5 ms·

I'd rather they clarified "well-regulated militia".

by Frondo 12y ago

ghshephard 12y ago
A topic on which thousands (if not tens of thousands) of hyper detailed essays and published articles have been written. Whether what a "well-regulated militia" meant in 1776 has any relevance to 2015 is also a topic upon which many, many essays have been written.
MCRed 12y ago
You might enjoy reading the pre-amble to the Bill of Rights. I could tell you, but you'll appreciate it more when you see it yourself. It gives context to the Bill of Rights that I think most people have forgotten. It also makes it clear that no interpretation of that phrase could undermine the right.
deciplex 12y ago
What do you want clarified? The meaning is very clear, and well-established by the courts. The prefatory clause it's a part of is a matter of some dispute and interpretation, but the meaning of "well-regulated militia" itself, is clear. (Which is to say, "well-regulated" here is not used in the same sense as it would be in the phrase "a well-regulated broadband industry", on the off chance that's what you're getting at.)
rainbowtrout 12y ago
Perhaps what you're getting at was addressed in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
chroma 12y ago
"The gestation period of some species of opossum being seven months, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed." (A silly example, but hopefully effective in showing the trick of language.) It's pretty clear that the founding fathers thought civilians should be able to own deadly weapons. The purpose for this was defense not only of the state, but of the individual. But even though I am a gun owner, I think the second amendment is extremely dated and should be ignored. So what if the founding fathers thought civilians should own guns? However intelligent and knowledgable they were, they have been superseded in all dimensions by two centuries of scientific and technological progress. If gun ownership decreases crime, OK. Tweak the laws to increase gun ownership. If it increases crime, OK. Do the opposite. If some middle-ground licensing thing works, do that. I find firearms fun to shoot, and I could see how they could be useful in self-defense, but what I really care about is the well-being of people. It's best to do whatever helps people, not what some centuries-old text says. Fortunately, if the Talmud and D&D have taught us anything, it's that people can interpret any rule to match their existing view. In the long run, judges will rule in favor of public safety no matter the text of the constitution.
- rainbowtrout 12y ago
  > In the long run, judges will rule in favor of public safety no matter the text of the constitution. What about this ruling? Is this in favor "of public safety no matter the text of the constitution"? It sounds like the cop was trying to get meth off the streets, isn't that a matter "of public safety"? > ..., but what I really care about is the well-being of people. It's best to do whatever helps people, not what some centuries-old text says. The problem, as you point out, is that not everyone interprets "well-being of people" the same way. For some, it means largely sticking to this centuries-old text.
- Frondo 12y ago
  Wow, thank you for the clearest response I've ever seen on the 2A puzzle! Yes, exactly, you got it exactly right: whether the founding documents were ever useful, what governing principles do we want to live with now? We obviously constrain people's agency in lots of ways that are non-controversial, like requiring that people drive on one side of the street or the other, or requiring that people not dump toxic waste in public parks. How do guns fit into that picture? How does speech, for that matter? These are good and important questions to think deeply about, and I'm so glad you raised the issue so articulately. My background, by the way: not a gun owner now, but I've used them enough to have a pretty good familiarity with them (and was once licensed to do armed security work, even). I'd fully endorse gun ownership restrictions, background checks, etc. I have never seen any rational argument against such laws; to me, it just goes to show how the NRA has done an amazing job conning a lot of people into becoming their own private gun lobby army, heh heh.
  - peteretep 12y ago
    > whether the founding documents were ever useful, what > governing principles do we want to live with now? My understanding is that if you can get 2/3 of Congress to agree with whatever governing principles you want to live with now, you can amend the constitution. It's far from clear to me (a bleeding heart liberal) that 2/3 of the people, let alone 2/3 of Congress, want to see the 2nd Amendment rights re-amended.
ctdonath 12y ago
TL;DR - a proper & updated rephrasing of the right & clause would be "The existence of a standing army notwithstanding, the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed." The typical response equates "the people" with "well regulated militia" by observing that "well regulated" meant equipped & trained, which all able-bodied males were expected to be (per the Militia Act of 1792, each was to buy standardized weapons & gear and participate in local training). The typical dissenting response equates "well regulated militia" to "standing army", explaining the right as "of course active soldiers have a natural right to carry exactly and only what weapons their commanding officers order them to", which hardly constitutes a "right" requiring enumeration. An alternate response I'm growing fond of enhances the "the preamble was explanatory but ultimately meaningless" argument others gave here. The Founding Fathers had a strong dislike for standing armies, but grudgingly realized that one would be required because an armed populace was inadequate to the task of advanced national security. Citizens being an uncooperative & cranky & poor bunch, there would be a need for a well-equipped, highly-trained, severely-disciplined military body ... a standing army, necessary to protect the states individually and the country as a whole; the citizenry should be able to do the job themselves, but we can't be sure without formal troops. Should a standing army be created, they'd be faced with arguments (like we're seeing right now) that there would be no need for an armed population because a standing army was ready to protect the country...and then the government could proceed to disarm the people at large, leaving a situation that the Founding Fathers had just fought a prolonged war to eliminate. Ergo, the right as enumerated is best understood as "The existence of a standing army notwithstanding, the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed."

