How to explain the second amendment

[RaySendero]

The original Bill of Rights (10) were adopted as a single unit in 1791. They are a collection of mutually reinforcing guarantees of an individual US citizen's rights and of limitations on the federal, state and local governments.

The Second Amendent of this Bill of Rights states:
"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."

"arms" are firearms and other weapons that an indivudual can carry (bear).
That's what they passed - That's what they meant!

Trying to draw a line anywhere else is infringment. That's why they added the last four words!

[Hugh Damright]

The original Bill of Rights ... are a collection of mutually reinforcing guarantees of an individual US citizen's rights and of limitations on the federal, state and local governments.

There have been several threads here on this misconception if you'd like to look them up and learn something about it. The USBOR was intended to bind only the US, not state and local governments.

[BlueTrain]

If I read the original poster correctly, he believes that the right to keep and bear arms is there so that we can defend ourselves from the militia. Right? Of course, the way the word militia is used these days, I'd have to go along with that idea. However, since I'm past the age of the militia muster, I guess it's irrelevant to me.

[zukiphile]

I think the best way to explain why you want the text of the 2d and other amendments observed is to note that you believe in constitutional and limited government, and the 2d Am is one of those limitations.

There are always pragmatic bases for permitting an expansion of government to limit a liberty the expression of which we dislike, which is why being too pragmatic about constitutional rights is no virtue.

Someone's speech, assembly, religion, gun, right against search or private property will at any given time be a problem for public safety. Bending the limits of government to solve small immediate problems makes a larger long-term problem.

But the COTUS is a living document, and we need to interpret it according to the changing circumstances of modern society!

Fine, but the process of interpretation requires fidelity to the text being interpreted. There is no good faith interpretation of "shall not be infringed" that would permit Congress to infringe it at its whim.

[Idahoser]

this battle was lost a long time ago. The Constitution has had no power over government since membership in the 'union' became compulsory. When the states' representation was removed there was no longer any pretense of this being a republic.

[BlueTrain]

The states are still well represented, though some more than others. You are no doubt aware that congressmen do everything in their power to do things that will benefit their state and district. You may otherwise argue about who the representatives represent.

There is naturally a minor problem here and that is about the representation. Naturally congressmen are supposed to represent everyone in their district, yet sometimes one can't help but think they only represent some of the people. Of course only some of the people voted for them since receiving 100% of the vote is somewhat unusual. But overall, I don't think (this is just my own opinion, understand) that the states all by themselves need to be particularly represented. This union, which some don't care for, is not a commonwealth of independent states or a confederation. That was what we had before the constitution, you may remember. There must be some reason enough people thought so little of the arrangement that the constitution was written.

[Idahoser]

the states do not have representation. There are two houses of representatives, one legitimate and the other perverted from what had been the states' representative body in DC.

states would not voluntarily surrender their authority to "The State" as do those "senators" who can buy your vote with your money. When the state legislature elected the senator, the state legilature is who they owed their allegiance to, not some nebulous and impossible to define "people".

The beginning of socialism in America required the subservience of the states, which could not be accomplished against their will, so their will had to be thwarted. 17th Amendment.

And I'll go so far as to let you in on another little secret:

That's what it's going to take if you ever want to see your America again, is to repeal that. First. There is not going to be any permanent improvement in this country until that natural check/balance AGAINST DC is restored.

Do that, or stop whining about this country's condition, you're not really interested in fixing it.

[Hugh Damright]

The States do not have representation

I think that Virginia has representation in the Senate, regardless of whether the Virginia Senators are chosen by the Virginia State Legislature or chosen by the people of Virginia. And I don't see how Virginians are "some nebulous and impossible to define "people"".

I don't think ... that the states all by themselves need to be particularly represented. This union, which some don't care for ...

You don't think that states need representation, but it is other people who don't care for this Union?

[HiBC]

Those who wrote the Constitution were pretty fine wordsmiths. IMO,if we read the 2nd Ammendment and find a conflict of meaning ,we are probably not choosing the correct word meaning.
I think if we read it right,it sings.
Well regulated dueling pistols,regulating the artillery battery,regulating the 50 cal barrels on a p-51 Mustang,regulating the barrels on a double rifle are all uses of the word "regulated" that a lawyer or judge or legislator may not be familiar with.If Thomas Jefferson ordered a set of duelling pistols,he surely would specify they be well regulated.If I read the 2nd with those contexts in mind,it sings.
I also submit Von Steubens booklet of Regulations,an aid to make Washintons troops proficient with arms.
In the definitions of militia listed above,I think #3 more likely applies.Everybody who can drop their hoe and pick up their rifle.Think of the Swiss,or the Brits preparing for the Germans.
Those in power will assign a meaning to "regulated" that can be interpetted to increase their power.As the Bill of Rights is about limiting powers.The definition of "regulated"
that puts skills and responsibilities in in the hands of the citizen seems more likely,though less comfortable to those consider themselves rulers.
Likewise the word "State"
Those in government might seize the meaning of state to be the government "State" Maybe.But going back to my notion of "What sings?"
Lets try "State" as "State of being".As "The Status of Being Free"

"To sustain the state of being Free,We require a citizenry that can drop what they are doing and take up arms,and be effective with them,so the right of people to keep arms and shoot shall not be infringed

"They wrote it better,but that is how I read it,and it sings.

