2nd Amendment to the US Constitution

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Amused
Let's make another Amendment with the same sentence structure as the Second...

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.
The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.

But the problem with that anaology is that it doesn't specify any limits, where the 2nd amendment clearly does. It states, not just a militia, but a well regulated militia.

At least in my dictionary, "regulated" implied ordered, controlled limited by law etc. It doesn't suggest "skillfull" as others have suggested, although that may be an archaic (though not irrelavent) interpretation.

Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.

Similarly the Second Amendment states, the people from whom a necessary and well-regulated militia will be composed, shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

It was the Founders' desire "that every man be armed" such that from the "whole body of the people" (militia) a sufficient number would serve in the well-regulated militia.

That's a good argument.
I'm not sure you've convinced me, but I admire the argument.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: 308nato
How in the hell can you seperate interpretation of the Second and the gun control issue ?

Oooops....I mean gun safety as the turds cal it now.

Of course you can't seperate the 2nd amendment from gun control.
I'm just trying to focus this thread specifically on what the 2nd amendment means, without getting bogged down in the debate over existing gun control laws, specific events or crimes, etc.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: Amused
Let's make another Amendment with the same sentence structure as the Second...

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.
The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.

But the problem with that anaology is that it doesn't specify any limits, where the 2nd amendment clearly does. It states, not just a militia, but a well regulated militia.

At least in my dictionary, "regulated" implied ordered, controlled limited by law etc. It doesn't suggest "skillfull" as others have suggested, although that may be an archaic (though not irrelavent) interpretation.

Actually, he included the phrase "well educated electorate"...

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: Fausto1
Commence Flame War.

Good call!

 

[SuperTool]

Constitution is not a suicide pact!

 

[wolf papa]

Originally posted by: vash
Some interpret this more like: private citizens should be able to hold as many arms necessary to overthrow the government in case they no longer represent the people.

I don't interpret it that way, but that's what some people believe.

vash

Yep, that's exactly what I believe.

The historical perspective is that the country's founders came from a background where they were oppressed by a tyrant. Democracy was a theory that they THOUGHT should work, but they wanted to make sure the citizens would have the option (and means) to remove a dictator or corrupt government. The government-controlled military wouldn't be much good for the citizens if the government was corrupt. In fact, the military would probably enforce the government's position. An armed populace, that can act independently of the government, is a form of the checks and balances that make democracy work.
How long would Idi Amin, or Papa Doc, have remained in power, if their subjects were able to defend themselves? Totalitarian regimes rely on an imbalance of power for control - the government (or king, dictator, etc.) has all the power, the individual has none. When a dictator can dis-arm his opposition, he can do as he wants.

 

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: yellowfiero
look at the number of supreme court cases on this, and you'll understand why its so vague.

I don't follow you here?
Are you saying that it is intentionally vague, or that there are alot of court cases because it is vague?

he means there are none. The Supreme court has dodged the issue time and again. basically meaning its supposed to be vague.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

REASON FOR ACTION:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


It does NOT say:
The right to bear arms shall be limited to a well regulated militia.

 

[tcsenter]

But the problem with that anaology is that it doesn't specify any limits, where the 2nd amendment clearly does. It states, not just a militia, but a well regulated militia.

Well-educated, the limit would be only those entitled to the distinction of being 'well-educated', that is a limit.

At least in my dictionary, "regulated" implied ordered, controlled limited by law etc. It doesn't suggest "skillfull" as others have suggested, although that may be an archaic (though not irrelavent) interpretation.

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

-- Alexandre Hamilton (PUBLIUS), Federalist #29

"Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than a well-regulated camp [my note: here Hamilton uses well-regulated to suggest an "armed" or military camp]; and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest."

-- Hamilton (PUBLIUS), Federalist #6

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: wolf papa

Originally posted by: vash
Some interpret this more like: private citizens should be able to hold as many arms necessary to overthrow the government in case they no longer represent the people.

I don't interpret it that way, but that's what some people believe.

vash

Yep, that's exactly what I believe.

The historical perspective is that the country's founders came from a background where they were oppressed by a tyrant. Democracy was a theory that they THOUGHT should work, but they wanted to make sure the citizens would have the option (and means) to remove a dictator or corrupt government. The government-controlled military wouldn't be much good for the citizens if the government was corrupt. In fact, the military would probably enforce the government's position. An armed populace, that can act independently of the government, is a form of the checks and balances that make democracy work.
How long would Idi Amin, or Papa Doc, have remained in power, if their subjects were able to defend themselves? Totalitarian regimes rely on an imbalance of power for control - the government (or king, dictator, etc.) has all the power, the individual has none. When a dictator can dis-arm his opposition, he can do as he wants.

