5 ms·

I haven't researched it heavily, but wasn't that also true for the 2nd amendment? I doubt all the folks that ratified it agreed on its meaning.

giantg2 4y ago
That might be true of all the early amendments, given that they aren't painstakingly defined like modern laws. It might also be that they did agree (the ones who voted for it) and it's lost to history (federalist and antifederalist papers have some background, as do the similar state level constitutional provisions about arms, the press, etc).
rayiner 4y ago
That’s true in general. There was a lot of disagreement over the scope of things like the Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, etc. I don’t think that’s true of the Second Amendment specifically. It was written by a bunch of men who had just used guns they had lying around their farms to form militias and overthrow their government. I don’t think it’s a great mystery what they meant when they wrote the Second Amendment. Insofar as the prefatory clause causes one to stumble, it was a common construct at the time tk have a “why” or explanatory clause prefacing an operative clause: https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-73-3-Volokh.pdf https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYUL.... You read it exactly like you would read the following: “Free political debate being necessary to the functioning of a free state, the freedom of speech shall not be abridged.”
- dctoedt 4y ago
  > a bunch of men who had just used guns they had lying around their farms to form militias and overthrow their government. That pretty seriously overstates the case: The American Revolution started out that way, but as time went on, the Continental Army acquired serious artillery and became reasonably professional — thanks largely to Henry Knox; Baron von Steuben; and the Marquis de La Fayette — and the decisive factor at Yorktown was the intervention of a French naval squadron and expeditionary force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Army https://www.historynet.com/arming-revolution-continental-army-get-cannons/ https://www.historynet.com/arming-revolution-continental-arm...
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    This is true, but as you say, the revolution started out the way rayiner describes it, and it seems very plausible that the 2nd. amendment was motivated by that specific circumstance. Personally, I think we would have been better off without the 2nd amendment, and the framers of the constitution may not have foreseen the role it has come to play in politics (if so, it would be far from the only case), but I cannot find much ambiguity in it.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      The framers didn’t anticipate armies becoming permanent institutions, which is why we have a “no standing army” requirement that we just kind of ignore. But even that only makes the second amendment clearer: if you don’t have a standing army, who has the guns? The answer is militias comprised of heavily armed citizenry.
      - cycomanic 4y ago
        I am pretty certain that the large military powers at the time (England, France certainly Prussia) had standing armies already. So I would be highly surprised that the founders did not anticipate armies as a permanent institution. That would be a pretty big blind spot, considering they already existed.
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        In some ways, the Founders were delightfully naive. Kings also already existed, and they'd just thrown off control of one. Many Founders believed a standing army to be an inherently corrupting force (if you have a warrior class, sooner or later they will make you go to war) and thought America would be better without one. Whether or not that could have been true in the abstract became irrelevant because the need to perpetually defend territory meant that there was never an opportunity to disband the Continental Army.
        lupire 4y ago
        They Constitution (and the framers) opposed the President having a standing army. It supported the country having one with biannual renewal of consent from Legislature for funding. And the War of 1812 taught President Madison the danger of being under militarized and over-reliant on militias.
- margalabargala 4y ago
  The Second Amendment is a bit more confusing than at first glance. "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" Seems nice and straightforwards, right? Trouble is, that's just one of many versions. Different states ratified slightly different versions of the Second Amendment, the main difference being the presence of absence of different commas. For example, see this version from the National Archives [0] "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" [0] https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc...
  - Joker_vD 4y ago
    The (personally) funny thing about the 2nd amendment is that since I am not a native English speaker, its syntax looks broken to me. Without "since" or "because" at the beginning it reads either as a non sequitur or as a "driving by the gas station, my hat flew off" kind of sentence: the subject suddenly changes midway through and (in my native language) it's a hallmark of non-literate speech which one would really, really like to not have in an important legal document.
    - comex 4y ago
      For the record, the extra commas after “Militia” and “Arms” would be considered incorrect by modern standards, though the sentence would otherwise be fine (aside from capitalization).
    - lupire 4y ago
      Formal grammar (and spelling!) is a recent invention in USA. Language is much more fluid than many pretend and programmers expect.
- duped 4y ago
  > It was written by a bunch of men who had just used guns they had lying around their farms to form militias and overthrow their government. One of the catalysts to writing the Constitution in the first place was when a bunch of former soldiers took the guns they had lying around, tried to seize government munitions, and overthrow the Massachusetts government. The federal government couldn't raise an army to put down Shay's rebellion, and had to use local/private militia. So it cuts both ways.

