7 ms·

The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infring

The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I’m no expert on the legalities and legal interpretations of the 2nd amendment but it seems to me a case could be made that well regulated gives the government broad regulatory powers. The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns. Of course a repeal of the amendment would be fine with me too.

humanrebar 9y ago
The Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought to keep "the military" (British troops) from taking weapons away from arguably "self-regulated" militias. I think it's a tough case to make if you're arguing that the Constitution was referring solely to current members of armed services commissioned by the government.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  Those militias were under the control of the colonial government. Indeed one of the colonials killed at Lexington was an ensign. That militia was the army at the time.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    To complete the thought experiment, what would we have to do to form our own militia? Have a charter and elections? The colonial army at the time was not sanctioned by the king to bear the arms it did.
    - yequalsx 9y ago
      My interpretation of the second amendment is that the government has broad regulatory powers when it comes to gun ownership. Furthermore that the right applies only to militias and that in the present day militia would be an organization under government control. Times change and interpretations change. I do not feel bound to interpret the Constitution by only considering what the founders meant. But for people who are originalists the well regulated meaning in the wording of the second amendment should imply broad government powers of regulation. It’s the only part of the Bill of Rights that grants a right to both the government and the people. It’s an oddly worded amendment. I imagine that the founders understood that a broad, unregulated right to own guns might not be the best public policy and hence threw in the well regulated wording. Also they mention it being necessary to a free state. If it is no longer necessary to a free state what then? Can a ban be placed on ownership? I don’t know how they would answer the question. I do know how I answer it.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        > I do not feel bound to interpret the Constitution by only considering what the founders meant. That's probably the place to end this back-and-forth. We aren't going to hash out "rule by men" versus "rule of law" a thread about banned subreddits. But I think the right way to be unbound from what the Constitution means is to actually convince people to amend it. There are significant justice implications to ignoring the laws of a country in service of realpolitik.
        yequalsx 9y ago
        I go by what the Constitution means. It’s meaning changes from person to person. And from era to era. I don’t feel bound to interpret it according to how the founders would interpret it. The second amendment means to me something different from what it means to you. As I’ve said all along In these threads, fight for your rights. Advocate for your position. I will fight to change public perception.
        humanrebar 9y ago
        The point of the 13th amendment is to eliminate legal human trafficking once and for all. It's not reasonable to say that the meaning of that rule is allowed to change over time. And that standard has to apply for every part of the Constitution for the 13th amendment to have actual impact, otherwise it's just another holy text and can be ignored has a nice myth for simple people. But instead of people sinning by unclean food, the government is allowed to hold citizens indefinitely without trial because the constitution means something else now.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > The point of the 13th amendment is to eliminate legal human trafficking once and for all. No, its not, otherwise it wouldn't explicitly allow penal slavery.
        yequalsx 9y ago
        You can't seriously believe that the words of constitution have the same meaning and interpretation for everyone. Clearly what people think the words mean changes from person to person and even from era to era. Peoples' views change over time. The words don't change but how people view and understand the meaning of those words change. This is not disputable or revelatory.
ehmu 9y ago
The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. you misquoted it the text reads: 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. emphasis mine, It is the right of the people that will not be infringed.
splintercell 9y ago
> The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns. Rhode Island's 1842 constitution starts like this: > The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . . So according to you, if the 'security of freedom in a state' is threatened, then the government can suspend the freedom of the press? Or take 1784 New Hampshire constitution: > In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . . So according to you, 'if the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen is not essential to the security of the life' (again, in wartime or any exogenous circumstances like 9/11 attacks) then this right of citizens to be tried in the county where the crime was committed can be suspended by the govt whenever they deem fit? Or maybe, this 'justification clause' which was written in many different ways at many different places by the people of that time is actually 'one and the most important justification' for a right and not 'If and only if trial of the facts in the vicinity ...'. Let me explain another scenario. The first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law...". Today we clearly understand it to mean 'US Congress', but in the year 2256, People have created a new legislative body called Congress-22 and now they claim that first amendment only restricts Congress's power to restrict speech. On the other hand Congress-22 still has the power to restrict speech and religion. Same thing goes with 'militia'. It used to mean "pretty much all able-bodied men from age eighteen to forty-five". This does not mean that it ONLY protects the right of 18-45 men to keep and bear arms, but it cover everyone's right to keep and bear arms.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  The basic answer is no. I was referring only to the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. I have a view of what that amendment means and how it ought to be interpreted in the present era. I don't think I'd answer yes to your questions on interpreting the various texts you quoted.
  - deleted 9y ago

humanrebar 9y ago

The Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought to keep "the military" (British troops) from taking weapons away from arguably "self-regulated" militias. I think it's a tough case to make if you're arguing that the Constitution was referring solely to current members of armed services commissioned by the government.