I'd rather they clarified "well-regulated militia".

by Frondo 12y ago

I'd rather they clarified "well-regulated militia".

A topic on which thousands (if not tens of thousands) of hyper detailed essays and published articles have been written. Whether what a "well-regulated militia" meant in 1776 has any relevance to 2015 is also a topic upon which many, many essays have been written.

MCRed 12y ago

You might enjoy reading the pre-amble to the Bill of Rights. I could tell you, but you'll appreciate it more when you see it yourself. It gives context to the Bill of Rights that I think most people have forgotten. It also makes it clear that no interpretation of that phrase could undermine the right.

deciplex 12y ago

What do you want clarified? The meaning is very clear, and well-established by the courts. The prefatory clause it's a part of is a matter of some dispute and interpretation, but the meaning of "well-regulated militia" itself, is clear. (Which is to say, "well-regulated" here is not used in the same sense as it would be in the phrase "a well-regulated broadband industry", on the off chance that's what you're getting at.)

rainbowtrout 12y ago

Perhaps what you're getting at was addressed in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

chroma 12y ago

"The gestation period of some species of opossum being seven months, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed." (A silly example, but hopefully effective in showing the trick of language.) It's pretty clear that the founding fathers thought civilians should be able to own deadly weapons. The purpose for this was defense not only of the state, but of the individual. But even though I am a gun owner, I think the second amendment is extremely dated and should be ignored. So what if the founding fathers thought civilians should own guns? However intelligent and knowledgable they were, they have been superseded in all dimensions by two centuries of scientific and technological progress. If gun ownership decreases crime, OK. Tweak the laws to increase gun ownership. If it increases crime, OK. Do the opposite. If some middle-ground licensing thing works, do that. I find firearms fun to shoot, and I could see how they could be useful in self-defense, but what I really care about is the well-being of people. It's best to do whatever helps people, not what some centuries-old text says. Fortunately, if the Talmud and D&D have taught us anything, it's that people can interpret any rule to match their existing view. In the long run, judges will rule in favor of public safety no matter the text of the constitution.

rainbowtrout 12y ago
> In the long run, judges will rule in favor of public safety no matter the text of the constitution. What about this ruling? Is this in favor "of public safety no matter the text of the constitution"? It sounds like the cop was trying to get meth off the streets, isn't that a matter "of public safety"? > ..., but what I really care about is the well-being of people. It's best to do whatever helps people, not what some centuries-old text says. The problem, as you point out, is that not everyone interprets "well-being of people" the same way. For some, it means largely sticking to this centuries-old text.
Frondo 12y ago
Wow, thank you for the clearest response I've ever seen on the 2A puzzle! Yes, exactly, you got it exactly right: whether the founding documents were ever useful, what governing principles do we want to live with now? We obviously constrain people's agency in lots of ways that are non-controversial, like requiring that people drive on one side of the street or the other, or requiring that people not dump toxic waste in public parks. How do guns fit into that picture? How does speech, for that matter? These are good and important questions to think deeply about, and I'm so glad you raised the issue so articulately. My background, by the way: not a gun owner now, but I've used them enough to have a pretty good familiarity with them (and was once licensed to do armed security work, even). I'd fully endorse gun ownership restrictions, background checks, etc. I have never seen any rational argument against such laws; to me, it just goes to show how the NRA has done an amazing job conning a lot of people into becoming their own private gun lobby army, heh heh.
- peteretep 12y ago
  > whether the founding documents were ever useful, what > governing principles do we want to live with now? My understanding is that if you can get 2/3 of Congress to agree with whatever governing principles you want to live with now, you can amend the constitution. It's far from clear to me (a bleeding heart liberal) that 2/3 of the people, let alone 2/3 of Congress, want to see the 2nd Amendment rights re-amended.

ctdonath 12y ago

TL;DR - a proper & updated rephrasing of the right & clause would be "The existence of a standing army notwithstanding, the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed." The typical response equates "the people" with "well regulated militia" by observing that "well regulated" meant equipped & trained, which all able-bodied males were expected to be (per the Militia Act of 1792, each was to buy standardized weapons & gear and participate in local training). The typical dissenting response equates "well regulated militia" to "standing army", explaining the right as "of course active soldiers have a natural right to carry exactly and only what weapons their commanding officers order them to", which hardly constitutes a "right" requiring enumeration. An alternate response I'm growing fond of enhances the "the preamble was explanatory but ultimately meaningless" argument others gave here. The Founding Fathers had a strong dislike for standing armies, but grudgingly realized that one would be required because an armed populace was inadequate to the task of advanced national security. Citizens being an uncooperative & cranky & poor bunch, there would be a need for a well-equipped, highly-trained, severely-disciplined military body ... a standing army, necessary to protect the states individually and the country as a whole; the citizenry should be able to do the job themselves, but we can't be sure without formal troops. Should a standing army be created, they'd be faced with arguments (like we're seeing right now) that there would be no need for an armed population because a standing army was ready to protect the country...and then the government could proceed to disarm the people at large, leaving a situation that the Founding Fathers had just fought a prolonged war to eliminate. Ergo, the right as enumerated is best understood as "The existence of a standing army notwithstanding, the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed."