources for the 2nd, and comment on how such provisions were used?
-
I’m basically a “Supreme Court As Higher Council of Wisdom”-ite, slightly reformed. Which means I don’t have a problem saying that the 2nd–and all the rest–means what SCOTUS says it means. It’s not “just” politics, but it has a political dimension in the sense that it involves the consciences and intuitions of 9 human beings: the proper interpretation cannot be discovered by just looking at the words.
-
IMHO, the Constitution includes no phrases merely out of courtesy, phrases that have no particular import. The first half of the 2nd MUST be presumed to have bearing on the second half.
-
I would say the 2nd confers a right to “keep and bear arms” on any resident person who would be at least minimally qualified to serve in a “well-regulated militia.” Schizos, criminals, and persons physically incapable of aiming need not apply. (Etc.) Regulation of the kind and number of arms seems allowable, as I presume such militias of the people may be denied cannons, missiles, torpedos, and the like, in the course of regulation.
-
But the amendment seems aimed at preventing the populace from being generally disarmed, the first half assuring the ratifiers that what is contemplated is not armed anarchy.
-
Though I myself usually vote liberal, I’d like some explanation why gun “control,” to the point of general confiscation, is a liberal “gotta do it.” Is there a fear that people will use guns to prevent tax collection, or intimidate minorities? Why is there no fear that a disarmed populace will be set upon by a right-wing police state and their minions?
Czar
But that’s not the amendment that was finally decided on, was it?
Nope. But I’m trying to show intent. Trying to explain what I think the people who wrote it intended to say. And obviously, I do believe that they very consciously intended to establish an individual right to keep and bear arms. It was part of a larger context - the militia, etc. But it still seems they thought an individiual right to keep and bear arms was a necessary part of the larger whole.
Are there any other parts of the Constitution that we should ignore, or is the first part of the 2nd Amendment, the first part of the first sentence(not a seperate sentence and certainly not an afterthought, concidering that they started the Amendment with it) the only part we can discard?
I don’t want to discard or ignore it. I want it to be understood fully, in context, and in all specifics. As I said before, I see the 2nd Am establishing two things: A) A well-ordered militia, and B) An individual right to keep and bear arms. And I see no inherent conflict in these two goals.
-Ben
I think it’s important to understand the historical context of this amendment.
At the time the Constitution was adopted, the US had won its freedom, but the US was weak, and its freedom was hardly secure. There was still a hostile British presence in Canada. To the south and west, the Spanish held Florida and a prosperous New Orleans. The Spanish, French and British plied the rivers west of the young US, and there was compounding this the ever-present danger that one or more of these powers would encourage the Indian tribes along the frontier to rise up against the Americans. (This fear was realized during the War of 1812.)
In the early years of the Republic, the states defended their frontiers not primarily with federal troops, but with militias raised at the state and local level. Andrew Jackson fought the Creek War and the Seminole Wars using Georgia and Tennessee militias. He also heavily utilized these militias in the battle of New Orleans.
It was a different world then, and I suppose the fear was that some tyrant would seize the reins of federal government, outlaw firearms in an effort to consolidate his power (or in collusion with a foreign power), and by so doing, fatally weaken defenses along the frontier(s).
Fear of invasion is hardly the concern today that it was to the Founding Fathers (I think we can trust Canada now), and state militias are obviously no longer a vital part of US military planning. Just as obviously, the sheer killing power of available weaponry has increased by many magnitudes from the 18th century flintlock. No surprise then that we struggle when faced with the 2nd Amendment ; it doesn’t make as much sense outside its 18th century context.
Now you can still argue that an armed citizenry is a hedge againsty tyranny, but I think if you were to redraft the 2nd Amendment today with that thought in mind, the language would still be quite different. What would the Founding Fathers have thought of automatic weapons? It is impossible to know. (Another reason “original intent” is of limited value).
