Well, it's as close as I've come to seeing a rational explanation for its inclusion. I still can't help but think that this would have been somewhat self-evident in post-revolution America with no standing army. And this, again, makes it seem a bit redundant - unless the implication were that without a well-regulated militia, that the right to keep and bear arms need not have been secured. While it's not totally implausible, I still don't quite see the necessity for embellishing this Amendment and none of the others. And I do think that the exceptional addition of that clause in the Second is crucial to this debate. It is, after all, a frequent justification for "infringing" on the individual right to bear arms in the first place...

"What me rational?" (In my best Alfred E. Neuman voice)

Seriously, it is absolutely the wording, or more accurately, the punctuation of the second Amendment that causes all the trouble.

So one has to ask. Why is it, we do not write an Amendment to correct it?

I would think, with a Republican Majority in both houses (and all the NRA contributions that went towards keeping it that way) that we should be able to get them to draft an Amendment to the Constitution clearly defining the right to bear arms (and the restrictions we chose to place on it, like no privately owned and operational (as in weapon systems) bombers and the like)

It begs the question, why is it that the majority has not taken up this issue?

As a side note: After nearly a year of frequently writing, calling, emailing, and commenting on a long list of websites I was FINALLY able to get someone to respond to me from the GOP and assure me that they would remove me from their mailing list ASAP.

Interestingly enough, I finally got this response after I wrote to every officer in the RNC telling them that so long as I get mail from then, I will stuff it all back into their pre-paid mailing envelopes and mail it back so that they could pay twice for ignoring my requests. I received a letter from Ken Mehlman, the RNC chairman (though I doubt is came from him personally) stating that I would be removed from their contact lists ASAP.

Apparently, when you are dealing with the RNC's money directly, they still remember what Fiscal Responsiblity is. I stop sending the stuff back on their nickle the moment I stop receiving it.

Correct it? You mean repeal it?

The second has been ruled over and over to be a collective right. US v Miller is the defatco precedent that all - except the Emerson case (at a lower level) - have followed.

The we-wuz-robbed argument regarding Miller clouds the very clear ruling the court made. Miller did not have a right to own a sawed off shotgun because it had no place in a militia. That court and almost every court that has ruled on the second amendment issues view the militia the same and that's why a 1939 ruling has stood the test of time.

It is clear to the Supreme Court and they have ruled on it. It's those that disagee that want a new amendment. or a new court ruling. They could have had a new ruling with the Emerson case, but the current Supremes punted it.

It certainly does - and with very good reason, as I have pointed out. The justices issued their ruling based on flatly false information. This should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.If a current Supreme Court which sees BOTH sides of the case, sees fit to uphold that ruling, then so be it. My prediction is that they will reverse it... after they have finished laughing as the preposterous circumstances of the original ruling.



No, the court did not say that. It ruled that he did not have a right to own a sawed-off shotgun because it had no place in THE COUNTRY'S MILITARY. But in fact, such shotguns had a well-established place in the military at that time, again as I have pointed out. Clearly, had the justices known what the truth was, they would have ruled differently.


With good reason.



The Supreme Court cannot go on shirking its duty forever. Nor will it.

It's interesting to note, BTW, that in the US v. Miller ruling, the Supreme Court stated flatly that weapons identical or similar to those in use in the military, ARE protected by the 2nd amendment, and can be legally owned by ordinary law-abiding citizens. So, by this ruling, I should be able to walk into any gun shop and buy a fully-automatic M16 rifle, which is a compact weapon very widely used today in our military. It's also a small-caliber machine gun. And I should encounter no restrictions to doing so.

The people who keep insisting that US v. Miller should not be overturned, keep forgetting that part of it.

I don't mean to any offense, but did you read the entire topic? I can't see how you could have, and then concluded that I would wish to "repeal" the second Amendment.

I am suggesting that we right a new second amendment to make the individual right to bear arms clear, without the confusion of the militia statement. We can also add to it the limitations of this right, as in no anti-tank missile systems and the like.

We could also address the issue of militias in a new amendment, separate from the right to bear arms amendment. In this way we can return the power to the states to have a true militia, not a national guard that takes orders from and gets its weapons and ammunition from, the US Army.

As for the sawed off shotgun argument. The weapon definitely has a use in the military. There is no better weapon (short of a flame-thrower) for clearing out tunnels, and fighting in extremely close quarters.

It would also be an excellent weapon for home protection. The velocity of the shot is low enough to make it very unlikely for it to penetrate the outside walls of a home and harming someone else (unlike say a 45 cal. handgun), and the compact size allows it to be easily wielded in close quarters like a hallway of a home.

Excuse me? This is straight out of the ruling:

It is as exactly as I previously stated. You really need to read the ruling and all the rulings around it saying the same thing before making claims of what you think it said. The Miller ruling was very specific and it's decision had nothing to do with gamesmanship or technical reasons.

And overlandsailor, I have read what you stated. My point is, if you want a new amendment, the current one must be repealed and replaced with one that says something different. Otherwise, the current one doesn't need to change since the courts have upheld it's meaning repeatedly.