[brickeyee]

The original Bill of Rights (10) were adopted as a single unit in 1791. They are a collection of mutually reinforcing guarantees of an individual US citizen's rights and of limitations on the federal, state and local governments.

No, it ONLY LIMITED the federal government until the 14th amendment was passed extending the protections against the states.

The 14th was then eviscerated by the SCOTUS defining down what "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" consisted of.

The court then responded by using the 'due process clause'

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

to achieve what congress had intended, the extension of federal rights against the states in response to the ongoing mistreatment of the former slaves in the south.

[Idahoser]

Here's a really good quick clip of Judge Napolitano if you still think the 17th is unimportant.
http://repealthe17thamendment.blogsp...amendment.html

Virginia does NOT have representation in DC. The group of people who vote in VA have a representative, along with the legitimate representative for their district. Think your entire state can hold a 'senator' accountable? I know TN can't.

You represent who can yank your a$$ back home if you vote wrong. Senators are accountable to NOBODY.

[BlueTrain]

They all get to serve until the next election, when the whole thing starts all over again. And I didn't know my vote was bought! When do I get my money? Or is that only if I vote for the "right" candidate?

Stop mentioning the Swiss again, unless you like conscription. That's the way it works there.

And if the 2nd admendment was so clear and perfect, why did they immediately start writing more laws about the militia even before 1800? Is the constitution too short? Probably not but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists as a law document (written by lawyers) along with all the other laws already in force and with those passed since then. It was not written to be all things to all men. My reference to other people is to some of the other contributors to this forum, who seem to think the United States is a voluntary association of independent states. I don't like to see it like that. People have fought and died to keep the union--while others did the same to try to break it up.

But tell me again, what part of "my America" is it that I'm not going to see again? Then tell me what socialism is.

[Idahoser]

...who seem to think the United States is a voluntary association of independent states. I don't like to see it like that. People have fought and died to keep the union

then you don't like a republic, because that's what it meant. People fought and died to create a state, you cannot preserve a union by force or it stops being a union.

[HiBC]

"Stop mentioning the Swiss.."
BlueTrain,
I might have jumped to the wrong conclusion,if so,forgive me,
My gut takes the position you view what I had to say here with disdain.
It seems you have demonstrated that some superior folks should be able to tell other folks to not speak,
And I get the impression you favor firearms laws and regulations.
But,I could be wrong.

"I may not agree with what you have to say,but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Thomas Paine.

[RaySendero]

Hugh Damright

There have been several threads here on this misconception if you'd like to look them up and learn something about it. The USBOR was intended to bind only the US, not state and local governments.

No the misconception is that the signers of the BOR would do so knowing that these inalienable rights of the people could be taken away by subordinate governments. I understand some of Jefferson’s and Madison’s discussions prior to ratifying the BOR can be interpreted as such. I believe NOT - You believe what you want.

For instance look up the bill of rights article in encyclopedia britannica. It will also refer to the state governments.

[hogdogs]

I look at the 2A as one of those... "If I have to explain... you wouldn't understand" sort of subjects.

Brent

[RaySendero]

brickeyee

No, it ONLY LIMITED the federal government until the 14th amendment was passed extending the protections against the states.

The 14th was then eviscerated by the SCOTUS defining down what "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" consisted of.

.....

And most recently, 2A has been incorporated against the state and local governments in the MacDonald v. Chicago and 9th Circuit Court ruling. This ruling has already reverberated through many of our local governments and their police agencies, causing many to stop some of their activities that infringe on our 2A.

WE need to be unified on this issue, rather than trying to show our individual knowledge. We shouldn't act like lawyers. Don't be your own worst enemy - Stand together for your inalienable rights.

[brickeyee]

WE need to be unified on this issue, rather than trying to show our individual knowledge.

It would help if folks studied and learned before opening their mouths.

It is not that hard or complicated.

[RaySendero]

brickeyee

With all respect:

If we do not claim the 2A as our inalienable right now, We could very easily lose it entirely in the legal twists and turns that will surely come following the above ruling.

[Hugh Damright]

Lets try "State" as "State of being". As "The Status of Being Free".

To construe the Second Amendment's term "free State" to mean "an individual in the status of being free" seems like a radical libertarian construction to me. Here's are a couple pertinent political definitions from Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

FREE - (2)In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to the arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord; as a free state, nation or people.

