What do YOU think the 2nd amendment means?

[Redleg]

The problem is that in the event of a revolution, the NG would fall apart. There would be loyalists, and revolutionaries, who would be in command? People could desert, but they wouldn't be in the NG any more.

Just like the active army in such a case - so fears of a great federal military presence is really not well founded. Just look at the Civil War period. A good portion of the active military split and went to the south.

It's not as if the NG would up and defend the state in an organized fashion from the people who are supposed to be giving them orders.

One must understand how the National Guard is organized


The National Guard of the State of Oregon command structure is the same as every other state. The Oregon National Guard is commanded by The Adjunant General of the State of Oregon. The TAG works directly for the govenor of your state. The TAG also has a dotted line to the National Guard Chief in Washington. The units within the State also have two lines of command. The Infantry units in Oregon are part of an enhanced Infantry Brigade that a Brigade Commander commands. THe one star general must is an officer of the Oregon National Guard first and then has a dotted line chain of command to an active duty division. Only when the unit is activated by the Federal Government does it fall under Federal control. Other then the 2 week Annual Training period the National Guard Units are completely controlled by the state.

[_Martyr_]

Thanks...

Believe it or not, your sarcasm was actually well understood. Explain how I am wrong about the US not having a proper welfare state and proper welfare states not having the same problems the US does.

[Red Harvest]

I think this first part means we can have malitias.

OK, this is driving me nuts. Not the topic, not the debate, etc. Nope, the spelling. I know the concept is important to you, so *please* start looking at how you are spelling it. It should be "militia" or "militias." The "mal" prefix means "bad," and I don't think that is the connotation you are after.

[_Martyr_]

Nucular Weapons!

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Thanks...

Believe it or not, your sarcasm was actually well understood. Explain how I am wrong about the US not having a proper welfare state and proper welfare states not having the same problems the US does.

The United Welfare State known as America has a system that encourages laziness and lack of work effort. In America, the Government will support you and this will steal from the taxpayer's wallet. With unemployment subsidies and the corrupt system known as Social Security, there is no way out for you average American. You're getting screwed, one way or the other. And most of this money that goes into your taxes to help support infrastructure and such, we shall never see. Rather, it goes into the hands of Drug Dealers and Prostitutes.

Other "welfare states" have either A) An economeny that can support such a state and not screw over a taxpayer, (more likely) B) the lack of a guilt cutlure imposed on the majority of the population by the minorities, or C) Lack of a large group of people who will not work for a living, nor pay taxes. Rather, they have struck a balence with the sytem, that works for them.

The System does not work for us.

[Crazed Rabbit]

All armaments and systems short of missiles (as opposed to short range rockets) and nukes.

Crazed Rabbit

[_Martyr_]

A Welfare State is defined on a number of categories. They are the government providing primary responsibility in health, public housing, social security, employment and education. America has MINIMAL government involvement in primary healthcare, public housing and employment and the other categories are pretty lacking at best, thus making it not a proper Welfare State, especially when compared to real Welfare States such as Britain (less and less), France, Germany and all the Scandinavian countries.

Other "welfare states" have either A) An economeny that can support such a state and not screw over a taxpayer, (more likely) B) the lack of a guilt cutlure imposed on the majority of the population by the minorities, or C) Lack of a large group of people who will not work for a living, nor pay taxes. Rather, they have struck a balence with the sytem, that works for them.

Rubbish! Are you telling me Germany has no guilt complex??? So what you are alluding to is that your opinion is not that a socialist approach is wrong, but that it is wrong in the instance (or application) of America because of particularities in her economy? What exactly in America's economy makes her incompatible with socialism? All countries have unemplyment. Especially Germany right now, up to 25% in some of the Bundeslaender.

[_Martyr_]

All armaments and systems short of missiles (as opposed to short range rockets) and nukes.

Right, Im off to bed now, its nealy 4AM here... but thats crazy! You really dont have a problem with private citizens owning tanks, machine guns, hand grenades, mortars, MOABS, B52s and flame throwers to mention just a few?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

A Welfare State is defined on a number of categories. They are the government providing primary responsibility in health, public housing, social security, employment and education. America has MINIMAL government involvement in primary healthcare, public housing and employment and the other categories are pretty lacking at best, thus making it not a proper Welfare State, especially when compared to real Welfare States such as Britain (less and less), France, Germany and all the Scandinavian countries.




