View Full Version : Let's discuss the 2nd Amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This thread will not devolve into a religious discussion.
Some questions for you all... In your opinion:
How important is the SCOTUS interpretation of any or all of the 2A (and the Constitution as a whole)? IOW, do you even care that the Constitution itself created and empowered the Supreme Court to be the final word on interpreting the Constitution?
Should the 2A be looked at from the intent of the framers or the actual words on paper? If there's a conflict, which should be followed?
Who are "the people"? All citizens? All inhabitants of this country, citizens or not? What about the blind (for purposes here, let's say they literally do not have eyes)? The very young or the very old? Prior felons? Prior or current domestic abusers? The mentally unstable?
What is meant by "keep and bear"? Are there any limitations to how you keep and how you bear? Or any limitations to where you keep and where you bear arms? For example, should so-called constitutional carry such as AK and AZ be the norm? Should "brandishing" be a protected form of "bearing"? Should arms be allowed in court rooms and prisons (either by visitors or even by criminals)?
What is the definition of "arms"? Does it cover all blades? All firearms from derringers to "rail guns" (as in guns so large they need a rail road track to move)? Or is it just what's man portable? Does it protect future forms of non-firearm projectile weapons like the other kind of rail gun (such as a theoretical class of rifles based on the technology being tested and developed for use on future warships)? What about directed energy weapons (lethal lasers, particle beams, phased plasma in the 40 watt range, etc)? Does it cover explosives (from explosive ammo to tannerite to RDX filled 2000 lb bombs)? Does it cover the Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and Radiological class of weapons?
What is "infringing"? Is sales tax an infringement that the Constitution should prevent? Is a waiting period? Is registration? Is a criminal background check? Is it any ban or restriction on what you defined as "arms" previously? Is a person's rights being infringed if he murdered someone and is no longer allowed to own a firearm?
Any other opinions of the 2A are more than welcome, even if not specifically addressed. But responding with just "Shall. Not. Be. Infringed." doesn't help, unless you truely believe that a convicted murderer, wife beater, puppy kicker, illegal immigrant, North Korean spy, and escaped prisoner who is also blind and on a dozen medications for mental issues, should be allowed to walk into a store and purchase a carl gustav recoiless rifle and ammo without background check; even if one was done and showed his current fugitive status as well as full record, he should not be denied such a purchase by law. Because an extreme interpretation of the 2A would follow that logic.
Outlander Systems
09-04-15, 08:50
I don't need anyone to "bestow" or "interpret" my natural right to self-defense. As a sentient, free-willed individual, I have a right to defend myself from tyrants, criminals, or any combination of the two.
Who are "the people"? All citizens? All inhabitants of this country, citizens or not? What about the blind (for purposes here, let's say they literally do not have eyes)? The very young or the very old? Prior felons? Prior or current domestic abusers? The mentally unstable?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
By the wording of other articles in the BOR, the people is EVERYONE. No one is barred from free expression; furthermore, the 4th Ammendment applies to everyone.
What is the definition of "arms"? Does it cover all blades? All firearms from derringers to "rail guns" (as in guns so large they need a rail road track to move)? Or is it just what's man portable? Does it protect future forms of non-firearm projectile weapons like the other kind of rail gun (such as a theoretical class of rifles based on the technology being tested and developed for use on future warships)? What about directed energy weapons (lethal lasers, particle beams, phased plasma in the 40 watt range, etc)? Does it cover explosives (from explosive ammo to tannerite to RDX filled 2000 lb bombs)? Does it cover the Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and Radiological class of weapons?
Firearms.
What is "infringing"? Is sales tax an infringement that the Constitution should prevent? Is a waiting period? Is registration? Is a criminal background check? Is it any ban or restriction on what you defined as "arms" previously? Is a person's rights being infringed if he murdered someone and is no longer allowed to own a firearm?
in·fringe·ment
inˈfrinjmənt/Submit
noun
2.
the action of limiting or undermining something.
"the infringement of the right to privacy"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When they say, "Shall NOT BE INFRINGED" it's pretty simple.
It doesn't matter if puppy-kicking seal-beaters own weapons, if everyone else keeps and bears arms. One armed puppy kicker doesn't do very well against "The People."
One might argue that Law Enforcement doesn't protect "The People" from criminals, but protects criminals from "The People". Law Enforcement, and the judicial system in general, keeps necks out of ropes, and keeps "the posse" at the house. Law Enforcement prevents mob-justice, ensuring Constitutionally-afforded Rights to "the people". Checks, meet, Balances.
If every soccer mom had a G19 on her hip, and the determination to protect her children, there wouldn't be any Adam Lanzas, Dillon Roofs, Bryce Williams, etc.
Thus, "keep" and "bear".
All the talk of "equality", and people forget that the firearm provides equality to all.
An armed populace isn't at the mercy of criminals, scumbags, whack-jobs, etc. Those folks are rendered impotent by an armed people.
An armed people don't need nanny government to wipe asses and noses. The problem we have today is that people would gladly trade liberty for the appearance of "safety", in order to have asses and noses wiped, and chickens in their pots.
What other amendment to the Constitution has caused so much consternation and uproar over the past couple centuries? Seriously...it seems like any time any other amendment has gone before the court (THE court, SCOTUS), by and large, issues get settled. Issues related to 2A? Not so much.
I think one of the biggest challenges is to interpretation, and the interpretation is usually based on one's ethical and moral view of firearms and one's perspective of history. Unfortunately the preamble to 2A is often interpreted differently than the restrictive clause, i.e., people want to interpet the whole thing based on either the first part, or the last part. To me, that is like being pregnant: you are, or you are not. And historically, the anti's like to use the preamble with regard to a formal, state-run military-like apparatus, when the definition of militia is specifically meant to be "of the citizenry," not "of the military." So even in that respect, their interpretation is historically and symantically false. With regard to the restrictive clause, courts have been pretty clear (and with which I agree): it is the right of the people.
Unfortunately, still, is that the courts like to play kick-the-can and toss the issues of registration, type, etc. to lawmakers. What I find particularly hypocritical about this is that in most cases the courts like to make broad-sweeping emphatic decisions on just about everything else, but in this case, not so much.
Just accept the fact that they really don't want you to have arms. It makes it harder to govern and tax.
The Founders were a different breed from the people in office today.
These same people argue that the Founders never knew about M16s and belt-feds. Yet, happily chirp away on Facebook and Twitter which is different. All the while electing to ignore that the cannons used in the Revolutionary War were by and large privately owned.
The gun divides us as a species. For every man who sees it as a tool of liberty, there are three who see it as a reminder of responsibility tgey seek to shirk, and ten who see it as an obstacle to taking advantage of the weak.
The people who cry the loudest about guns are afraid one might be thrust into their hands and are told "fight or die". Because they are equally horrified of both. 'Oh we have cops and soldiers for that' they say. Yeah.....sure.
People are simply too spoiled and have things too nice to understand that there are people who would kill and rape just for fun. And they want what you have. And they don't care how you vote.
brickboy240
09-04-15, 10:35
If you read the quotes of those that wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it will be very obvious as to their intent with regards to the Second Amendment. The left will blabber on about how "militia" only meant the standing army but their words told us the real intent.
Our founders knew that if only the police and military were armed...we'd be back under tyranny real fast.
Agree with much of what Outlander stated.
As to the interpretation of what the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist papers are a good source.
In my own opinion, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has been politically corrupted. The Afordable Care Act, aka, Obama Care and the Citizen United decisions are recent examples. Not to mention their past record of getting it wrong such as 'Separate but Equal' the Japanese internment camps in California, etc.
Anyone who examines our system of Government would note that the Judicial branch is supposed to function as a check to the other branches of government, but seems to only serve as a rubber stamp.
The 2Amendment along with the First are the most important gurantees to our freedom. As I told my old anti-gun civics highschool teacher once, "if wasn't soo important then why was it second on the list?" She was flabbergasted and could not provide an intelligent response which resulted in most of the class laughing at her.
Ultimately, if a man cannot speak his mind and defend himself and family, then what kind of life is he left with.
Outlander Systems
09-04-15, 10:46
Ultimately, if a man cannot speak his mind and defend himself and family, then what kind of life is he left with.
None worth ****ing living.
Whats the Second Amendment? We don't that this in NJ :(
SomeOtherGuy
09-04-15, 11:26
"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."
This thread will not devolve into a religious discussion.
Some questions for you all... In your opinion:
How important is the SCOTUS interpretation of any or all of the 2A (and the Constitution as a whole)? IOW, do you even care that the Constitution itself created and empowered the Supreme Court to be the final word on interpreting the Constitution?
You might want to look up Marbury v. Madison and the history of the Supreme Court. Although it was created by the Constitution, it is by no means clear that it was intended to have the role it currently has of invaliding some laws due to stated unconstitutionality, while declining to rule on numerous cases. Although this is a settled issue for our current system, it is not something that necessarily follows from the actual written Constitution.
