The Second Amendment: Next questions

[Mr. D]

FALSE....FALSE...FALSE

The first part is the states and their militia, second is the people/individual and the third part states that neither the state or the peoples right can be infringed. What kind of grammer are you using? Like I said before, this is the only amendment that the libs want to apply that funny grammer to. The meaning of this amendment is simple and clear unless you use Bill Clinton's english of what does "is" mean.

Hovis

You're right Hovis!

 

[Mr. D]

And where exactly does "That every man be armed" fall into those goals?

Debates? From whence are you quoting, "That every man be armed" as related to the 2nd Amendment so I'm on the same page? I'm not sure debates are ever proof of the intent of finished language. Look at some of the things said in Congress today! I've seen the phrase used, but much later than the formation of the 2nd Amendment.

Wow, what an interesting and educational exchange as related to the Constitution. This is General Discussion done well.

 

[cntryboy1289]

"The security of a free state", does not mean it is only directed to the State, but the populace of the state. The State is not what is important here but the security of the populace of the state and they saw that the only way for them to be safe was to be armed and that is what is meant here.

If it was directed solely for the purpose of the Free State, there would have been no need to mention that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but to have said that each state has the right to have a militia and its armories.

I think the reason that a lot of people drop the ball with this is the simple fact that they forget that at the time it was written, the people as now were never meant to be kept safe by their government, either a local, state or federal one. Only the armed populace can assure that either government is kept safe by being armed and ready for the call to arms if the need arises.

 

[Vibe]

Debates? From whence are you quoting, "That every man be armed" as related to the 2nd Amendment so I'm on the same page? I'm not sure debates are ever proof of the intent of finished language. Look at some of the things said in Congress today! I've seen the phrase used, but much later than the formation of the 2nd Amendment.

Wow, what an interesting and educational exchange as related to the Constitution. This is General Discussion done well.

I'm disappointed in you. I could have sworn that I remember that at some point you stated that you "Taught" this stuff.

Writing in Federalist No. 46, James Madison mocked European despotisms he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." Said Patrick Henry, "The great object is that every man be armed . . . [e]veryone who is able may have a gun."

Madison in Federalist 46

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands,

But of course I'm reminded that Madison was most prophetic in his musings in #46

The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

The Justices in the Emerson case had it fairly well Stated as well.

 

[pendennis]

See the syllabus written in the opinion

The opinion handed down, in the syllabus, very accurately states what the Court majority agreed:

"Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects and individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defence within the home. Pp. 2-53

(a) The Amendments' prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense..."

The writing of the opinion uses the prefatory and operative clauses to separate the two thoughts.

Well thought out from this man's view.

Best,
Dennis

PS - Italics, bold, and/or underline are mine, and not the Court's.

 

[Mr. D]

Vibe,

Let's keep in mind that I have repeated that I support the interpretation that the 2nd Amendment supports private gun ownership. The discussion is about whether the Founding Fathers had that in mind at the time in that language or just assumed as much.

Now be polite! You've made me aware if your intellectual superiority! I was drawing that answer out because my understanding is that the 2nd Amendment predates that quotation in the Federalist Papers and most don't consider it a valid support, but rather just a later interpretation!

Having said that, I do think the F. F. would have supported the NRA position if they thought it was necessary to spell it out at that time in history. I believe they did not think it was worth mentioning because there was such common agreement in the culture that citizens had the right to keep personal firearms it need not be a FEDERAL issue, but rather a power left to the states.

There is also the issue of the common usage of the words "to bear arms" and it was most commonly used in a military/revolt against authority sense, not as to hunting or individual home defense.

My point, which of course is an unpopular one, is that it is possible that the Founding Fathers were simply dealing with the preservation of the militias and did not think private gun ownership was a major issue in the culture at that time that is should be a FEDERAL ISSUE. The grammar very clearly leans that way. "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." There was no reason to have the first two dependent sentence parts if the import was the third independent clause. The first two dependent sentence parts give the reason and logic for the independent clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Secondly, if your wife does not right down "the cars out of gas, so get gas" on a grocery list it does not mean she does not support the buying of gas. It may well mean she assumes you will do so because it is an obvious need and that need not be specifically stated on the list! Had there been no 2nd Amendment it certainly would have been a state's rights issue as to protecting gun rights or having regulation.

 

[Vibe]

Vibe,

Let's keep in mind that I have repeated that I support the interpretation that the 2nd Amendment supports private gun ownership. The discussion is about whether the Founding Fathers had that in mind at the time in that language or just assumed as much.