Rubbish! Are you telling me Germany has no guilt complex??? So what you are alluding to is that your opinion is not that a socialist approach is wrong, but that it is wrong in the instance (or application) of America because of particularities in her economy? What exactly in America's economy makes her incompatible with socialism? All countries have unemplyment. Especially Germany right now, up to 25% in some of the Bundeslaender.

Germany's in an economic pinch right now, as far as I'm told. Socialism is failing there.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Right, Im off to bed now, its nealy 4AM here... but thats crazy! You really dont have a problem with private citizens owning tanks, machine guns, hand grenades, mortars, MOABS, B52s and flame throwers to mention just a few?

You can make a flamethrower with common household objects:
Clickity-click

Same thing for fully automatic guns, grenades, mortars, etc. Heck, a machinist armored a bulldozer in the USA a couple years ago. The police were powerless against it, and it didn't stop until he commited suicide.

B52s? You need a crew to fly them, and fighter jets would make short work of them.

MOABs I might make an exception for.

Crazed Rabbit

[Ice]

The problem is that in the event of a revolution, the NG would fall apart. There would be loyalists, and revolutionaries, who would be in command? People could desert, but they wouldn't be in the NG any more.


Once again: Vietnam. Afghanistan (both for USSR and USA). Iraq. A Militia can fight off an organized army given time.

All very different situations. North Vietnam, for example, was a nation. They had their own army which was very well equipped and also recieving equipment including tanks, fighters, and bombers from the Soviet Union.

All 3 of these are the countries invading other countries. Overthrowing of a Government by domestic powers is much different. The government just doesn't have the opinion of cutting and fleeing, so they will use all resources avaible to them and if it gets bad enough resort to pure brutality and terror. The US would turn into a country like China is today. No armed militia, I repeat is going to be able to win against federal troops, not in this day and age. Thus, allowing militas to exist to protect against foreign powers is no longer needed. Also, to keep the federal government in check, is no longer truly possible.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Can anyone guess why the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland?

Crazed Rabbit

[Shahed]

I think this first part means we can have malitias. And I will join one some day
if I find one that is not racist(which is harder then you think )



And this means




I should be able to own any gun I want for defense.

..........................


Don't make this about gun control just post what you think the 2nd means.

All these qoutes are meaningless without at bare minimum, the context of the paragraph/s from which they are quoted.

[Lehesu]

I just want to point out that, right after the Revolution, the new "leaders", including our good friend George, were pretty damn quick in squashing rebellion. The signal was that political change would happen within and through the system, not in abolishing it. These "new" revolutionaries were preaching the same stuff as the "original" revolutionaries, but got slammed by G. Washington and a detachment of the Continental Army.

You guys might whine, but the increasing trend in America has been towards federal supremacy, especially in recent times. Talk all you want about devolution; it ain't happening right now.

The 2nd Amendment is just the last gasp of an ideology that left the moment we ratified the Constitution. Hope you guys vote, because that's the only way stuff is going to happen in our fine nation. The 2nd Amendment is less valid as a "defense against government" clause since the U.S. has repeatedly demonstrated that it will work through the system. None of that "nullification" crap. The diverse special interest groups that our government has should prevent a monolithic govt. That is, assuming we vote.

Thus, we are left with the right to carry armaments. Not talking on the legal standpoint, but on a moral one: does anyone truly need full-automatic weaponry with armor-piercing bullets? Hunters don't as deer surely aren't packing bullet-proof vests. Do most petty criminals? What it seems to me is that such freedom of armaments favors criminals over local police and self-defence forces. For example, are policeman really happy and secure in the knowledge that anyone can purchase bullets that will make their BP vests obsolete? And, as citizens, shouldn't we be letting the pros handle the heavy duty stuff?

Regardless of any opinions about freedoms and defending rights, a main issue with the 2nd Amendment is the human obsession with death and the equipment that dishes it out. Games, movies, sports, all have an element of conflict and, yes, violence. Are we really defending ourselves and our rights, or are we just trembling in the cathartic ecstasy of a fully-loaded AR-15?

[Redleg]

Very well. However, the National Gaurd can only do so much. Unofficial militias waging a guerilla war are still necesarry. And the National Gaurd is anything but an argument against the 2nd Amendment.

Then you missed understood what I am saying - the National Guard should not be used as an arguement against the 2nd Amendment - nor should one use it to support the 2nd Amendment.

But in the aspect that you were using the National Guard as being under Federal Control was incorrect.

