What do YOU think the 2nd amendment means?

[Redleg]

You know Aurelian that any link that doesn't show that the founding fathers wanted us to own any type of weapon is completely hogwash - unless its support by the NRA and others. Edit: Forgot the sarcasm on and off buttons.

The author and I agree completely with this point

I do not state whether or not I believe that Americans should have a personal right to keep and bear arms, or whether or not current gun control laws are Constitutional, or even whether or not there should be gun control. My experience has been that people have already made up their minds on these issues and would not be persuaded by what I have to say on the matter, even were I inclined to state it.

[scooter_the_shooter]

This is not in response to any thing, just thought some might like to see it.

There is some educational political info (gun related) At the firing line library.


http://thefiringline.com/library/

I like reading "gun control quotes" and some of the essays there.

[scooter_the_shooter]

How many new (regular) tavern goers are here sense the last gun control thread? If there are alot I might start a new one.

[Xiahou]

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

The Constitution isn't a metaphorical story for the creation of our government. It's a constitution- going beyond its literal meaning is just making it up as you go to fit your desires.

That's like if a state has a law that says it's illegal to pass thru a red light intersection. It means what it says- you don't look at it and say 'Well, what was really meant was red lights in cities with more than 50,000 people'. Or, 'well, at the time it was written few people drove on Sundays so they clearly didn't mean for it to apply to weekends'. Nonsense, it means what it says. If it was supposed to mean something else, it would've said it.

Sure, lots of founding fathers had different ideas as to what the Constitution should say and do, but no one of them had total control over what went into it- it was the product of many compromises. It's all well and interesting to learn about what various founders thought about government, or how they believe it should've been written- but when it's all said and done, all we have to rule on is the text that is there.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." is an independant clause and doesn't need the militia reference to stand on it's own. In this statement, it is clearly stated as a right and further by saying it cannot be infringed. Saying this applies only to formal state militias or the national guard does not square with the facts that it is a stated right that cannot be infringed.

Many issues are open to at least a little interpretation- like what was considered "cruel and unusual" punishment- those are somewhat subjective terms. However, many things, like the 2nd Amendment, can't be much clearer.

[English assassin]

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.

Apart from the fact that I have to respect how this sentence has, apparently, been applied in the States , as a piece of English text it seems to me to have only one possible reading. That is the one put forward by Redleg and others.

The purpose to be achieved is a "well regulated militia". The reason this is needed is the security of the state (not, I note in passing, security from the state). The way this will be acheived is by not infringing the rights of the people to bear arms.

Two points occur. The right to bear arms for any other purpose than a well regulated militia is not dealt with at all. And, whilst those who wish the constitution meant "what the founding fathers said it meant" will be stuck with having to join a militia (and a well regulated one at that) before they can own a gun, I think it is reasonable to read militia as meaning a well regulated citizen body, and security of the state could be read to include things like self defence.

Don't see anyway on earth any English speaker can argue their way around "well regulated" though. Which means gun control is clearly part of the 2nd amendment.

Just my view.

[Xiahou]

Two points occur. The right to bear arms for any other purpose than a well regulated militia is not dealt with at all. And, whilst those who wish the constitution meant "what the founding fathers said it meant" will be stuck with having to join a militia (and a well regulated one at that) before they can own a gun, I think it is reasonable to read militia as meaning a well regulated citizen body, and security of the state could be read to include things like self defence.

Don't see anyway on earth any English speaker can argue their way around "well regulated" though. Which means gun control is clearly part of the 2nd amendment.

I totally disagree. It, indeed says a well-regulated militia is necessary- that's clear. And because of this, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say 'the right to bear arms within a militia'- it says 'the right to bear arms' period.

People dont like it, or think it's outdated- fine. Go ahead and change it, good luck with that. But there are clear mechanisms for changing the Constitution and just saying it doesn't apply anymore or is outdated isnt part of it. That sort of philosophy gets back to the judicial activism that so many of us rail against.

