6 ms·

Fair point about the separate clauses-- but what's the intent of the "well-regulated" part, then?

by samman 11y ago

rhino369 11y ago
To say that the country needed well managed militias to protect the country. Remember, the first several battles of the revolution were local Massachusetts militias defending their local weapons caches and supplies.
- samman 11y ago
  I see how that was critical to the nation at the time, but then how is that amendment relevant in the modern world? Standing armed forces protect our national integrity, and state/county/municipal agencies maintain local order. Aren't local militias effectively obsolete?
  - novembermike 11y ago
    That's only an argument for a constitutional amendment. The justice system can interpret a law in light of modern technologies (I don't think anyone argues that the first amendment gives you the right to use a printing press but not an electronic printer) but they have to follow the intent of the constitution.
    - 15155 11y ago
      Which, as a firearms enthusiast and pro-gun individual: I wish groups would attempt to make. If you want to curb private firearm ownership: please, introduce a constitutional amendment instead of trying to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks. Then, once said amendment fails to get even a fraction of the support necessary, we can go back to business as usual.
      - Retric 11y ago
        Such an amendment could be passed fairly easily. Don't forget banning beer passed and vastly more people care about beer than guns. Guns are mostly political theater at this point where neither side wants change they just want to drum up support from there base.
        15155 11y ago
        Propose the amendment! How are you going to get it ratified? And once it is ratified, how are you going to contend with state constitutions? And once those are out of the way, how are you actually going to pry firearms from the hands of their owners? There are orders of magnitude more private firearm owners than sworn persons in the United States, and these groups largely overlap.
        wyclif 11y ago
        Such an amendment could be passed fairly easily I laughed out loud when I read this. You are very, very naive. If this is representative of your understanding of how US constitutional law works, you shouldn't be commenting.
  - Pyxl101 11y ago
    You misunderstand the meaning of "militia". The term militia as used in the constitution essentially means the entire populace, all people capable of fighting. The US Supreme Court in Columbia v. Heller examines the meaning of the words and phrases in the Second Amendment: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html An armed populace was viewed as crucial during the founding of the US because when able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny. The modern era demonstrates that this is still relevant: see Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, etc. There's a great documentary on Netflix that shows, from footage on the ground, what transpired while the Ukraine crisis unfolded. Ukraine's local self-defense forces gave the protesters a foothold that eventually took down the unjust government (at least, that's the narrative - I'm only remarking on their effectiveness as a fighting force, and their relevance to political change).
  - hga 11y ago
    Standing armed forces protect our national integrity, and state/county/municipal agencies maintain local order. Aren't local militias effectively obsolete? Echoing Pyxl101, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who will guard the guards themselves?"). We gun owners believe we provide a needed bulwark against the worst forms of tyranny, and certainly notice that 20th Century tyrants for some inexplicable reason fell disarming targeted populaces was a prerequisite to slaughtering them wholesale. Given what an abattoir the 20th Century turned out to be, maybe you should seriously consider that bit of unpleasant history?
bitwize 11y ago
Trained and led in such a manner to constitute an effective fighting force. Note that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a precondition, according to the 2A, for a "well-regulated militia", not vice versa. If you want to repeal the 2A, repeal the fucker, don't try to sneak repeal under the wire with a license to twist the grammar of the law till it says what you want. That just opens the door for the government to justify violating, say, the first and fourth amendments.
- ScottBurson 11y ago
  It is the NRA that has twisted the Second Amendment to say what they want. [0] [1] Let me quote from [0]: The [NRA under its new leadership] pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.” Look, you're welcome to your opinion; I'm not expecting to change it. But you should recognize that the point is quite a bit more debatable than you make it out to be. [0] http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you... [1] https://www.law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Siegel_UCLA_09.pdf https://www.law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/F... (the Reva Siegel article linked from [0]; that link is dead -- I think this is the intended article)
  - bitwize 11y ago
    Well, sure, anything is debatable if you take the Humpty Dumpty stance. But if English words mean things the language in the Constitution will hamper gun control efforts in the USA. These articles are examples of what I call "sneaking repeal under the wire". Just because an article comes from a scholarly source doesn't mean it stands up to scrutiny: Michael Bellesiles landed himself in hot water attempting to argue this very issue, that the right to personal arms is a recent invention. The first tell I found in the sources you cited was when Toobin called the amendment text "ungrammatical"; it's perfectly grammatical, just not rendered in modern style. A more modern restatement of the amendment would be: "Since a well-trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed." The thinking of the time -- and this is all in the freakin' Wikipedia article on the Second Amendment should you care to look -- was that the right to self-defense and to defense against tyranny were of paramount importance -- thinking that predates the Constitution and has its roots in English law. To raise a defense force from among the people it was thought necessary to protect their right to own, train with, and carry weapons. Now you may say that this right is trumped by others' right to live peaceably without fear of being shot. I won't disagree. But what you should be agitating for is repeal of the second amendment, whose language is very plain once you parse it; not for the courts to obfuscate and reinterpret the meaning. That way does lie tyranny, for the next step is for the courts to interpret away your right to not be searched without a warrant, your right not to be punished for a crime without due process, etc. Because hey, the Constitution is a living document; that means its meaning in times of old has nothing to do with today. (My belief is that the Constitution was intended as a living document and that's why it has a well specified amendment process of which we should avail ourselves.)
Pyxl101 11y ago
The US Supreme Court analyzed the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller: > [We] explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. [...] > Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. [...] > There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state. [...] When the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
hga 11y ago
Fair point about the separate clauses-- but what's the intent of the "well-regulated" part, then? That whole preface was a compromise of sorts, a sop thrown to the anti-Federalists who wanted to outlaw standing armies and depend on the militia system. Which just wasn't practical in such an unthreatened place like the US, compare to Switzerland---and I wonder what will happen with their post-Cold War downsizing when things get hot again. And there was the minor detail that George Washington, the essential man in all this, wouldn't sign off on such a prohibition. He's not as anti-militia as he's sometimes made out to be, but his position that a complete dependence on the militia system wouldn't do was unrefutable. The well regulated part of it came from the observation that if you just keep the militia's weapons in armories except for formal practice and fighting, an excuse the British used to confiscate all of them in Boston, the militia members aren't going to be any damn good with them when put to the test. Again going back to the Swiss system, at least during the Cold War once you were in the reserves you had to qualify with your personal weapon once a year, failure to score high enough signed you up for a 2 week refresher course. So they have an insane number of 300 meter range lines, subsidized and very high quality ammo sold at them (in theory you're supposed to use it all up on the spot), and a whole bunch of other things to encourage good marksmanship. Hmmm, you know, going back to what the British did back then, very few of the arguments are new, and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were based on direct, living memory of their depredations back then. Modify at your peril.