And finally, nobody disputes the shotgun's purpose in the military for reason including those you pointed out. But Miller wanted to keep a SAWED-OFF shotgun (something that can be hidden) under the protection of the second amendment. That's why this ruling is so important and why it stands.

To anyone else paying attention:
The Miller ruling explains very clearly and in a historical context why the second is not an individual right. Regardless of what you want the militia to mean, they must be able to be COLLECTIVELY called forth to defend against attack and be ready to defend. There is nothing ambiguous about that intent as spelled out numerous times.

But someone, please answer the question I've asked several times: If you beleive the second is an individual right, is physically attacking what I beleive to be a tyrannical government not only not a criminal offense, but my absolute right?

Me, Me, ME.

Absolutley. This is the basis of everything that the 2nd ammendment was founded for. This is why we have this ammendment; to rise against the government if it ever becomes as tyranical as the King had been. So therefore if people were to raise up against the government it is not only lawful but it is a right.

It seems to me that this is the biggest hole in the "Individual Right" argument and I haven't really seen anything presented here that is convincing.

If we follow DaytonRocker's question to the real world implementation I'm not sure it will result in anything that is defensible. If this right was authored to protect individual rights to facilitate overthrowing an oppressive government then you'd have to conceed that it would not only be legal but indeed patriotic for Joe Average to run around with a semi-automatic weapon shooting up police stations and government buildings because he believed the government was tyrannical and he was trying to overthrow it.

You'd have to agree that people like Tim McVeigh were not only innocent but constitutionally protected because they were striking out against a government they believed was tyrannical.

I highly doubt we'll find one person that has participated in this debate thus far to conceed that either of those situations is acceptable. If you can't then you must acknowledge that this amendment was not designed to allow the government to be overthrown by force if necessary by an armed mob. The only provisions for changing of the government are the peaceful ones that define elections.

One could argue that our current government is tyrannical with things like the patriot act, and trying to shove morality and religion down all of our throats. However, I can't see any circumstance where it would be permissable for a group of like minded individuals to gather, obtain weapons and take on the government by force. That blows a hole right through the middle of your second amendment reasoning.

CubeJockey, you've exactly nailed my point.

Timothy McViegh blew up a federal building housing government employees. If the Constitution were written to protect our right to violently overthrow our government (and hence the need to "bear arms"), Timothy McViegh exercised his Constitutional right. He could further argue that the kids he killed were "collateral damage" much like we do in Iraq and did in Vietnam.

Personally, I find that entire premise abhorrent. And John Adams, an anti-federalist, rejected the first draft of the Constitution because of what he termed "mob rule". So, the amendment to the original (that got rejected) was drafted specifically because of this. This is why "militia" and well-regulated" are in that amendment.

People are quick to point out what was said in the Federalist papers, but refuse to acknowledge the anti-federalists. It took both sides to ratify the Constitution, and simply allowing any dimwit to own a gun was not going to get it ratified.

Where does it say this?






The second ammendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms in case a militia of the people is needed. That does not make any violent action against the Federal government legal. Since we won the revolutionary war it was 'right'. If we had lost, we may have still considered it 'right' but everyone who fought it would have been guilty of treason. (Being morally right does not make you legally right and the second ammendment does not protect you. If you succeed in overthrowing the government then you make the laws and it is then legally right for you to have done that.)

Correct. And even if we finally, somehow, prove that a militia of the people is NOT needed, the 2nd amendment would still guarantee individual American citizens' rights to own and carry guns and other such weapons.




Correct, the 2nd does not make that legal. The Declaration of Independence is what makes certain violent actions against the government, legal. To wit, if the government becomes abusive of our "inalienable rights", then we have the right AND DUTY to overthrow it. The 2nd merely ensures we will have to tools in the dreadful event that we actually need to do that.

BTW, the 2nd also ensures we will have the tools to deter and/or fight off common criminals and marauding wildlife, too - another important reason we are free to own guns. The Framers knew there was never a cop around when you need one. But the most important single reason was, of course, to force the government to do its duty... one way or another.

Collective right v Individual right. Ok this is perhaps the easiest amendment to interpret because it says what it wants in the actualy wording. I don't understand some's views that the 2nd amendment is a collective right and not an individual one. And that somehow "a well regulated state militia" changes the entire premise of the amendment.

But here is a question for the ages...who makes up a militia? Individuals! So even if your logic construes that only a militia can be armed...it is a group of individuals that make up that militia. So therefore...in order to respect the militia's right to bear arms...you must respect the individual right.

I mean...just for an example...let's say all guns were outlawed for private citizens...only police and military may have one. How exactly does the militia bear arms in this situation? The first step towards dictatorship is always the disarming of the populace. As Comrade Stalin once said, "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. I won't let my people have guns, why would i let them have ideas?"

Ok, no problem.

It has absolutely nothing to do with any legislation, statute or "regulation" issued by any governmental body. The term "well regulated" in the military sense means that said corps are in proper functioning order. We only need to examine samples of the term's usage during the Colonial Period.

