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.
My interpretation is that it doesn't mean that you have to allow even convicted serial killers to just waltz into a store and buy a 357 because the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed"
God only knows how many people are dead because of those four words, or more precisely the cons infatuation with them and their insistence that they're written in stone
Well that's just it, they're NOT written in stone. If you don't like them, you are free to try and get them changed. There is a legal process, explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, for you to do that.
That's how this country operates see, we are a system of laws. We must obey these laws. We don't get to just pick and choose which laws we like, and which we don't.
You are more than welcome to try and change the Constitution if your little heart desires, but until you're successful, we have a Right to keep and bear arms. GET OVER IT.
Show me where in the second amendment the words "individual rights" are written.
Don't start putting words where there are none, just to make your point.
What part of "the war had just ended, the militia, made up of ordinary people were now given the right to arms, and as a militia, to be regulated".
The entire citizenry did not fight, or pick up arms in the defense of the colonies, a group of men and boys did that, and they called themselves a militia.
Assuming the British invaded soon after the war,again, who do you suppose would be the ones arming themselves, and going to war once more against the British?
If you say the general public, you are wrong.
That is why the fathers addressed the amendment to the militia.
They knew they had to be protected permanently from any threat, foreign or domestic.
If you read your history, you will find that some among the colonist sided with the British, and the founding fathers wanted to insure the militia would be ready should conflict break out with in the colonies themselves,
By giving them the right to arm themselves to protect the colonies.
Again, not one word stating the general public has the right to bear arms, only a militia.
Now what part of that do you not understand?
Some here have asked, if "people" were mentioned in all other parts of the constitution, and those people were considered the general population, then how can the "people" mentioned in the second amendment be different than the general population?
That is a fair question, and deserves a fair answer.
To begin, none of us were around when the second amendment was drawn up, so we can only speculate as to what the founding fathers intended in the wording of that amendment, and the wording is the key to what I believe was intended.
Had it been written, "A strong union of the general population is necessary, therefore, the right to bear arms by all citizens, shall not be infringed".
But that is not what was written.
Only mention of "a well regulated militia, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now if that doesn't speak clearly as to what the founding fathers intended, then I don't know what does.
Still how can there be two distinct meanings of people in one document?
That is quite simple, though in the constitution no reference is given to there being two different classes of people, except in the second amendment.
Some believe the founding fathers meant a certain group of people when it referred to the second amendment, while others feel the intention of the fathers was to arm the entire population .
Let's use the time period of the revolutionary war an example.
None of us were there, so we only have history to record what happened.
Obviously the British were hell bent against the colonist ruling themselves.
King George wanted taxes collected from the colonist.
The colonist rebelled.
King George felt the time had come to send troops to the colonies to stifle any more uprising.
The colonist had had enough, and small groups of men gathered in hidden meeting places to discuss and plan how they were going to defeat the British soldiers.
These groups fanned out across Massachusetts, and the other colonies, though many lives were lost, the British were defeated.
Some of the signers of the declaration of independence had active rolls in the war.
It was these men that would soon begin working on the constitution of this country.
Fresh from the war, perhaps with the echo of canons and bullets still ringing in their ears, they sat down to discuss what would be in the constitution.
Obviously there was much concern for the patriots that had done the mobilizing of fellow farmers and businessmen to form groups to fight and defend the colonies.
These select people fresh from the conflict were at the forefront of the founding fathers thoughts.
Perhaps when the first draft of the second amendment was drawn, there was confusion as to a specific group of people, being singled out for what would later be the final draft that would be adopted.
Perhaps one member stood up and stated"the people (meaning the general public) will not settle for less than equality in this constitution".
"How do we give special protection to a select group of people, while not giving it to all"?
"These fighting men of the militia deserve special protection not afforded to the general population"
"They fought, and many gave their lives for the good of the colonies".
After much thought, it was decided the militia would indeed get special protection, above what would be afforded to the general public.
The amendment in it's final draft was written and adopted.
The word "militia"in an effort to differentiate from the general population, was incorporated into the amendment, stating it would be well regulated, and that the right of the people to bear arms would not be infringed.
The people in this instance were members of the militias.
This document in, and of itself proclaimed that the patriots who had formed these militias to ward of the British, were indeed a select group of people,beyond the general population, and forever would be known as such.
As I said, none of us were there, but for all we know, it may have been exactly as described.
Two distinct groups of people not only mentioned, but dealt with in two separate ways.
The people who made up the militia, and the general public.
No mention of separation ever mentioned in the words, but it is overwhelmingly clear that the founding fathers, by adding the word militia to the second amendment, did indeed do that to show that these fighting men would forever be protected by the constitution.
Bob.
Thomas Jefferson had some words of advise for people like you......
""“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”""
If you have to try that hard to twist the facts to support your interpretation, than it's probably not the right interpretation. In this case, we know it's not.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 05-13-2015 at 06:15 AM..
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.
So the people refers to the government and, more interestingly, the people refers to the government only with respect to the second amendment...
The original intent of the Second Amendment, viz. to protect the right of the several states to control their militia's, and as a limitation of the power of the federal government over state militia’s under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15. At the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, there was no standing army, and there was very real concern that the Constitution ceded too much power to Congress. See The Federalist Papers, No. 46 (James Madison, Jan. 29, 1788 ). However that has been largely made obsolete by time, as the National Guard is now an adjunct component of the United States Army Reserve. (Interestingly, an argument could be made that the deployment of State National Guard Units to Iraq and Afghanistan violates the Second Amendment.)
