the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

[Hooahguy]

today i watched this video. its comedy, so i wouldnt expect for him to bring up an issue like that.
i wonder, why is the amendment that permits gun ownership the second amendment? i mean, im pretty sure the rest are a bit more important.
thoughts?

note: please do not discuss the 2nd amendment any further than the reason why it is second.

[Sarmatian]

I think it's 2nd because it comes right after the 1st...

[Viking]

I think it's 2nd because it comes right after the 1st...

It might also be that it is because it comes before the eventual third.

[Vladimir]

It's interesting that he used the "in context of the times" and cliche "hunting" dismissals. If it wasn't for the context of *their* times they wouldn't even have such thoughts. Implicit in this is that times do change. It seems very ignorant for the person to think that times won't change again.

Well anyway; it was kinda funny. They're greasy college kids. Let them have fun. At least it isn't yo' mamma humor.

[Crazed Rabbit]

His whole act seems to be based on ignorance of the period. The founders saw guns as a means of citizens securing their freedom from the government, in rebellion, and external enemies, in militias.

It's the second because it's important.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

I wonder, why is the amendment that permits gun ownership the second amendment? i mean, im pretty sure the rest are a bit more important.
thoughts?

note: please do not discuss the 2nd amendment any further than the reason why it is second.

- There is no hierarchy of rights in the Bill of Rights. The order in which the rights are numbered is of no legal consequence. (I think? What happens when two articles conflict with one another?)

- Earlier drafts of the Bill of Rights show a different order.

- I do believe there is a certain order of importance of amendments. The 1st re-affirms rights. The 2nd and 3rd regulate defense. The 3th through 8th regulate law enforcement. The 9th and 10th conclude with guarantees against abuse of the Bill of Rights by the government

- I disagree that the others are 'a bit more important'. The Second and Third Amendments are of supreme importance. They regulate the defense of the USA - always a first task of any government.


I am of the conviction that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights. Americans already posessed all the rights within it. De jure, as a self-evident truth, de facto, by securing them in revolution. They did not at any point surrender them to their government.

The Bill of Rights then, does not declare the rights of the citizens. It 'permits' nothing to the people. Kings permit their subjects certain rights. Not so in America.

The BoR is not even a document limiting the power of the federal government. The federal government has no power other than that which is explicitly granted to it. (As confirmed in the Bill of Rights itself) The BoR then, as part of the constitution, institutes government.
In the constitution, the people grant the government rights, not the other way round. Rights it receives because governments are instituted for the benefit of the people, to make possible the exersize of life, liberty, property (yes) and the pursuit of happiness.

One of the rights the government is granted, is that of defense. Why do the people grant it this right? Because it is necessary for the security of a free state. How is this right limited in the Bill of Rights? By limiting it to a well regulated militia. This is the historical meaning of the second amendment. It is also in line with similar articles in comparable articles in European republics, and with the article in previous drafts.


However, there is a problem with the BoR. Its authors were aware that the people are not given rights in it. Therefore, the articles do not follow a positive formula: 'the people have freedom of speech, the people have freedom or religion' etcetera. The people already posessed these rights. A govenment was merely instituted to enable the exersize of these rights. The BoR only sought to affirm that the instituted government does not infringe upon certain rights. The people are not told what rights they have, the government is told what rights it can't infringe upon. Instead of the formula 'the people may..', the articles follow the formula 'the government may not...'

Therefore, the articles are stated negatively: 'the government may not infringe upon freedom of speech'. So the second amendment does not grant a right to bear arms. No more than the fifth grants the right of property. The second (and the corresponding third) amendment merely limits the government in the ways in which it can exersize its task of organising defense. Specifically, it limits the government to only institute public military forces, a civilian militia. Instead of abusing the powers vested in it for its own gain.

(See, for example, a previous draft:
'The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of the free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person'.

Or, the equivalent article from another BoR in Europe:
'The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted'.)

[Jolt]

I think it's 2nd because it comes right after the 1st...

It might also be that it is because it comes before the eventual third.

Damn, you stole my lines. -_-'

[Sarmatian]

His whole act seems to be based on ignorance of the period.

CR

I'd say his whole act is based on the need to be humorous. I don't think he was trying to make a political statement.

[Xiahou]

Well said Louis, and some very astute obersvations on the psychology behind it. People underestimate the shared love of Liberty between France and the USA too much these days.

I disagree with his analysis. Some of his assumptions do not follow. Most obvious is the notion that something referred to as "The Bill of Rights" isn't really about enumerating rights.