And yet you continue to use the "States Right to maintain Militia" rational. Why is that?
I can't put my finger on the reference at the moment, but the FF stated that that was the assumption at the time. Seems it was in some explanation as to why the verbiage was reduced.

Now be polite! You've made me aware if your intellectual superiority!

That was being polite. And if that be the case..you have bigger problems than this discussion.

I was drawing that answer out because my understanding is that the 2nd Amendment predates that quotation in the Federalist Papers and most don't consider it a valid support, but rather just a later interpretation!

The principle that the 2nd represents goes back quite a bit farther. Most importantly it goes back to the States Constitutions from which it was taken - which quite obviously could not have been pointing to States militias -that would have been somewhat ridiculous.

Having said that, I do think the F. F. would have supported the NRA position if they thought it was necessary to spell it out at that time in history. I believe they did not think it was worth mentioning because there was such common agreement in the culture that citizens had the right to keep personal firearms it need not be a FEDERAL issue,

We agree so far.

but rather a power left to the states.

But here we part ways. A duty for the Sates to enforce possibly.

There is also the issue of the common usage of the words "to bear arms" and it was most commonly used in a military/revolt against authority sense, not as to hunting or individual home defense.

I'll agree it was not ever really about hunting, but I do think it included both of the other two.

My point, which of course is an unpopular one, is that it is possible that the Founding Fathers were simply dealing with the preservation of the militias and did not think private gun ownership was a major issue in the culture at that time that is should be a FEDERAL ISSUE.

Your point is only really unpopular because it is incorrect. Else the States Constitutions would have had no need to duplicate the intent of the 2nd Amendment within them. When in fact it was the State Constitution of Virginia that the National 2nd amendment was "copied" from - so the intent applied FIRST against the States, BEFORE it applied to the Nation.

The grammar very clearly leans that way. "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."

Read that as referring to a State of existence rather than a State of the Union. Much like ice being a STATE of water which requires it to be kept below 32°F at sea level.

There was no reason to have the first two dependent sentence parts if the import was the third independent clause. The first two dependent sentence parts give the reason and logic for the independent clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The entire Declaration of Independence was a justification for the actions of the day. Why do you find it unusual that the same men would include a justification here?

Secondly, if your wife does not right down "the cars out of gas, so get gas" on a grocery list it does not mean she does not support the buying of gas. It may well mean she assumes you will do so because it is an obvious need and that need not be specifically stated on the list!

But just like the 2nd - the note, or the lack of the note, does not make it the states responsibility to maintain my car either.

Had there been no 2nd Amendment it certainly would have been a state's rights issue as to protecting gun rights or having regulation.

Correct as far as protecting the rights, it should be the States duty to do that. As far as regulations, we get back to the meaning of what "Shall NOT be infringed" means. I cannot see that they would have really meant "Shall not be infringed MUCH", or "more than required". I think they meant exactly what they meant - and what they expected the States to live up to. Which they have not.

 

[Vibe]

????????????
Nothing more? is that it?

 

[RStiefel]

Jackie

The NRA and lawyers in Ca. have been fighting the gun laws here for many years. The NRA finally gave up on it. The states retain their right to enact and enforce reasonable gun laws. I don't believe our high court will ever hear and rule on this. They will leave that to each state.

 

[Larry Elliott]

I find it never-endingly interesting that when the SCOTUS finds that nude table top dancing is protected under the 1st Amendment or that abortion is protected under some invisible provision in the Constitution it's just wonderful. BUT when they decide that, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", means exactly what it says the gun controllers just go berserk and say that the Supremes are inventing new laws or some such blather. BULLROAR!

Anyone who has minimal knowledge of what "militia" meant 200 years ago would understand that it was the body of all able bodied MEN who bore their own arms in defense of themselves, their families, communities, states, and/or country. That they might also band together to prevent an oppressive government infringing their rights was also considered.

When the dissenting opinions to Heller are considered it's pretty obvious that the dissenters weren't basing their opinions on the Constitution, but on their own political views and opinions. The comment that the majority opinion placed the Constitution over "policy considerations" says it all. It has always been my impression that the Constitution was supposed to override policy considerations otherwise why have a Constitution.

 

[Flash The Cash]

Anyone who has minimal knowledge of what "militia" meant 200 years ago would understand that it was the body of all able bodied MEN who bore their own arms in defense of themselves, their families, communities, states, and/or country.

If that's what the word "militia" means, then the right to keep and bear arms ought to cease.

...the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the laws itself ought likewise to cease with it.

