Why is the 2nd amendment written without any qualifications or exceptions? (legal, lawyers)

[Roboteer]

Why was the 2nd is written without qualifications? It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." It does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a felon or other type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example: Some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

So what does the cop do? Cracks him over the head with a billy club and takes his gun away anyway.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't legally take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for the principle of Jury Nullification to apply here. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

And yet when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

The ONLY entity that can legally take away a person's right to keep and bear arms, is a JURY of his peers.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

I never said the cops shouldn't take the murderer's gun away. The murderer said that, with bodies still bleeding around him. Whereupon the cop whacked him over the head with a billy club and took it from him anyway.

And later when the murderer brought charges against the cop for violating his 2nd amendment rights, the jury let the cop walk. The cop had no more worries since double jeopardy isn't allowed. And the murderer went to the chair as he deserved. And that's exactly how the system should work.

The ONLY entity that can legally take away that murderer's right to keep and bear arms, is a JURY of his peers. And the jury can only do it on a case-by case basis, since a jury doesn't even exist until a case is brought in court.

And when some govt official tried to take the gun of a law-abiding citizen, the jury did NOT let the govt official walk. In that case, they threw him into jail with all those nice criminals, where they could discuss obeying the Constitution, and the advantages of jury nullification, all they wanted. And, again, that's exactly how the system should work. And was designed to work, in fact, by those founders the leftist fanatics keep desperately denigrating and insulting.

Yes, the right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, IS absolute... because of the many horrifying examples that happen when it isn't. And imperfect as we are, the closer we come to making it that way, the safer and more prosperous (and, BTW, the freer) our society will be.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

Why was the 2nd is written without qualifications? It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." It does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a felon or other type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example: Some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

So what does the cop do? Cracks him over the head with a billy club and takes his gun away anyway.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't legally take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for the principle of Jury Nullification to apply here. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

And yet when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

The ONLY entity that can legally take away a person's right to keep and bear arms, is a JURY of his peers.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

I never said the cops shouldn't take the murderer's gun away. The murderer said that, with bodies still bleeding around him. Whereupon the cop whacked him over the head with a billy club and took it from him anyway.

And later when the murderer brought charges against the cop for violating his 2nd amendment rights, the jury let the cop walk. The cop had no more worries since double jeopardy isn't allowed. And the murderer went to the chair as he deserved. And that's exactly how the system should work.

The ONLY entity that can legally take away that murderer's right to keep and bear arms, is a JURY of his peers. And the jury can only do it on a case-by case basis, since a jury doesn't even exist until a case is brought in court.

And when some govt official tried to take the gun of a law-abiding citizen, the jury did NOT let the govt official walk. In that case, they threw him into jail with all those nice criminals, where they could discuss obeying the Constitution, and the advantages of jury nullification, all they wanted. And, again, that's exactly how the system should work. And was designed to work, in fact, by those founders the leftist fanatics keep desperately denigrating and insulting.

Yes, the right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, IS absolute... because of the many horrifying examples that happen when it isn't. And imperfect as we are, the closer we come to making it that way, the safer and more prosperous (and, BTW, the freer) our society will be.

The Founders knew firearm technology would change over time, and they also expected us to shoot anyone that ****ed with the Second Amendment.

[VA Yankee]

I think the 18th century line sums it up nicely " The need for a well regulated militia", seeing it was the militias who were the first ones to respond to the threat from the British in the absence of a standing armed forces.

[rstevens62]

Well for starters, once a person completes their sentence in its entirety, they can no longer be called a 'felon'...including language about excluding felons wouldnt make much sense, after a length of time, it wouldnt apply to them anymore.


And just maybe, the authors thought keeping govt in check was more important than restricting who could own firearms!

[jamies]

The founders majorly screwed up when they wrote the 2A.

It SHOULD read:

"A well regulated Militia, is necessary for the security of a free State." (Period, end of sentence.)

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms in defense of self, property, the Constitution, and/or the State, shall not be infringed."

One little period, and a failure to state the obvious has created 200 years of controversy.

[Westerner92]

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.

"Well regulated Militia" is the subject of the sentence, and the next two statements are appositives renaming said "well regulated Militia". The framers of the Constitution used "people" as a proxy for the constituent states. You see this elsewhere in the Constitution. The Constitution also says the federal government can't fund a standing army for more than two years, that the states should appoint officers and train their respective Militias. I think it is convincingly argued, especially when you read Madison's and Hamilton's expounding on their visions for self-defence in the Federalist Papers, that the Second Amendment was more about how the federal government does not have the power to abridge the states' abilities to maintain their own standing armies.

The Constitution is not a sacred document, and the framers never intended it to be. Regardless of their intent, we have the power to rewrite the Second Amendment to be less ambiguous. Don't get me wrong, I am a gun owner and believe they have a place in a free society, but the Second Amendment isn't straightforward and needs to be updated for modern times.

[TheArchitect]

In the 18th century, the right to own a gun was as much a necessity as the right to own a horse. Besides the need to form civilian militias against foreign invaders, most people hunted regularly. Refrigeration and supermarkets weren't a thing at that time.

The founders didnt foresee machine guns or missiles

[FatBob96]

Originally Posted by rstevens62

Well for starters, once a person completes their sentence in its entirety, they can no longer be called a 'felon'...including language about excluding felons wouldnt make much sense, after a length of time, it wouldnt apply to them anymore.


And just maybe, the authors thought keeping govt in check was more important than restricting who could own firearms!

It was self evident that the 2A didn't apply to those currently incarcerated.

And the example of the guy shooting up the restaurant:

The 2A doesn't grant anyone the right to murder others, so once you have broken that law, you may be disarmed for incarceration pending trial.

If you were found guilty, you were promptly executed.

If you were found innocent, then you were released and ALL your rights were IMMEDIATELY restored.

There was no parole, there was no probation.

There was also no revolving door justice then.

[ClaraC]

It is written with qualifications. A well regulated militia.

[Lekrii]

It does have a qualification. For the purpose of a 'well regulated militia'. Outside of 'well regulated' or 'militia' the 2nd amendment has no bearing.