Unofficial Militia's were not the intent of the founding fathers. There intent is clearly written in the second amendment. A well Regulated Militia

But do not let this side discussion distract from the second part of the amendment which is also clearly written that we have the right to keep and bear arms.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I just want to point out that, right after the Revolution, the new "leaders", including our good friend George, were pretty damn quick in squashing rebellion. The signal was that political change would happen within and through the system, not in abolishing it. These "new" revolutionaries were preaching the same stuff as the "original" revolutionaries, but got slammed by G. Washington and a detachment of the Continental Army.

But they didn't even begin to consider thinking about touching the 2nd or guns, and George pardoned all.

Thus, we are left with the right to carry armaments. Not talking on the legal standpoint, but on a moral one: does anyone truly need full-automatic weaponry with armor-piercing bullets? Hunters don't as deer surely aren't packing bullet-proof vests. Do most petty criminals? What it seems to me is that such freedom of armaments favors criminals over local police and self-defence forces. For example, are policeman really happy and secure in the knowledge that anyone can purchase bullets that will make their BP vests obsolete? And, as citizens, shouldn't we be letting the pros handle the heavy duty stuff?

With criminals becoming increasingly well armed, and armored, and in bigger gangs, it would be foolish to think you'd never need one. Sure, you wouldn't need one most of the time, but you don't need an airbag most of the time.

And a single shot hunting gun (100+ years old) will pierce police vests.

Unfortunately, most of the time, the police aren't immediately there when a crime occurs. And waiting 15 minutes means you're dead.

Crazed Rabbit

[AntiochusIII]

The problem is: I couldn't imagine any Americans actually get serious about fighting against their own government. No offense but, how can you actually imagine that happen? Modern Americans have way too much distractions and attractions to concern themselves about trying to pick a fight for their "freedom." And also leaves a situation in which, speaking from a pragmatic point of view (no offense intended), only the extremists would be the ones to actually carry firearms with this particular reason. That leaves out a large part of the (moral, not legal, which is probably undisputed) legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment on the fact that, which the majority of the people not having weapons for that purpose (and probably would never use as such), the justification of firearms through this amendment (again, morally, not legally) becomes much weaker, and more like entertainment tools with potential ability to harm others than tools to defend one's freedom.

Of course, I'd not like to bait this into another gun control thread, so please treat any superfluous comments of mine as such.

[Soulforged]

This is like the drugs subject, you can have it as long as you don't use it to damage other's rights. Any other disposition against this principle will be against freedom.

[Lemur]

With criminals becoming increasingly well armed, and armored, and in bigger gangs, it would be foolish to think you'd never need one.

I'm pretty neutral on the whole 2nd Amendment thing, but I can't let a statement like this past. What's your basis for stating that "gangs" are larger and better-armed? (And do you mean street gangs? the tong? the yakuza? rapper wannabes? those multi-ethnic gangs you see in films from the '80s with spiky hair and vaguely punk outfits?) Let's not forget that violent crime has been dropping for over a decade . Here's a sample graph, and I'm sure the slightest bit of research will find lots more:



Here's a fifty-year perspective on homicide:



Allow me to repeat: Violent crime has been falling for over a decade. It's at something like a 40-year low right now. So make whatever arguments you please about gun ownership, but don't go sounding off about how the streets are running with blood and those guys from the Road Warrior are taking over. It ain't so.

[Aurelian]

"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."

The Second Amendment really is frustrating. If they'd just written "the government shall not infringe on the absolute right of individual citizens to own the weaponry of their choice", then there wouldn't be any need to debate this subject. It would be crystal clear. Unfortunately, they left things fairly murky (for our purposes).

The first clause implies that the right to arms is somehow tied to or justified by a free state's need for security... a need that can only be met through a "well regulated militia". The "well regulated militia" seems to be "the people" under arms who are necessary for maintaining the security of the "free state".

Therefore, a little background on the controversies surrounding the militia at the time the Constitution was written becomes necessary to understand the intent of the amendment.

I recently found a great article on this subject called "The Security of Free States: The Second Amendment and State Militias". LINK It's worth a read-through if you're interested in the subject, but I'll try to summarize some key points.

In the post-Revolutionary War era during which the Constitution was written, militias were raised and controlled at the state level, but were being integrated into a new federal system that also contained a standing army.