yequalsx 9y ago
Those militias were under the control of the colonial government. Indeed one of the colonials killed at Lexington was an ensign. That militia was the army at the time.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  To complete the thought experiment, what would we have to do to form our own militia? Have a charter and elections? The colonial army at the time was not sanctioned by the king to bear the arms it did.
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    My interpretation of the second amendment is that the government has broad regulatory powers when it comes to gun ownership. Furthermore that the right applies only to militias and that in the present day militia would be an organization under government control. Times change and interpretations change. I do not feel bound to interpret the Constitution by only considering what the founders meant. But for people who are originalists the well regulated meaning in the wording of the second amendment should imply broad government powers of regulation. It’s the only part of the Bill of Rights that grants a right to both the government and the people. It’s an oddly worded amendment. I imagine that the founders understood that a broad, unregulated right to own guns might not be the best public policy and hence threw in the well regulated wording. Also they mention it being necessary to a free state. If it is no longer necessary to a free state what then? Can a ban be placed on ownership? I don’t know how they would answer the question. I do know how I answer it.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      > I do not feel bound to interpret the Constitution by only considering what the founders meant. That's probably the place to end this back-and-forth. We aren't going to hash out "rule by men" versus "rule of law" a thread about banned subreddits. But I think the right way to be unbound from what the Constitution means is to actually convince people to amend it. There are significant justice implications to ignoring the laws of a country in service of realpolitik.
      - yequalsx 9y ago
        I go by what the Constitution means. It’s meaning changes from person to person. And from era to era. I don’t feel bound to interpret it according to how the founders would interpret it. The second amendment means to me something different from what it means to you. As I’ve said all along In these threads, fight for your rights. Advocate for your position. I will fight to change public perception.
        humanrebar 9y ago
        The point of the 13th amendment is to eliminate legal human trafficking once and for all. It's not reasonable to say that the meaning of that rule is allowed to change over time. And that standard has to apply for every part of the Constitution for the 13th amendment to have actual impact, otherwise it's just another holy text and can be ignored has a nice myth for simple people. But instead of people sinning by unclean food, the government is allowed to hold citizens indefinitely without trial because the constitution means something else now.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > The point of the 13th amendment is to eliminate legal human trafficking once and for all. No, its not, otherwise it wouldn't explicitly allow penal slavery.
        yequalsx 9y ago
        You can't seriously believe that the words of constitution have the same meaning and interpretation for everyone. Clearly what people think the words mean changes from person to person and even from era to era. Peoples' views change over time. The words don't change but how people view and understand the meaning of those words change. This is not disputable or revelatory.

ehmu 9y ago

The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. you misquoted it the text reads: 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. emphasis mine, It is the right of the people that will not be infringed.

splintercell 9y ago

> The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns. Rhode Island's 1842 constitution starts like this: > The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . . So according to you, if the 'security of freedom in a state' is threatened, then the government can suspend the freedom of the press? Or take 1784 New Hampshire constitution: > In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . . So according to you, 'if the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen is not essential to the security of the life' (again, in wartime or any exogenous circumstances like 9/11 attacks) then this right of citizens to be tried in the county where the crime was committed can be suspended by the govt whenever they deem fit? Or maybe, this 'justification clause' which was written in many different ways at many different places by the people of that time is actually 'one and the most important justification' for a right and not 'If and only if trial of the facts in the vicinity ...'. Let me explain another scenario. The first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law...". Today we clearly understand it to mean 'US Congress', but in the year 2256, People have created a new legislative body called Congress-22 and now they claim that first amendment only restricts Congress's power to restrict speech. On the other hand Congress-22 still has the power to restrict speech and religion. Same thing goes with 'militia'. It used to mean "pretty much all able-bodied men from age eighteen to forty-five". This does not mean that it ONLY protects the right of 18-45 men to keep and bear arms, but it cover everyone's right to keep and bear arms.

yequalsx 9y ago
The basic answer is no. I was referring only to the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. I have a view of what that amendment means and how it ought to be interpreted in the present era. I don't think I'd answer yes to your questions on interpreting the various texts you quoted.
- deleted 9y ago