7 ms·

No. The Second Amendment does not give you the right to shoot people who work for the government.

opwieurposiu 7y ago
The USA was founded by shooting people who worked for a tyrannical government, they were called redcoats! It would be the height of hypocrisy for the founders to turn around and declare this activity illegal. You are, however, correct in the sense that the constitution does not "give you rights." Your rights exist a priori, the constitution merely enumerates a few of them.
- chasing 7y ago
  Do not shoot people who work for the government and then expect the Second Amendment will get you off the hook.
- btilly 7y ago
  Your understanding of the 2nd amendment as an individual right is because by a line of NRA propaganda that started somewhere in the 1970s, and is unfortunately now established jurisprudence. But historically your understanding is dead wrong. In the post-Heller legal interpretation, the start of the 2nd amendment is fluff with no meaning or force. But the phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," was central to the intent of the amendment in an era where every able bodied white man from 20-40 was expected to participate in an organized militia organized by local government and the state. The protected right to bear arms and what arms you were to bear belonged to the militias. And the militias included so many that they really were, "the People". See https://www.nraila.org/heller/conamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf https://www.nraila.org/heller/conamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_... for a detailed verification and for references to dig further in.
  - opwieurposiu 7y ago
    Your focus on this or that interpretation of this or that legal document is missing the forest for the trees. The second amendment did not yet exist during the time founders were merrily blasting away at tyrancial redcoats. Are you claiming the founders had no right to rebel? The right of the people to free themselves from subjugation lives in the hearts of men, not on some scrap of mouldering parchment.
    - btilly 7y ago
      You are switching from the point I am arguing to the point that I am not. You are correct on our legal doctrine about the existence of rights before their enumeration in the Constitution. That doesn't affect my point.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Wait, so someone disagrees with you, therefore they're opinion is invalid because of NRA propaganda? At least give the person you're responding to the credit to make up their own damn mind.
    - btilly 7y ago
      Your reaction is a misinterpretation of what I said. The fact that a statement has been used in propaganda has no bearing on whether or not it is correct. As the saying goes, "Ideas are not responsible for the people who hold them." The statement was wrong because it is wrong, and I gave a citation written by professional historians demonstrating that fact. That the statement is popular because of NRA propaganda is a separate issue. See https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-sec... for a reasonable explanation of the history behind why that claim is true. And for documentation of the fact that, until said propaganda, that claim was widely and rightly rejected. I have no reason to doubt that he has made up his own mind based on information available to him. However I also have no doubt that if he lived in any era before the NRA propaganda took hold, he would not have come to that opinion. Because it is an opinion that basically nobody ever held.
  - toast0 7y ago
    I'm not quite sure I understand the context of militias around the time of the writing of the Constitution, but I don't see why a person would need the right to keep and bear arms if acting on behalf of a government organized militia --- if the intent was only to enable government organized militias, I would assume that power would have been enumerated to the states or reserved for the states.
    - btilly 7y ago
      The context of militias around the time of the writing of the Constitution was explained in the link that I provided. More on that in a second. My key point was that there wasn't a right for a person...to keep and bear arms. There was a right for THE PEOPLE to do so as part of a militia. With two major points to be kept in mind. The first was that not all militias were government organized. The second was that this right was a protection from federal interference. For example Virginia didn't want Congress deciding to undermine how they ran their militia. Furthermore it is important to understand that the phrase "bear arms" at the time referred only to military service. Carrying your hunting rifle was not "bearing arms", and there are multiple court cases from that era affirming this understanding. Now back to militias. It varied by state and time period. The brief goes into some detail. But for existence at the time of the Revolution Virginia had a state regulated militia. Pennsylvania couldn't by its Constitution, but many local areas had their own militias. (For example towns would to defend against Indian attacks.) But in all cases, militias were set up so that the general citizenry would serve as an army in time of crisis for defense of the state or themselves. And this idea had a long history behind it.
