5 ms·

That's actually incorrect. The second amendment is entirely about state militias, and anyone claiming it's related to resisting a tyrannical government hasn't

• int_19h 2y ago
  The problem with this perspective is that many states have some equivalent of the Second Amendment in their state constitution, including some of the original states - and in many cases those explicitly spell out RKBA as an individual right. I think it's reasonable to at least wonder why the same people who wrote those state constitutions would, when discussing the federal one, not have the same thing in mind when authoring 2A.
  • RajT88 2y ago
    That's not a problem of this perspective, that's an entirely separate issue: The still evolving debate between what takes precedence: Federal powers or State powers? Sometimes state, sometimes federal. This is why all parties are trying to pack the courts with ideologues of various leanings.
    • int_19h 2y ago
      You misunderstand my point. It's not about which constitution takes priority (the answer here is actually very simple: for federal laws, only federal constitution applies; for state laws, the state constitution additionally applies). The point is that the original US Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights, was worked on and ratified by the same people who worked on their states' constitutions at that time, and you can, in general, see very clear parallels between state and federal constitutions when it comes to rights. So, given that at least some state constitutions from that same period explicitly spell out individual right to keep and bear arms, I find it dubious that it was not one of the considerations when they adopted the same right on the federal level. The fact that the verbiage of 2A cites militia as a justification implies that this is the one they thought most important, but not that there weren't any others; and, of course, the verbiage doesn't actually condition RKBA on militia membership in plain reading. There are also letters and other discussions from that time that, on the whole, make it fairly clear that militia was understood as including everyone (and not just those states might choose to designate as such), and that the right was thus really meant to be universal.
      • RajT88 2y ago
        Letters and discussions we can dismiss outright. This is always a selective argument based on your leanings, and these are inevitably used to twist what are otherwise fairly clear wordings even in the language of the day. A lot of people said a lot of things, but what matters is what is enshrined in law. What state constitutions of the day say something different than what is written in the federal constitution? I am interested in looking into it at least. ETA: I looked into it. Your argument only seems to have Pennsylvania as a leg to stand on, through the participation of Ben Franklin, and even that is flawed according to historians: https://journals.psu.edu/pmhb/article/download/59337/59064/0 https://journals.psu.edu/pmhb/article/download/59337/59064/0
• pdonis 2y ago
  > The second amendment is entirely about state militias I disagree, and I'm certainly not the only one; there has been a lot of literature on this. Obviously we're not going to resolve that here. However, I will offer a few comments, since you have presumed to imply that I have not actually read the documents in question. First, it seems odd for you to say that the second amendment is entirely about state militias, and then refer to the Constitution, which is a Federal document, and which, as we will see below, contains provisions for Federal actions regarding the Militia, not just state actions. Next, Article I, Section 8 says that Congress shall have the power: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Note that it does not say "create" the Militia. It assumes that "the Militia" is an already existing thing, and then says that Congress may provide for "calling forth" this already existing thing for certain purposes. It also says Congress may provide for other things regarding the Militia, but it does not say that the Militia may only do the things that Congress has provided for, or that the Militia only consists of those people Congress organizes by legislation. In fact, it says explicitly that Congress may provide for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States. That means there can be other Parts which are not so employed. Article II, Section 2 says: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" In other words, the President is not the Commander in Chief of the Militia all the time or of all the Militia; he is only Commander in Chief of the Militia who are in the actual Service of the United States, while they are so serving. That means there can be Militia who are not in such service, and whom the President is not the Commander in Chief of. In short, the powers the Constitution grants Congress and the President over the Militia are qualified and limited, not absolute.
  • RajT88 2y ago
    Thank you for agreeing with me that the second amendment makes direct reference to the articles I highlighted.