Fair point about the separate clauses-- but what's the intent of the "well-regulated" part, then?

by samman 11y ago

Fair point about the separate clauses-- but what's the intent of the "well-regulated" part, then?

To say that the country needed well managed militias to protect the country. Remember, the first several battles of the revolution were local Massachusetts militias defending their local weapons caches and supplies.

samman 11y ago
I see how that was critical to the nation at the time, but then how is that amendment relevant in the modern world? Standing armed forces protect our national integrity, and state/county/municipal agencies maintain local order. Aren't local militias effectively obsolete?
- novembermike 11y ago
  That's only an argument for a constitutional amendment. The justice system can interpret a law in light of modern technologies (I don't think anyone argues that the first amendment gives you the right to use a printing press but not an electronic printer) but they have to follow the intent of the constitution.
  - 15155 11y ago
    Which, as a firearms enthusiast and pro-gun individual: I wish groups would attempt to make. If you want to curb private firearm ownership: please, introduce a constitutional amendment instead of trying to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks. Then, once said amendment fails to get even a fraction of the support necessary, we can go back to business as usual.
    - Retric 11y ago
      Such an amendment could be passed fairly easily. Don't forget banning beer passed and vastly more people care about beer than guns. Guns are mostly political theater at this point where neither side wants change they just want to drum up support from there base.
      - 15155 11y ago
        Propose the amendment! How are you going to get it ratified? And once it is ratified, how are you going to contend with state constitutions? And once those are out of the way, how are you actually going to pry firearms from the hands of their owners? There are orders of magnitude more private firearm owners than sworn persons in the United States, and these groups largely overlap.
      - wyclif 11y ago
        Such an amendment could be passed fairly easily I laughed out loud when I read this. You are very, very naive. If this is representative of your understanding of how US constitutional law works, you shouldn't be commenting.
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  You misunderstand the meaning of "militia". The term militia as used in the constitution essentially means the entire populace, all people capable of fighting. The US Supreme Court in Columbia v. Heller examines the meaning of the words and phrases in the Second Amendment: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html An armed populace was viewed as crucial during the founding of the US because when able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny. The modern era demonstrates that this is still relevant: see Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, etc. There's a great documentary on Netflix that shows, from footage on the ground, what transpired while the Ukraine crisis unfolded. Ukraine's local self-defense forces gave the protesters a foothold that eventually took down the unjust government (at least, that's the narrative - I'm only remarking on their effectiveness as a fighting force, and their relevance to political change).
- hga 11y ago
  Standing armed forces protect our national integrity, and state/county/municipal agencies maintain local order. Aren't local militias effectively obsolete? Echoing Pyxl101, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who will guard the guards themselves?"). We gun owners believe we provide a needed bulwark against the worst forms of tyranny, and certainly notice that 20th Century tyrants for some inexplicable reason fell disarming targeted populaces was a prerequisite to slaughtering them wholesale. Given what an abattoir the 20th Century turned out to be, maybe you should seriously consider that bit of unpleasant history?

