What Does the Second Amendment Really Say?

[GlennB]

And in fact, the drafters could have left the first part out completely if clarity was their intent.

Amen. Then militias, self-defence, hunting etc would all have been covered anyway, by default.

 

[Old man]

You see a straw man, I see an analogy. If the constitutional protection does not extend to all arms, IMO it's valid to speculate on where that protection stops.

Minoosh, they had bombs back then, you know. The 2nd amendment doesn't say "and bombs, and artillery, and battleships..."

 

[GlennB]

My translation:

"One really good reason for having guns is so that the people can be organized into militias and defined our new homeland against invaders. Because of this really good reason (among others) we want to guarantee that the government will never ever be allowed to interfere with the right of citizens to own and carry firearms."

That is how I interpret the 2nd Amendment. You may disagree.

Except that the highlighted bit isn't even hinted at in the actual wording. The second clause is clearly conditional upon the first. If not, why mention it? Or make it clear that there are various reasons, which would require totally different wording.

The 2A is a pig's ear of language.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Well, it probably seemed pretty clear to them at the time.

Really? The rest of the document is practically literature and then you get to this abomination. Now you're just insulting the rest of the Constitution.

I don't think they intended it to be clear, it was written by consensus and as such reflects the differing views in differing proportions.

Anyway, I think the first part is obviously a justification. The question is, by stating one justification explicitly, did the Founders nullify all the implicit justifications for not infringing on a right?

My take is they did not. The second part clearly recognizes a right, and the default position with rights always should be that any and all justifications, explicit, implicit, or hypothetical, are applicable, unless explicitly rejected and upheld by the courts.

[respectful snip for space]

I don't think it comes down to nullifying the right, I think it comes down to keeping the right within the bounds of the justification. The second amendment protects your right to keep a gun as a part of your militia duties or consistent with your militia duties or at your militia headquarters or some such like that.

Other gun ownership would not be protected by the second amendment. I don't imagine it would be outlawed in most places, but it may be much more regulated.

But alas, recent court cases have taken us on a different path. But I will not that there is nothing in recent case law that would outlaw a licensing system for gun owners, or even more particularly handgun owners. The problem is that gun control advocates have gone for showy irrational controls that appeal to their constituents without achieving any real change. But this is veering off topic again. Mea culpa.

 

[elbe]

If you don't understand the difference between a core Constitutional right and the right to sell and transport goods perhaps you're not the Constitutional scholar you think you are.

If you can't avoid non sequiters maybe you aren't the debater you think you are.

 

[elbe]

How do you know we don't still need a militia?

Probably because an organized militia would be a pretty poor way to defend a population in this day and age. If you'd like to make your case to start one, by all means.

 

[elbe]

Except that the highlighted bit isn't even hinted at in the actual wording. The second clause is clearly conditional upon the first. If not, why mention it? Or make it clear that there are various reasons, which would require totally different wording.

The 2A is a pig's ear of language.

That's a bit of a trouble spot for Emily's Cat's reading. It was the constitutionally endorsed reason when they could have not included any reason whatsoever (which would have made sense considering gun ownership for personal protection and hunting existed then too).

 

[Minoosh]

There are many things that can be done to help reduce gun violence inside the limits of the 2nd Amendment as it currently is held by the courts. Gun control advocates who draw attention to their attacks on the amendment and the very concept of gun ownership do the cause a great deal of damage.

I'd like to know what "many things" encompasses, and whether the NRA and/or anti-gun lobby endorses any such measures, but this may not be the thread.

Minoosh, they had bombs back then, you know. The 2nd amendment doesn't say "and bombs, and artillery, and battleships..."

Then where does the term "arms" end? Man-portable?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Probably because an organized militia would be a pretty poor way to defend a population in this day and age. If you'd like to make your case to start one, by all means.

The nutbar collection of folks who call themselves militias these days are what the US needs to be protected from, not by.

 

[xjx388]

I think we could apply the "no militia, no guns," interpretation to the whole Constitution. For example, we were endowed with these rights by our creator, but there is no creator- does that invalidate the rights?

IOW whatever the archaic justification for a right is really irrelevant. What is relevant is that a right was protected. It is obvious that the Framers intended that every citizen be able to have guns and the courts have agreed.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think we could apply the "no militia, no guns," interpretation to the whole Constitution. For example, we were endowed with these rights by our creator, but there is no creator- does that invalidate the rights?

Good point. Imaginary friends don't endow us with anything but psychoses.

IOW whatever the archaic justification for a right is really irrelevant. What is relevant is that a right was protected. It is obvious that the Framers intended that every citizen be able to have guns and the courts have agreed.

And the run-away effect these days is what they intended?

 

[xjx388]

Good point. Imaginary friends don't endow us with anything but psychoses.

Right. The Constitution endowed Americans with those rights and those rights don't disappear even if the justification is archaic.

And the run-away effect these days is what they intended?

What run-away effect are you referring to? Remember that in colonial times, gun duels were acceptable ways to settle scores.

 

[DavidJames]

Right. The Constitution endowed Americans with those rights and those rights don't disappear even if the justification is archaic.