The Founders were a different breed from the people in office today.
These same people argue that the Founders never knew about M16s and belt-feds. Yet, happily chirp away on Facebook and Twitter which is different. All the while electing to ignore that the cannons used in the Revolutionary War were by and large privately owned.
An important but little known fact (underlined). The founders didn't contemplate nuclear weapons or strategic bombers, but short of that, arms in general were recognized as being OK for private ownership. Remember that there was not intended to be any standing army either.
In general: right to bear arms applies to all citizens. I can see a prohibition on arms possession for violent felons as maybe being compatible with this, if limited to only violent felons (convicted murderers and armed robbers, essentially) and with meaningful due process. The current laundry list of petty crimes that can void your right to own guns is not compatible with the Constitution. Prohibitions on non-citizens probably are OK, but could be its own lengthy discussion. The type of arms that are protected for private possession would include all modern infantry weapons at an absolute minimum. Beyond that I can see both legal arguments and some obvious practical but non-legal issues.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-04-15, 11:48
When people bring up the 2A, I try to tell them that it isn't about guns. It is about the ability to defend your rights. We are all pretty well versed that the 1A is about the freedom of thought, expressed in 18th century language of protecting speech, assembly and religion. The founders were smart in that they didn't just give us the abstract right to freedom of thought, they put concrete things that are protected so that we have the freedom of thought.
The 2A is the same way, but people get stuck at the concrete level of guns and never progress to the right to protect self-determination and thought. You can see this clearly with the idiots that talk about only flintlocks should be legal- as if they would only protect Gutenberg printing presses and horse drawn carriages for assembly.
The 2A isn't about guns, it's about the right to forcibly protect the 1A rights. Which is actually pretty frickn' brilliant. The founders were smart enough to grant us the right of thought and expression in the 1A but they knew that words on paper would never truly guarantee that right- so you get the 2A. It is no coincidence that the 3A is about quartering troops after you have popped off at them with your 2A rights and thru the 4A-8A (7th non inclusive) about protecting you from the govt.
That anyone could construe the 2A to actually limit people's rights is a complete misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights and frankly our country.
This, to me, explains it better than anything else.
That anyone could construe the 2A to actually limit people's rights is a complete misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights and frankly our country.
Most folks look a the BOR as government bestowing rights on the individual, instead of affirming rights deemed to already in exist.
Moose-Knuckle
09-04-15, 12:37
Let's just get rid of it and all those pesky guns as I'm sure somewhere out there some LGBT, Muslim, African-American, and or woman is offended by it.
When people bring up the 2A, I try to tell them that it isn't about guns. It is about the ability to defend your rights. We are all pretty well versed that the 1A is about the freedom of thought, expressed in 18th century language of protecting speech, assembly and religion. The founders were smart in that they didn't just give us the abstract right to freedom of thought, they put concrete things that are protected so that we have the freedom of thought.
The 2A is the same way, but people get stuck at the concrete level of guns and never progress to the right to protect self-determination and thought. You can see this clearly with the idiots that talk about only flintlocks should be legal- as if they would only protect Gutenberg printing presses and horse drawn carriages for assembly.
The 2A isn't about guns, it's about the right to forcibly protect the 1A rights. Which is actually pretty frickn' brilliant. The founders were smart enough to grant us the right of thought and expression in the 1A but they knew that words on paper would never truly guarantee that right- so you get the 2A. It is no coincidence that the 3A is about quartering troops after you have popped off at them with your 2A rights and thru the 4A-8A (7th non inclusive) about protecting you from the govt.
That anyone could construe the 2A to actually limit people's rights is a complete misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights and frankly our country.
Brilliant! As another member mentioned, why do you think it was put second, right after perhaps the most important fundamental right we have?
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-04-15, 14:25
Brilliant! As another member mentioned, why do you think it was put second, right after perhaps the most important fundamental right we have?
In early 90s I had a lefty business law professor, who was actually a true liberal. We were going over the BOR and he asked for a show of hands who thought that the 2A gives people the right to a own a gun. I may have been the only one to raise my hand because I remember that he pointed me out and said that he thought I was right. He was a true liberal that understood that the power of the govt could be misused.
I miss that class. Instead of being your usual BS, I think he was pretty burned out and we ended up have class discussion that seemed more at home here on the GD forum. It was an MBA program, at a state school in Missouri, and the number of mush heads there was really eye opening. You think business and MO, you'd think it would be more conservative. It wasn't like it was with the commies at WashU.
All people. All arms, anywhere. People had cannons back then, and had the same arms as the military because our citizens were our military. Changing that does not change rights.
