Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just finished watching , for a second time, "The History of Us", which was on the history channel last year.
Not only is it interesting, but a tremendous learning experience.
After watching it, I decided to look at the amendments to the constitution, and stopped at the second, to ponder the true intention of that amendment.
This subject has been posted so many times, it almost feels like beating a dead horse, but my own personal belief of what the founding fathers had in mind was, not the general population being armed, but those "people" who would make up a state's militia.
Remember,the population in the state of Massachusetts where the revolutionary war had it beginning, was made up of farmers, business men, young men, who would one day, form a militia to take on, and defend against the the British.
These were ordinary people who volunteered themselves to fight the British.
Most importantly, these were(I believe) the people that the founding fathers had in mind when they adopted this amendment stating "the right of the" people" to bear arms.
Understand, these men and boys were the "people" that fought for independence.
You will also notice in that amendment that it states, "a well regulated militia".
The founding fathers knew what a militia was.
It was a group of citizens that formed, and armed themselves against the British, and the founding fathers by adopting the second amendment assured future people who formed a militia to defend against any and all invasions, would have the right to bear arms.
No where does it state that the general population has any right to bear arms.
It all comes down to what the founding father's definition of "people" was when that amendment was adopted.
The people had just conducted a bloody war against the British, and the founding fathers felt, and wrote, that their (the people who were then a militia) right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
I absolutely do not believer the intention was ever to arm the general population.
Through the years this has been debated, and somehow it usually winds up that many believe the amendment was directed at the general public.
I disagree with that finding.
After watching America, the story of us, one can't help but know the intent of the second amendment was aimed at a militia, made up of ordinary people, not people who comprise the general population.
Bob.
Judge Bork, a darling of the right, said it only applies to militias.
I'm a republican but I can't interpret it as applying to all people. I am in favor of gun ownership because I don't believe in big government. It's that we have too many laws and not about the amendment for me.
Colonial America was overwhelmingly an agricultural place. A gun in that instance was a tool as much as a plow or a hoe. Prohibiting guns was unthinkable except to a tyrannical government.
As the second amendment is presently interpreted: breaking into my home could be hazardous to your health. I am fine with that.
A law prohibiting guns will not take them from the hands of criminals. It will only make it easier for them to victimize the law abiding folks.
Once again, it goes back to defining what "people" the founding fathers were addressing in the second amendment.
At the risk of repeating myself, I see no mention of the general population in that amendment.
People as I see it mentioned, are the people who formed a militia to protect their state from invasion by another military force.
If the people were not this formed militia, then why was a "well regulated militia" mention at all in the amendment?
The people of the militia are the same people mentioned in the amendment.
Now, as the original poster of this thread, I would appreciate anyone posting, to refrain from bringing gun control, liberals, right wing, or anything else other than your interpretation of the second amendment into the conversation.
My take (as well as a majority of the Supreme Court's take):
1) The "militia" referred to all able-bodied men, not a formal military body. Still (and this may be more so my view), that has to be read with the third clause, which states "the right of the people . . ." and the intent of the amendment, which was, in part, to secure freedom against a tyrannical Federal government.
2) The amendment as written was actually not intended to be very wide-reaching as it only applied to actions taken by Congress, not to actions taken by the states, which were only covered under the incorporation doctrine. This point is further supported by the fact that it was understood that the Federal government, at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted, had nowhere close to the power it has today (i.e. commerce was not as broadly interpreted as it is today, etc.).
3) The amendment is not as clear-cut as some make it out to be. Specifically, apart from getting an understanding of what "militia" meant to the Framers, its important to understand what is meant by "infringed." Did "infringe" mean that the Federal government could not regulate arms at all? (That's doubtful, especially as its tough to argue that the government was unable to ban cannons from private ownership at the time the amendment came into force or that it was unable to prohibit people who took up arms against the United States from owning certain arms.) Or did it mean something else?
I think that the amendment is meant to be read more broadly than some read it (McDonald v. Chicago and D.C. v. Heller provide some great insight into the history of the amendment and the intent of the Framers), but not as broad as some others want it read (i.e. to mean that regulation of arms is forbidden, period).
I'm not really sure how I feel about it. I tend to think people should be allowed to have guns, but perhaps there could be limits to size of magazines, rates of fire, etc.
However, I do find it odd that many people think buying a gun will make them safer when it has been proven time and time again when you own a gun, you are FAR more likely to die from a gun than if you didn't own one.
I'm not really sure how I feel about it. I tend to think people should be allowed to have guns, but perhaps there could be limits to size of magazines, rates of fire, etc.
However, I do find it odd that many people think buying a gun will make them safer when it has been proven time and time again when you own a gun, you are FAR more likely to die from a gun than if you didn't own one.
Again, did you not read my last post?
I asked that you just give your interpretation of the amendment only, nothing more.
The size of a gun , rate of fire etc are not in the discussion.
The post is about your interpretation of the amendment only.
It would be nice if you, and any one else posting, would tell us what you think the founding fathers meant when they said "people" in the amendment, and explain why you answered as you did.
That's pretty simple.
Bob.
My take (as well as a majority of the Supreme Court's take):
1) The "militia" referred to all able-bodied men, not a formal military body. Still (and this may be more so my view), that has to be read with the third clause, which states "the right of the people . . ." and the intent of the amendment, which was, in part, to secure freedom against a tyrannical Federal government.
2) The amendment as written was actually not intended to be very wide-reaching as it only applied to actions taken by Congress, not to actions taken by the states, which were only covered under the incorporation doctrine. This point is further supported by the fact that it was understood that the Federal government, at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted, had nowhere close to the power it has today (i.e. commerce was not as broadly interpreted as it is today, etc.).
3) The amendment is not as clear-cut as some make it out to be. Specifically, apart from getting an understanding of what "militia" meant to the Framers, its important to understand what is meant by "infringed." Did "infringe" mean that the Federal government could not regulate arms at all? (That's doubtful, especially as its tough to argue that the government was unable to ban cannons from private ownership at the time the amendment came into force or that it was unable to prohibit people who took up arms against the United States from owning certain arms.) Or did it mean something else?
I think that the amendment is meant to be read more broadly than some read it (McDonald v. Chicago and D.C. v. Heller provide some great insight into the history of the amendment and the intent of the Framers), but not as broad as some others want it read (i.e. to mean that regulation of arms is forbidden, period).
A very broad statement, and well written.
I do have a couple of issues though with your explanation.
I disagree with the militia being cast as "all" able bodied men.
I believer it is a group of able bodied men who have joined forces to defend, but I don't for one minute believe it to mean they should be free to arm because the federal government may take them on in the future,
I think the founders were more concerned with another British invasion.
I think "infringed" meant that the militia of farmers, business men, and those who chose to volunteer who joined the militia were exempt from government taking their arms from them.
I also believe there in lies the confusion.
Those that believe the word "people" meant everyone, feel the word infringed applies to them, when in fact it was directed at those that comprised the militia.
Again as I posted at the beginning, why was the word militia even mentioned in the amendment if it was not the same as the "people"?
You will notice, the amendment, in the same sentence states,"a well regulated militia, the rights of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed".
Again, who are these "people"?
I interpret that to mean, a well regulated militia which is made up of people who are able bodied men, shall not have their right to carry arms, infringed.
Now as to who would do the infringing, that is open to much more discussion, but I think it was infringement not only by the government, but more , the threat of another go round with the British.\
"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 is how the amendment was written when ratified by the 1791 congress)
I read militia as intended to mean what is now the United States Military, which would have been probably closer to a militia back in late 1700's. I feel this is backed up by "being necessary to the security of a free State" as who really protects the security of the US, random gun owners in the general public, or the US military? If (let's say Canada for simplicities sake) decided to invade the US, who is going to protect the security of the "free state", public gun owners, or the military?
In this case people would refer to the members of the militia, or in a modern sense soldiers of the military. So overall I would take the second amendment to read that military service people and veterans of the military have a right to own weapons and that this can regulated by the government in any way other than the disallowance of this right as there is no mention on limits to regulation.
In this case people would refer to the members of the militia, or in a modern sense soldiers of the military. So overall I would take the second amendment to read that military service people and veterans of the military have a right to own weapons and that this can regulated by the government in any way other than the disallowance of this right as there is no mention on limits to regulation.
I'd have to disagree as the regular military and the power they can wield is one thing the "people" need to keep control of. It's the British military that is the enforcer of British law and government. To prevent this the "people" have the right to bare arms.
I think if you want a clue as to what is meant you can look at the Pennsylvania Constitution which predates the US Constitution. It's too bad they didn't just copy it word for word and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Quote:
Enacted 1790 and current:The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
1776 version: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the 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.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
