What Does the Second Amendment Really Say?

[TubbaBlubba]

Well, that should be obvious. To certain cultures, the idea that a citizen should own a gun or that people should speak freely are ludicrous concepts.

Though to be fair, I don't really think owning a particular lethal gadget, and being able to voice your opinion without fear of persecution are quite on the same level. If anything, their relative legal status in Western countries should hint at this.

 

[Minoosh]

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

It was you I should have thanked - I didn't know there was such a thing as a man-portable nuclear device. Since you scoffed at my speculation about personal nuclear weapons, I assumed it wasn't you who posted the Wikipedia link.

Learned something new! The video clip is great.

 

[Iamme]

If the second half of the 2nd amendment sentence said instead of about a militia...that it said so we can kill dinosaurs...would we still be guaranteed a right today to own and bear guns, based on the complete amendment as read as a whole?
That said...also what has always intrigued me about the second amendment is how short and succinct it was. How no thought was given to any future implications.
Way back in the days of the Old Testament..that means before Jesus time...which means more than 2,000 years ago...Daniel prophesized that in the end of days, knowledge would increase and people would be running around to and fro.
The writers of the Constitution had Bibles. They too knew there would be a future. Likely a future of vast more people in the US., for just one thing.
Yet they wrote such an amendment as short as this, without listing a library full of ifs ands buts. Which to me shows that as some poster sited above, that Jefferson intended for the Constitution to come under review after so many years, to be revoted upon by the people of that day.
This all being said...now reread my first paragraph, and consider that if it was written millions of years ago by man at that time...should that 2nd amendment apply to us today?
And THAT being said...should the 2nd amendment, as actually written in the late 1700`s, apply to us today?
.
Of further interest; after this amendment was passed, did legislators ever pack heat at any of their future meetings? (that would be where the ``bear`` part comes in). And did the common citizen start packing heat in the larger cities?
.
Were pistols, with holsters, very common yet? Or did most people only have muskets, when this amendment was written?

 

[newyorkguy]

What that translates to in actual practice is that the people are free to do what they want unless a compelling public need can be demonstrated to infringe that right.

I think the courts did that for many years, interpret the Second Amendment in such a way that it was not seen as conferring the right to possess a handgun much less carry one. New York City implemented the very stringent Sullivan Act in 1911. That was in response to a wave of gun violence in the city. Illinois did not permit concealed carry. In the 1970s, fueled by a dramatic rise in street crime and gun violence, cities like Washington D.C. and Chicago banned handguns.

Heller and McDonald overturned the last two bans but that happened in 2008 and 2010. I don't think you could have gotten those rulings in 1968 or 1970. I don't believe either the Warren Court or the Burger Court would've overturned those bans on Constitutional grounds. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger said as much.

Now the need to restrict gun ownership seems less compelling. Times have changed. Street crime has declined dramatically and the country has become much more conservative. The special interest groups have done a great job advocating for gun ownership. They've convinced many people that the Second Amendment does confer to every law abiding American adult the right to, at minimum, own a gun. In 1986 the right to carry a gun was recognized by nine states, now it's recognized by forty-two. A federal court in California has recently ruled that no state can deny citizens the right to carry a gun. They can limit open carry or concealed carry but not both. That's probably headed to SCOTUS too and given the present court's record, it will probably be upheld.

Times change and courts look at things differently. Whether it's civil rights, women's rights, worker rights, gay rights or gun rights.

 

[tyr_13]

This all being said...now reread my first paragraph, and consider that if it was written millions of years ago by man at that time...should that 2nd amendment apply to us today?
And THAT being said...should the 2nd amendment, as actually written in the late 1700`s, apply to us today?

Yes it should. It's the current rule of law.

There is a legal method for changing it. Until that has been employed to change it then it's still the law of the land. As such, it applies and should unless the rule of law doesn't mean much. If that's the case then don't expect people to respect any new rule of law that outlaws guns.

If you can't get it changed, you shouldn't get to ignore it and for the same reasons you can't get it changed.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If the second half of the 2nd amendment sentence said instead of about a militia...that it said so we can kill dinosaurs...would we still be guaranteed a right today to own and bear guns, based on the complete amendment as read as a whole?