There is an interesting experiment in the unbridled right to bear arms currently being carried out in such places as Afghanistan and western Pakistan. I’m not sure we’d want to emulate the outcome.
minty green, if you wish to attack me and call me a liar, there’s a forum for that. You are free to start a thread there calling for sanctions against me for not paraphasing you with satisfactory precision (as if you haven’t twisted my words with impunity).
How do you interpret that phrase? Surely you’re not simply saying “the second amendment includes the phrase ‘well regulated militia’, some guy with a shotgun isn’t a well regulated militia, therefore we can take his shotgun away from him”? Using that logic, we can say “The First Amendment contains the word ‘religion’, the New York Times is not a religion. therefore we can censor it”.
Czarcasm
I think you’re missing the point of this thread. I posited that the second amendment states a particular restriction, and invited people to present their own interpretation of the amendment. No one has, and yet you’re implying that those that disagree with you are ignoring the first half. How can we be ignoring it, when no one will tell us what it means? If you will explain what you think it means, I will consider whether that’s a reasonable interpretation. But until you explain how it affects the rest of the amendment, I will give it the full meaning that I believe it has: none.
minty green
Are you saying that prior the the Bill of Rights, it was morally wrong for someone to refuse quartering to a soldier?
Well, it is obvious that you don’t understand “simple grammer”.
Not one of your listed “provisions” establishes any rights. Each one of your “provisions” is a restriction placed on the government. For instance:
Just what right was established by the aforementioned “provision”?
It ain’t a “red herring”, it’s a byline. Now, if you can muster up a point of contention that contains just a semblance of substance to anything I have written with regards to the OP, let’s hear it. Come on, I can’t wait.
No, the Amendment does not “confer” the right, the Amendment forbids the government to infringe upon that right.
See, as minty green would point out, it’s just a matter of “simple grammer”.
The Amendment states, “… the right of the people… shall not be infringed”.
Obviously, from the rules of “simple grammer”, the right already existed, the government is just forbidden to infringe upon that right.
In Virginia, law abiding citizens currently have the “unbridled right” to openly bear arms. It is perfectly legal for the citizens to walk the streets with a holstered side-arm, and the streets are not flowing with blood as the gun-control fanatics always predict whenever legislation is introduced that relaxes a state’s carry restrictions.
Designating what type of weapons were legal and what weren’t would’ve been unecessary. There was only one type of weapon available: muzzle-loading black-powder arms. Nothing else existed except field artillery, which a private citizen would’ve been no more able to afford then as now.
Nobody ever seems to mention the above facts in gun-control debates. I have a feeling that if the Founding Fathers had known of mass-produced firearms, cartridge ammunition and automatic weapons, they might’ve written the amendment in question a little differently. (Given how radical some of them were for their times, it’s anyone’s guess whether they would’ve made it weaker or stronger though) The technology of modern armaments is vastly different from what existed at the time of our nation’s founding. A semi-automatic or even a lever-action deer rifle bought at Wal-Mart for $300 would give anyone the equivalent firepower of ten men in Revolutionary War times. And we now have a distinction between military and civilan-use weapons, something that didn’t exist then either.
But in spite of that, I’m still not in favor of more gun control. Guns represent security; as long as I have one I feel safe, and that is a feeling I want to keep. I think the 2nd Amendment was written for a different time and circumstances than what we now inhabit, but I would never support doing away with it.
Being that the the Founders had no way to envision computers, word processing programs and the internet, could a valid case be made to revise the 1st Amendment protections of “freedom of the press”? (Well, I guess that depends on who you ask.)
Of course not, the free exchange of information is vital to freedom.
So, carrying it over to the 2nd Amendment, more fire-power equals more security.
Razorsharp says;
Byline. eh?
I did address the OP (not your opinion), in the sentence following the one you snipped. I’m trying to stick to the question of how the 1st half effects the 2nd half. Not doing very well, I’ll allow. Right now I’m busy chasing that red herring, but soon I intend to find out if Collinsworth actually has a library card. Or a c/c permit, for that matter. Who is he, anyway?