Well, let's see...
"A well regulated MILITIA..." What, exactly, IS "the Militia" in the United States?
That's easy: According to Title 10, United States Code, there are actually TWO United States Militias! There is the Organized Militia (obviously, the National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia (everybody else). I'm not going to link it or quote it, it is readily available online, look it up and read it! So, the "What is the Militia" issue is covered by the laws of the United States. That is done.
Now, "The People": Given the way the Constitution is written, and given the way the Bill of Rights is written, does any body really believe that if the men who wrote the Second Amendment felt that a qualifier needed to be put in as to exactly who they were referring to by "the right of the people" they would have put the qualifier in?
Maybe they meant only "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant people". But they didn't write that, did they?
Maybe they meant "male people". They wrote that into the law defining the Militia, but they did not put it in the Second amendment!
Maybe they meant to exclude Indigenous People or Black people. But they did not write that, did they?
Maybe it is really very simple: When they said "THE PEOPLE", they simply meant ALL the people, just as it is stated!
But, when it comes to THE LAW, simple solutions are anathema to some people. NOTHING can be simple, all things HAVE to be complex and convoluted. "Lawyer Think", in other words.
Exercise the KISS factor; Keep It Simple, Stupid!
Maybe ALL the Amendments in the Bill of Rights mean exactly what they say, no more, no less! WOW, what a concept!
The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction taking up arms against our government. That's simple nonsense. Even to advocate such action is a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2385. The surest and swiftest way to lose your right to have a gun protected by the Second Amendment is to point it at your government.
No interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is required because Alexander Hamilton gave one in Federalist #29 and James Madison, actual drafter/author of the Bill of Rights, gives an even better one in Federalist #46.
To paraphrase Madison, particularly 46, paragraph 9, the right to bear arms is as obvious as the reason for that right, which is to prevent tyranny from the national government and their military. In Federalist #46, Madison laughs off the objections of a US military because well duh, the American people are armed and vastly outnumber whatever size army the federal government could conjure up, plus they have local and state government to essentially authorize or legitimize those armed citizens repelling the federal ambitions because well duh, sovereignty of the people and the states.
Madison assumed that every man in America would own a gun, and their right to keep and bear arms is the glaringly obvious rebuttal to fears of federal armed tyranny.
Beyond those two, Hamilton also wrote in Federalist 84 that he objected to the Bill of Rights entirely because it would invite the exact mischief we are seeing in this thread. The mischief he feared was that by listing certain specific rights that the government could not interfere with, later readings more prone to mischief would read that as "but the ones not listed are fair game because it was this Bill of rights that grants the rights" which is how the 9th and 10th Amendments made it into the Bill of Rights. Hamilton was entirely sarcastic and not just a bit caustic in Federalist 84 because he saw the whole concept of "they have only those powers SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED herein" as so obvious that the people raising objections and demanding a Bill of Rights were morons. How could the government violate rights when violating rights is not enumerated? Why list rights they REALLY cannot violate, when rights violations is not one of their designated, agreed upon powers? Beware listing these specific things, because you will allow future scumbags to read "specifically enumerated" a whole lot less specifically.
Hamilton assumed your right to keep and bear whatever freaking arms you felt like buying because as he states in Federalist 84, where is the government's enumerated power/function to abridge, interfere with or dispose of that right written? Nowhere in the Constitution is the government given power over the right to keep and bear arms, so why list it and only a few other rights that are also not enumerated as specifically deserving of protection? Of course everyone has the right to keep and bear whatever arms they want...duh? Why even mention something so freaking obvious?
And here we are, fulfilling Hamilton's prophecy every single day. Every single time someone says/writes the phrase "your rights GRANTED under the Constitution" or "your Constitutional rights", Hamilton's fear of future mischief is confirmed. Rights belong to the people and are a condition of existence. The government does not grant rights, existence does. And the government does not have rights, it has structure, powers, limits and duties. The exhaustive writings of the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, and the volume of speeches/letters/writings elsewhere from 1779-1787 make the concept of individual rights and specifically enumerated powers of government pretty freaking clear. In at least half of the Federalist Papers, they continually argue (Hamilton, Jay and Madison) that a document so specific, narrow and concise makes all these fears of future tyranny absurd. Specifically enumerated meant the world to these guys, and they figured if the government did that which was not specifically enumerated, well then the people and states would slap them down. And all were on record in later years as being baffled as the mischief got started not long after the ratification of the Constitution.
So we do not need to interpret the 2nd Amendment. We have Madison's own words and thoughts on the subject. The government was never given the enumerated power to abridge/usurp/interfere with the natural individual right to keep and bear arms, and everyone owning arms is obvious anyway. Furthermore, to placate the worry warts, we'll add in this Amendment in a larger Bill of Rights (which is more appropriately "the List of Amendments we need to add to shut up the anti-Federalist, anti-Constitutionists, and Patrick Henry, that annoying pain in the arse down in VA"), to make gosh darn sure nobody every mucks with the right to keep and bear arms, and will this keep everyone from being scared of federal takeover and tyranny?
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.