Government, by it's existence, tramples the rights and freedoms of people. Enough of our founding fathers knew this to demand that the Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution. The Constitution itself spelled out the duties and responsibilities of government. Raising an Army and Navy were already in the Constitution- you didn't need the Bill of Rights for that. When the Bill of Rights was proposed, there were those who argued, as Louis is, that such a thing is unnecessary, because anything not mentioned in the Constitution would be left to the people by default. The one's that prevailed knew better and insisted that certain protections need to be specifically enshrined in the Constitution. This is where Louis misses the mark- when he claims otherwise.

Edit: As to the original topic...

It's the second because it's important.

That works for me.

[HoreTore]

^this^

At the time the Amendment was created, we had just fought for our freedom with a largely militia-ish Army. So maintaining the ability to keep that freedom in the face of whatever was second only to the 1st Amendment, which garunteed that the law maintains that spirit of Freedom we fought for in the first place.

That said, the entire damn Bill of Rights is important stuff.

Fought for your freedom? No.... You fought for your money, or in other words, against taxation.... It's not like the Brits were naziterroristcommies....

[CountArach]

It was gunning for first spot, but couldn't quite hit the target.

[Husar]

It was gunning for first spot, but couldn't quite hit the target.

This also seems like the perfect topic to ask a few questions and show my ignorance about your colonial laws.
The amendments are changes or additions to the constitution, right? As in there was a constitution but then people thought there should be more in it so they had a poll in the parliament or whatever you call it to add certain amendments to it as is probably allowed by the constitution under certain circumstances (like 2/3rd majority), is that correct?
The bill of rights as I understand it is just an umbrella term of sorts for a bunch of very early amendments, like a big patch on release day?
How many amendments have been made until now and why is every single sentence it's own amendment?
Couldn't they just have called the bill of rights as a whole the first amendment if the representatives voted for it as a package or how exactly did/does that work?

[Sheogorath]

Fought for your freedom? No.... You fought for your money, or in other words, against taxation.... It's not like the Brits were naziterroristcommies....

Freedom of money is still freedom

[Centurion1]

Originally Posted by HoreTore View Post
Fought for your freedom? No.... You fought for your money, or in other words, against taxation.... It's not like the Brits were naziterroristcommies....

We fought for quite a bit more than that................

Like the proclamation by the British government that disallowed American colonists to cross the Appalachians and settle in the lands that they had just fought and died for.

Or the British troops just quartering in American homes with no reason besides, we can.

Oh and it is second because it is important (deja vu anyone)
It may not appear important contemporarly now, but it was important then. not only for defense against an outside force but also to defend against would-be dictators

[a completely inoffensive name]

This also seems like the perfect topic to ask a few questions and show my ignorance about your colonial laws.
The amendments are changes or additions to the constitution, right? As in there was a constitution but then people thought there should be more in it so they had a poll in the parliament or whatever you call it to add certain amendments to it as is probably allowed by the constitution under certain circumstances (like 2/3rd majority), is that correct?
The bill of rights as I understand it is just an umbrella term of sorts for a bunch of very early amendments, like a big patch on release day?
How many amendments have been made until now and why is every single sentence it's own amendment?
Couldn't they just have called the bill of rights as a whole the first amendment if the representatives voted for it as a package or how exactly did/does that work?

I will answer a few that I can.

As in there was a constitution but then people thought there should be more in it so they had a poll in the parliament or whatever you call it to add certain amendments to it as is probably allowed by the constitution under certain circumstances (like 2/3rd majority), is that correct?
It can be amended numerous ways. The vast majority have been introduced in Congress, approved by both houses with a 2/3 majority then were sent to the State Legislature where 3/4 of all the states must approve of it for the amendment to be added. The only amendment that didn't take this exact route was the 21st.

The bill of rights as I understand it is just an umbrella term of sorts for a bunch of very early amendments, like a big patch on release day?
The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution which were pushed forward by the anti-federalists soon after the Constitution was ratified. Since this is the internet maybe you can do some research on your own.

How many amendments have been made until now and why is every single sentence it's own amendment?
There have been 27 amendments so far. I don't know how to answer the question right after that, it doesn't really make sense.

Couldn't they just have called the bill of rights as a whole the first amendment if the representatives voted for it as a package or how exactly did/does that work?
There were 12 amendments to my knowledge that the anti-federalists proposed to Congress each one was a different subject (it doesn't make sense to just cram a bunch of different legislation together to reduce the number of amendments) and treated separately with many influenced by the list of grievances the colonists had listed toward the King of England. Of these 12 twelve amendments, only 10 were approved and I don't know why they are in the order they are in, probably because what they regarded as more important were approved faster then others. An important thing to note though is that one of the two of the original twelve which were not ratified was ratified way later (1992), it is the 27th amendment and is the latest one approved.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Fought for your freedom? No.... You fought for your money, or in other words, against taxation.... It's not like the Brits were naziterroristcommies....

