The Second Amendment

[Endur]

Well, I know everyone here knows this information, well, hopefully. I figured I would spark up conversation about it and see what you guys think about it. This is a paper I wrote a few months back for my Constitutional Law class I was taking at the time. If I made any errors, don't knock me too much.

“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.”

I am going to start by breaking down this Amendment into a modern explanation of what it means now. “A well regulated militia”, this means free citizens and privately organized militias that keep and are proficient in soldierly like tasks and duties as well as in the use and care of standard military style weapons; “being necessary to the security of a free state”, this part means for the security of local, state, and federal levels, but most importantly for the state of being free, or freedom, the protection of liberty; “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, this means all people have the right to own not just firearms, but all arms or weapons carried, equivalent of a soldier; “shall not be infringed”, and finally this means it cannot not be taken, limited, disregarded, broken, removed, altered, changed and so forth.

To some, that might be confusing, but let me sum it up: We as equal free citizens have the right, and a duty, to regularly train and maintain ourselves, and weapons, to justly and lawfully own weapons of carry to the equivalent of a soldier, for the protection of all liberty and the security of the nation from enemies both foreign and domestic, and this right shall not be taken or violated.

A big issue with the 2nd Amendment today is that many people think the phrase “well regulated” means the same then as it does today. They believe firearms must be controlled and limited because of that phrasing. Unbeknownst to them, the use of the word regulated was used quite differently in that era than it is today. Today we believe and use regulate or regulated to mean something governed or to make rules or laws that control. Back in the era when the U.S. Constitution had been written, the word regulated was used to describe something that was in proper working order or condition, something that was maintained. The phrase “well regulated” was in common use in that era as well. I have two quotes among others from the Oxford English Dictionary that have examples of the phrase “well regulated” being used: 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." The other: 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." Quite the opposite of how we use those words now.

The biggest issue with the 2nd Amendment today is the type of arms the founding fathers and the authors of the U.S. Constitution had in mind when they used the word “arms”. The use of the words arms in the colonial era had meant any weapon that could be physically carried, like: knives, swords, axes, rifles, pistols, bows, tomahawks and so forth. Today when people think of arms they think of all forms of weapons. They do not realize that weapons have different classifications. Cannons, artillery, mortars, and so forth are considered ordinance and not arms. Bombs and missiles dropped from planes or fired from the ground via a vehicle or stationary device are considered ordinance as well. People have changed the meaning of the word gun too. A gun is traditionally a type of weapon that fires ordinance; cannons and artillery are guns. Today people call rifles and pistols guns, but by traditional definition, they are not; they are firearms, or “arms”.

I am angry and frustrated that the people elected by us continue to misrepresent and target our unalienable right. They are fueled by emotion and propaganda in order to scare whoever they can into throwing this right away. Their lack of knowledge about what the 2nd Amendment means is astonishing. It can only be blatant ignorance or they just deliberately disregard the facts for their agenda. Even worse than that is a largely growing minority just don’t care and are blindly led by these representatives and soon they could be the majority. If that happens, we will quite possibly lose this right, which when the rubber meets the road, is what protects the rest.

[Mauser KAR98K]

Well said...very well said.

[SteyrAUG]

Actually the citizen "militia" of the colonial days DID have cannon and they were considered "arms." The idea was for the free citizenry to have weapons comparable to a standing army so that they could defend their freedoms if threatened.

But until things like fighter jets and tanks become affordable "arms" for the average citizen, we have long since lost that parity anyway.

[Endur]

Actually the citizen "militia" of the colonial days DID have cannon and they were considered "arms." The idea was for the free citizenry to have weapons comparable to a standing army so that they could defend their freedoms if threatened.

But until things like fighter jets and tanks become affordable "arms" for the average citizen, we have long since lost that parity anyway.

If you read the letters the founding fathers wrote back and forth to each other while drafting the Constitution, they were referring to "arms" as what can be carried by hand on your body. At least the ones that I could find pertaining to the Second.

[SteyrAUG]

If you read the letters the founding fathers wrote back and forth to each other while drafting the Constitution, they were referring to "arms" as what can be carried by hand on your body. At least the ones that I could find pertaining to the Second.

http://www.justice101us.com/concordgreen.htm

On Easter Sunday, 16 April 1775, Barrett received warning that British regulars were planning to march on Concord to destroy its weapons and supplies in addition to making him a prisoner for his influence in the cause of liberty. For several days he supervised the relocation and hiding of arms and materials away from and within Concord.