--Blackstone​

 

[ballistic64]

The comment that the majority opinion placed the Constitution over "policy considerations" says it all. It has always been my impression that the Constitution was supposed to override policy considerations otherwise why have a Constitution.

Your impression is correct Larry.I stated earlier this Country was created a Republic and has been on the rise as a Democracy ever since.The US has many government programs that were created in violation of the Constitution.Social Security is one of the many.Before I get flamed,Im not saying it wasnt a well intentioned program,just the fact that you will not find the power authorized to Federal Gov. to collect taxes for this purpose in the Constitution.Eminant Domain is another "for the good of the majority" power the government appointed to itself.There are many other programs/powers that go beyond what the Constitution limits the government to.This is the real problem with our government today.It will take more than one elected official to fix it but one elected official can certainly contribute to further demise.

 

[Mr. D]

Read that as referring to a State of existence rather than a State of the Union. Much like ice being a STATE of water which requires it to be kept below 32°F at sea level.

Wow, this is a perfect example of manufacturing an interpretation to support a ideology. 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."

No thank you, I will read it with this obvious definsition of the word state: State - a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government : the state of Israel.

 

[Vibe]

Wow, this is a perfect example of manufacturing an interpretation to support a ideology. 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."

No thank you, I will read it with this obvious definsition of the word state: State - a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government : the state of Israel.

No "manufacturing" required - it's really the only definition that fits the ideology of the group doing the writing.
Actually that definition of "State" (as in crystalline,solid, liquid, free, enslaved, etc) works quite well grammatically. Had the writers wanted to use yours it would have been "Each of the Several States" just as they used in several other documents with that intention. So from that viewpoint - your definition is much less "obvious", and in fact has to be tweaked a bit to fit.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4673998&postcount=92

What The Second Amendment Really Says:

The Second Amendment talks of "a well-regulated militia,..." not THE militia specifically, but A militia in general. Then it says, "...,being necessary to the security of a free state,...". Hmm, "a free state". Everywhere else in the Constitution where "a", "another", "any", "no", "each", "every", "(F)oreign", "new", "one", "other", "particular", "the", "that", "same", "such", or "the several" state(s) are addressed, it is clear that the political unit "state" is being addressed, except in Article II, Section 3, which I'll address later. These are demonstrative adjectives. In the Second Amendment, the adjective "free" modifies "state" and does not demonstrably indicate a political unit state, but a condition. Since there is no comma between "a" and "free", one of those adjectives is demonstrative("a"), and the other("free") a simple modifier of whatever "state" is.

So, we're talking about a free state. Is it talking about a free political unit or a free condition? If it said , " ...being necessary to the security of the several states", or "...,being necessary to a state", or, "...,being necessary to any state," it would be more in line with the remainder of the Constitution and undeniably talking about the political unit definition of "state".

The word "state" is also used as "condition" elsewhere in the Constitution - Article II, Section 3, which commands the president to report on the state of the union. Right there in the Constitution is precedent for the word "state" to be used with the meaning "condition", as well as the more common "political unit". Bear with me a little longer.


The Second Amendment says, "...,being necessary to the security of a free state,". OK. Cool! What about the security of the nation? Article I gives Congress power to call forth the militia, to arm it, and place whatever portion of it into the employ of the United States it deems necessary. Did our Founding Fathers forget all about that when they drafted the Second Amendment? Wouldn't they have covered that in the amendment by adding something like, "..., and to the security of a free United States,..."? That would have made it clear and without question that the amendment referred to the political unit definition of "state". I don't think they forgot about the security of the United States, do you?

I think they covered the security of the United States, and the several states, by casting a wide blanket with the "condition" definition of "state". Again, I'll remind you that the Second Amendment talks of A militia, and not THE militia. So, by not addressing THE militia, how could it be addressing a STATE, a specific political unit, when it talks of A militia, which is non-specific? The only correct grammatical context is for "state" to mean "condition" in the Second Amendment.


The concrete that has been cast as the foundation for this is the fact that the Second Amendment addresses a RIGHT of the PEOPLE . Security of the state be damned! This is about the security of the PEOPLE! We live in a free state(condition), not the state! Only something alive can be free. A state is a political construct, bound in servitude by the Constitution. It can't lift up its skirt and tip-toe through the tulips! We can - if we so desire to wear skirts - But, I digress. The point is, it's about us and how we live, how we maintain our freedom, and how we restricted those in government.

There has been a question raised about the capitalization of the word "state" in the Second Amendment, that it would indicate the use of the word to indicate the political unit. Well, if you scan the Constitution, you'll find that the Founding Fathers capitalized all nouns instead of todays practice of only capitalizing proper nouns. Both the political unit definition of "state" and the condition definition of "state" are nouns. It's a name for a political unit and a name for a condition. Ergo, capitalized by our Founding Fathers.