That said, there's no way a bunch of citizens can overthrown the government we have now.

 

Originally posted by: Pepsei

Originally posted by: wolf papa

Originally posted by: vash
Some interpret this more like: private citizens should be able to hold as many arms necessary to overthrow the government in case they no longer represent the people.

I don't interpret it that way, but that's what some people believe.

vash

Yep, that's exactly what I believe.

The historical perspective is that the country's founders came from a background where they were oppressed by a tyrant. Democracy was a theory that they THOUGHT should work, but they wanted to make sure the citizens would have the option (and means) to remove a dictator or corrupt government. The government-controlled military wouldn't be much good for the citizens if the government was corrupt. In fact, the military would probably enforce the government's position. An armed populace, that can act independently of the government, is a form of the checks and balances that make democracy work.
How long would Idi Amin, or Papa Doc, have remained in power, if their subjects were able to defend themselves? Totalitarian regimes rely on an imbalance of power for control - the government (or king, dictator, etc.) has all the power, the individual has none. When a dictator can dis-arm his opposition, he can do as he wants.

That said, there's no way a bunch of citizens can overthrown the government we have now.

A full scale rebellion could not be hid or put down. Should it ever happen, I highly doubt out own military would fire on its own citizens. They too would see the corruption in government. Besides, how would they defend against lets say 150 million people without destroying the economy that they need to support them?

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: ergeorge
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.

I've always wondered how this can be construed to support private, unlicensed/regulated gun ownership?
To me it seems to protect gun ownership only in the context of "A well regulated militia".

yeah, you are right, if you read the federalist papers, it says right in there that the founding fathers meant this phrase to be interpreted 200 years later.
just do a google search on federalist papers and you can read it for yourself

BINGO!!! we have a winner.

Even the courts have said the 2nd supports the rights of the state to keep arms, NOT private citizens.

 

[tcsenter]

BINGO!!! we have a winner.

Even the courts have said the 2nd supports the rights of the state to keep arms, NOT private citizens.

lol! You should be more careful when you read. Look what FOBOT was saying:

"yeah, you are right, if you read the federalist papers, it says right in there that the founding fathers meant this phrase to be interpreted 200 years later as "if you are in the national guard you can take your govt issued rifle home at night, and if the U.S. ever turns into a dictatorship, you have to follow orders to kill your neighbors for whatever reason the dictator feels are just"

just do a google search on federalist papers and you can read it for yourself."

Then he links to a page filled with pro-gun quotations. Ever heard of sarcasm?

Its pretty bad when someone deliberately uses sarcasm that is so outrageous even a half-baked idiot would notice. Hmm, what's that say about you? :Q

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: ergeorge
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.

I've always wondered how this can be construed to support private, unlicensed/regulated gun ownership?
To me it seems to protect gun ownership only in the context of "A well regulated militia".

yeah, you are right, if you read the federalist papers, it says right in there that the founding fathers meant this phrase to be interpreted 200 years later.
just do a google search on federalist papers and you can read it for yourself

BINGO!!! we have a winner.

Even the courts have said the 2nd supports the rights of the state to keep arms, NOT private citizens.

Bullsh!t.

Please point to ONE supreme court decision that says the Second Amendment is not an individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Pepsei

Originally posted by: wolf papa

Originally posted by: vash
Some interpret this more like: private citizens should be able to hold as many arms necessary to overthrow the government in case they no longer represent the people.

I don't interpret it that way, but that's what some people believe.

vash

Yep, that's exactly what I believe.

The historical perspective is that the country's founders came from a background where they were oppressed by a tyrant. Democracy was a theory that they THOUGHT should work, but they wanted to make sure the citizens would have the option (and means) to remove a dictator or corrupt government. The government-controlled military wouldn't be much good for the citizens if the government was corrupt. In fact, the military would probably enforce the government's position. An armed populace, that can act independently of the government, is a form of the checks and balances that make democracy work.
How long would Idi Amin, or Papa Doc, have remained in power, if their subjects were able to defend themselves? Totalitarian regimes rely on an imbalance of power for control - the government (or king, dictator, etc.) has all the power, the individual has none. When a dictator can dis-arm his opposition, he can do as he wants.

That said, there's no way a bunch of citizens can overthrown the government we have now.

Shhhhhh! Don't tell the Afghanis that. After all, they beat the USSR with little more than sticks and stones.