  - StillBored 7y ago
    I suggest you look up the definition of militia. Its not a military, police, national guard, or even reserve force that exists in the US today. Its not any organization either, considering the one common attribute of militias is disorganization. Which is why after the justification you list, the enumeration is clear. "the right of the _people_ to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't actually say "arm's considered safe by the government", "people considered safe by the government", "people trained by the government" or anything else. Might be convenient for some if it did, but it doesn't. And given the history of private cannon/schooner/etc ownership it might surprise you to know that the laws in effect today are quite restrictive with respect to the historical understanding of the amendment. Which is why many consider the NFA banning machine guns and related laws to be unconstitutional, and lacking a serious challenge. Partially because the NRA mostly supported it. Many of the cases the 1934 regulation stands upon are flimsy, obviously racist rulings against people without means. So, I would be really careful making augments against it. And just so I'm clear, I consider both political sides to be more than willing to twist the meaning of the constitution to justify their goals. Same as the "Christians" that used the bible to justify slavery or to treat women as second class citizens.
    - btilly 7y ago
      I don't know why you think that I need to look up the definition of militia. But the link that I provided provides a rather lengthy explanation of what militias are and the different forms of militias that existed in the USA from colonial times until the passing of the 2nd amendment. It certainly is much more informative than "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency". Incidentally I failed to look up the actual law of the time. But the 1792 militia law included every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45. Which, in a world that only paid attention to white men, basically was "the people".
  - salawat 7y ago
    Basic English grammar disagrees. The subject of the 2nd Amendment has always been the People. The militia part of the statement cannot standalone as a substantive independent clause, therefore it is a qualifier of the primary independent clause, namely, that that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The militia is not the one being granted an immunity to infringement of a right. It's a part of a supportive reason for the explicit grant of immunity to infringement to the right held by the People. And if you don't think the Founders weren't writing that with the idea that what they wrote down wouldn't eventually turn itself into a tyranny that would need to be violently upset by the People, to whom was recognized in the Declaration of Independendence to hold the absolute right of revocation of consent to be governed, and the right to assemble and replace such form of government that successfully provides them service, relief and defense, then I think accusations of naivete or misunderstanding may need to be contemplated whilst staring into a mirror. And even that brief brings into question motivations. Or particular bias for one interpretation or another. Note this gem. >The fact that references to the keeping of firearms are so few and terse, or that the modern academic controversy over the Second Amendment has been forced to squeeze so much modern interpretive blood from so few evidentiary turnips, is itself an indicator of how minor a question this was at the time. I reject this implication. Nobody takes the time to write down or make a big fuss about a settled question, and it was clear that, yes, many were worried about the details of how military might would be structured; but no one was seriously prepared to say "Golly gee, let's let the government decide whether or not I have the right to own a particular machine that makes me a political obstacle to whatever abuses they may want to perpetrate whilst in office." Also, you have to take into account the fact that jurisprudence is constrained by the principle of least action, especially when dealing with high level fundamental rights. Considering the outright rejection of British authority, and the adoption of firearm culture in the United States to the current day, I have great difficulty taking anyone who points at Heller seriously. But hey, let's dig into some of these. >This was “indeed, a publick allowance under due restraints, of the natural right of resistance and self- preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.” Note afterwards the copious backpedaling on the quote with extensive reference to every other potentially limiting part of the argument but no reference to "when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression". This being British, that isn't necessarily surprising. To an American, however, that last part is the far more important part. Here's another tidbit. >There is no direct equivalent in the American declarations to the selective Protestant “subjects” invoked in the Bill of Rights of 1689... I would hope not, given that it's always been a settled question that your religion in this country isn't something the government is allowed to infringe upon, and furthermore, arguments of "legislative Supremacy" disappear when you actually read the bill of rights in order, as the First Amendment reads, >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Second then read with the first as context, >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. The implication is carried through that just as the Government, through the mechanism that is Congress is prohibited from passing a law which violates the rights enumerated in the first Amendment, so too is it prohibited in legislating those rights secured by subsequent ones. I'll keep reading this, but I'm not having much trouble challenging assertions or interpretations I'm pulling out of this; I'm just lacking in that unfortunately I wasn't around to argue with these gentlemen when it mattered, and am now stuck with people trying to shove it down my throat as to why they are right and I should be happy and thankful for being enlightened as to why my rights are being infringed upon.
ScottBurson 7y ago
In fact, there is a pretty good circumstantial case to be made that the true (but unspoken) purpose of the amendment was to guarantee the slave states the ability to forcibly suppress slave rebellions. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-slavery-james-madison.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-...