giantg2 4y ago

That might be true of all the early amendments, given that they aren't painstakingly defined like modern laws. It might also be that they did agree (the ones who voted for it) and it's lost to history (federalist and antifederalist papers have some background, as do the similar state level constitutional provisions about arms, the press, etc).

rayiner 4y ago

That’s true in general. There was a lot of disagreement over the scope of things like the Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, etc. I don’t think that’s true of the Second Amendment specifically. It was written by a bunch of men who had just used guns they had lying around their farms to form militias and overthrow their government. I don’t think it’s a great mystery what they meant when they wrote the Second Amendment. Insofar as the prefatory clause causes one to stumble, it was a common construct at the time tk have a “why” or explanatory clause prefacing an operative clause: https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-73-3-Volokh.pdf https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYUL.... You read it exactly like you would read the following: “Free political debate being necessary to the functioning of a free state, the freedom of speech shall not be abridged.”

dctoedt 4y ago
> a bunch of men who had just used guns they had lying around their farms to form militias and overthrow their government. That pretty seriously overstates the case: The American Revolution started out that way, but as time went on, the Continental Army acquired serious artillery and became reasonably professional — thanks largely to Henry Knox; Baron von Steuben; and the Marquis de La Fayette — and the decisive factor at Yorktown was the intervention of a French naval squadron and expeditionary force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Army https://www.historynet.com/arming-revolution-continental-army-get-cannons/ https://www.historynet.com/arming-revolution-continental-arm...
- mannykannot 4y ago
  This is true, but as you say, the revolution started out the way rayiner describes it, and it seems very plausible that the 2nd. amendment was motivated by that specific circumstance. Personally, I think we would have been better off without the 2nd amendment, and the framers of the constitution may not have foreseen the role it has come to play in politics (if so, it would be far from the only case), but I cannot find much ambiguity in it.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    The framers didn’t anticipate armies becoming permanent institutions, which is why we have a “no standing army” requirement that we just kind of ignore. But even that only makes the second amendment clearer: if you don’t have a standing army, who has the guns? The answer is militias comprised of heavily armed citizenry.
    - cycomanic 4y ago
      I am pretty certain that the large military powers at the time (England, France certainly Prussia) had standing armies already. So I would be highly surprised that the founders did not anticipate armies as a permanent institution. That would be a pretty big blind spot, considering they already existed.
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        In some ways, the Founders were delightfully naive. Kings also already existed, and they'd just thrown off control of one. Many Founders believed a standing army to be an inherently corrupting force (if you have a warrior class, sooner or later they will make you go to war) and thought America would be better without one. Whether or not that could have been true in the abstract became irrelevant because the need to perpetually defend territory meant that there was never an opportunity to disband the Continental Army.
      - lupire 4y ago
        They Constitution (and the framers) opposed the President having a standing army. It supported the country having one with biannual renewal of consent from Legislature for funding. And the War of 1812 taught President Madison the danger of being under militarized and over-reliant on militias.
margalabargala 4y ago
The Second Amendment is a bit more confusing than at first glance. "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" Seems nice and straightforwards, right? Trouble is, that's just one of many versions. Different states ratified slightly different versions of the Second Amendment, the main difference being the presence of absence of different commas. For example, see this version from the National Archives [0] "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" [0] https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc...
- Joker_vD 4y ago
  The (personally) funny thing about the 2nd amendment is that since I am not a native English speaker, its syntax looks broken to me. Without "since" or "because" at the beginning it reads either as a non sequitur or as a "driving by the gas station, my hat flew off" kind of sentence: the subject suddenly changes midway through and (in my native language) it's a hallmark of non-literate speech which one would really, really like to not have in an important legal document.
  - comex 4y ago
    For the record, the extra commas after “Militia” and “Arms” would be considered incorrect by modern standards, though the sentence would otherwise be fine (aside from capitalization).
  - lupire 4y ago
    Formal grammar (and spelling!) is a recent invention in USA. Language is much more fluid than many pretend and programmers expect.
duped 4y ago
> It was written by a bunch of men who had just used guns they had lying around their farms to form militias and overthrow their government. One of the catalysts to writing the Constitution in the first place was when a bunch of former soldiers took the guns they had lying around, tried to seize government munitions, and overthrow the Massachusetts government. The federal government couldn't raise an army to put down Shay's rebellion, and had to use local/private militia. So it cuts both ways.