5 ms·

>> In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the A

>> In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the American people's liberty against the government" as reasons for having guns. > That's because the individuals who wrote the US constitution gave exactly that justification The only explanation they gave was "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". It's a bit ambiguous, despite attempts to insist otherwise.

tracker1 10y ago
But you only need to look at the first militia act to see that by "militia" they mean every able bodied man of age, and they should have a firearm of their own.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  "Well regulated"
  - bbradley406 10y ago
    Misconstruing the phrasing of the amendment is a weak way to argue against it. At the time it was written, "well regulated" was commonly used to describe something that worked well, was in good repair, etc. A militia being "well regulated" (in modern English) by the government that it might need to fight is the opposite of that. http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
  - tracker1 10y ago
    Militia Act, not the article... if you look at the militia act, it specifically states that every able bodied male of age is part of said militia, and to provide their own arms. And you also miss the phrase "In order to" as in for example... it was only one of the reasons why the right to bear arms should not be infringed, not the only one. The bill of rights was at the time argued as superfluous as some felt that most people understood that those were inalienable rights and didn't need to be spelled out. Others felt otherwise (with foresight) and wanted stronger provisions, many of which were in the original Articles of Confederation the country was founded under before the Constitution.
- hackuser 10y ago
  First, you must know that many people have may opinions on this; yours is not the only legitimate one. Welcome to democracy! Also, the militia act isn't the law, the Constitution is. The Constitution isn't scripture, written by gods and prophets for whom citizens should try to guess their superior, divine wisdom and intent. It's a political document, written by people as human as we are - well-meaning and flawed; earnest, careless, and horribly corrupt; etc. - just like current politicians. The wording is a compromise among those people, who certainly had many intents. (What is the "intent" of a law passed Congress? To find semi-ambiguous wording that can get a majority of votes.) Most fundamentally, the U.S. is a democracy (and if you care for the founders' intent, that's clearly a big one), not a secular theological state ruled by the will of dead philosopher-kings. Current U.S. citizens decide the law and what the words mean, majority rules.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    The militia act was the law[1] enacted under the constitution, and given the timeframe, I'd say it accurately represents the intent. I'm not saying that the constituion is scripture, or anything of the sort, I only said you only need to look at the militia act to see what was meant by the 2nd amendment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
    - hackuser 10y ago
      You may say so but, with due respect, that's not evidence any more than my subjective claims. The U.S. government enacts many laws, often within the same day or hour, with vastly different intents and authored and supported by people with vastly different interests.
  - DefaultUserHN 10y ago
    The Constitution defines 4 types of powers. Powers that are granted by the Constitution to the government (for example, Congress ability to pass law). Powers that are implied to be given to the government (for example, the President's cabinet). Powers that are left out and to be decided by the states and the people at a later time (for example, any new laws that are not in conflict with the Constitution). And finally, powers that are DENIED to the government (these are powers the government must NEVER have). Now, let's read the 2nd Amendment: ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. >shall not be infringed In other words, the Constitution specifically DENIED the government the power to regulate arms. The government does not have that power. The government was NOT given that power.

tracker1 10y ago

But you only need to look at the first militia act to see that by "militia" they mean every able bodied man of age, and they should have a firearm of their own.

gonvaled 10y ago
"Well regulated"
- bbradley406 10y ago
  Misconstruing the phrasing of the amendment is a weak way to argue against it. At the time it was written, "well regulated" was commonly used to describe something that worked well, was in good repair, etc. A militia being "well regulated" (in modern English) by the government that it might need to fight is the opposite of that. http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
- tracker1 10y ago
  Militia Act, not the article... if you look at the militia act, it specifically states that every able bodied male of age is part of said militia, and to provide their own arms. And you also miss the phrase "In order to" as in for example... it was only one of the reasons why the right to bear arms should not be infringed, not the only one. The bill of rights was at the time argued as superfluous as some felt that most people understood that those were inalienable rights and didn't need to be spelled out. Others felt otherwise (with foresight) and wanted stronger provisions, many of which were in the original Articles of Confederation the country was founded under before the Constitution.
hackuser 10y ago
First, you must know that many people have may opinions on this; yours is not the only legitimate one. Welcome to democracy! Also, the militia act isn't the law, the Constitution is. The Constitution isn't scripture, written by gods and prophets for whom citizens should try to guess their superior, divine wisdom and intent. It's a political document, written by people as human as we are - well-meaning and flawed; earnest, careless, and horribly corrupt; etc. - just like current politicians. The wording is a compromise among those people, who certainly had many intents. (What is the "intent" of a law passed Congress? To find semi-ambiguous wording that can get a majority of votes.) Most fundamentally, the U.S. is a democracy (and if you care for the founders' intent, that's clearly a big one), not a secular theological state ruled by the will of dead philosopher-kings. Current U.S. citizens decide the law and what the words mean, majority rules.
- tracker1 10y ago
  The militia act was the law[1] enacted under the constitution, and given the timeframe, I'd say it accurately represents the intent. I'm not saying that the constituion is scripture, or anything of the sort, I only said you only need to look at the militia act to see what was meant by the 2nd amendment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
  - hackuser 10y ago
    You may say so but, with due respect, that's not evidence any more than my subjective claims. The U.S. government enacts many laws, often within the same day or hour, with vastly different intents and authored and supported by people with vastly different interests.
- DefaultUserHN 10y ago
  The Constitution defines 4 types of powers. Powers that are granted by the Constitution to the government (for example, Congress ability to pass law). Powers that are implied to be given to the government (for example, the President's cabinet). Powers that are left out and to be decided by the states and the people at a later time (for example, any new laws that are not in conflict with the Constitution). And finally, powers that are DENIED to the government (these are powers the government must NEVER have). Now, let's read the 2nd Amendment: ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. >shall not be infringed In other words, the Constitution specifically DENIED the government the power to regulate arms. The government does not have that power. The government was NOT given that power.