From Wikipedia

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
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.

The copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:
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.

Both versions are commonly used in official Government publications. The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert, and hangs in the National Archives.

***

Questions for debate:
1 - What do you think this sentence means?
2 - Who are "the People"?
3 - Why "keep and bear arms"?

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.

1 - What do you think this sentence means?

It means that because a well-regulated militia is necessary, the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

2 - Who are "the People"?

Citizens.

3 - Why "keep and bear arms"?

Well, they had to actually be able to store them and use them.

Personally, I think this Amendment is seriously outdated. It is apparent to me, that the Framer's intended the right to bear arms to be necessary for the purposes of a well-regulated militia. A well-regulated militia of the period would have been required to supply their own weapons. It then makes sense to protect their right to keep and bear arms.

Nowadays, we don't have a well-regulated militia in the manner that existed back then. Therefore, there is no need for every Tom, Dick and Janet to own a weapon. Nor is there a need to protect this right to the extent that some would.

You read it exactly as I do and I think that a very strong case can be made to amend this amendment.

Just what it says and the benefit for the “mailtia” comes from the “right” to keep and bear.




All citizens

Because they believed you should be able to “keep” them, as in own them and “carry” them freely.

No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. - Thomas Jefferson

"Washington, D.C., has had a ban on private ownership of handguns for 30 years, but that is no more. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the city cannot prevent people from keeping handguns in their homes. The story of a federal court embracing the Constitution made big news, in no small part due to its rarity. Until last week, "Federal court upholds 2nd Amendment" was a headline I thought we'd never again see – right up there with "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hosts bar mitzvah."
This ruling will no doubt be challenged again and again. Because of this, it's worth looking at whether or not the gun ban worked in the first place.

During the decades-long period when private ownership of handguns had been banned in D.C., the murder rate rose – reaching a high point in 1991, when 80 of every 100,000 D.C. residents was murdered. The operative lesson to be culled from the gun-ban data is that that criminals tend to not participate in rigid adherence to laws.

The rate of violent crime also went up dramatically, and reached its highest points after the gun ban took effect. This must leave liberals, who design all their grand ideas in a vacuum, scratching their heads in between dodging all the bullets.
In 1977, the population of Washington, D.C., was 690,000. In 2005, the population was 550,521. I'm still trying to figure out how many of those 139,000-plus people fled, and how many were murdered as a result of being saved by the gun ban.

Some have even said that your odds of getting killed in Washington, D.C., are greater than if you went traipsing through Iraq."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=54654

Ah-HA! The amendment that Congress passed and the amendment the states ratified are not identical, thus grounds for abrogation.



Anyone?

1 - What do you think this sentence means?

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.

Translation: "The citizens of the United States will be allowed to own and use firearms. The government of the United States has the responsibility to regulate this ownership."

2 - Who are "the People"?

In general, all citizens of the United States, with certain exceptions. For example, very young children. Like all so-called "inalienable" rights, the debate really centers on the way in which they can be reasonably limited.

3 - Why "keep and bear arms"?

To ensure that people can both own firearms (i.e. not just be issued them by the government) and that they can use them (i.e. not just store them until directed to use them by the government.)



An interesting thought. I would say that the version which was actually ratified is the legally binding one. In addition, I would say that the difference between the two is strictly cosmetic. There would seem to be no legal difference between "miltia" and "Militia" (particularly given the 18th century tendency to capitalize nouns in ways which seem archaic nowadays.) The second comma seems to have no meaning, and can be thought of simply as an error, even with 18th century punctuation.

This statement doesn't mean that the government can't limit the use of arms.

The 2nd Amendment ties the protection of the right to the militia.



I can't believe these people are actually allowed to publish this stuff.

Here is a table of the District of Columbia Crime Rate:
District of Columbia Crime Rates - 1960 to 2005

The ban was passed in 1976. The murder rate had been over 100 and flucuating between 132 and 277 from 1964 to 1987.

It reached the high of 277 in 1974 - before the gun ban - and reached the second lowest of 147 in 1985 - after the gun ban.

In 1988, 12 years after the ban, the murder rate jumped to over 300 and stayed over 300 for a decade... reaching a peak of 482 in 1991.

It was 260 in 1998 - lower than in 1973 and 1969.

The murder rate was 195 in 2005.

So there really is no connection between the ban and the increase in murder rate.



Also misleading. The highest point for the violent crime rate was 17,083 in 1969. The violent crime rate has never reached let alone surpassed that figure since. While the figure was above 10,000 between and 1997 with a few dips below in some years, the figure has been below 10,000 since 1998 and was 8,032 in 2005.

So again, it is hard to find a connection between the gun ban and violent crime rates in D.C.

Looking at the table, it appears that there was a swell in crime from the mid 60's to the mid 90's. There doesn't appear to be a connection between that swell and the ban on handguns.