The USA was founded by shooting people who worked for a tyrannical government, they were called redcoats! It would be the height of hypocrisy for the founders to turn around and declare this activity illegal. You are, however, correct in the sense that the constitution does not "give you rights." Your rights exist a priori, the constitution merely enumerates a few of them.

chasing 7y ago
Do not shoot people who work for the government and then expect the Second Amendment will get you off the hook.
btilly 7y ago
Your understanding of the 2nd amendment as an individual right is because by a line of NRA propaganda that started somewhere in the 1970s, and is unfortunately now established jurisprudence. But historically your understanding is dead wrong. In the post-Heller legal interpretation, the start of the 2nd amendment is fluff with no meaning or force. But the phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," was central to the intent of the amendment in an era where every able bodied white man from 20-40 was expected to participate in an organized militia organized by local government and the state. The protected right to bear arms and what arms you were to bear belonged to the militias. And the militias included so many that they really were, "the People". See https://www.nraila.org/heller/conamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf https://www.nraila.org/heller/conamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_... for a detailed verification and for references to dig further in.
- opwieurposiu 7y ago
  Your focus on this or that interpretation of this or that legal document is missing the forest for the trees. The second amendment did not yet exist during the time founders were merrily blasting away at tyrancial redcoats. Are you claiming the founders had no right to rebel? The right of the people to free themselves from subjugation lives in the hearts of men, not on some scrap of mouldering parchment.
  - btilly 7y ago
    You are switching from the point I am arguing to the point that I am not. You are correct on our legal doctrine about the existence of rights before their enumeration in the Constitution. That doesn't affect my point.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Wait, so someone disagrees with you, therefore they're opinion is invalid because of NRA propaganda? At least give the person you're responding to the credit to make up their own damn mind.
  - btilly 7y ago
    Your reaction is a misinterpretation of what I said. The fact that a statement has been used in propaganda has no bearing on whether or not it is correct. As the saying goes, "Ideas are not responsible for the people who hold them." The statement was wrong because it is wrong, and I gave a citation written by professional historians demonstrating that fact. That the statement is popular because of NRA propaganda is a separate issue. See https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-sec... for a reasonable explanation of the history behind why that claim is true. And for documentation of the fact that, until said propaganda, that claim was widely and rightly rejected. I have no reason to doubt that he has made up his own mind based on information available to him. However I also have no doubt that if he lived in any era before the NRA propaganda took hold, he would not have come to that opinion. Because it is an opinion that basically nobody ever held.
- toast0 7y ago
  I'm not quite sure I understand the context of militias around the time of the writing of the Constitution, but I don't see why a person would need the right to keep and bear arms if acting on behalf of a government organized militia --- if the intent was only to enable government organized militias, I would assume that power would have been enumerated to the states or reserved for the states.
  - btilly 7y ago
    The context of militias around the time of the writing of the Constitution was explained in the link that I provided. More on that in a second. My key point was that there wasn't a right for a person...to keep and bear arms. There was a right for THE PEOPLE to do so as part of a militia. With two major points to be kept in mind. The first was that not all militias were government organized. The second was that this right was a protection from federal interference. For example Virginia didn't want Congress deciding to undermine how they ran their militia. Furthermore it is important to understand that the phrase "bear arms" at the time referred only to military service. Carrying your hunting rifle was not "bearing arms", and there are multiple court cases from that era affirming this understanding. Now back to militias. It varied by state and time period. The brief goes into some detail. But for existence at the time of the Revolution Virginia had a state regulated militia. Pennsylvania couldn't by its Constitution, but many local areas had their own militias. (For example towns would to defend against Indian attacks.) But in all cases, militias were set up so that the general citizenry would serve as an army in time of crisis for defense of the state or themselves. And this idea had a long history behind it.