Let's first examine The Federalist #29:

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

The yeomanry were the landholders, presumably farmers, who would be taken from their essential work for training. Hamilton recognizes such training could only be achieved through an unacceptable mandate from government upon all, ("To oblige the great body"). The adding of, "and of the other classes of citizens" is a direct refutation and condemnation of the exclusions outlined in English common law and their bill of rights that the framers held in contempt. That general inclusion, of every class of citizen, without regard for land ownership, religion or title told the people that no exclusions or qualifications attached to a citizen's status were to be enacted or inferred by the proposed constitution.

And for this discussion, it is plainly clear that well regulated, as used to describe militia, does not mean controlled by any legislative body. Well regulated is merely an accolade; it describes a quality; "the character of" the unit and the men. That description is earned. It is earned only after demonstrating expertness in military readiness and order ("acquire the degree of perfection"). It is a description that is bestowed ("entitle them to"), not an formal, rigid condition that can be ordered to exist or legislated into being from Washington or any statehouse.

We could also examine floor debates of the Continental Congress:

"The Board of War, to whom were referred the letters from Brigadier General Conway, brought in a report, which was taken into consideration;

Whereupon,Resolved, As the opinion of this Congress, that it is essential to the promotion of discipline in the American army, and to the reformation of the various abuses which prevail in the different departments, that an appointment be made of inspectors general, agreeable to the practice of the best disciplined European armies:

Resolved, That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.

Resolved, That the duty of these officers be as follows:

To review, from time to time, the troops, and to see that every officer and soldier be instructed in the exercise and manoeuvres which may be established by the Board of War: that the rules of discipline are strictly observed, and that the officers command their soldiers properly, and do them justice."

Journals of the Continental Congress-
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1777
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?amme...@lit(jc00964)):

So, in order to promote order, Congress is appointing an inspector general. In order for that inspector to reform the forces into a well regulated condition, he must be familiar with what constitutes a well regulated force. Congress then tells us what the criteria is; an understanding of "the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army."

The IG will certify progress is being made by checking, "from time to time," that the proper maneuvers are taught, rules of discipline are followed, and the officers treat their subordinates fairly.

If well regulated simply meant under governmental regulations, why didn't Congress just pass a law ordering the desired "well regulated" condition? After all, in this case it is the Continental Army we are talking about, not the militia, nobody questions that Congress has complete legislative and regulatory control over the army at all times.

Or, could "well regulated", when discussing the "general economy, manoeuvres and discipline" of a military force, just mean "properly functioning" and "in operational order and condition"?

Mentally replace well regulated in the Congressional excerpt above with any euphemism for law, or regulation, or governmental control and re-read it. Does it continue to convey the intent of Congress to appoint an inspector general, whose knowledge of military affairs will aid in restoring order to the force? Now replace it with properly functioning. . . Wow, isn't that neat?

Another way of examining a words meaning is to understand the definition of "your" word's antonym. Hot><cold, dark><light, it is a simple exercise.

Rocker, if you would please tell us all what your definition is of the term ill-regulated in relation to military affairs.

It's definition has remained unchanged, unchallenged and ignored politically for centuries. Ill-regulated has just kept chugging along while its opposite, "well regulated" has been the focus of so much bewilderment among some . . .

Ill-regulated has been used in describing substandard military condition for centuries.

"For this reason I shall examine, by what has passed of late years in these nations, whether experience have convinced us, that officers bred in foreign wars, be so far preferable to others who have been under no other discipline than that of an ordinary and ill-regulated militia..." -- Fletcher, Andrew, A DISCOURSE OF GOVERNMENT With relation to MILITIA'S, Edinburgh, 1698. Reprinted in Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun Selected Political Writings and Speeches, David Daiches, Scottish Academic Press 1979, Edinburgh

It is still in usage today;

"Acute viral hepatitis and cholera were the two major diseases that Russian medical personnel had to contend with. Both are endemic to squalid living conditions and confined living space found in ill-regulated field camps and deployment areas."

VIRAL HEPATITIS AND THE RUSSIAN WAR IN CHECHNYA
U.S. Army Medical Department Journal, May/June 1997 issue
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/...ti/hepatiti.htm

The plain definition of ill-regulated is unchallenged.

That definition of ill-regulated and my definition of well regulated are antonyms.

I think that makes perfect sense.



Please point out Article, Section and clause which establishes such qualifications. The Militia Acts and various state statutes certainly did establish age criteria FOR THOSE SUBJECT TO MILITIA DUTY. I have read as many of these laws as I can find and I have never come across anything that would disarm a man upon his 46th birthday. He may still exercise the right to arms but he is no longer subject to militia callup or muster if he is enrolled. Those ages are only a restriction on the state, the state surrenders its claim on the citizen at 46, the citizen surrenders nothing.



Incorrect summation of Adam's statement.



Wrong. It was those restrictions and qualifications on the right which the founders found so distasteful. Madison's introduction of the proposed amendments specifically denounced the restriction based on religion on the right to arms.

Have you ever read Tucker's Blackstone?