Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Does the Wording of the 2nd Amendment match the Framers' INTENT?
Yes 38 77.55%
No 11 22.45%
Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-04-2018, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
20,794 posts, read 9,435,750 times
Reputation: 15522

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
If the sentence is interpreted the same way gun-controllers interpret the 2nd Amendment, it would restrict education only to those who are religious and moral.
//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...law-input.html
That is not how gun-controllers interpret the 2nd amendment. Here is your passage:

"Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

That is saying that schools and education should be encouraged because religion, morality and knowledge are necessary for the happiness mankind and for good government. IOW, it says a means (education and schools) justify an end (happiness and good government). Likewise ...

"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."

... says that the right to bear arms should not be infringed because that right is necessary for a militia and, thus, security of the state. That is, the means (bearing arms) justifies an end (militia to protect the state).

In the first one, the end goal is happiness and good government. In the second one, the end goal is security of the state, which is accomplished via a militia.

Which is exactly what gun-controllers are saying: The 2nd amendment pertains to maintaining a militia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-04-2018, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
20,794 posts, read 9,435,750 times
Reputation: 15522
If the 2nd amendment is telling us the right to bear arms is an individual right, then that tells me the army might be unconstitutional, because an armed militia comprised of common citizens is supposed to protect the country, not a professional army. That is, if we, as individuals are permitted to bear arms, that's because we, as individuals, are expected to defend the state using those arms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2018, 01:19 PM
 
25,804 posts, read 16,451,635 times
Reputation: 15995
Those guys were masters of the written word. They knew exactly what they meant and they worded it perfectly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2018, 01:21 PM
 
13,564 posts, read 4,871,962 times
Reputation: 9600
I DON'T KNOW if the wording matches the Framer's intent, because no one knows exactly what the framer's intent was. I think they could have worded it better because, as is, it's a bit ambiguous and unclear whether it was supposed to apply just to militias or to all citizens.

In the end, for constitutional questions in general, I say who cares what the framer's INTENT was? You could spend years debating and trying to divine what the intent was, but you'll never know for sure. All that matters is what do the words actually say?

For the 2nd amendment, although the first part talks about militias, the second part contains a clear statement that right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, so regardless of the intent we are obligated to follow this directive. I'd be in favor of amending the amendment, but I don't see that happening in my lifetime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2018, 01:28 PM
 
Location: crafton pa
977 posts, read 564,037 times
Reputation: 1224
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
If the 2nd amendment is telling us the right to bear arms is an individual right, then that tells me the army might be unconstitutional, because an armed militia comprised of common citizens is supposed to protect the country, not a professional army. That is, if we, as individuals are permitted to bear arms, that's because we, as individuals, are expected to defend the state using those arms.
Not necessarily. It means that the Founders recognized the potential need for an armed force independent of the government-controlled army. Remember, it was a militia that defeated the army of the legitimate government of the geographical area we now know as the United States. The US was formed by a group of armed citizens fighting against the army of the government that was in power. The Founders recognized that despite their best efforts, the people in power could potentially abuse that power, and it is up to the militia (aka the armed populace; ALL people were considered by the Founders to be militia members) to deal with that situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2018, 01:32 PM
 
Location: crafton pa
977 posts, read 564,037 times
Reputation: 1224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58 View Post
I DON'T KNOW if the wording matches the Framer's intent, because no one knows exactly what the framer's intent was. I think they could have worded it better because, as is, it's a bit ambiguous and unclear whether it was supposed to apply just to militias or to all citizens.

In the end, for constitutional questions in general, I say who cares what the framer's INTENT was? You could spend years debating and trying to divine what the intent was, but you'll never know for sure. All that matters is what do the words actually say?

For the 2nd amendment, although the first part talks about militias, the second part contains a clear statement that right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, so regardless of the intent we are obligated to follow this directive. I'd be in favor of amending the amendment, but I don't see that happening in my lifetime.
It's not ambiguous at all. As I mentioned before, why is the right to own guns part of the Bill of Rights, but the right to own houses, land cattle, and other things not included? Did the Founders intend that we DON'T have the right to own those things? Of course not. The right to own those things was considered insufficiently significant to include in the BOR. The right to own guns IS significant enough to be included, and not only included but included as the SECOND right listed. Why is that? Because "a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state". The first part explains why the right to keep and bear arms is included in the BOR. It does not indicate that this is the ONLY reason that the right to keep and bear arms exists, but rather that this is the crucial reason that merits its being mentioned in the Constitution. Certainly the founders would have never considered that gun ownership for reasons other than use in the militia was not a right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2018, 01:34 PM
 