bitwize 11y ago

Trained and led in such a manner to constitute an effective fighting force. Note that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a precondition, according to the 2A, for a "well-regulated militia", not vice versa. If you want to repeal the 2A, repeal the fucker, don't try to sneak repeal under the wire with a license to twist the grammar of the law till it says what you want. That just opens the door for the government to justify violating, say, the first and fourth amendments.

ScottBurson 11y ago
It is the NRA that has twisted the Second Amendment to say what they want. [0] [1] Let me quote from [0]: The [NRA under its new leadership] pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.” Look, you're welcome to your opinion; I'm not expecting to change it. But you should recognize that the point is quite a bit more debatable than you make it out to be. [0] http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you... [1] https://www.law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Siegel_UCLA_09.pdf https://www.law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/F... (the Reva Siegel article linked from [0]; that link is dead -- I think this is the intended article)
- bitwize 11y ago
  Well, sure, anything is debatable if you take the Humpty Dumpty stance. But if English words mean things the language in the Constitution will hamper gun control efforts in the USA. These articles are examples of what I call "sneaking repeal under the wire". Just because an article comes from a scholarly source doesn't mean it stands up to scrutiny: Michael Bellesiles landed himself in hot water attempting to argue this very issue, that the right to personal arms is a recent invention. The first tell I found in the sources you cited was when Toobin called the amendment text "ungrammatical"; it's perfectly grammatical, just not rendered in modern style. A more modern restatement of the amendment would be: "Since a well-trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed." The thinking of the time -- and this is all in the freakin' Wikipedia article on the Second Amendment should you care to look -- was that the right to self-defense and to defense against tyranny were of paramount importance -- thinking that predates the Constitution and has its roots in English law. To raise a defense force from among the people it was thought necessary to protect their right to own, train with, and carry weapons. Now you may say that this right is trumped by others' right to live peaceably without fear of being shot. I won't disagree. But what you should be agitating for is repeal of the second amendment, whose language is very plain once you parse it; not for the courts to obfuscate and reinterpret the meaning. That way does lie tyranny, for the next step is for the courts to interpret away your right to not be searched without a warrant, your right not to be punished for a crime without due process, etc. Because hey, the Constitution is a living document; that means its meaning in times of old has nothing to do with today. (My belief is that the Constitution was intended as a living document and that's why it has a well specified amendment process of which we should avail ourselves.)

Pyxl101 11y ago

The US Supreme Court analyzed the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller: > [We] explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. [...] > Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. [...] > There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state. [...] When the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

hga 11y ago

Fair point about the separate clauses-- but what's the intent of the "well-regulated" part, then? That whole preface was a compromise of sorts, a sop thrown to the anti-Federalists who wanted to outlaw standing armies and depend on the militia system. Which just wasn't practical in such an unthreatened place like the US, compare to Switzerland---and I wonder what will happen with their post-Cold War downsizing when things get hot again. And there was the minor detail that George Washington, the essential man in all this, wouldn't sign off on such a prohibition. He's not as anti-militia as he's sometimes made out to be, but his position that a complete dependence on the militia system wouldn't do was unrefutable. The well regulated part of it came from the observation that if you just keep the militia's weapons in armories except for formal practice and fighting, an excuse the British used to confiscate all of them in Boston, the militia members aren't going to be any damn good with them when put to the test. Again going back to the Swiss system, at least during the Cold War once you were in the reserves you had to qualify with your personal weapon once a year, failure to score high enough signed you up for a 2 week refresher course. So they have an insane number of 300 meter range lines, subsidized and very high quality ammo sold at them (in theory you're supposed to use it all up on the spot), and a whole bunch of other things to encourage good marksmanship. Hmmm, you know, going back to what the British did back then, very few of the arguments are new, and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were based on direct, living memory of their depredations back then. Modify at your peril.