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.
The 2nd amendment doesn't say that. Perhaps you should read what it actually says?
The people who wrote it thought that the U.S. populace would be better off, even with a few crazy cat ladies and gangbangers, than with a government with the power to restrict or take away their personal weapons. That's why they wrote the 2nd with no exceptions. And a lot of states agreed, and ratified it. Not to make society perfect, but to make it as safe as they could, considering it's made up of imperfect humans.
And for 200 years after that, we have agreed too, and refused to modify it or repeal it. That's a pretty good record.
If the 2nd amendment were being written today, in modern English, it would say something like:
"Because an armed, disciplined population is necessary for security in a free country, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns cannot be restricted."
There's no point in worrying about "militia membership" or "well regulated" or any of those things, because they have no effect on the amendment's command that the right cannot be restricted by any government.
The reason we're only focusing on one part of the sentence, is because that's what the people who wrote it did. They wrote out the command ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"), and then put an explanatory phrase in front of it, as normal English suggests. That phrase means the same today as it meant in the late 1700's: An explanation only, having no effect on the command.
A few other parts of the Constitution have such explanatory phrases too. And they have the same effect: Zero.
A well regulated militia was the reason why the right existed, it did not extend or restrict the scope of the right to a well regulated militia.
So, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
What is a militia made up of? By definition, it's made of ordinary people called up from the general population to serve in a militaristic capacity. At the time of the founders, militia members often brought their own supplies / weapons with them to serve.
Sure, after you afford them their right to due process in a court of law. The government should not be able to just say "Ok, we suspect you have ties to terrorism, so you lose your right to own a gun. You prove otherwise if you want your rights back"
This otherwise makes sense except for the fact a well regulated militia sounds like it's a definition of the state (I.e. the voting population). I think most would agree that crazy extremist don't represent a "well regulated militia" in any context. I can see the argument of disarming the populace from a tyrannical standpoint, but not from a couple loons whose neighbors even think are unhinged.
I understand the context, yet if the politicians of 1788 knew we could level entire cities with one nuclear weapon, I'm sure they would have left a caveat in there somewhere. I take it to mean a "well regulated militia" as being someone conscripted by the state (colony, city, state, county or any other local authority) in which a majority of your peers in the community felt you could handle the responsibility and training of firearms, regardless if they're bows and arrows or nuclear weapons. Not any gang banger off the street.
You seem to be going down the road of "The 2A only applies to a select group of people known as the militia" argument, but this argument doesn't stand the test of logic....
For one, as I stated earlier, a militia as defined in the dictionary is raised from the general population, and is not a professional warrior class...
Number 2, we need not go any further than the text of the amendment itself, in conjunction with the text of other amendments, to defeat the "militia only" argument. The text of the Second Amendment declares a right of "the people".... The text of the First, Fourth, and Tenth Amendments also use the term " the people", and those Amendments are understood to apply to the general population, not just a special group, so why would the phrase "the people" mentioned in the Second Amendment mean anything other than it means when that term is used elsewhere in the Constitution?
All this, without even posting quotations by the founders that directly contradict the "militia only" argument. In fact the Second Amendment doesonly apply to the militia, but the founders viewed the militia as "the whole people, except for a few public officials"
This otherwise makes sense except for the fact a well regulated militia sounds like it's a definition of the state (I.e. the voting population). I think most would agree that crazy extremist don't represent a "well regulated militia" in any context. I can see the argument of disarming the populace from a tyrannical standpoint, but not from a couple loons whose neighbors even think are unhinged.
There's no point in worrying about "militia membership" or "well regulated" or any of those things, because they have no effect on the amendment's command that the right cannot be restricted by any government.
The reason we're only focusing on one part of the sentence, is because that's what the people who wrote it did. They wrote out the command ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"), and then put an explanatory phrase (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") in front of it, as normal English suggests. That phrase means the same today as it meant in the late 1700's: An explanation only, having no effect on the command.
