2 ms·

2A was always meant to be about individual ownership. At the time the rationale for a right was frequently included in the text, just as a modern reading of th

2A was always meant to be about individual ownership. At the time the rationale for a right was frequently included in the text, just as a modern reading of the right implies it is being used as an explanatory clause. The entire concept was that there would be no governmental army and in times of need, citizens would be able to use their arms and organize for mutual defense. In this context, "Militia" is synonymous with an decentralized armed citizenry without government oversight. The clause provides this rationale and coveys a sentiment against a standing army. here are what some state constitutions had to say about gun ownership, prior to the bill of rights. Article XIII of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights of 1776 read: >That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Similarly, as another example, Massachusetts’s Declaration of Rights from 1780 provided: >The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. James Madison produced an initial draft of the Second Amendment as follows: >The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. I pulled the quotes from this link, which has more text and discussion. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_...

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
The first clause of the second amendment wasn’t judged perfunctory until about 2013. It was never seen that way when the founding fathers were alive, or during most of America’s history. The NRA started the movement to eliminate the first clause from having any legal meaning at all in the late 1970s by simply excluding it when they recited it.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I provided my position with extensive rationale, citations from context, and a link to learn more. Do you have anything to support your position? anything in the federalist papers? What about the simple fact of reality of the time that every citizen was allowed to own arms without being in a formal organization?
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    The constitution is limitations on the government, not citizens. It doesn’t mean citizens only have the right to own weapons for militia use, it just means the government cannot restrict them for such. How the NRA rewrote the the 2A: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-... The decision to legally depower the first clause of the 2A came in 2008, not 2013, sorry about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller In the 18 and 19th century, commentary around the 2A included the militia requirement, focusing more on what a militia was than if it was a requirement at all (see wiki commentary section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...). The idea that militia isn’t a requirement doesn’t even come into play until the late 20th century and is legally deleted in the 21st.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I think your first link is revisionist history and rhetoric. IT isn't consistent with English common law, contemporary practice, or the other evidence. If the information already included in your own Wikipedia links dont convince you of this, I wont be able to either. Similarly, I don't buy the argument that it only restricts the federal government, not the states. The 10th amendment is clear that states are prohibited from infringing on some individual rights. This is obviously the case with the 6th through 8th,unless you think states and cities are free to conduct juryless trials and have cruel and unusual punishments

seanmcdirmid 2y ago

The first clause of the second amendment wasn’t judged perfunctory until about 2013. It was never seen that way when the founding fathers were alive, or during most of America’s history. The NRA started the movement to eliminate the first clause from having any legal meaning at all in the late 1970s by simply excluding it when they recited it.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I provided my position with extensive rationale, citations from context, and a link to learn more. Do you have anything to support your position? anything in the federalist papers? What about the simple fact of reality of the time that every citizen was allowed to own arms without being in a formal organization?
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  The constitution is limitations on the government, not citizens. It doesn’t mean citizens only have the right to own weapons for militia use, it just means the government cannot restrict them for such. How the NRA rewrote the the 2A: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-... The decision to legally depower the first clause of the 2A came in 2008, not 2013, sorry about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller In the 18 and 19th century, commentary around the 2A included the militia requirement, focusing more on what a militia was than if it was a requirement at all (see wiki commentary section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...). The idea that militia isn’t a requirement doesn’t even come into play until the late 20th century and is legally deleted in the 21st.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think your first link is revisionist history and rhetoric. IT isn't consistent with English common law, contemporary practice, or the other evidence. If the information already included in your own Wikipedia links dont convince you of this, I wont be able to either. Similarly, I don't buy the argument that it only restricts the federal government, not the states. The 10th amendment is clear that states are prohibited from infringing on some individual rights. This is obviously the case with the 6th through 8th,unless you think states and cities are free to conduct juryless trials and have cruel and unusual punishments