The thing that baffles me about this...and that makes me lean towards "the people" being "a militia" and not "the citizens" is that African Americans in the 18th century could not bear arms.

If the framers of the Constitution meant that "all the citizens of the United States" could keep and bear arms, they would have preceded "people" with the word "free". They did not; after 1791 African American slaves could still not possess guns.

Easily explained. Slaves were not considered people. They were considered like cattle. There would have been no reason to include them in the world people.

Not all blacks in late 18th century U. S. were slaves, some were free. Were free blacks considered "chattel"? I think that's the word you were looking for when you used "cattle."



http://www.history.org/Almanack/people/african/aaintro.cfm

1 - What do you think this sentence means?
A. That we are all in the militia or in preparation to be in the militia (so ages 0 to 120, and all genders and all races, and all religions, and all everything else).
B. Being in the militia requires the ability to be a good militaperson in the large, which is what well regulated means. It includes the ability to:
1. be a great grunt
2. be an aiding and helping force/person to law enforcement and emergency disaster activities
3. be well militarily educated (something that I don't think really happens nowdays, and as far as I know was last "officially/publicly advocated" in a book by the then MG Leonard Wood prior to our entering WW-I [Sorry, the Mil Academies don't meet my standards for this well militarily educated standard]
to be well trained and current in the basic skills of a rifleman and pistolero (i.e. the Marine's "everyone is a [competent and functional] rifleman" credo, extended even further in to the full militia skill set so its "everyone is a [competent and functional} militiaperson
4. rise to fill all higher levels of command that may become vacated a"above you" including Commander in Chief" if necessary (quite a skill set huh?)
5. be knowledgable and able to vote sensibly on military matters, fundings, doctrine, etc., etc. (Our present "on the cheap" and 13 or so basic training, so terribly terribly short and inadequate, is a horror and a travesty, ask any PTSD Vet!)

2 - Who are the People? All US citizens by birth, naturalization or intent, present active and reserve and guard members (yes indeed they are first and foremost militiapersons, other flavors of military-ness come only secondarily (that will get a rise out of the establishmentarianists I'm sure; but, I'd like some good argument and proof that this proposition is a lesser entity than theirs!, all office holders and firemen and cops (it's a little known fact but true and very sensible that during the so-called "Cold War" (didn't feel cold to me), the Berlin police force was also a full Infantry Division!!), housewives and mothers (the militia's first trainers), etc., etc.

3 Why "keep and bear arms"? Simply because to always maintain all that level of skill requires constant contact and practice with firearms. Therefore everyone has one and everyone knows how to use one well (It is also still a sensible "minuteman" militia credo, that they will be ready and able to go in a minute (or less), so their basic "kit" to use the British term, since that's when/where these "truths" were born in the USA (French and Indian wars (said to be the real WW-I) and it's "frontier precursors".)

They were considered people, they were not considered citizens.

From article I, section 2, paragraph 3:



Granted, when it came to apportioning representatives and taxes they were counted as three-fifths of a person, but a person non-the-less.

Math class ladies and gents 3/5<1. A fraction there of does not make a whole blacks were not considered a person THEY WERE CONSIDERED LESS THAN, and as such did not have the rights that a person would have! That IS a historically documented, and a mathematical, FACT.

Outside of the second amendment we have numerous statements by men such as Ben Franklin, Sam Adams, and James Madison clarifying exactly what they intended the second amendment to mean - that the people of the United States were to be and forever remain without any restriction armed at all times to defend against any who who would cunduct an assault on our homes, freedoms, or our lives, whether the attack comes from a foreign power or a person within our own country. It someone failed to include the phrase "to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic"

If one is to say that the second amendment is out of date, then what is next? The fith amendment? People just held the truth easier to determine then now we have to make people tell on them selves because criminals are sooo much smarter.

The first amendment? Differences in oppinions cause too many violent activities when arguements get out of hand so we just can't have people excercising free speech any more.

The fourteenth amendment? The majority of violent criminals are minorities, people of color, so we need to make them 3/5 of a person again so the white majority can be safe.

How far do you want to go with it? The founding ideals of our country? Why don't we look into places that have banned guns. How about Japan? Perfect example guns are not allowed. You have nothing to worry about other than a subway gas attack, because no one owns a gun other than the military, and the police. AND THE YAKUZA!!!!! Oh but one thing about that at least the Yakuza have a strongly rooted sense of honor unlike american criminals who have none.



"The right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed" - Infringed = ABANDONED, DISHONORED, DISOBEYED, DISREGARDED, IGNORED, ISOLATED, RETRACTED, TRADUCED, TRANSGRESSED, or in short and plain english RESTRICTED!!!