Compared to the previously existing system wherein each state's militia would be independent, the Congress was trying to create a federal system wherein Congress would have the: "power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, leaving to the states only the power to train the militia and to officer it. The federal government could also call out the state militias under very broad circumstances, including even to enforce the laws. While power was indeed to be shared between the state and federal governments, it was apparent that compared to the previous relationship that existed, the federal government would now wield significant power over the state militias."

Now, the anti-federalist's had a number of objections to this plan, but one of the most serious was that the federal government would have control over the arming of each state's militia. That is, that the Congress would have the power to arm, or to not arm, state militia's. Since state militias were seen as a countervailing power to a centralized government with a standing army, the Congress's power to neuter the militias was a political concern. There was even talk that under the new arrangements, Congress could easily muster the militia of one state (or the standing army) and use it to enforce its will in another state, whose own militia would have been disarmed.

These were apparently the concerns that lead to the drafting of the Second Amendment. The amendment was meant to assuage anti-federalist fears that the state militias would be neutered as a balancing force. Apparently, the draft that originally made it to the Convention floor included an extra clause:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

The final clause was removed because Congress decided that the issue of how to deal with conscientious objectors within the militia should be left to the states. However, its initial inclusion does reinforce the centrality of militia service to the Second Amendment's intent.

Anyway, I highly recommend that anybody interested in the subject read the article linked above because it lays out the issues of the day quite well and makes the Second Amendment more understandable.

Well, what does all this mean? Practically, not very much. Most people understand the Second Amendment as a right, but the responsibility that was implied with it... the idea that adult males and their arms would be liable for duty in a state militia with a military role... no longer exists. It is clear that the concern of some gun owners - that the people be armed as a guarantee against federal power - was a concern 'back in the day'. It's just that the anti-federalists of their day seemed to envision that the arming of the citizenry would take place within the context of a well-regulated state militia.

Something to chew on.

[Aurelian]

Eh, that last one was a bit long, so I'll add this tidbit here:

Check out this link link that lays out the "right to arms" provisions in all of the state constitutions. It's useful to read because it shows that each state has chosen to define the "right to arms" slightly differently.


Also, Lemur is of course right about declining violent crime rates. Since we're all computer game players here, it's nice to keep that in mind so we can throw the declining crime statistics back in the face of the Liebermans of the world when they start attacking video games.

Incidentally, one of the proposed reasons for the decline in violent crime since the 1990s was the legalization of abortion back in the early 70's. The argument goes that crime rates start declining just at the time that the generation culled by legalized abortion got to the age when they would be commiting crimes. Something to ponder.

[Lemur]

Incidentally, one of the proposed reasons for the decline in violent crime since the 1990s was the legalization of abortion back in the early 70's. The argument goes that crime rates start declining just at the time that the generation culled by legalized abortion got to the age when they would be commiting crimes.

You're talking about economist Steven Levitt's theory. Obviously I can't link to it directly, since it's copyrighted and in a published book and all of that, but here's a little bit of a summation:

In January 1973, the Supreme Court made abortion legal throughout the United States, where previously it had been available in only five states. In 1974, roughly 750,000 women had abortions in America; by 1980, the number was 1.6m (one abortion for every 2.3 live births). “What sort of woman was most likely to take advantage of Roe v Wade?” the book asks. “Very often she was unmarried or in her teens or poor, and sometimes all three...In other words, the very factors that drove millions of American women to have an abortion also seemed to predict that their children, had they been born, would have led unhappy and possibly criminal lives...In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v Wade was hitting its late teen years—the years during which young men enter their criminal prime—the rate of crime began to fall.”

The theory is the easy part, once you dare to articulate it. Testing it is quite another matter. But the book moves methodically and persuasively through the statistical evidence. It turns out, for instance, that crime started falling earlier in the states that legalised abortion before Roe v Wade; that the states with the highest abortion rates saw the biggest drops in crime (even controlling for other factors); that there was no link between abortion rates and crime before the late 1980s (when unborn criminals, as it were, first began to affect the figures); and that a similar association of crime and abortion has been found in other countries.

I've read the book. Note that Levitt controlled for all of the other factors put forward -- policing strategies, gun ownership, prison population, etc. None were predictive of the crime drop except abortion. Pretty weird stuff.

[Aurelian]

Yes, Levitt laid out that theory in "Freakonomics".