Location: San Jose
2,594 posts, read 1,234,535 times
Reputation: 2590
Quote:
Originally Posted by stremba View Post
Maybe you are right, but as the Founders understood it, militia was NOT something you joined. You automatically were part of the militia if you were an able-bodied man. EVERYONE was expected to take up arms to defend their homeland against an invader or enemy. The first part of the sentence just suggest that the real reason for an armed populace is defense of the state, rather than self-defense, hunting or some other reason. That does not mean that the Founders didn't believe in your right to defend yourself or to hunt, but just that those rights were not significant enough to mention in the Bill of Rights. The right that WAS significant enough to mention was the right to own guns.
It does not specifically grant individual ownership of guns but instead ready access to firearms when needed, provided via the militia. A local state militia could require all firearms to be stored in a central location and not be in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stremba View Post
It's quite clear that the Founders recognized an individual right to own firearms. The preliminary clause emphasizes the reason that they considered this right important enough to mention in the Bill of Rights. It does not indicate that they believed that owning firearms so that an effective militia could be formed was the ONLY reason why individuals have the right to own firearms. Without that initial clause, one might wonder why the Founders included the right to own guns as part of the BOR, and not the right to own cattle, clothing, houses or land. It is quite clear (read the Tenth Amendment) that the BOR was never intended to be a comprehensive list of individual rights.
What they did not specifically state is of no importance to this discussion since it would involve nothing more then pointless speculation. What is of merit is what the 2nd Amendment was specifically intended to mean and its clearly about the formation of a militia for national defense as you have already stated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2018, 01:37 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,745,522 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
I am reading the whole amendment, and frankly, I don't even see a "1st" and "2nd" half. There is no separation by a period, just commas. That makes the whole amendment one entire thought. Either that, or their grammar sucked.

"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."

If it was two separate thoughts it would either be 2 amendments as I described above, or something like:

"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."

Once you put "being" in there it implies that what follows afterwards is a continuation of the same thought. For example:

"Joe Smith, being of sound mind and body, is hereby declared fit for trial."

The argument that there are two separate thoughts in the amendment would be tantamount to me saying that, in my example above, the part beginning with "is" is a separate thought. But clearly it isn't because that would mean:

"1. Joe Smith, being of sound mind and body.
2. Is hereby declared fit for trial."

The grammar in the amendment is awkward enough as it is (even by 18th century standards), but assuming it's "really" two amendments assumes the grammar is even more awkward than it already is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno View Post
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.

Except the second part does not use the word "individual". It says "the people" which is suppose to be representive of all of us as a whole not as individual components. When they say "A government of the people" they don't mean every single person is in government but that we have people represent us within the government. I would imagine that is what was intended with the militias as detailed in the 2nd Amendment. The militia members would representative of "the people".

Concerning the written structure of the 2nd Amendment there isn't even a period in between the two clauses. Only a comma; meaning that both clauses of the 2nd Amendment were meant to have an integral relationship with each other. To state otherwise would mean that the Founding Fathers didn't have a firm grasp of the English language and made a grammar error that a 10 year old would catch. Something I rather doubt. So when they say "the people" they are specifically talking about a "well regulated militia" not individual ownership of guns. The two clauses are definitely meant to have an integral relationship.
once again let me break it down for you, since reading comprehension seems to be a skill you lack.

the first half of the amendment "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

this indicates that the founders recognized the need to secure the freedoms of the states by force if necessary, thus the need for a militia. and since the constitution does not allow for a large standing army, the states were the ones to create the militia who would be called up by the state, or the feds as needed, and then go home when the need was over.

the second half "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means that this right is an individual right, since the courts have consistently ruled that when the constitution talks about the people, the mean the individual and not the state. it is this part that puts the teeth into the amendment, and makes creating the militia possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
If the 2nd amendment is telling us the right to bear arms is an individual right, then that tells me the army might be unconstitutional, because an armed militia comprised of common citizens is supposed to protect the country, not a professional army. That is, if we, as individuals are permitted to bear arms, that's because we, as individuals, are expected to defend the state using those arms.
BINGO!!!!!!! technically the only military force the constitution allows for is the navy, and by wrote the marine corps. the army and air force are not technically constitutional. they have been accepted over the years though as state militias fell out of favor for a standing army after the civil war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2018, 01:51 PM
 
Location: My House
34,937 posts, read 36,163,891 times
Reputation: 26547
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
Those guys were masters of the written word. They knew exactly what they meant and they worded it perfectly.
Unfortunately, plenty of people who are not masters of the word are trying to interpret it.

__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2018, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
20,794 posts, read 9,435,750 times
Reputation: 15522
Quote:
Originally Posted by stremba View Post
Not necessarily. It means that the Founders recognized the potential need for an armed force independent of the government-controlled army...
That's not what I gather from reading the amendment. Again, it says:

"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."

That is, it is the militia that is responsible for the security of the state, not a professional army.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:30 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top