Could all Europeans plz read some American history before commenting on it, kthxbi.

1. We were not protesting against taxes, we were protesting against taxes which we had no say in. British parliament refused to have American representatives.

2. Americans were abused by the British government by attempting to contain us within the Atlantic and the Appalachians.

3. British military also abused Americans by forcing them to quarter their soldiers whenever they wanted.

For even moar examples of grievances plz see Declaration of Independence.

[Louis VI the Fat]

2. Americans were abused by the British government by attempting to contain us within the Atlantic and the Appalachians.

Or the British were protecting the rights of native Americans against abuse by the American colonists...

Not to mention, West of the Appalachians lay French territory. And Canadian, which Britain tried to solve with the Québec Act of 1774.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Wikipedia:

The Quebec Act of 1774 was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 14 Geo. III c. 83) setting procedures of governance in the Province of Quebec. The principal components of the act were:

* The province's territory was expanded to take over part of the Indian Reserve, including much of what is now southern Ontario, plus Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and parts of Minnesota.
* The oath of allegiance was replaced with one that no longer made reference to the Protestant faith.
* It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.
* It restored the use of the French civil law for private matters while maintaining the use of the English common law for public administration, including criminal prosecution.


The Act had wide-ranging effects, in Quebec itself, as well as in the Thirteen Colonies. In Quebec, English-speaking migrants from Britain and the southern colonies objected to a variety of its provisions, which they saw as a removal of certain political freedoms. French-speaking Canadiens varied in their reaction; the land-owning seigneurs and clergy were generally happy with its provisions.

In the Thirteen Colonies, the Act, which had been passed in the same session of Parliament as a number of other acts designed as punishment for the Boston Tea Party and other protests, was joined to those acts as one of the Intolerable Acts. The provisions of the Quebec Act were seen as a new model for British colonial administration, which would strip the colonies of their elected assemblies, and promote the Roman Catholic faith in preference to widely-held Protestant beliefs. It also limited opportunities for colonies to expand on their western frontiers, by granting most of the Ohio Country to the province of Quebec.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

Well said Louis, and some very astute observations on the psychology behind it. People underestimate the shared love of Liberty between France and the USA too much these days.

There is great fun to be had for Francophile Americans or Americanophile Frenchmen with a love for historical political thought. Relations during the end of the eightteenth century were intense. A period that was of tremendous consequence for the future of either nation. One can never overestimate the importance one country had for the other.
For all the differences between the nations, the birth papers of France and America are mere translations of one another.


When I was a wee lad, I didn't have soccer posters on my wall. I was too much a nerd for that. When I was eleven, on my wall hung...the Declaration of Independence. Yes, I am not kidding. On a reproduction parchment.* I thought it was way cool, even if I didn't understand the half of it. I still don't understand it, but am still as determined to some day do. For one thing, I can quote the whole declaration on top of my head: 'When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...'


* I bought at at Disney World, in Liberty Square, after exiting the Hall of Presidents. Still one of my favourite areas of Walt Disney World, together with the American Adventure over at EPCOT. Yes, poor little Louis was indoctrinated to become an American patriot by the evil Disney corporation. Dammit, to this day I instantly start sobbing at the opening notes of 'Golden Dreams' at the American Adventure.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

I disagree with his analysis. Some of his assumptions do not follow. Most obvious is the notion that something referred to as "The Bill of Rights" isn't really about enumerating rights.

I am aware of the minority position of my explanation. Nevertheless, I maintain that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people at all. This is not an obscure postion, and I am in excellent company in this.

And I go one step beyond that, pushing me into even further minority position: I maintain that the BoR does not even limit the rights of government. It merely, superflously, puts on paper rights the people never abdicated to the government.

Call me a conservative constitutional minimalist.
Of course, I will not pass upon this excellent opportunity to accuse Xiahou of being a communist, one who maintains that the people have no rights vis-a-vis the federal government except for the ones government grants to them.

[Louis VI the Fat]

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

There was another part of my previous post that I hoped would stir the emotions a bit: the Second Amendment does not regulate the right to bear arms. It regulates defense. This follows from:

1 -The internal order of the amendments: two and three belong together.