STATE - (5)A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government.

It appears to me that the intent was to secure free government at the state level, to ensure that that the final authority or sovereign in Virginia is Virginians.

People have fought and died to keep the union--while others did the same to try to break it up.

If some people hadn't turned against the US Constitution, the others would have had no reason or justification for secession.

Virginians fought for the free State that the Second Amendment was intended to secure.

what congress had intended, the extension of federal rights against the states in response to the ongoing mistreatment of the former slaves in the south.

I think ithe 39th Congress intended the 14th be mostly an antidiscriminatory measure, creating a federal power to strike down discriminatory laws, not a federal power to strike down any law that violates the federal view of "rights".

Virginia does NOT have representation in DC.

Mark Warner and Jim Webb. States have equal representation in the Senate. I think California has 70 times as many people as Wyoming, but both States have two US Senators. I really can't get any traction on what you're saying. It's as if you're insisting that two = zero.

Think your entire state can hold a 'senator' accountable?

What are we talking about ... a State recalling/impeaching a Senator? I am not familiar with that ... but we pick our Senators and if they don't perform to our satisfaction then I reckon we'd pick someone else next time.

2A has been incorporated

Yeah, and the way things are going I might live to see a popular vote. But it seems to me that the further we stray from the original intent, the more important it is that we understand the US Constitution.

If we do not claim the 2A as our inalienable right now, We could very easily lose it entirely in the legal twists and turns that will surely come following the above ruling.

Some of us think that federalizing everything is the problem, not the solution.

[hogdogs]

Is this what they mean by thread veer?
Brent

[CapeCodShooter]

"But the COTUS is a living document, and we need to interpret it according to the changing circumstances of modern society!

"Fine, but the process of interpretation requires fidelity to the text being interpreted."

Perfectly said. That's why we can own revolvers and pistols, not just flintlock muzzleloaders. But the devil is on the details. If semiautomatics are okay for private ownership, why not full automatics? Hand grenades? Nuclear tipped missiles? That's why we have courts, to decide the "finer" points of what the founders laid down over 200 years ago. And it ain't always easy.

I practiced law for thirty years (not auto accidents, but really obtuse stuff) and never had an "easy" case, meaning a case where the law and the facts were clear. But to me, Heller and McDonald were the closest things to being clear, and any other result would have been absurd.

Thank you, Justices Scalia and Alitto, and thank you Alan Gura.

[Al Norris]

While it is reasonable to wander into the territory of "interpretation," let's keep it focused on the 2A. The other amendments are just that, other amendments.

[cannonfire]

Here is just some questions to throw out there for discussion.

1. What if by militia, the writers of the 2nd Amendment meant it as the "revolters" of a tyrannical government? Instead of an actual state organized militia, but rather just a group of civilians who are fighting the government due to oppression?

2. Let's say it is not about meant like that, but rather as a real deal militia, what stops us from creating our "own" militia? I'm am my own militia, or members of TFL are all ONE militia, etc. The 2nd doesn't mention that it has to be a state militia or even federally recognized.

[BlueTrain]

Well, I'll give it a shot.

I think the contemporary idea of the militia were the armed citizens of the community. They periodically mustered for such limited drill that they had. They did in fact see action now and then, sometimes with the French and more often with the Indians. The well-regulated expression, I believe, was that the militia was subject to the government and at the time, that was no higher than the state (or colony) level. I am not sure if you would describe them as "state troops" (not to be confused with state troopers) or not, though there were such state troops. How good they were or how well trained or "efficient" they might have been is beside the point. But, generally speaking, that's the way it seemed to have actually worked. Some of their gear was probably getting on in years, but that's also beside the point.

There must have been some difficulty during the revolutionary war years when some of the colonists remained loyal, yet were still part of some militia. I think some of them formed what are termed loyalist units. Things went badly for people like that after the war until eventually it was forgotten.

It is well known that there was a bad taste for a regular army after the war and an attempt was made to do without one for a while. Apparently that didn't work out as well in practice as it did in theory but the militia concept remained in place. True, it eventually evolved into the national guard (in which I also served, as well as the regular army) but some state units were still called the militia (the state militia) until well after 1900. Personally, I think the national guard is overused for federal duties but that's a different issue altogether. I think the idea there was that there would have to be an overwhelming support for war (or deployment) before the guard would be used overseas and you could question how well that worked out compared to the theory.

So basically, I think the 2nd admendment does say that the militia is an arm of the government (but I presume it to be state government, perhaps even local). That the well regulated part. But that was also when the expression "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" was taken more literally. In any case, George Mason apparently had some fear of what amounted to private armies. I have no idea of what made him think like that unless it was the British experience in their own civil wars.

That does not exhaust what might be said on the subject.