Actually, I used to argue that line of reasoning with my pro-life friends. At the time, I believe they were complaining about using public funds to cover the abortions of poor women. I used to point out to them that they could either pay for the abortions now, or pay to incarcerate the unwanted children later. Of course, those discussions took place in the early 90's and the drop in crime was just starting.

Now back to a previous post:

It's only murkey because people with agendas make it murky. It's actual rather clear.

Eh. I think it could use a rewrite. The wording suggests too many side issues that could modify the intent of the 'right to bear arms' clause. Should be clearer.

By the way, I don't have an agenda on this issue. It's not one of the (many) issues I do get worked up about.

[Ronin]

it says that at the time that the document was written there was a very good chance that the US could be invaded by england or some other foreign power....this made it necessary to have a high number of the population armed and organized to fend off a possible attack.

unfortunatelly as the centuries passed and the chance for an invasion of the continental USA became a ridiculous notion the united states government failed to see the emendment for the anacronism it is....

one simply has to understand that no matter how great a document is, and the text of the US constitution is one of the finest legal documents ever produced, it inevitably becomes dated with time and needs to be re-written, respecting the spirit of the original document of course, but being reasonable has to the time frame it stands in...


America.....a XXI century country.......run by a constitution from the XVIII century


well...that´s my 2 cents on the matter.

[Tribesman]

Can anyone guess why the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland?
Well thats a tough one Rabbit . Is it because the population are armed ?
Or is it because Switzerland serves as a very handy financial institution in times of war so that people whose nations are at war can still carry on the important work of making money , and also a very safe place to stash your money as you know that everyone else has their money stashed there as well and are not going to do anything to endanger that stash .

Back to topic ..What do YOU think the 2nd amendment means?
It means that they got it wrong the first time .
Unofficial Militia's were not the intent of the founding fathers. There intent is clearly written in the second amendment. A well Regulated Militia
So that answer by Red shows that these strange "militias" that are in existance and which Ceasar is having trouble finding one to join that isn't composed of "crazies" and "racists" are not covered under the amendment .
Furthermore the use of the word "Regulated" means regulations=laws , so that means there must be laws which regulate armed bodies , which means laws that regulate the one thing that makes a body armed = Weapons .
So it is all in the second amendment that there should be laws regulating the ownership of weaponry . Now that means gun control , but of course some people go off into a rant as soon as they hear those words , "they want to ban guns" , which is a complete fallacy .
Gun control does not = banning guns .

[Tribesman]

Talk about grasping at straws.
OK GC . what does "well regulated" mean then if it doesn't mean "well regulated" ?
Partially regulated?
Regulated about everything except weaponry ?
Not really regulated at all but it sounds nice and meaningfull ?

[Ja'chyra]

It's not often I agree with Tribesman, but he's spot on with this one.

As a total outsider I would say that your second amendment is far too ambiguous. At first I thought that this:

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.

Was a fragment of the amendment, but it seems it is the whole thing Who wrote this? A drunk man?

I'd think it'd make more sense with one small word added:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[/

I also think that the original intent means very little now, the constitution should be adapted to suit the time. The simple fact that it has split the country in two should be clear enough evidence that it need clarified.

[Del Arroyo]

It's only murkey because people with agendas make it murky. It's actual rather clear.

I think Aurelian actually sums it up quite well. If you wish to claim exclusive right to a "correct" interpretation based on the "literal" meaning of the words, without trying to understand the issue any more deeply than that, then you're basically shelving yourself away in the same section as literal creationists who believe that cavemen hunted dinosaurs.

DA

[bmolsson]

Second amendment is outdated and has no purpose in a modern society as the American. Get rid off it.....

[Redleg]

Back to topic ..What do YOU think the 2nd amendment means?
It means that they got it wrong the first time .
Unofficial Militia's were not the intent of the founding fathers. There intent is clearly written in the second amendment. A well Regulated Militia
So that answer by Red shows that these strange "militias" that are in existance and which Ceasar is having trouble finding one to join that isn't composed of "crazies" and "racists" are not covered under the amendment .
Furthermore the use of the word "Regulated" means regulations=laws , so that means there must be laws which regulate armed bodies , which means laws that regulate the one thing that makes a body armed = Weapons .

So it is all in the second amendment that there should be laws regulating the ownership of weaponry . Now that means gun control , but of course some people go off into a rant as soon as they hear those words , "they want to ban guns" , which is a complete fallacy .
Gun control does not = banning guns .

Very good Tribesman. You actually got the meaning of my simple statement very well. Soon you will be converted to the dark side,