Yes, the right to keep and bear arms would still be in place, regardless of how absurd the reasoning.

 

[WildCat]

Right, but at some point, the law is created, and rights are derived from that. Other laws could have been created, and other rights would have followed.

Surely, you're not claiming that Common Law is written in the fabric of reality?

Woosh goes the point right over your head, you're supposed to make a legal case for a right to drink alcohol, remember?

Rights are a social construct. Like money, for example.They only exist because we want them to.

I recall in other threads you think there is a right for ethnic groups to have "self determination"? Where does that right come from?

 

[WildCat]

I think I know where you're coming from and I agree. I think what we call rights really are a legal (or political) fiction. They make sense to us, but I feel it's more because of our philosophy, custom and culture.

Privileges is a better word than rights, I think.

Kim Jong Un agrees.

Amazing how people are so willing to toss away the entire legal basis for the freedoms we enjoy just because they don't like guns!

 

[WildCat]

It was you I should have thanked - I didn't know there was such a thing as a man-portable nuclear device.

There really isn't. The examples given one was mounted and crew-served and the other required a vehicle to deliver it to the target.

 

[WildCat]

I think the courts did that for many years,

And you've yet to support this assertion of yours.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Woosh goes the point right over your head, you're supposed to make a legal case for a right to drink alcohol, remember?

Ah, the red herrings. You know very well that I was never intending to prove that drinking is a right. I was interested in the principles and logic of your system. But of course it is easier to get a hangup on a hypothetical than actually argue. It's a shut-down technique as old as "I never used those exact words" or "but can you provide an exact figure?"

 

[tyr_13]

Ah, the red herrings. You know very well that I was never intending to prove that drinking is a right. I was interested in the principles and logic of your system. But of course it is easier to get a hangup on a hypothetical than actually argue. It's a shut-down technique as old as "I never used those exact words" or "but can you provide an exact figure?"

I don't know if you missed it, but if you actually want to know the underpinnings or assumptions that the American Constitution is based on, I pointed people to the writings of Locke, Paine, and the like. The prestige and I also both posted on the some of the assumptions and what they mean.

I'm having trouble keeping track of what your request actually is. You want to know if drinking alcohol is a 'right' or not? Well it's not one of the enumerated rights so it doesn't have the protection of them nor of the core rights, but in the absence of laws prohibiting it then it is a right. Where laws prohibit it, it is not.

 

[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?

Who said I think this will change?

I wasn't clear enough. There have been 'man-portable' bombs since we invented explosives. A nuke is simply a refinement of that. No one has ever made a credible case in favor of the wide-spread USE of bombs (outside of war) to the courts.

I think you grafted my question onto an assumption about my motives - or perhaps not. I wasn't making an ant-gun argument.

Since bombs have never been considered to be arms, isn't it reasonable to believe that you have a concern that they will be? Otherwise, why ask the question?

Thanks to whoever posted about man-portable nukes...

Your welcome.

It was you I should have thanked - I didn't know there was such a thing as a man-portable nuclear device. Since you scoffed at my speculation about personal nuclear weapons, I assumed it wasn't you who posted the Wikipedia link.

Learned something new! The video clip is great.

Yes, I'm strange that way. When people make errors of fact (on either side of the argument) I feel a need to correct them.

http://sethf.com/freespeech/memoirs/humor/guillotine.php

 

[Old man]

There really isn't. The examples given one was mounted and crew-served and the other required a vehicle to deliver it to the target.

WildCat, I'm on your side in this discussion, but get real, man. I know a guy who used to carry 'em around, fer christ's sake!

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

The Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) was a family of man-portable nuclear weapons fielded by the US military in the 1960s...

They may not be in active use now, however. I really don't know.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I don't know if you missed it, but if you actually want to know the underpinnings or assumptions that the American Constitution is based on, I pointed people to the writings of Locke, Paine, and the like. The prestige and I also both posted on the some of the assumptions and what they mean.

I'm having trouble keeping track of what your request actually is. You want to know if drinking alcohol is a 'right' or not? Well it's not one of the enumerated rights so it doesn't have the protection of them nor of the core rights, but in the absence of laws prohibiting it then it is a right. Where laws prohibit it, it is not.

Okay, so do you agree that prohibition took away a right? Because this is where I am confused - either it is a non-enumerated right that prohibition violated, or it is not a right; WildCat said that a right had never been taken away by amendments.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Perhaps it is all a misunderstanding. But posts like the below makes it a bit difficult for me to have good faith; the implication that unless we assume that everyone has rights even without government recognition, we get North Korea (which is patently false), seems an odd contrast with "Drinking isn't a right unless courts have made the case for it."

[Society granting them] is the only source of rights, what humans think they are. And the result is the bog we find ourselves in now.

Yeah, those pesky human rights. Things run much smoother in North Korea.

If there is some kind of uncertainty to the existence or extent of a right prior to court recognition, then clearly one cannot confidently say that the amendment process never took away a right.

 

[newyorkguy]

I think I know where you're coming from and I agree. I think what we call rights really are a legal (or political) fiction. They make sense to us, but I feel it's more because of our philosophy, custom and culture.

I don't know if you missed it, but if you actually want to know the underpinnings or assumptions that the American Constitution is based on, I pointed people to the writings of Locke, Paine, and the like...

This is exactly what I meant. Our rights are based on Western political philosophy. They're based on beliefs men had, beliefs they articulated. That doesn't mean I'm attacking the rights themselves, it means I'm recognizing where they originated. The Founding Fathers were just men, they weren't God-like. Our rights have no legitimacy other than what we give them.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

It is my understanding that during the 18th century it was common for men summoned for militia duty to have to provide their own weapons. Therefore, it is plausible to interpret the 2nd Amendment to be a method of preventing the federal government from indirectly eliminating state militias by banning private ownership of guns.

This, of course, contradicts the current SCOTUS view, which allows governments to ban private ownership of weapons that would actually be of use when serving in a militia (automatic rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers).

 

[tyr_13]

Okay, so do you agree that prohibition took away a right? Because this is where I am confused - either it is a non-enumerated right that prohibition violated, or it is not a right; WildCat said that a right had never been taken away by amendments.

I think this is something of a semantic argument, and I'm not sure how WildCat meant the word 'right'. Is everything not illegal a 'right' or is it just a privilege that's not illegal yet? Driving a car is a right, driving on public roads is a privilege.

This is exactly what I meant. Our rights are based on Western political philosophy. They're based on beliefs men had, beliefs they articulated. That doesn't mean I'm attacking the rights themselves, it means I'm recognizing where they originated. The Founding Fathers were just men, they weren't God-like. Our rights have no legitimacy other than what we give them.

And we've given them legitimacy in the Constitution and Amendments. To say they don't exist prior is pointless and to pick out some and call them invalid because they're old, or natural rights don't exist would actually invalidate all of them.

If one of them is invalid you can't treat it as such until it's been actually invalidated through another Amendment. The argument of if we created them or simply recognize them and protect them is moot.

 

[newyorkguy]

This is exactly what I meant. Our rights are based on Western political philosophy. They're based on beliefs men had, beliefs they articulated. That doesn't mean I'm attacking the rights themselves, it means I'm recognizing where they originated. The Founding Fathers were just men, they weren't God-like. Our rights have no legitimacy other than what we give them.

And we've given them legitimacy in the Constitution and Amendments. To say they don't exist prior is pointless and to pick out some and call them invalid because they're old, or natural rights don't exist would actually invalidate all of them.

To take this back on topic, it was being argued that the right to carry a gun for self defense was NOT a right conferred by the Second Amendment. It was a natural right recognized by the Second Amendment. That there are legal rights that exist in nature that everyone has.

I'm saying that's baloney. There are no rights "everyone has." There are rights that Western civilization recognizes and says everyone should have them. But that's based on our philosophy. Someone who grows up in a tribal society might have a very different idea of the rights people "naturally have." That doesn't make them wrong or us right.