[scooter_the_shooter]

It seems most of you are forgetting

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That means If I want I should be allowed to own a tank ,f16, rpg etc. I don't mind if my neighbors have them(I dont understand why antis bring the neighbor thing up all the time I dont care if jeff down the road has an ak47)

[Xiahou]

That means If I want I should be allowed to own a tank ,f16, rpg etc. I don't mind if my neighbors have them(I dont understand why antis bring the neighbor thing up all the time I dont care if jeff down the road has an ak47)

Personally, I don't think it's really a good idea for any shlub to be able to own tanks, bombers and WMDs. However, even with that- I'm not going to try to manufacture support for my view where it doesn't exists, the Constitution.

[English assassin]

Sorry, X and Caesar, but that second amendment is one sentence, not two. How can you chop the part about the militia from the part about the guns?

"Because they are necessary in a well regulated construction trade, the right to own bulldozers shall not be infringed"

You can't just ignore the phrase in front of the comma and claim that Bill, a librarian and keen subscriber to What Bulldozer, has the right to own a bulldozer.

Like I said I think it would be fair to treat militia as citizens at large, and not, say, the national guard, but you can't ignore "well regulated"

[scooter_the_shooter]

So you are saying you wish to disarm me? (not a flame or anything, just curious)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The purpose to be achieved is a "well regulated militia". The reason this is needed is the security of the state (not, I note in passing, security from the state).

And how do you come to this startiling conclusion? These men were revolutionaries. They clearly wanted the people armed to keep their own government in line. If they only wanted the militia to be armed they would have said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. But they didnt. They specifically said the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Its pretty damn clear.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Gawain does as his sig says once again!


The thing that creeps me out the most is that if you give most foreigners a magic button that will disarm america's masses with out amending the constitution or anything....they would hit it

[Ice]

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

Crazed Rabbit

I'll let the history channel answer this one. The Swiss were making and hiding large amounts of Nazi gold. Many Jews opened accounts their only to ahve their sons/daugthers find out they were not "allowed" to gather the money after the war. They also produced many armaments and products for the nazi war machine. Why did the Nazi's use them? Easy. Allied bombers could not bomb Swiss factories because they were offically "neutral".Why did the Swiss do it? They liked money and were afraid if they said no, Hitler would steamroll their country like he did the rest of Europe.

And people say tv is a waste

[scooter_the_shooter]

And every swiss citizen having a gun had NOTHING to do with it.....

[English assassin]

So you are saying you wish to disarm me? (not a flame or anything, just curious)

I'm answering the question what do I think your second amendment means. Seeing as there is about 4000 miles of cold north atlantic between us, it doesn't affect me what weapons you own, so long as its not an ICBM.

The thing that creeps me out the most is that if you give most foreigners a magic button that will disarm america's masses with out amending the constitution or anything....they would hit it

No disrespect but in fact we do have more pressing things to worry about. Personally I think its odd some of you get so hot for military grade weapons, and even odder you think some 200 year old sentence is the last word on the subject, but at the end of the day its your country.

@ Big G, the second amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". I said "The reason [the militia] is needed is the security of the state" I make that a quote rather than a startling conclusion? Let me play with your paragraph a bit:

If they wanted the people to be secure they would have said A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free people . But they didnt. They specifically said the security of a free state. Its pretty damn clear.

Furthermore and a new point, people is a collective noun. Its doesn't say the right of a person to keep and bear arms does it? In fact on reflection I'm not sure this amendment confers the right on any given person to bear arms at all. (Other than in the well regulated militia)

[English assassin]

And every swiss citizen having a gun had NOTHING to do with [the germans not invading].....

At risk of going OT, yeah, because an army that invaded Soviet Russia with 3 million battle hardened troops would be sure to pap its pants and run away when confronted with a few hundred thousand bicycling riflemen...? Come on, back to the second amendment.

[Ironside]

The thing that creeps me out the most is that if you give most foreigners a magic button that will disarm america's masses with out amending the constitution or anything....they would hit it

Well that has more to do with your fantical (atleast in my eyes) devotion to a paper written about 240 years ago. Sometimes it sounds like they were divine beings and that the constitution is always and will always be right. But explaining the importance of the constitition in your eyes for them would certainly make them ammend the constitution first.

Personally I feel thst the point of it as a defense against the goverment has fallen a long time ago. Making sure that the loyalty of the military ultimatly lies with the people is much, much more inportant. To counter Kaiser's point's:

what they fail to realize is that such a ban would prevent:

A. Lawful citizens from defending themselves against Illegally Armed Criminals.

Sometimes yes. But that's with shotguns or handguns, not handgranades, tanks or M16. And the criminals will get it easier to get handguns and other weapons too.