 

[Mr. D]

Vibe,

Interesting analysis, but " When you hear hoof beats look for horses, before zebras!" It seems you are doing what conservatives always accuse liberals of, that is stretching the meaning to fit your ideology! I read the meaning to be saying that to have a "free state" meaning the U.S., the right for militias to remain independent from the federal government and the federal standing army (which was a major fear) is necessary! The 2nd Amendment was largely written to protect the citizens from run away power of a federal government and a standing army rather to protect Farmer Jones' musket from the ATF. Does that also extend the point that confiscation of his musket would be against the 2nd Amendment? Logically, I'd say yes! One issue supports the other.

I think the Supremes have it about right!

 

[Flash The Cash]

Instead of legislating from the bench, Judge Activist Scalia should have merely pointed out that the Constitution grants the U. S. Government no authority whatsoever over instruments of combat. Instead, he uses the "history" pretext to insert his person view that we don't have a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for whatever purpose. Even an idiot like him can see that there is no language in the Second Amendment that could possibly be interpreted to mean that the right is limited.

 

[Vibe]

Vibe,

Interesting analysis, but " When you hear hoof beats look for horses, before zebras!" It seems you are doing what conservatives always accuse liberals of, that is stretching the meaning to fit your ideology!

I suppose a statement of fact is an accusation, even after it is proven to be well founded. But no - I do not see this argument practicing that tactic.

I read the meaning to be saying that to have a "free state" meaning the U.S., the right for militias to remain independent from the federal government and the federal standing army (which was a major fear) is necessary! The 2nd Amendment was largely written to protect the citizens from run away power of a federal government and a standing army rather than to protect Farmer Jones' musket from the ATF.

I added a "than" in there to try and make more sense out of this - if it's misplaced please let me know.
But protecting "Farmer Johns musket from the ATF" IS an example of having to protect from an abuse of power by run away Federal Government, so I'm not clear on what you example was supposed to clarify. Particularly since there is very little difference between a "standing armed police force" and a "Standing Army" for all intents and purposes.

My point has been that since
1)the Federal 2nd is a straightforward extension of the same principle expressed in the State constitutions of the time. and
2) Those State Constitutions did not include this principle to limit the Federal Government - but rather to protect the individual from ALL sources of Government's overstepping of bounds. that
3) The Fed 2nd was simply a further guarantee of same. A guarantee against ALL forms of Government infringement against the individual. Not "just Congress".

Does that also extend the point that confiscation of his musket would be against the 2nd Amendment? Logically, I'd say yes! One issue supports the other.

I think the Supremes have it about right!

Not quite yet, but they are closer. When the NFA falls, as well as Corporate favoritism, then we will have seen a major improvement.

 

[Rusty Carr]

I seem to find myself in agreement with Mr. Koginam quite frequently. I strongly believe that from a strictly practical point of view, a law cannot be written, which can outlaw "assault weapons" and leave our semi-auto rifles and shotguns alone. The anti-gun people are not dumb, and realize that small increments are the way to carry out their agenda. There is a practical point in demanding the right to own almost anything you want. I don't like The various AK clones, and wouldn't have one. However, any law which forbade my right to own one of them, would also affect, in the long run, my Kreighoff shotgun. Just my opinion, Rusty Carr

 

[Larry Elliott]

The late Finn Aagaard (I hope I spelled his name correctly) once wrote the possession of selective fire arms by (law abiding) citizens would not be a problem, as it wasn't in Kenya when the Mau Mau were terrorizing the countryside, or in Switzerland to this very day. The possession of a particular gun or type of gun isn't going to change the honest law abiding citizen into a criminal.

Those on the left who want to control the evil "assault weapon" have no idea what they really are. It's not what a rifle looks like, but various characteristics that would require some knowledge to identify. It's certainly not a "pistol grip" like the AK's or AR-15/M-16, it's not a bayonet lug, nor a flash suppressor.

Criminals tend not to obey any laws, so the only ones bothered by them are those of us who tend to obey them. The only way to control crime is to control criminals. Prohibition has been tried before with another product and didn't work then, prohibition of guns or types of guns won't work either.

 

[Mr. D]

Is there not a difference between a semi automatic hunting arm with a five shot capacity and a military arm with a 30 shot capacity? Some firearms are designed to shoot humans and not for hunting use. If they are going to be defended as permissible to own we have to face that fact. You don't need a 30 shot clip to hunt deer.