What does the first half of the Second Amendment mean?

Great Debates
41

Um, a nuke is more firepower than anything else. Please explain how that makes anyone more secure if we allow every non-felon to have one? :rolleyes:

The first part of the 2nd amendment defines the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms.

It further describes the militia as being necessarily “well regulated” which, I believe at the time was commonly understood to be “trained and disiplined”.

Now, at present, we have a professional standing army, which is one of the things that the founding fathers wanted to insure that we <i>didn’t</i> have. The resoning is this: A standing army in peace time is a power center from which a coup may be performed. Furthermore, if the soldier class does not think of itself as ‘of the people’ then it will be more likely to go along with a coup de’tat. So, the security of the state can be insured by militia, then there will be no need for a standing army, and thus the threat of a coup will be reduced.

At this point, we have a standing army and no militia to speak of, so clearly the 2nd has already failed to achieve it’s purpose.

Some may say that an armed population is still a hedge against tyrrany, but my response to that is </i>only in your fantasies</i> The current population of the USA coudn’t prevent a military coup, the difference in training and skill between amateurs with guns and professional soldiers is just too great at this point.

So, should we just ignore the purpose of the 2nd? I say no, it still says what it says and is still binding law of the land.

And what is says is that no restriction in gun ownership that harms the ability to form well-regulated militias is permitted.

Of course, the correlary is that any restriction that doesn’t harm the ability to form well-regulated militias is OK as far as the constitution is concerned.

Thus the recent ruling that a man could be prohibited from owning a shotgun because the weapon was ‘unsuitable for militia use’ is absolutely correct.

42

Nope, unh-uh, no way, I ain’t playin’ that. You singled out me in the OP and falsely attributed words to me that I never even remotely said, then failed to back it up when challenged to prove your lie. The appropriate thing for you to do at this point would be to retract your slanderous accusation and apologize. You don’t get to play the victim here, Ryan.

Same thing. The Fifth Amendment gives me a right to to be forced to testify against myself, which right is only meaningful because the Fifth Amendment prevents the government from doing so. I have a right to just compensation if the government takes my property, and the Sixth Amendment requires the government to pay up. Etc.

43

Of course, that’s “a right not to be forced to testify against myself,” popularly known as “the right against self-incrimination” or the “Fifth Amendment right.”

44

No they don’t.

Let one of those law-abiding citizens walk down the street with a hand grenade or a rocket launcher and see how the local constabulary respond. Try making chemical weapons in your basement, and see how that goes over.

There are very definite limits (regulations, if you will) on the types of weapons even a Virginia citizen may handle. But you could always move to Afghanistan if you really feel the need for heavy armament. It’s a second-amendment lover’s paradise.

45

I googled, sherlocked, and biography.com’d George C. Collinsworth, and didn’t find a thing. I did find a George M. Collinsworth, though. He led an attack on some fort in Texas, in 1830 or so. But nothing there tied him to the quoted passage above in Razorsharp’s post. Oh well. It’s not important.
But he (I think) said;

I, for one, didn’t say that it did grant that license. I (we) said that it addressed the reason for the need for the limitation on the govt’s power, spelled out in the latter half.

46

That’s a rather childish argument. Not only is it not true (carrying a gun in an area of civil disorder is a good way to get shot), it can be used against any restriction on the government “There’s a interesting experiment in the unbridled right to burn the American flag currently being carried out in such places as Afghanistan and western Pakistan. I’m not sure we’d want to emulate the outcome”.

47

Almost missed this one:

I’m certainly no historian, but judges sometimes have to be. Therefore, I’d point you towards the two most prominent recent cases on the Second Amendment: Silveira v. Lockyer (9th Cir. 2002) (motion for rehearing en banc denied, petition for writ of certiorari pending) and United States v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001) (cert. denied).

In Emerson, I would refer you to Part V. particularly Part V.D.5, of the majority opinion. In Silveira, look to Part II.B, particularly Part II.B.2.

48

I see your point, that the important thing is the principle behind the law, but I don’t really agree with your conclusion. (And, FTR, I included my caveat that “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” precisely to partly cover my ass against the argument you made.)
I think you are essentially comparing apples to oranges here. Freedom of the press is a social construct with implications on how our government functions. No matter what kind of government or society we have, it is recognized that a free press is a key ingredient in what we value for our nation.
Firearms, on the other hand, are altogether different. As I said, the 2nd Amendment was written with only one kind of firearm in mind, and that being a type far less powerful than what we have today. But more than that, it was also written with a different type of society in mind than that which we now possess.
Firearms are no longer essential tools of life for any portion of the general populace, save maybe in parts of Appalachia. We no longer have a dispersed, agrarian society on the edge of a vast, dangerous frontier. Instead we have have a concentrated, mechanized, urban society where most firearms (excluding true hunting weapons, which are rarely purchased outside rural areas) serve no purpose unconnected to crime (either committing it or defending against it).
To have a modern legal situation truly close to what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they wrote the 2nd Amendmet, an ordinary citizen would be able to buy a machine gun (the most powerful gun available, just as muzzleloaders were the best available back then) without a background check. That you can’t actually do this is a tacit acknowledgement that our society has irrevocably changed from its origins. There’s no disputing this. But that’s about as far as I think any degree of certainty exists on this issue.

49

You are not grasping the true concept of a right. See, you already have the inalienable right not to testify against yourself, the 5th Amendment prevents the government from forcing you to testify against yourself or punishing you for refusing to testify against yourself.

50

You are not grasping the true concept of a right. See, a right does not exist other than in rhetoric and wishful thinking in the absence of a government that recognizes and protects it. You don’t get to have guns just because you think they’re cool and really, really don’t want the government to prevent to get involved. Really, just go to Europe and try it sometime.

51

First of all, Europe can pucker up and kiss my rear-end. America was founded by a peoples who fled the government tyranny of Europe.

In America, individual freedom and liberty was to be paramount. The government was to be "of the people, by the people, for the people…"

The concept of rights only existing at the behest of the government is a “Bizzaro-like” worldview that is the antithesis of traditional American ideals.

I would like to thank you for the revealing light that you are shining on the inherent danger that liberalism poses to freedom.

52

I’m tire of gun control threads, but…

and

I know it’s difficult to see, but there is a difference between a gun (which must be pointed at a target) and an “area weapon” like a grenade or anything else that explodes.

53

Oh boy, here we go with this tired bromide. “Well, if you can have a gun, I can have a bomb. Naa na na naa naa”.

Look, here’s the deal. Just as one is pervented by law from yelling “FIRE!!” in a crowded theater, it ain’t the words themselves that fall outside the Constitutional protections of the First Amendment, it is that the words endanger others. The press is prevented by law from defaming a second party with the written word, not for the words, but that the words are injurious to the second party.

Likewise for armature. While the Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms, one is prevented by law from aiming that weapon at an innocent, not because one has a weapon, but because he is endangering an innocent party with it.

While it is a perfectly legal form of self-defense to point a weapon at a threat, bombs endanger innocents.

No, it does not. The people were already keeping and bearing arms prior to the writing of the Constitution or the creation of any state militias.

The Constitution was not written to grant rights to the people, the Constitution is a set rules and guidelines for the government. The Second Amendment is one of those rules for the government to abide by. The Second Amendment expressly forbids the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If enough people wish the government to have the power to regulate the private ownership of guns, then there is an Amendment proceedure. Instead, gun-control fanatics (liberals), want judges to rule by decree through “interpretation”.

Okay, I’m goin’ to nitpik. The militia is “necessary to the security of a free State”. You’re right, “regulated”, in the context of the Amendment is more closely akin to “trained and diciplined”. The states can still have a well regulated militia without infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

Well, the general population may not be able to prevent a military coup, but they would still have the means to a degree of self-defense. It just becomes a matter of tactics. Life’s too short to cower at tyranny.

George C. Collinsworth

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

54

You do realize that Europe is a somewhat different place than it was in the 18th century, right? Or are you seriously claiming that Europe is some sort of totalitarian hellhole? If so, all I can do is giggle at the silliness of the claim.

I think you’ll find that description applies quite well to most of Europe these days. It’s a very democratic kinda place.

Sez you.

Right this way to the gulag, comrade. :rolleyes:

55

Yeah, me and Thomas Jefferson.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (and that aint the FedGov) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

–The Declaration of Independence–

56

Yes, quite a number of long-dead people believed quite a number of very silly things. Given that there is no Creator, however, I’m afraid that I’ll have to remain unimpressed with your appeal to authority.

57

My “appeal to authority”??? There was no “appeal”. I referenced the Founding Father’s concept of inalienable rights and the Constitution, and what better authority than those who constructed America’s constitutional government?

So, just because you happen to be a non-believer, does not change the concept of inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are not provided by any source. Each of us as individuals possess certain inalienable rights.

Oh, and here’s something else to think about whenever you may ponder on the concept of eternity.

There’s no such thing as nothing.

58

I eagerly await your evidence demonstrating the validity of this remarkable hypothesis.

Hey dude, don’t bogart that thing.

59

minty gree

Razorsharp’s statement that you don’t grasp the concept of a right seems to be true. At its core, Razorsharp’s statement is a statement about morals. If Razorsharps had said “There are some things which it is immoral to do, regardless of what the government says”, would you ask him to provide evidence demonstrating the validity of that “hypothesis”? Even if you disagree with someone’s morailty, asking them to “prove” it is silly.

minty green

And you do? You don’t like the way I phrased your position. So that gives you the right to call me a liar and demand an apology? (Gee, it’s not in the Bill of Rights. Obviously you have no right to speak to me this way :rolleyes: ). Lying means misrepresenting the facts, and doing so maliciously. I did neither. I asked you to clarify your position, and you gave an evasive, nonresponsive answer. That was the point I was presenting in my OP: people who say that the first half changes the meaning don’t say how it changes the meaning. By including the phrase “along the lines of”, I was making it clear that the exact wording of that answer was not relevant to this thread (and I was therefore attributing a position to you, not specific words). If you wish engage in wildly hyperbolic verbal abuse regarding my wording, that belongs in another thread, and in a different forum (and perhaps while you’re at it, perhaps you can see to apologizing for all the times you’ve misrepresented my words and made completely unwarranted personal attacks).

And this thread is even more evidence for my position: we’re on the second page, and no one has presented a clear statement of how the first half changes the meaning.

60

Here’s one. It means the arms the people have a right to keep and bear are to be used in a manner pursuant to the needs of a well-regulated militia. Other uses, such as personal defense, etc, are fair game for legal restriction by the congress or the several states.

Not saying I actually hold this position. I’ve stated in the past that I feel the whole gun control thing is kind of a non-starter these days because one of the main thrusts behind the ammendment was each citizen would be a soldier at need and that assumed no standing army. Since we have a standing army, kind of obsoletes that goal. Another goal of the ammendment was to ensure a popular revolution was possible if the government became a tyranny. Given the disparity between modern military forces and civilian forces armed with civilian-caliber weapons I consider the idea of a successful popular uprising against a tyrannical government ludicrous. Better to abandon this “check” on the government’s power. It doesn’t exist anymore.

Enjoy,
Steven