B. Hunters to make a living.

Hunters don't need military grade weapons to hunt. Any reasonable country gets the weapons licensed and you'll need a gun license to use it. Annoying yes, but you can atleast be certain that hunters can use thier weapon properly.

C. Any protection from an outside invader with the exception of the US military (i.e. No Immediate Protection) or from internal opression.

As the military would be a much bigger threat to an invasion force then the militia, it's quite pointless to arm the population, unless more imminent threat is occuring. If they can beat your army so quickly that you cannot prepare your nation for war, what's the point of the militia?

D. Any form of Security of Defense against foreign agents or aliens attempting to harm this nation from the inside.

More and less the same as the above.

Now on the most important part, the threat from within or the evil goverment. The point is that the best way to take the US (or any other country) is either the "make them love me style" used in Iraq (were I'm sure that the average Iraqi is really loving their freedom of guns before the invasion and how that has been used afterwards ) with better methods or the Gehenna-style invasion, were obliterating cities is an option to consider if those rebels gets too annoying. As the nice invasion styles is easily achived from the inside, by an election, only the second alternative is valid for this oppresive goverment.

We can assume that it takes control of the military, so only partisan activity can be used by the militia, as they are heavily outgunned by the goverment. Now partisan activity and guerilla warfare has been working before as seen in several places, but in Vietnam they couldn't strike at the enemies main base, and weren't motivated enough (this oppressive goverment cannot afford to lose, they will die (executed) if they fail), Iraq is because the US cannot afford destroying cities or look like heavy oppressors and Afghanistan because most of it is in the middle of noware. Surely partisans can survive in the US, but the goverment will control most of the population and infrastructure and the damage this partisans can do will be minor. The goverment cannot rule forever with fear, but that's a different issue.

You can of course arm the population much more, so your neighbour got that tank or airplane, but ask yourself this question: Are you willing to live near a neighbour that have spended millions of dollars on weaponry, with the purpose to use them against the goverment if they get too bad?

Now I've showed that that's pointless to get those weapons, but I admit that it can be fun to use them (for target shooting for example)
But that means that the point to own weapons, fully capable of killing dozens/hundreds of people is because they are fun?

Oh and it wasn't the militia that stopped the Nazi to invade Switzerland. Why didn't they invade Sweden?

Did I miss something?

[Meneldil]

And every swiss citizen having a gun had NOTHING to do with it.....

Yeah, cause I guess a few petits Swiss armed with outdated gun would put up much of a fight against the German army in 1941


As for the 2nd amendment, there's something I don't really understand. What was its purpose ? To protect the country for a foreign (british) invasion ? To protect the US citizen from a despotic state ? Or just to allow every guy to protect himslef by owning a gun and firing at will on people who'd look weird ?

Basically, I'd say that 'well regulated' militia mean that militia and militia only would be able to own a gun.

[scooter_the_shooter]

If it did say person we would be debating which persons it meant.

It says well regulated. Not regulated by the state...The militias out there now have command structure, some standard issue equipment, etc. I call that regulated.


Now we get to debate about how regulated does "well regulated" mean

[Gawain of Orkeny]

@ Big G, the second amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".

Now we could take this to mean that it means to keep the State secure from an oppressive Federal Government now couldnt we? Also does the security of the state maen that its the government that needs to be secure or the people. Since in the US the government is We the people I maintain they wanted the People to be able to rise up if the government got out of hand.

Furthermore and a new point, people is a collective noun. Its doesn't say the right of a person to keep and bear arms does it?

Yes collective for person.If I say tigers must be kept in zoos do I have to go around and tell every owner of one that their tiger must be put in a zoo? I dont think so.

Its strange people somehow find a right to privacy in the constitution for abortions but when it comes to being able to be armed to protect private property and ones family they ignore any such rights that are clearly stated.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Yeah, cause I guess a few petits Swiss armed with outdated gun would put up much of a fight against the German army in 1941

Out dated???? If I remember right the swiss used a k31 back then.



a k31 is better then an enfield, mauser, or mosin nagant.