The 2a should be amended to exclude nuclear arms and such.
"Ultimately, if a man cannot speak his mind and defend himself and family, then what kind of life is he left with?"
The kind almost everybody else on the planet is left with; grateful to get the scraps that fall from the master's table. If any.
All our rights are natural rights bestowed to us because we are human beings. The Constitution only guarantees that those rights will not be taken away from us by government. The Founders were responding to tyrannical ROYALTY who had abused their subjects for centuries. They got tired of being used, and resistance by force was their last resort. They made it uneconomical for the tyrants to continue the abuse by the use of force which required GUNS. This propelled them to create the 2A which they new would protect the other rights written as not to be infringed in the Constitution.
This, to me, explains it better than anything else.
Most folks look a the BOR as government bestowing rights on the individual, instead of affirming rights deemed to already in exist.
Bingo! Madison pretty much thought the BOR was unneeded, for just that reason - the rights already existed, so why did they need to be enumerated.
Bingo! Madison pretty much thought the BOR was unneeded, for just that reason - the rights already existed, so why did they need to be enumerated.
Excellent forethought perhaps? Can you imagine the libtards and what they'd do if those rights were just assumed? Hell, they do their best to undermine those right even when they're written down! I shudder to think of it........
Clearly, the BOR was added to the Constitution to limit the power of the central Government, not a "granting of privileges" as some would claim. The founding fathers were quite clear about their mistrust of a central government in their various and sundry writings.
As to "militia", the various Militia Acts define quite well who comprises the "unorganized militia".
As to the descriptive phrase "well regulated", in late 18th century English, the term "regulated" was synonymous with "trained" or "practiced". it was intended that the citizenry not only own military weaponry, but also regularly train and practice in the use of same. In many communities such practice was mandatory. Again, the writings of the founders reinforces this concept.
As to the concern about violent felons owning firearms - in the young Republic, this was a non-issue as violent felons were promptly executed upon sentencing. If they were lucky enough to avoid capital punishment, they lived out their remaining years enjoying hard labor or rotting in a cell somewhere. Repeat offenders/career criminals were relatively rare as a result. Perhaps there is a lesson here?
SeriousStudent
09-04-15, 18:37
Just accept the fact that they really don't want you to have arms. It makes it harder to rule and tax.
.................
FIFY.
Outlander Systems
09-04-15, 19:19
FIFY.
"Dominate and Subjugate"
FIFY
; )
FlyingHunter
09-04-15, 20:29
Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
Outlander Systems
09-04-15, 20:40
Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
Hear, hear!
This, to me, explains it better than anything else.
Most folks look a the BOR as government bestowing rights on the individual, instead of affirming rights deemed to already in exist.
Yep, I'm always amazed by the morons who view "freedom of speech" as unassailable but then think the very next amendment is subject for debate or interpretation. They don't seem to understand if you can "interpret" the second amendment, then all rights are up for grabs.
ramairthree
09-05-15, 00:01
Look at some of the state constitutions written at the same time. Very clear people have a right to defend themselves as individuals with arms, and the state as the militia. The military is not the militia.
Article 16 Vermont
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
NC and PA said pretty much the same thing.
Nh said
Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
A lot of other states copies the 2A as it is in the federal version.
Obviously not all states were in place to be writing constitutions back then,
But it is very clear it was am individuall right. This whole it's for the NG crap is think is a much later push/interpretation by those that just don't want people to have guns.
The whole they meant muskets argument seems to ignore a well heeled man could have a 22 shot Giardoni rifle, cannons, his own war ships, etc. to bring to bear as he funded his own army or fleet.
The well I guess you think everyone should have nukes is just a reductio ad absurdum as well.
In the 80s and early 90s I totally got the 2A was there for self defense, not just hunting. I did not get why it was there to protect us from the government. Then I saw other countries and got it, but still did not understand why we needed it here. Then stuff like ruby ridge and Waco started happening. Sure, I did not feel in the same shoes as an odd religious group or a white separatist, but it sunk in that someday anyone could have beliefs or be part of a group that puts them on the chopping block.
Not complying with a 90% income tax, forfeiture of Ira/401/403s above a certain amount, loss of personal property over a certain acerage, would require an unarmed bunch of subjects, not an armed citizenry.
I think there is a fear at some point enough people are going to say to hell with letting boys that identify as female into our daughters showers/locker rooms, the knock out game, assassinating cops, Dna check points, riots for criminals, and a whole lot of other madness.