A few other parts of the Constitution have such explanatory phrases too. And they have the same effect: Zero.
Quote:
I can see the argument of disarming the populace from a tyrannical standpoint, but not from a couple loons whose neighbors even think are unhinged.
The people who wrote it thought that the U.S. populace would be better off, even with a few crazy cat ladies and gangbangers, than with a government with the power to restrict or take away their personal weapons. That's why they wrote the 2nd with no exceptions. And a lot of states agreed, and ratified it. Not to make society perfect, but to make it as safe as they could, considering it's made up of imperfect humans.
And for 200 years after that, we have agreed too, and refused to modify it or repeal it. That's a pretty good record.
This makes no sense. If the "right shall not be infringed" yet we ignore "by a well regulated militia", you're just picking and choosing. A crazy cat lady is not a "well regulated militia".
No one is ignoring the "well-regulated militia" part of the Amendment, it's just that you are misinterpreting the effect that part of the Amendment has on the right it enshrines.
Here's the text of the 2A:
"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"
Let's look at another sentence composed in that same structure:
"A nutritional diet being necessary to a healthy lifestyle, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed"
So who has the right to keep and eat food? The "nutritional diet"? Or "the people"?
But you have to admit waiting 5 days ain't no biggie.
Well, it might be a "biggie" if you are, for example, a woman who's just left her husband or boyfriend who has vowed to find and kill you and you can't get a weapon to defend yourself because the very "cooling-off" period that was designed to protect you is actually keeping you defenseless.
This otherwise makes sense except for the fact a well regulated militia sounds like it's a definition of the state (I.e. the voting population). I think most would agree that crazy extremist don't represent a "well regulated militia" in any context. I can see the argument of disarming the populace from a tyrannical standpoint, but not from a couple loons whose neighbors even think are unhinged.
No one's arguing that we should arm drug dealers, gang bangers, mental defectives, crazy cat ladies, or any of the other lowest common denominators that you want to reduce this argument down to.
What most of us are arguing however, is that if you want to disarm anyone i.e. take their Constitutional Rights away from them, you must first afford them the due process of law guaranteed them by the 5th Amendment, give them their day in court in front of a judge, and force the government to prove it's case against that person. Yes, even the lowest common denominators of society.
You seem to be going down the road of "The 2A only applies to a select group of people known as the militia" argument, but this argument doesn't stand the test of logic....
For one, as I stated earlier, a militia as defined in the dictionary is raised from the general population, and is not a professional warrior class...
Number 2, we need not go any further than the text of the amendment itself, in conjunction with the text of other amendments, to defeat the "militia only" argument. The text of the Second Amendment declares a right of "the people".... The text of the First, Fourth, and Tenth Amendments also use the term " the people", and those Amendments are understood to apply to the general population, not just a special group, so why would the phrase "the people" mentioned in the Second Amendment mean anything other than it means when that term is used elsewhere in the Constitution?
All this, without even posting quotations by the founders that directly contradict the "militia only" argument. In fact the Second Amendment doesonly apply to the militia, but the founders viewed the militia as "the whole people, except for a few public officials"
Exactly...the general population..not the villiage loon that everybody keeps their kids from.
No one's arguing that we should arm drug dealers, gang bangers, mental defectives, crazy cat ladies, or any of the other lowest common denominators that you want to reduce this argument down to.
What most of us are arguing however, is that if you want to disarm anyone i.e. take their Constitutional Rights away from them, you must first afford them the due process of law guaranteed them by the 5th Amendment, give them their day in court in front of a judge, and force the government to prove it's case against that person. Yes, even the lowest common denominators of society.
Sounds fine to me. However due process is typically reserved to those who have already committed a crime, not to those that haven't but think Elvis is talking to them telling them to do stuff while holding a rocket launcher in their hands. At that point I think we should rely on the "well trained militia" aspect which is literally documented in the constitution. A militia consist of citizens who're deemed at least competent enough to follow orders and protect the population from danger, not a bunch loons making up their own thing.
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.