Second Amendment:
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. [5][6]

Third Amendment:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

2 -Legal historical interpretation. See, for example, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, that served as the template for the BoR:

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

And Hamilton's draft of the BoR:

The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of the free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

This clearly regulates defense, in particular, military service, as exemplified by the exception it creates for those with religious objection to military service.
Not a right to bear arms is granted, but the way in which government can organise defense is limited: a civil militia.


3 - Comparative legal interpretation. Similar articles to the Second Amendment can be found in other revolutionary reuplican Bill of Rights'. For Example, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1793:

The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted

This states in more elaborate wording, that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. Switzerland has (had?) a similar article, stipulating Swiss defense is to be performed by a civilian militia. As in the US Second Amendment, not a right to bear arms is protected, but the means of defense of governments are limited. Limited to, shall we say, defense by, of and for the people.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Or the British were protecting the rights of native Americans against abuse by the American colonists...
Ha! Good one. British caring about the Native Americans, have not heard that one. More like the British wanted to make sure their colonies did not too big for debt saddled Britain to keep control of and with this act they managed somehow to gain a monopoly in granting land rights, how profitable.

Not to mention, West of the Appalachians lay French territory. And Canadian, which Britain tried to solve with the Québec Act of 1774.
Answer after wikipedia article.

Wikipedia:

The Quebec Act of 1774 was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 14 Geo. III c. 83) setting procedures of governance in the Province of Quebec. The principal components of the act were:

* The province's territory was expanded to take over part of the Indian Reserve, including much of what is now southern Ontario, plus Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and parts of Minnesota.
* The oath of allegiance was replaced with one that no longer made reference to the Protestant faith.
* It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.
* It restored the use of the French civil law for private matters while maintaining the use of the English common law for public administration, including criminal prosecution.


The Act had wide-ranging effects, in Quebec itself, as well as in the Thirteen Colonies. In Quebec, English-speaking migrants from Britain and the southern colonies objected to a variety of its provisions, which they saw as a removal of certain political freedoms. French-speaking Canadiens varied in their reaction; the land-owning seigneurs and clergy were generally happy with its provisions.

In the Thirteen Colonies, the Act, which had been passed in the same session of Parliament as a number of other acts designed as punishment for the Boston Tea Party and other protests, was joined to those acts as one of the Intolerable Acts. The provisions of the Quebec Act were seen as a new model for British colonial administration, which would strip the colonies of their elected assemblies, and promote the Roman Catholic faith in preference to widely-held Protestant beliefs. It also limited opportunities for colonies to expand on their western frontiers, by granting most of the Ohio Country to the province of Quebec.
Well, it was not French territory. It was British territory that Americans lives helped capture with their blood and lives in the Seven Years War. The only thing the British tried to solve with the Quebec Act was to pacify the recently conquered French by allowing semi autonomy, practicing the Catholic religion and by giving their province lots of more land at the expense of the Americans who had already been settling there and fought for it a decade or so earlier.

Reply within quote.

[Megas Methuselah]

Lol, British protecting the rights of Native Americans. Dreams.

[Louis VI the Fat]

ACIN, Megas Methuselah:

The Proclamtion of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774:

http://www.uppercanadahistory.ca/pp/ppa.html
'The Proclamation laid down entirely new and equitable methods of dealing with the Indians. It established a constitutional framework for the negotiation of Indian treaties. As such it has been labelled an "Indian Magna Carta" or and "Indian Bill of Rights".'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_1763



Yes, we're dealing with perfidious Albion here. That is, they will rob and kill the natives while claiming they are defending them. However, it was better than what the American colonists had in mind, and eventually in store. Or maybe not, and genocide and etnic cleansing are just that, whatever the orderly manner in which they are performed.
If one must make a hierarchy, then the best course for native Americans was, in order: no white infringement, French, British, American.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think it is laughable that you believe that the British act of pretending as if they are respecting the Indians with treaties and rights while killing them and establishing trading posts on their lands nevertheless is better then the Americans outright and obvious hatred for the numerous bloody skirmishes and wars they have had with them over the centuries.

I think the best part is how they worked to treat the Indians west of the Appalachians with respect but when they had more pressing matters, oh no they took from them and moved the land in the hands of the bigger threat: angry, conquered French colonists.

The Native Americans had no friends but themselves for the most part, and it is sad to suggest that within American-European politics at the time that they were used for the most part for anything other then tools to keep control of the lands for which they had no troops to effectively defend.