You need to shoot some old milsurps before you ridicule them


http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl15-e.htm

[Goofball]

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

Crazed Rabbit

Let me guess. Because the wehrmacht (arguably the most efficient war waging killing engine ever conceived) was afraid of a bunch of plump Swiss farmers armed with blunderbusses?

Get real...

[English assassin]

It says well regulated. Not regulated by the state...The militias out there now have command structure, some standard issue equipment, etc. I call that regulated

No, that's "organised". Like the mafia is organised. OT, you really have private armies running around in the States? Sheesh.

If I say tigers must be kept in zoos do I have to go around and tell every owner of one that their tiger must be put in a zoo? I dont think so.

Eh? Obviously a rule "Tigers must be kept in zoos" means every owner must put his tiger in a zoo. Otherwise the rule would be "Tigers can be kept in zoos, if you feel like it"

[Meneldil]

Out dated???? If I remember right the swiss used a k31 back then.



a k31 is better then an enfield, mauser, or mosin nagant.

You need to shoot some old milsurps before you ridicule them


http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl15-e.htm

Total of about 580 000 K31 rifles were produced.

I doubt every Swiss owned a K31 in 1941. They were designed for the Swiss Army, not for the average swiss Joe.
And although every Swiss was allowed to own a gun, I doubt many of them would match with a german soldier.

[scooter_the_shooter]

They are not armies they are militias We have some that run around in almost every state. Most of them are near the southern boarder though.

[scooter_the_shooter]

meneldi I bet civilians had some acess to them also.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Eh? Obviously a rule "Tigers must be kept in zoos" means every owner must put his tiger in a zoo.

and obviously "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Means every person has the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. Also militia is considered every able bodied man. No where in the constitution does it even suggest that only the government has the right to bear arms. Its... its ....well its just unamerican. What a horrible thought

[scooter_the_shooter]

gawain do you live in New york city or just some where in the state? Doesn't nyc have guns banned?

[Kanamori]

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.

It says "the right of the People" not "the right of the militia". If they wanted only our official army to have the right to bear arms, something that you would think would be a 'duh!' anyways, then why does it read "the People"? Also, it says "keep" not just "bear"; you bear arms in the military, but you certainly don't keep the gun they give you. Outside of the direct "right to keep and bear arms" discussion is that of the nature and purpose of the militia in the amendment. Historically, the revolutionaries relied on citizen owned guns in order to arm the militia. As to the purpose of the militia: I think that the inclusion of "free", not just "a State" but "a free State", is vital to understanding that purpose. How, exactly, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" secures "a free State" is not specified, but it is obvious that it is, or they thought it was, somehow necessary.

What the amendment means is not dependent on whether or not it should be changed.

[yesdachi]

Here's my 2 cents .

My interpretation of the first part…

It seems relatively straight forward, although “well regulated” could be debated. There should be a militia and when the states security is in jeopardy (the threat could be foreign or domestic) the militia should be ready protect it. I do consider every able-bodied citizen a potential member of the militia. This doesn’t seem like something that is very likely to be needed today but why not keep it around? I have a fire extinguisher but I don’t anticipate ever using it. It is a "just incase" precaution.

And the second part…

The people should have the right to have weapons. What kind of weapons could be debated but I think the people should have access to any weapon they want as long as they meet the criteria for owning/purchasing it. The people decide the criteria thru voting and elections. IMO if someone wants a machinegun, grenades, or even a tank, I say go for it! As long as they meet the criteria and use it for what it is intended to be used for (what the criteria for owning a tank would be I don’t know but if it was defined and someone met it I am ok with them having it.). Tanks are built for war and can only be used for war. A 12-gauge shotgun has many intended uses, hunting, self-defense, target practice, etc. and as long as it is used for what it is intended to be used for, why would anyone ever want to take away the peoples right to have one. Guns can be dangerous and if handled carelessly or by someone untrained could be deadly but the same could be said for baseball bats, cars, prescription drugs, etc. I see it as a freedom that we get to enjoy if we want, as long as we act responsibly. Anyone that doesn’t should be punished.

IMO the second amendment basically says…
We should have a militia and we should be able to have guns if we want.
You can break it down into semantics but that’s what I think it means.