- StillBored 7y ago
  I suggest you look up the definition of militia. Its not a military, police, national guard, or even reserve force that exists in the US today. Its not any organization either, considering the one common attribute of militias is disorganization. Which is why after the justification you list, the enumeration is clear. "the right of the _people_ to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't actually say "arm's considered safe by the government", "people considered safe by the government", "people trained by the government" or anything else. Might be convenient for some if it did, but it doesn't. And given the history of private cannon/schooner/etc ownership it might surprise you to know that the laws in effect today are quite restrictive with respect to the historical understanding of the amendment. Which is why many consider the NFA banning machine guns and related laws to be unconstitutional, and lacking a serious challenge. Partially because the NRA mostly supported it. Many of the cases the 1934 regulation stands upon are flimsy, obviously racist rulings against people without means. So, I would be really careful making augments against it. And just so I'm clear, I consider both political sides to be more than willing to twist the meaning of the constitution to justify their goals. Same as the "Christians" that used the bible to justify slavery or to treat women as second class citizens.
  - btilly 7y ago
    I don't know why you think that I need to look up the definition of militia. But the link that I provided provides a rather lengthy explanation of what militias are and the different forms of militias that existed in the USA from colonial times until the passing of the 2nd amendment. It certainly is much more informative than "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency". Incidentally I failed to look up the actual law of the time. But the 1792 militia law included every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45. Which, in a world that only paid attention to white men, basically was "the people".
- salawat 7y ago
  Basic English grammar disagrees. The subject of the 2nd Amendment has always been the People. The militia part of the statement cannot standalone as a substantive independent clause, therefore it is a qualifier of the primary independent clause, namely, that that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The militia is not the one being granted an immunity to infringement of a right. It's a part of a supportive reason for the explicit grant of immunity to infringement to the right held by the People. And if you don't think the Founders weren't writing that with the idea that what they wrote down wouldn't eventually turn itself into a tyranny that would need to be violently upset by the People, to whom was recognized in the Declaration of Independendence to hold the absolute right of revocation of consent to be governed, and the right to assemble and replace such form of government that successfully provides them service, relief and defense, then I think accusations of naivete or misunderstanding may need to be contemplated whilst staring into a mirror. And even that brief brings into question motivations. Or particular bias for one interpretation or another. Note this gem. >The fact that references to the keeping of firearms are so few and terse, or that the modern academic controversy over the Second Amendment has been forced to squeeze so much modern interpretive blood from so few evidentiary turnips, is itself an indicator of how minor a question this was at the time. I reject this implication. Nobody takes the time to write down or make a big fuss about a settled question, and it was clear that, yes, many were worried about the details of how military might would be structured; but no one was seriously prepared to say "Golly gee, let's let the government decide whether or not I have the right to own a particular machine that makes me a political obstacle to whatever abuses they may want to perpetrate whilst in office." Also, you have to take into account the fact that jurisprudence is constrained by the principle of least action, especially when dealing with high level fundamental rights. Considering the outright rejection of British authority, and the adoption of firearm culture in the United States to the current day, I have great difficulty taking anyone who points at Heller seriously. But hey, let's dig into some of these. >This was “indeed, a publick allowance under due restraints, of the natural right of resistance and self- preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.” Note afterwards the copious backpedaling on the quote with extensive reference to every other potentially limiting part of the argument but no reference to "when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression". This being British, that isn't necessarily surprising. To an American, however, that last part is the far more important part. Here's another tidbit. >There is no direct equivalent in the American declarations to the selective Protestant “subjects” invoked in the Bill of Rights of 1689... I would hope not, given that it's always been a settled question that your religion in this country isn't something the government is allowed to infringe upon, and furthermore, arguments of "legislative Supremacy" disappear when you actually read the bill of rights in order, as the First Amendment reads, >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Second then read with the first as context, >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. The implication is carried through that just as the Government, through the mechanism that is Congress is prohibited from passing a law which violates the rights enumerated in the first Amendment, so too is it prohibited in legislating those rights secured by subsequent ones. I'll keep reading this, but I'm not having much trouble challenging assertions or interpretations I'm pulling out of this; I'm just lacking in that unfortunately I wasn't around to argue with these gentlemen when it mattered, and am now stuck with people trying to shove it down my throat as to why they are right and I should be happy and thankful for being enlightened as to why my rights are being infringed upon.

ScottBurson 7y ago

In fact, there is a pretty good circumstantial case to be made that the true (but unspoken) purpose of the amendment was to guarantee the slave states the ability to forcibly suppress slave rebellions. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-slavery-james-madison.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-...