[Megas Methuselah]

ACIN, Megas Methuselah:

The Proclamtion of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774:

http://www.uppercanadahistory.ca/pp/ppa.html
'The Proclamation laid down entirely new and equitable methods of dealing with the Indians. It established a constitutional framework for the negotiation of Indian treaties. As such it has been labelled an "Indian Magna Carta" or and "Indian Bill of Rights".'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_1763



Yes, we're dealing with perfidious Albion here. That is, they will rob and kill the natives while claiming they are defending them. However, it was better than what the American colonists had in mind, and eventually in store. Or maybe not, and genocide and etnic cleansing are just that, whatever the orderly manner in which they are performed.
If one must make a hierarchy, then the best course for native Americans was, in order: no white infringement, French, British, American.

I know my own history, than you very much.

EDIT: And I agree with your last statement.

[Xiahou]

I am aware of the minority position of my explanation. Nevertheless, I maintain that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people at all. This is not an obscure postion, and I am in excellent company in this.

It doesn't grant rights. It specifically prohibits the federal government from infringing on certain rights. (In theory at least. Because, in practice, even that has not held true...)

And I go one step beyond that, pushing me into even further minority position: I maintain that the BoR does not even limit the rights of government. It merely, superflously, puts on paper rights the people never abdicated to the government.

I don't really think of the government as having any rights- it has powers. That aside, the Bill of Rights does indeed restrict the power of government- if you had read the preamble you'd see that much. Your view may have its adherents, but history and precedent has left them far behind.

[HoreTore]

Could all Europeans plz read some American history before commenting on it, kthxbi.

1. We were not protesting against taxes, we were protesting against taxes which we had no say in. British parliament refused to have American representatives.

2. Americans were abused by the British government by attempting to contain us within the Atlantic and the Appalachians.

3. British military also abused Americans by forcing them to quarter their soldiers whenever they wanted.

For even moar examples of grievances plz see Declaration of Independence.

Alright, I'll give you "independence" as well. But I won't give you freedom

[a completely inoffensive name]

Alright, I'll give you "independence" as well. But I won't give you freedom

Ahh, but why do people want independence? If you are living under the control of a powerful empire, why abandon such security? Because independence means the freedom to live your life they way you want you, not some parliament in Europe. For colonists back then, with independence came the freedom to spread out where ever you want and own your own piece of prosperity and tranquility, the freedom to meet with traders from all across the world, throwing off the chains of a trade monopoly with Britain and talk and negotiate freely with all. Colonists wanted these freedoms that the British denied them (colonials actually regarded themselves as English citizens and subject to the same treatment those on the isles received) and independence (as Americans not English) for many was the only way such freedoms could come to the thirteen colonies.

[Centurion1]

About the proclamation line.

The British were making a sound military decision. They were most definitely not protecting Indians. I am American and looking at it in hindsight i can see the reasoning. however, at the time it would have pissed me off as well.

The Indian tribes had sided with the french. Even after the French and Indian war, the Indians were on the warpath against any non-french whites. It would have been suicide for any settlers to cross over the borders. so the colonists were being protected FROM the Indians.

[HoreTore]

Ahh, but why do people want independence?

1. Nationalism.
2. Personal power.

Face it, the colonials were not oppressed by the brits. It's kinda like how Norway became independent. We weren't oppressed or anything by the swedes, but all the same, people wanted their own country. Bloody fools...

Now, fighting Germany, that was a fight for freedom.

[a completely inoffensive name]

1. Nationalism.
2. Personal power.

Face it, the colonials were not oppressed by the brits. It's kinda like how Norway became independent. We weren't oppressed or anything by the swedes, but all the same, people wanted their own country. Bloody fools...

Now, fighting Germany, that was a fight for freedom.

1. Wrong, as I said up until the war began to escalate colonists still considered themselves as British citizens. Fighting began at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, the Declaration of Independence, our formal recognition of ourselves as Americans was not approved until July 4, 1776.
2. What power? From the beginning of the war until the ratification of the constitution, (about 1777 until 1788) the United States was governed under the weak Articles of Confederation where there was practically no Federal Government strength and each state did as it pleased. It was like this for about 5 years after the war ended, so tell me, without any central authority in the years after the war ended how could the quest for personal power be one of the main goals of these Revolutionaries.

Maybe you should just stop talking about things you don't know anything about? I don't know if America bashing is popular in Norway right now, but it is quite tiresome for us Americans who have to explain why we broke off from "Enlightened" Europe.

[HoreTore]

Maybe you should just stop talking about things you don't know anything about? I don't know if America bashing is popular in Norway right now, but it is quite tiresome for us Americans who have to explain why we broke off from "Enlightened" Europe.

I'll leave it to Louis.... He likes the grumpy ones more than I do.