Moose-Knuckle
09-05-15, 00:57
Look at some of the state constitutions written at the same time. Very clear people have a right to defend themselves as individuals with arms, and the state as the militia. The military is not the militia.
Article 16 Vermont
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
NC and PA said pretty much the same thing.
Nh said
Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
A lot of other states copies the 2A as it is in the federal version.
Obviously not all states were in place to be writing constitutions back then,
But it is very clear it was am individuall right. This whole it's for the NG crap is think is a much later push/interpretation by those that just don't want people to have guns.
The whole they meant muskets argument seems to ignore a well heeled man could have a 22 shot Giardoni rifle, cannons, his own war ships, etc. to bring to bear as he funded his own army or fleet.
The well I guess you think everyone should have nukes is just a reductio ad absurdum as well.
In the 80s and early 90s I totally got the 2A was there for self defense, not just hunting. I did not get why it was there to protect us from the government. Then I saw other countries and got it, but still did not understand why we needed it here. Then stuff like ruby ridge and Waco started happening. Sure, I did not feel in the same shoes as an odd religious group or a white separatist, but it sunk in that someday anyone could have beliefs or be part of a group that puts them on the chopping block.
Not complying with a 90% income tax, forfeiture of Ira/401/403s above a certain amount, loss of personal property over a certain acerage, would require an unarmed bunch of subjects, not an armed citizenry.
I think there is a fear at some point enough people are going to say to hell with letting boys that identify as female into our daughters showers/locker rooms, the knock out game, assassinating cops, Dna check points, riots for criminals, and a whole lot of other madness.
Word.
I'm binge watching The Sons of Liberty mini-series this weekend, can't help but think how far off the path we have strayed . . .
MountainRaven
09-05-15, 13:27
"Ultimately, if a man cannot speak his mind and defend himself and family, then what kind of life is he left with?"
The kind almost everybody else on the planet is left with; grateful to get the scraps that fall from the master's table. If any.
That has been the norm for as long as humanity has existed. And is largely still the state in which we live.
Ever hear, "You should be happy to have a job"? Same thing.
Excellent forethought perhaps? Can you imagine the libtards and what they'd do if those rights were just assumed? Hell, they do their best to undermine those right even when they're written down! I shudder to think of it........
No need. Just look at the UK (and Australia and New Zealand), whose founding legal documents include a right to possess firearms... subject to regulation by Parliament. I assume that the men who wrote that law never thought that Parliament would effectively suspend the right for virtually all Britons.
What sets the US (and Japan, IIRC, and maybe one or two other countries) apart from the rest of the world isn't that we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights - it's that we have made it relatively difficult to alter. In most other countries, their constitutions and the rights enshrined in them can be altered at will by act of legislature. In the US, the legislature needs a supermajority - plus a supermajority of individual states or a supermajority of the voting American public.
Firearms.
I agree with everything you said, except I would expand "arms" beyond firearms.
It includes arms like edged implements (swords, knoves, axes), blunt objects (hammers, clubs), spiked implements (maces, flails, spears), all of which existed at the time of the Founders'.
That definition, like freedom of speech, is not limited to current technology, though.
It includes laser weapons, just like the 1st Amendment includes cell phones and technologies not even invented yet.
Let's just get rid of it and all those pesky guns as I'm sure somewhere out there some LGBT, Muslim, African-American, and or woman is offended by it.
Not too far from the truth of what some people think.
In early 90s I had a lefty business law professor, who was actually a true liberal. We were going over the BOR and he asked for a show of hands who thought that the 2A gives people the right to a own a gun. I may have been the only one to raise my hand because I remember that he pointed me out and said that he thought I was right. He was a true liberal that understood that the power of the govt could be misused.
I miss that class. Instead of being your usual BS, I think he was pretty burned out and we ended up have class discussion that seemed more at home here on the GD forum. It was an MBA program, at a state school in Missouri, and the number of mush heads there was really eye opening. You think business and MO, you'd think it would be more conservative. It wasn't like it was with the commies at WashU.
All universities are like this, in all programs. It is shocking.
Excellent forethought perhaps? Can you imagine the libtards and what they'd do if those rights were just assumed? Hell, they do their best to undermine those right even when they're written down! I shudder to think of it........
True. Not including the BOR for the reasons some of the Founders wanted was a valid, admirable and reasonable position. However, in hindsight, it would have turned out very bad for liberty.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-06-15, 02:28
It isn't just Progressives that are an issue. Didn't Bork take the position, and doesn't Scalia too, that if it ain't enumerated as a right by the constitution and Amendments that it isn't a right?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.