5 ms·

The modern pro-gun movement has erased the words "well-regulated militia" as well. The thinking of course is everyone could potentially join a militia, therefo

by RajT88 4y ago

The modern pro-gun movement has erased the words "well-regulated militia" as well. The thinking of course is everyone could potentially join a militia, therefore everyone is defacto covered under the second amendment.

dontcare007 4y ago
Nah, well related militia was not a restriction on the right, it was a reason for everyone to have the right. You have to remember that the Constitution doesn't give the people rights, it delineates the governments rights. The 1st 10 amendment's were added because the anti- federalists were (rightly) worried that the government would misappropriated all powers and eventually the people would no longer be free. They were basically a list of rights for a minimum viable free society.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
tonfreed 4y ago
Considering there's letters from James Madison endorsing cannon ownership, I don't think it means what you think it means either.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Heh we can still get our cannons: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/americans-can-still-buy-cannon/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/americans-can-still-bu...
s1artibartfast 4y ago
And the Anti-gun movement conveniently ignores the concept of a preposition. Because one first part explains the rationale, the second part describes the right.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  The first part also provides a context for understanding the second part. For example the right to "bear" arms shouldn't be read as including a general right to brandish arms, even though a less constrained reading of "bear" might suggest that. Conversely, it does include a right to fire those arms, since that is necessary for a well regulated militia to bear them effectively.
- NineStarPoint 4y ago
  I think it’s fair to question why out of the 10 amendments that make up the bill of rights, only the second amendment would have a part that is non-functional and “describes the rationale”. The preposition is part of the amendment, and its existence puts a qualification on what the right to bear arms means. I personally think the current state of affairs does a pretty good job balancing the two parts of the amendment. States are allowed to put a lot of restrictions on how you can buy guns, and where you can carry/use them, but ultimately people are allowed to have them. You aren’t allowed a nuke, you are allowed a shotgun. Exactly what level of personal firepower should be allowed for a “well regulated militia” could be a constant source for debate, but I think the balance is kept pretty well.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    > it’s fair to question why out of the 10 amendments that make up the bill of rights, only the second amendment would have a part that is non-functional and “describes the rationale”. I know this is apostasy, but because the founders weren't omniscient beings that drafted perfect documents. Rather they were politicians basically just winging it while trying to come to some consensus. Critically, they lacked an understanding of the limitation of logical systems that would only be discovered in the 20th century - the repercussions of which are with us to this day. > Exactly what level of personal firepower should be allowed for a “well regulated militia” could be a constant source for debate, but I think the balance is kept pretty well. From the commoner's perspective, most explosives are basically illegal even though they could be responsibly kept by anyone with a little land. So no, I don't think any balance has been achieved. For starters, anything that a domestic-facing police department is allowed to have should be fair game for the rest of the People as well.
User23 4y ago
Every able-bodied American male 17 or older and under 45 is already a member of a well-regulated militia[1]. Now you may think Congress should ask more of the militia of the United States, but being a statutory organization certainly meets the well-regulated criteria. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
- jmalicki 4y ago
  The statute calls them unorganized, which is arguably not well regulated... "(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Regulated in the constitution did not mean controlled or restricted as in 'regulations'. It meant armed and capable.
- RajT88 4y ago
  Private gun-owning citizens are not automatically counted among active unorganized militia. Even in the few active state militia they would be considered eligible, not members. SCOTUS has had contradictory decisions in the past on whether private gun rights hinge on military applications of the specific firearms, but indeed this is the talking point - state militias. Collectively, the people who parrot "Shall Not Be Infringed" are really trying to avoid the militia debate entirely.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Which is exactly the same rationale that the 2nd amendments authors used.

by RajT88 4y ago

dontcare007 4y ago

Nah, well related militia was not a restriction on the right, it was a reason for everyone to have the right. You have to remember that the Constitution doesn't give the people rights, it delineates the governments rights. The 1st 10 amendment's were added because the anti- federalists were (rightly) worried that the government would misappropriated all powers and eventually the people would no longer be free. They were basically a list of rights for a minimum viable free society.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

tonfreed 4y ago

Considering there's letters from James Madison endorsing cannon ownership, I don't think it means what you think it means either.

bombcar 4y ago
Heh we can still get our cannons: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/americans-can-still-buy-cannon/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/americans-can-still-bu...

s1artibartfast 4y ago

And the Anti-gun movement conveniently ignores the concept of a preposition. Because one first part explains the rationale, the second part describes the right.

dane-pgp 4y ago
The first part also provides a context for understanding the second part. For example the right to "bear" arms shouldn't be read as including a general right to brandish arms, even though a less constrained reading of "bear" might suggest that. Conversely, it does include a right to fire those arms, since that is necessary for a well regulated militia to bear them effectively.
NineStarPoint 4y ago
I think it’s fair to question why out of the 10 amendments that make up the bill of rights, only the second amendment would have a part that is non-functional and “describes the rationale”. The preposition is part of the amendment, and its existence puts a qualification on what the right to bear arms means. I personally think the current state of affairs does a pretty good job balancing the two parts of the amendment. States are allowed to put a lot of restrictions on how you can buy guns, and where you can carry/use them, but ultimately people are allowed to have them. You aren’t allowed a nuke, you are allowed a shotgun. Exactly what level of personal firepower should be allowed for a “well regulated militia” could be a constant source for debate, but I think the balance is kept pretty well.
- mindslight 4y ago
  > it’s fair to question why out of the 10 amendments that make up the bill of rights, only the second amendment would have a part that is non-functional and “describes the rationale”. I know this is apostasy, but because the founders weren't omniscient beings that drafted perfect documents. Rather they were politicians basically just winging it while trying to come to some consensus. Critically, they lacked an understanding of the limitation of logical systems that would only be discovered in the 20th century - the repercussions of which are with us to this day. > Exactly what level of personal firepower should be allowed for a “well regulated militia” could be a constant source for debate, but I think the balance is kept pretty well. From the commoner's perspective, most explosives are basically illegal even though they could be responsibly kept by anyone with a little land. So no, I don't think any balance has been achieved. For starters, anything that a domestic-facing police department is allowed to have should be fair game for the rest of the People as well.

User23 4y ago

Every able-bodied American male 17 or older and under 45 is already a member of a well-regulated militia[1]. Now you may think Congress should ask more of the militia of the United States, but being a statutory organization certainly meets the well-regulated criteria. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

jmalicki 4y ago
The statute calls them unorganized, which is arguably not well regulated... "(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Regulated in the constitution did not mean controlled or restricted as in 'regulations'. It meant armed and capable.
RajT88 4y ago
Private gun-owning citizens are not automatically counted among active unorganized militia. Even in the few active state militia they would be considered eligible, not members. SCOTUS has had contradictory decisions in the past on whether private gun rights hinge on military applications of the specific firearms, but indeed this is the talking point - state militias. Collectively, the people who parrot "Shall Not Be Infringed" are really trying to avoid the militia debate entirely.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Which is exactly the same rationale that the 2nd amendments authors used.