I'd like to think a modern society, based intellect, logic and reason would recognize that rights based on archaic logic should be revisited.

What run-away effect are you referring to? Remember that in colonial times, gun duels were acceptable ways to settle scores.

Again, we live in the 21st century and I'd like to think we've progressed beyond duel's as ways of settling differences. Certainly the rest of the civilized world has.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Right. The Constitution endowed Americans with those rights and those rights don't disappear even if the justification is archaic.

And now idiotic? But the mechanism built-in to change the Constituion shows that the Founding Fathers considered that it wasn't immutable. I think it was Jefferson that said it should be rewritten every twenty years to reflect the current state of the nation.

What run-away effect are you referring to? Remember that in colonial times, gun duels were acceptable ways to settle scores.

And the colonials owned dozen or hundreds of guns?

 

[Old man]

Then where does the term "arms" end? Man-portable?

Since it says "bear arms", it's always been interpreted to mean man-portable. Why do you think this will change?

The "OMG1!! where will it all end!1!!" argument coming from anti-gunners fascinates me.

This is NYS law - (my comments in bold italics)

S 265.01 Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree when:
(1) He or she possesses any firearm (certain firearms are exempt from this section elsewhere), electronic dart gun, electronic stun gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles, metal knuckles, chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type slingshot or slungshot, shirken or "Kung Fu star"; or

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article265.htm

Seriously, about the only 'arm' I'm allowed to bear is gun.

 

[Old man]

I'd like to think a modern society, based intellect, logic and reason would recognize that rights based on archaic logic should be revisited.

And now idiotic? But the mechanism built-in to change the Constituion shows that the Founding Fathers considered that it wasn't immutable. I think it was Jefferson that said it should be rewritten every twenty years to reflect the current state of the nation.

Did you two miss this?

Certainly! The society I'm a member of already recognizes the right in question, so I'm happy with the status quo. If you want to change it, my society will apply this voting process to decide whether it continues to recognize the right to bear arms. Feel free to get that started whenever you like. I'll see you at the polls!

Me too!

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Did you two miss this?

Why do you think I missed it?. (Except for the fact that I automatically skip over certain posters posts, of course.)

 

[BStrong]

And now idiotic? But the mechanism built-in to change the Constituion shows that the Founding Fathers considered that it wasn't immutable. I think it was Jefferson that said it should be rewritten every twenty years to reflect the current state of the nation.

And the colonials owned dozen or hundreds of guns?

Depends on who you believe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America

My belief, based on personal examination of gun collections focusing on the Revolutionary War period is that there were many hundreds if not thousands of what was then then top tier technology firearms in civilian hands at the time of the Revolution and after.

There are private collections with well documented examples of the "Pennsylvania/Kentucky" Rifle types numbering in the 200-300's of examples, and museum collections have even more examples in their collections. That wouldn't be possible if firearms of the long rifle variety were as rare as certain individuals (Bellesiles first and foremost) assert.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Depends on who you believe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America

My belief, based on personal examination of gun collections focusing on the Revolutionary War period is that there were many hundreds if not thousands of what was then then top tier technology firearms in civilian hands at the time of the Revolution and after.

There are private collections with well documented examples of the "Pennsylvania/Kentucky" Rifle types numbering in the 200-300's of examples, and museum collections have even more examples in their collections. That wouldn't be possible if firearms of the long rifle variety were as rare as certain individuals (Bellesiles first and foremost) assert.

We used "Arming America" in the graduate historiography class at Purdue. If you've had that course you know what kind of book is chosen. If not, let's just say it's a course on how NOT to do history.

And I was talking about individuals with ****-loads of guns, not the total number in the colonies.

 

[DavidJames]

Gotta love that Rule of So!

No, I'm saying that whether a given society or community chooses to recognize a human right may be determined by voting, among other means.*


In some cases, yes. I admit, this solution leaves a lot to be desired, but all the other solutions societies have tried seem to be even worse, overall.**


Certainly! The society I'm a member of already recognizes the right in question, so I'm happy with the status quo. If you want to change it, my society will apply this voting process to decide whether it continues to recognize the right to bear arms. Feel free to get that started whenever you like. I'll see you at the polls!***














*Rights themselves, of course, are determined by what truths a given individual holds to be self-evident. Since these are going to vary from individual to individual, a means of building consensus becomes necessary, for societies to agree on what rights to recognize, and how to enforce them.

**Actually, Good Czar is a better solution than voting, but is usually too unreliable to be worth the trouble.

***Our voting-based consensus system is actually a lot more complicated than that. For a more complete idea of how your vote can be used to influence our society's acceptance of the right to bear arms, start here.

My question was specific to the asinine assertion that there was such a thing as natural human rights. Since we both seem to agree such things, for all intents and purposes, don't exist (how can something be a natural human right if it can be yanked away by a simple vote), gun folks can put away the idea gun ownership is a natural human right.

As for actual rights, those in the real world, as defined by society, I'm well aware of the process and can appreciate the difficulty in making changes. In this case it's a shame that so much blood must be shed to allow so many idiots to own guns. Until men can evolve to prevent our ego, low self esteem and testosterone from dominating our thinking, blood will continue to spill.