Its called a D-I-C-T-I-O-N-A-R-Y. Look up all the words before you "translate" something.

I am not recommending that we repeal the 2nd Amendment. I would recommend that it is amended and reworded. We no longer have a well-regulated militia - not in the manner that existed at the time. Members of the National Guard - the equivalent of what was the militia and supposedly under the control of individual states (though George the V would have it different) - no longer keep their weapons at their home. This is why it is outdated.

According to the government the rest of us are considered the "unorganized militia"... well-regulated means organized.

We either need to organize the unorganized militia and make it well-regulated or consider, as the government does, the National Guard the well-regulated militia. If the latter is the well-regulated militia, then the 2nd Amendment is unnecessary.

No right is completely inviolable... there are always instances in which rights protected by the Constitution can be infringed upon.

While you have people look that up, how about you look up C-O-N-T-E-X-T.

Here's your interpretation of a law:

Existing law:
As long two adults over the age of 18 consent, the right for people to have sex with one another shall not be infringed.

krash1023's interpretation:
"the right for people to have sex with one another shall not be infringed."

The language takes on an entirely different meaning when you ignore half of it.

It never states that the right to bear arms is hinged upon being a part of a well regulated militia, but rather that a militia is necessary for the protection of the United States.

Consider that the US has the most vast financial and natural resources on the PLANET. We are financially more wealthy and naturally more self-sufficient than any other nation on this earth. Why have we never been attacked? Why will there most likely never be foreign boots on our soil in our lifetimes?

One good reason is the vast number of small arms in the hands of the non-uniformed population. Any invasion into a nation requires boots on the ground. Our nation has more small arms in the hands of civilians than most nation's military's possess. Consider the difficulty that the world's most powerful Army has in a small nation like Iraq. If the Russian Army (or now Chinese, etc) ever landed on our shores, the uprising would be literally implausible to quell.

The fact of the matter is that the National Guard really isn't a militia in the sense that the founding fathers had in mind. The National Guard and Reserves are just that. Reserves. Part time, yet trained professional soldiers.

Here's one good militia definition:


Sure. George Washington probably had no intention of people carrying automatic rifles, etc. However, if you think that our nation's affection for personal firearms isn't a deterrent to physical invasion, you're sadly mistaken.

Regardless of how the 2nd amendment was meant to be interpreted, we're at a point in US history where the fact is that even IF we wanted to ban firearms for personal use, it would be impossible to enforce. Chances are that we'd fill up jails with otherwise law abiding and productive citizens, never to dent the industry. We'd force millions of Americans out of work, and cause a gap in our economy. It's just impractical. Point blank. It would be worse than the war on drugs...

So far as I know there is no power in the Constitution granting the government of the United States the power or the responsiblity to regulate "this", or many other ownership regulations that it has assumed.

It therefore is a power of the states and/or the people. However, forgetting for the moment the many "interpretations of the Const.", I am afraid that the practical facts of protection of self, loved ones, community, state and country is only practical today through the "skilled use of firearms". You will not get that level of "training and/or education" from your govt. in any form, and that has been a recurring "complaint" of post war warfighters for every war/conflict back at least to the Boer War! (Attempting to correct that shortcoming, by the way, led to the establishment of the NRA and the Boy Scouts, among others.)

You just can't train with what you don't have. And, the "controllers of access" are even more ignorant of the needs of this access (for training, education and maintaining "currency of skill levels") than anyone that I have ever had the pleasure of dealing with.

All you have to do is see one pile of green GI's dead on the ground surrounded by their weapons in various stages of being field stripped and un-jammed, loaded or locked to get a "true" (i.e. it really happened multilple times!) perspective on what your son and daughter will face if they are limited in any way in their capability to train, and get themselves trained well in firearms use skill. So, I suggest you not "give" the United States Govt. this power or "responsibility" to regulate ownership!!

And for those of you who say no group of armed “citizens” could ever oppose the US “military” – I point out Iraq where a few thousand “militia” have hurt our military badly. Now imagine this was millions and reconsider.



Yes and a factor in terrorist attacks. No terrorist could open up with guns in a Mall and hope to live long.

Unfortunately we have now made it painfully obvious that we care more about property than our kids in schools like UVA.

Ted, that statement is completely false.

The Iraq militias have killed and wounded 100s of thousands of Iraqis - not Americans. Statistically - when put into perspective with the size of our military - they haven't done that much to us. To be clear, 1 is too many for me as they are lives simply being thrown away for political gain.

Bad example. Try again.

No military likes to confront armed citizens and if it came to it neither would the US military. Certainly our military might “win” in the end but it would not be fun. Certainly the Nazi Party and the German Army could have controlled the country as they came to power but it was so much easier knowing there was no armed opposition.

The founders obviously felt it was important that Americans maintaine the right to “keep and bear arms” – I agree.

This was related to voting and taxes, i.e. the weight of a single slave body in regards to the population as a whole. It is also known as the three-fifths compromise, and has nothing else to do with slave rights.



uhhh me thinks you meant T-H-E-S-A-U-R-U-S but, meh anyhow...Krash I for one fail to see the benefit of complete non-restriction on gun ownership. Just to clarify, are you suggesting we have less gun control laws? Or keep the ones we have?

source?





You speak of this as though there is some legal bases to make restrictions. The Constitution being the Law of the Land, what law is above it? It says "shall not be infringed", what's to not understand about that. I think it's pretty final.

OK, so lets give guns to four year old children, people currently in prison and the mentally ill.

Oh, you mean there ARE restrictions? Funny that... I thought it was pretty final.


This debate goes in circles. The right accuse the left of ignoring the second clause in the amendment, the left accuse the right of ignoring the first clause in the amendment. You can't ignore the fact that the right to bear arms is in the constitution, but you equally cannot ignore the specific reference to a well-regulated militia.

Personally, considering the foundng fathers were on the whole brilliant people, I think they screwed the pooch on this one. Way to write an amendment with a sentence that doesn't actually mean anything. They obviously felt the first clause was critically important, as they did not feel the need to put contextual clauses before ANY OTHER part of the constitution, but apparently it was too much trouble to actually say what they meant...

I agree. There is certainly an overwhelming amount of ambiguity. My personal opinion is that if you attempted to make gun-ownership illegal and enforced it, it would be the "war on drugs" 10X over. You'd end up with armed conflict, with jails being overrun by otherwise productive members of society, etc.

Maybe stiffer penalties on gun crimes? Maybe stiffer laws on registration and taxation on ammunition? (funnelling the add'l tax $ into education, enforcement, etc) People in nations who don't have legal guns (i.e. Mexico) don't forego violence, and many of the nations surely don't have the same history and love-affair with the gun that the US does.

At the risk of really upsetting everyone, I offer that even kids and people in prisons and so-called mentally "deficient" have more than just their immediate use "need" for access/ownership to "guns". First they all can reform and I would like them to then be granted full rights of citizenship re guns then, second, they are all to be fathers, uncles, grandfathers, etc., and as such can train others in gun use, but only if they have them. Third, what I was taught in the military was deficient and wrong re guns, and I would not be alive had I not started out at about age 4 with my Dad's beginning my basic 22 training then and my getting a BB gun (now mostlyoutlawed for "kids"), and properly using it! And last, I was "very well and professionally", attacked, in the line of duty by a Cambodian boy about 12 yrs old who really knew his gun stuff. So-called kids can learn it and handle it (these tools called firearms!) responsibly!!!

I suggest, that my experience is a very likely occurence for our progeny of the future, and that they deserve the right to know how to use guns, for themselves and "for the defense of the nation, their families and their communities". And lastly (again) my direct experience with prisoners and so-called mental patients is that at least 10% don't belong there, and the capability of mental health folks to diagnose is not yet that great, though certainly they are trying. It's just still a very new science!

Obviously the Constitution was written by people who are no longer living, thus the reason we head on over to the Supreme Court whenever we take issue with a state or federal law that may defy it.

I think most of us can at least agree with Vermillion, in regards to the text of the Second Amendment, that the founders were running a bit too late to stop and get their caffeine before scribing this beauty. (Be advised I'm making light not of the Founders, but of the ambiguity of this one sentence.)

Has the Supreme Court ever ruled that the "Infringement Clause" of the Second Amendment was to be interpreted as an endorsement of the private ownership of all arms to all citizens?

Lets look at what is written on the founders intent of that day.


http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/m...2006_3_31.shtml

What would the Founders think of gun control?

By Richard Brookhiser


Also note at that time there were gun laws, it was illegal to use dueling pistols. so even at the time of the drafting of the constitution they clearly intended restrictions on guns.

Also note that these guns at the time of the writing could not kill hordes of people. and the founders clearly could not have envisioned nukes, chemical weapons, six shooters, shoulder launch, grenades, machine guns, assault rifles and so on as the state of the art portable. When the single shot had been state of the art for about 100 years.

The Declaration of Independance States: (and please, the first lines ARE important)
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Then we have the Second amendment. The two are inexcorably connected.