Due to a false report about the possible arrival of British troops at Lexington ten days earlier, one of Concord's leading citizens and commander of the Middlesex militia, Colonel James Barrett, had been busy transporting munitions and arms (and what they could) by wagon to the towns of Acton, Stow (north and west of Concord), and Sudbury (south and west of Concord). He even disassembled some of the cannon and buried them in furrows on his own farm. It made no difference. Concord remained a considerable arsenal by any military standards. They had hidden a lot. According to the notebooks of Barrett, 20,000 pounds of musket balls and cartridges, 50 reams of cartridge paper, 318 barrels of flour, 17,000 pounds of salt fish and 35,000 pounds of rice lay hidden throughout the community. There is no doubt that Massachusetts was getting ready to wage war.



Of course the next problem arises when we can build something like a nuclear "rifle." Does that mean it is fair game because it is man portable but an parrot gun is something no civilian needs?

[Endur]

http://www.justice101us.com/concordgreen.htm

On Easter Sunday, 16 April 1775, Barrett received warning that British regulars were planning to march on Concord to destroy its weapons and supplies in addition to making him a prisoner for his influence in the cause of liberty. For several days he supervised the relocation and hiding of arms and materials away from and within Concord.

Due to a false report about the possible arrival of British troops at Lexington ten days earlier, one of Concord's leading citizens and commander of the Middlesex militia, Colonel James Barrett, had been busy transporting munitions and arms (and what they could) by wagon to the towns of Acton, Stow (north and west of Concord), and Sudbury (south and west of Concord). He even disassembled some of the cannon and buried them in furrows on his own farm. It made no difference. Concord remained a considerable arsenal by any military standards. They had hidden a lot. According to the notebooks of Barrett, 20,000 pounds of musket balls and cartridges, 50 reams of cartridge paper, 318 barrels of flour, 17,000 pounds of salt fish and 35,000 pounds of rice lay hidden throughout the community. There is no doubt that Massachusetts was getting ready to wage war.



Of course the next problem arises when we can build something like a nuclear "rifle." Does that mean it is fair game because it is man portable but an parrot gun is something no civilian needs?

They might have had them, but the Constitution was not ratified until June 21st, 1788. We also didn't have an official military in 1775 either. We had the Continental Army, Navy and Marines. Which consisted of the militias and minutemen and merchantmen. Before that all we had were state local militias, we didn't have a standing military. Of course they are going to have those type of armaments but I get what you are putting down.

I think we would have blasters before a nuclear rifle but who knows. Could we even fit the technology to split an atom into a rifle size weapon?

[Koshinn]

No citations in a constitutional law paper? Is this for a college class?

Also I think your summation of the 2A is more complicated than the original formulation.

Canons and mortars are not ordinance, by the way.


The "technology" to split an atom can be astonishingly simple. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was considered so simple that it didn't need to be tested. The bigger question is if a critical mass of fissile material can be fit into a "rifle". Not really, no. Fusionable materials, yes, since there is no critical mass (and thus minimum size) required, but to make that fusion without fission to kick start it is something we can't quite do without putting more energy into it than we get out, meaning it's more efficient to just use that energy itself.

[Endur]

I have citations in the original APA format. I just caught that after months haha. ORDNANCE.

[SteyrAUG]

They might have had them, but the Constitution was not ratified until June 21st, 1788. We also didn't have an official military in 1775 either. We had the Continental Army, Navy and Marines. Which consisted of the militias and minutemen and merchantmen. Before that all we had were state local militias, we didn't have a standing military. Of course they are going to have those type of armaments but I get what you are putting down.

I think we would have blasters before a nuclear rifle but who knows. Could we even fit the technology to split an atom into a rifle size weapon?

If you read the Federalist Papers it is obvious that the purpose of the second amendment is so citizens can retain the means to protect themselves from a tyrannical government and that includes things like cannon.

The whole nuclear rifles was just a hypothetical to make a point, not a prediction of how technology will evolve. History has shown that every time we try and predict weapons development of the future we are usually a long way off.

[Endur]

If you read the Federalist Papers it is obvious that the purpose of the second amendment is so citizens can retain the means to protect themselves from a tyrannical government and that includes things like cannon.

The whole nuclear rifles was just a hypothetical to make a point, not a prediction of how technology will evolve. History has shown that every time we try and predict weapons development of the future we are usually a long way off.

Yes I know this, but the Constitution succeeded the The Articles of Confederation. The Articles were also deeply flawed and they knew that. If the Articles were what they truly wanted, they would have continued to use that. True many of the founding fathers wanted to keep the Articles and were opposed to Jefferson's idea of a three branch checks and balances government, but in the end they knew they needed something much better. When they were in arbitration at the convention and on break from it, they would discuss and debate with each other over the Amendments, and when discussing the Second, they were referring to weapons that could be carried by hand especially equivalent to what a uniformed soldier would carry. I am trying to find the website I used for the paper that referenced their written letters to each other but I cannot find the final version I had saved to print. I can only find the a rough draft and it doesn't have all the citations inputted.