A disarmed population is one without recourse, against enemies 'Foreign OR Domestic'. People cannot 'overthrow' a despotic ruling government, nor protect themselves against one without arms. Nor can they defend themselves against foreign invaders. It is the unlimate of checks and balances in this society, the only absolute protection given to the population in extreme cases, and we have seen in recent history those cases.
We cannot simply believe that we are automatically immune to such cases and effects on the faith that OUR government is inherantly GOOD. (No governments truly serve the people) We have recently seen and by some understood, by obvious assessment and criteria, from The Patriot Act to constant criminal indictments of our officials, extreme secret abuses on civilian privacy and set ups on the Supreme Court, that our government is TAKING AWAY civil liberties, passing laws which allow them to do this 'Legally'. There is precident for this in the past, we know how it works and the eventual outcome.
The Founders knew that it is the job of government to eventually thwart the free will of the people and to become completely corrupt and self serving. The right to keep and bear arms was a built in deterrant to absolute government corruption and fascist take-over of the population, whether it is reasoned by outside threat , inside military coup, or faked manipulations.

Be Aware that the right to bear arms in this country is a deterrant to our government, especially the NEO- Administrations, this one and the next- who would like to see us all powerless. Although they have us so utterly cowed in fear of outside influences, it is a huge mistake to give up our guns in the belief that THEY can protect us.
They cannot, and certainly have not, Ill go so far to say, ever.
If, especiallly liberals, who do not understand what they are doing, (Kucinich for example calling for a total ban on guns) allow, or by a self induced victimization, create laws in which our arms are to be taken away, we are at the mercy of both, a despotic internal government and outside forces.

AT this point in time, it doesnt really matter WHAT the second amendment says sematically. The fact that we are allowed to bear arms so far today is something that should be held onto for dear life. Any weakening of this amendment or new laws restricting the right to bear arms are only weakening the public's position to have a say in maintaining their own freedom. It is one of the ONLY power positions left to us, and it is a strong one.

Here's a point that never gets resolved whenever we make this old argument: Was Timothy McVeigh exercising his 2nd amendment rights?

For all the federalists quotes that pop up (e.g. "no man shall be disbarred blah blah blah), none are provided by the anti-federalists that didn't want mob rule.

The 2nd amendment is what it is because of this compromise. The NRA acts as if the federalists won the debate. News flash: they didn't. If they did, the "to ensure a well regulated militia" preamble would not exist. The debate would be completely different without it.

As pointed out earlier, the 2nd was based off the British 1611 bill of rights that secured the right of all protestants between the ages of 18 and 45 to keep and bear arms. If you were a Catholic, not so much. So, it's clear it always had restrictions.

So, the argument has been framed with the "un-organized" militia to get this square peg to fit a round hole.

Let's pretend this premise is accurate. If the un-organized militia existed, there is no minimum or maximum limit of the number of people. Hence, the individual right claim.

Given this argument, didn't Timothy McVeigh exercise his 2nd amendment right when he blew up a federal building? Our government is never accused nor guilty of war crimes when innocents get killed while attacking legitimate targets because they are casualties of war. That same case can be made for Timothy McVeigh and anybody that decides they've had enough and decides to violently overthrow the government that many claim is protected by the 2nd. There is no specification on the minimum limits of an "un-organized" militia. There is no minimum limits which describe a tyrannical government. All of the "un-organized" points have no limits and/or specifications.

If I drive to the White House with a nuke and level D.C., I've struck a military blow to the government's command and control center. If I'm caught, I should be a prisoner of war because in reality, no laws were broken - I'm simply exercising my 2nd amendment right.

The NRA's interpretation of the 2nd protects insurgencies here just like found in Iraq. As long as we are not targeting innocents, it would not be illegal behavior. I'm sorry, but I have a problem with that. The 2nd was designed to allow us to protect ourselves from outside forces because of the lack of standing armies. Maybe you haven't noticed, but we have a considerable one now.

And here's yours:

Existing law:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

DaytonRocker's interpretation:
"As long as the people are part of a well regulated militia..."

Amazing what you can do when you add in completely new words that were never there at all.



Yes, it was critically important to them - as a point of emphasis. In other words, they wanted to make it clear that this right wasn't merely a right of personal self-defense, but of collective defense as well. It certainly wasn't put in there to limit that right in any way. There's not a scintilla of evidence to show any such intent on their part.



Hey, I know something about that guy you quoted.

Anyway, although it's beyond dispute that he had a huge influence on the thinking of the Founders, the quote you highlighted touches on probably the most critical difference between the system he was describing and the one we adopted. As Sir William tells us: "The power and jurisdiction of parliament, says Sir Edward Coke, is so transcendent and absolute, that it cannot be confined, either for causes or persons, within any bounds." The English Bill of Rights he was referring to was a limitation only on the power of the crown and the courts, not on Parliament. The Founders' contribution to Anglo-American law was to make a bill of rights that could control the supreme legislature as well as the other branches of government. So his comments about "due restrictions" imposed by law have essentially no relevance to this discussion.


Note further two things:

1. The federal bill of rights was written in stronger terms than most, if not all, state bills of rights at the time. State bills of rights generally spoke in arguably equivocal language. The typical format was to say that "the people have a right" to do this, that, or the other thing, and that said right "ought not be violated." The federal Bill of Rights allowed for much less wiggle room. In all of them, and certainly the 2nd Amendment, it is clearly stated that these rights shall not be infringed.

2. Prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment, it was generally understood that the federal Bill of Rights limited only the federal government (see Barron v Baltimore). So while states might prohibit duelling pistols, any national law which purported to do so would have been unconstitutional.

Another thing is that it generally doesn't violate the spirit of the 2nd Amendment to ban any specific type of weapon, provided that the ban is universal, and applies to government as well as the people. But when a law gives government a legal advantage when it comes to weapons, that's a facial violation. As you quoted Justice Blackstone as saying, this right is "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." All uncertainties that may persist in the meaning of that amendment have to be resolved in that light.



This is a joke, right? I mean, this can't possibly be a serious post. Who has ever argued that the right to own a weapon includes the right to use it on others at one's own discretion? When did "keep" and "bear" get defined as "detonate"?

That's an interesting theory.

The reason there is a contextual quote there and not anywhere else is because the founders wanted to emphasise it, apparently more than just by putting it in as the second amendment, they felt this was more important than all the other silly right (speech, liberty, etc) so emphasised this one and none other.

better still, acording to you they chose to 'emphasise' it by adding a clause to the beginning of th sentence that does NOT emphasise it at all, in fact seems to limit it. It gives a single statement of when and why the right to bear arms should not be infringed: it doesn't say ANYTHING about hunting or personal security or anything else.

That's hardly a plausible explanation for anything Blackstone, considering it fails logically on two counts at once. There was no need to 'emphasise' the clause and even if thats what they wanted to do, it doesn't. That is not the explanation: it is yet another example of the far right trying to explain it away and pretend that the only bit that matters is the second bit. (See my last post, above) You are amusingly guilty of the same thing you accuse DR of just a paragraph earlier, spinning the clause with your own aditional meaning and interpretation to suit your ends.




So it seems to me either you believe either that this right CAN be infringed in the name of public good and safety, or you believe it cannot be infringed and thus believe guns should be available to children and the prison population.

Comments about the supposed intractability and universality of the second amendment are silly as it is universally accepted as HAVING been infringed and altered subject to the common good. Besides, as you say, the second cluase states the right cannot be infringed... subject to the first clause: thats how grammer works.




But the government has access to a whole RAFT of arms illegal to the public. Shall we list them all? Seems again that the amendment is not as inviolate as you suppose. Besides, the law on the books at the time banned dueling pistols from public ownership and use, in an attempt to stop dueling. The class of pistols banned were still in use by officers in the military, so that argument is obviously false.





So 'detonate' is wrong because it isn't covered in the amendment, but 'fire' (equally not covered in the amendment) is fine? Hey, that works: make anyone allowed to 'keep' and 'bear' arms, but make it illegal for anyone to fire it. Allow guns, ban ammunition, nothing about THAT in the constitution...

Not agreeing with the somewhat bizarre argument about Mcveigh, by the way, just pointing out your counterargument makes no sense...

On that note: DR, I think your Mcveigh argument is well off base. As far as I know, Timothy McVeigh was not charged with 'illegally setting off an explosive', he was charged with murder, a crime covered by an entirely different part of the law. Had he set off his explosive in an empty field where no people or property was damaged, then you COULD make a case for this being part of his second amendment rights. That, however, is not what he did.

No...it's not a joke. And your argument is absurd. Nowhere in the constitution - nor any of the supporting papers - indicate you can keep and bear arms, but not use them.

Again, a common argument (that I completely reject) is that the 2nd gives us an individual right to keep and bear arms. The justification for this is the "un-organized" militia that everyone belongs to. This is a militia that does not muster, does not train, and does not meet the minimum qualifications as spelled out during that time period (type of weapon, type of ammo, etc).

As noted in the NRA's friend of the brief (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=114) in US v Emerson:



Nobody can argue that able bodied white males between the ages of 17 and 45 were called upon for the common defense back in the 1700's. But nowhere did anything state that women, blacks, and other groups of people were afforded the same protections. Again, the lack of standing armies made this necessary.

But we have standing armies now and people called upon to serve cannot use their own weapons even if they wanted to. So, as shown in the Emerson brief, the right to fend of a tyrannical government is thought to be protected.

So, back to my point. If it's an individual right, an individual has a right to revolt. Many people could make the argument that we have a tyrannical government. The tax system is wrong, broken, and is plain thievery. We detain people without oversight. We spy on Americans without cause. And the list goes on.

So, without any qualifications for the defintions of "tyranny" or "oppression", it would seem to be left the individual to decide what that is. Further, as an individual right, there is no qualification or definition of how many comprise a "militia". This is an open-ended definition that serves as an umbrella to protect non-whites, non-males, and people over the age of 45 so they too can have a right to keep and bear arms.

Lastly, as noted in the Emerson brief, the NRA argues that we should have the right to create insurgencies. Nobody could defend the actions of any group targeting civilians. But if you are targeting federal and military institutions, innocents get hurt - just like any war anybody has been in.

That's my problem with the "individual" versus "collective" right. You can't protect each individual the right to arm themselves without defining the limitations. Otherwise, it's mob rule. And that is precisely why the second is worded the way it is. Nobody wanted mob rule and everybody wanted a way to protect ourselves.

Violently overthrowing our government is not constitutionally protected. The NRA thinks it is.

I never said they were trying to elevate it above any of the other rights mentioned. Please read what I wrote again.


Expressing how necessary it is doesn't emphasize it?


Correct. That's because those things were considered a given that barely even needed to be addressed at all. Without the first clause, some artful interpreter might be able to say that the right could be limited to only those things.


Let's put it this way, the 2nd Amendment is no less absolute than the 1st. And yes, it's pretty well understood all around that criminals give up certain rights when they go to prison, such as the 1st Amendment freedom of assembly, for example.


Where are you getting "subject to" from? The first clause imposes no conditions whatsoever. It's just an explanatory clause, like the Preamble to the Constitution.

The way "grammer" works is this: "X being the case..." = "Because X is the case...".


And here we come across a fallacy common in most debates on the Constituion, which is that if the government does it, it must be constitutional.


I'd have to see the actual text of the law in order to be able to comment fully, but as I said already, this was a state law, not a federal law. And the federal Bill of Rights was much stricter and more unequivocal than state bills of rights. A national law banning dueling pistols would be unconstitutional.


Well, technically that might squeak by, but I don't know how far you'd get politically with a legislative attempt of that sort.


That's about like saying, allow guns but ban triggers. I think a fairly common sense definition of an "arm" is something that's actually capable of functioning as one.



No, it means he has the right to the means of revolt. That's not the same thing at all as the right to revolt. He can still be punished to the full extent of the law for taking up arms against his government. It just means that it's a little bit harder for government to do so. Which is exactly as it was intended. It shouldn't be too easy for government to force its arbitrary will on citizens.

And you asked if * I * was joking?

So, you really believe that the second amendment protects the tools needed for revolt, but can be prohibited from use? Tell me - I'm serious - help me out here: What trigger(s) are required to before we can overthrow our government? If your stance is that "when it is necessary", when is it necessary? Your litmus test "force its arbitrary will on citizens" has been met in the eyes of many people. Even Timothy McViegh.

It's inconceivable to me that someone believes the framers created a government that they thought eventually might require violence over elections. Were their convictions a mile wide and in inch deep? If you were talking about the current republican party, you'd have a point. But the framer's wisdom was far ahead of their time. I believe they knew elections would succeed. Violently overthrowing our government was not even a consideration.

Yeah, I figured on a response like this. Let me make it as clear as possible: there's no possible way of legally codifying the conditions required for a revolt, because it's by definition a process that exists outside of law. The most the law can realistically do is secure the means of doing so. The actual decision to do so has to be made by people, and they have to decide at that point whether or not they're williing to face the consequences that their choice might bring.


Then read up on them a little more, because they (particularly the anti-federalists, who were most responsible for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights) understood full well that governments, even the best-constituted governments, are merely human constructs and are therefore fallible. Just as Washington stated in his first State of the Union address that the best way to preserve peace with other nations is to be continually prepared for war, so they all understood that the best way for the people to preserve a peaceful relationship with their government is to have the means to make war on it if they have to.

No, you said they were trying to 'emphasise it', an emphasis they did NOT feel the need to place on any other right in the constitution. If you have a bunch of equal things and you specifically go out of your way to 'emphasise' one above the others, you elevate its importance. Thus, my comment.



Now who is adding words to the clause to recreate its meaning according to their own desires? You are doing exactly what you accused DR of, the only difference is you didn't 'like; his interpretation so substituted their own. The clause states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". You have chosen to add "because" at the beginning and "this is one of the many obvious reasons why" between the two clauses. Sorry Blackstone.



Now you are adding even MORE words, and backmeaning, and justifications about what is NOT there because it is 'obvious'. The problem is, if these things are a 'given', then why not JUST have the second clause? It seems simple, clear and straightforward, why not just say the freedom to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? They put in the first clause as contaxt and (arguably) as limiter. Of course since its so badly worded I can't be 100% sure of that, but certainly neither can you be certain of your creative interpretation.



You are correct. But then again, I am not the one who was basing an entire line of rebuttal on the 'universality and inalienability of that right. You were. So I presume with this admission you withdraw that prior argument.



I think you had best clarify that comment, because it sounds to ME like you just made an argument that, according to your interpretation of the constiturion, regular civilians SHOULD have unfettered access to heavy machine guns, hand grenades, tanks, fuel-air explosives, Mustard gas and nukes: all things the US military has access to.

I don't know how you can have it both ways.

To be clear, I am not a gun-grabber. In fact, you won't find a bigger supporter of conceal and carry than me. But I do beleive the second is a collective right with some restrictions.

But I do not beleive the Constitution protected tools for illegal behavior. That simply defies common sense. You are attempting to make the case that the second is the only statute in history that protects your right to something specifically (not incidentally) for the purpose of illegal behavior.

No, I said read what I wrote again. I didn't ask you to come up with your own version of it again.


Once again: "X being the case..." = "Because X is the case...". English.


I just explained why in the passage you quoted.


You just love making up quotes from opponents, don't you? To set the record straight, my "line of rebuttal" to inventor was to show that the federal Bill of Rights speaks in much more definitive language than state bills of rights.

But thanks for conceding that the 2nd Amendment is at least as absolute as the 1st.


I'm fairly confident that state governments are capable of handling those issues. If you don't think so, feel free to push for a constitutional amendment.



Actually, no, it's not the only statute in history that does so. The analagous provisions in state constitutions and in the English Bill of Rights do so as well. They help protect the ability to do something that's a natural right, but which is inherently impossible to legally codify.

I have, and responded, twice. Your shabby dismissal notwithstanding. You referred to is as a point of emphasis, and coneeded there was no other such emphasis in any other deliniated rights. Perhaps you could explain to us what YOU think 'emphasis' means?



Or, of course: SINCE X is the Case, THEREFORE Y right should exist. Also English. The first clause is a limiting statement on the second. pretty straightforward really. It's called an 'If/Then' statement, I'm sure you have heard of those.



Yes, and I just explained how your unevidenced assertion of what you happen to think it means makes little sense. See how that works?



Nope. You love making things up about people don't you? Both in this case and the earlier one I am responding to your words. Here are your original words:



Now of course it's your call, you can keep pretending I've misquoted you as an excuse for not responding to arguments, it is a free country: just don't imagine you are fooling anyone.



AGAIN, nice dodge of the question. Is it so difficult to answer straight?

YOU just made a fairly clear argument that you believe civilians should have unfettered access to heavy machine guns, hand grenades, tanks, fuel-air explosives, Mustard gas and nukes: all things the US military has access to. Is that really what you believe? I'm just curious, that is what you argued. And before you try and dodge that issue, no I didn't misquote you.




So... to be clear: You believe the purpose of the first clause of the second amendment is to explain to people that they have the 'natural right' to use their weapons to overthrow the state? I may have that wrong as your point is very confusing, but is that about it? The founders felt the need to put in the first clause to explain that it wasn't just the obvious but unnamed right to weapons for hunting and self-defence, but also the right to violent rebellion if they saw fit?

In this case, it means emphasizing what the meaning of the clause actually is. As in, it means more than just hunting and self-defense. Nothing to do with elevating it above other amendments.


Yes, that works, too. But "since" is not a word of limitation, only of explanation. Another word that can be substituted is "whereas", the way it gets used in the introductory statements of many laws and formal resolutions that get voted on by assemblies of people. And I know of no instance where a law was held to be no longer in effect merely because one or more of the "whereases" was judged by someone to be no longer the case. The salient fact is that the law itself judges it to be the case, and until the law is changed, that judgment controls.


No, you just asserted that it did.


In other words, the federal Bill of Rights speaks in much more definitive language than state bills of rights. What do you think you've just proven here?


Yes, you did.


When the state gets oppressive, yes (and no, this didn't need to be "explained" to the American people, as it was the bulk of the American people who demanded a Bill of Rights in the first place). It's pretty well documented that that was the intent. Sir William Blackstone said (as quoted by inventor above) that the right to keep and bear arms was necessary to "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." And if you're at all familiar with his Commentaries, you'd know that he was not some Jacobin revolutionary firebrand. He very much supported and cherished the system of government he lived under. He was just stating what at the time was understood to be a fairly basic principle of political liberty.

Then there's the Declaration of Independence, which speaks in even clearer language: "when a long train of abuses and usurpation, invariably pursuing the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute tyranny, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

If you truly believe this, then I don't see how any individual could be denied modern war weaponry. There would be no way to do this with current restrictions.

You would trust your average numbnuts with a couple F-16's. some cruise missiles, and a few MOAB's? According to your argument, as long as he's between the ages of 17 and 45 and doesn't have a felony conviction, he should have that right.

And on top of this, the threshold for "long train of abuses and usurpation, invariably pursuing the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute tyranny" is not defined, so the right to use this weaponry would always exist and be lawful.

I think you've made your argument worse.