Can someone clarify the Second Amendment for me?

[DZJ 0]

First off, this is an honest question and not a prelude to an anti-gun rant. I'm sure some posters might assume that I'm some limp-wristed gun-fearing Brit, but that's emphatically not the case.

So here's the question. What does the reference to 'a well-regulated militia' in the Second actually mean? That everyone is allowed guns so that they can form such a militia if they need to/want to? Or did it assume that within the context of a regulated militia, the people had (have) a right to guns? Or some other meaning? Also (a question about context) given that militia weaponry and military weaponry weren't much different at the time the Constitution was written, does that make laws restricting military-type weapons (such as fully-automatic small arms) to some degree unconstitutional? (Or to turn that around and apply reductio ad absurdum if you could convince people that peashooters and catapults were militia weapons, could you ban everything else without violating the Constitution?)

Like I said, an honest question humbly asked, hoping for illuminating answers.

[IanHarrop 43]

Here's some interesting readin on it.

http://www.escape-co.com/second_amendment.htm

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[quade 4]

We don't blame you for being at odds with the language here.

The issue is that it has been interpreted literally by some and figuratively by others. Each side claims their answer is the "correct" one.

I tend to fall on the literal side since I believe that if the authors wanted to be vague, they would have been vague, but, it appears to me at least, they picked very precise words for very precise meanings.

In the link in the posting just above this one, notice the long and torturous road the author needs to take in order to get to his point. The reason is; he has taken the figurative route.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

regulated in this context means trained, not buried under legislative acts.

militia also has a different meaning that we use now.

There may be quibbling over the extent of restrictions allowed, but anyone (ACLU and AG Gonzales included) that tries to convince you the 2nd doesn't guarantee the guns rights that already existed - they're lying to you.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I tend to fall on the literal side since I believe that if the authors wanted to be vague, they would have been vague, but, it appears to me at least, they picked very precise words for very precise meanings.

Indeed:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms

For those too dim witted to follow simple terse language, the Federalist Papers spelled out in detail.

[quade 4]

Quote

Indeed:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms

For those too dim witted to follow simple terse language, the Federalist Papers spelled out in detail.

What is "dim witted" it to take the sentance fragment out of context of the complete sentance.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

Indeed:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms

For those too dim witted to follow simple terse language, the Federalist Papers spelled out in detail.

Let me apologize here for a slight gaff on my part.

You'll notice, no doubt, that your post has an "edited by" remark in it. I accidentally hit the "edit" rather than "quote" on it and didn't notice until it was too late for me to do anything about it. I did return the post to its original intended reply.

Again, sorry for touching it in the first place, but I'm only human.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What is "dim witted" it to take the sentance fragment out of context of the complete sentance.

If the other clauses weren't explanatory rather than modifying, that might be a valid point. But then you'd still have to redefine regulated and militia, not to mention "the people."

[Remster 30]

Quote

But then you'd still have to redefine regulated and militia, not to mention "the people."

But isnt it interesting that the author of the 2nd didnt use "the people".

Remster

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

But then you'd still have to redefine regulated and militia, not to mention "the people."

But isnt it interesting that the author of the 2nd didnt use "the people".

Huh? "the people" is right there.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights.html

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Remster 30]

My mistake!

Remster

[quade 4]

Quote

If the other clauses weren't explanatory rather than modifying, that might be a valid point.

"Explanatory and modifying" is, however, precisely the point. Without them, it changes the entire meaning of the sentance.

You absolutely have to have the ENTIRE sentance in order for it to mean what was intended by the author.

If I say, "Blow me a kiss" and you only hear the sentance without the last two words . . . the meaning changes entirely.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

If the other clauses weren't explanatory rather than modifying, that might be a valid point.

"Explanatory and modifying" is, however, precisely the point. Without them, it changes the entire meaning of the sentance.

Do you use a different definition for "explantory?"
The prohibition of laws against the people to keep and bear arms is the same whether or not you say that you believe it's better for the country if the citizens know how to shoot well.

A valid modifying or restricting clause would be something like: "Because we value personal freedom within ones home, the right of the people...." That clause could imply that this protection did not apply in public, but only to people's private residences.

From a modern English perspective, the use of the commas is the only bad or unclear part. The first and third seem unncessary.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If I say, "Blow me a kiss" and you only hear the sentance without the last two words . . . the meaning changes entirely.

Because I had a hard day, give me a kiss.
Because I love you, give me a kiss.
Because I'm horny, give me a kiss.

The first clause can be many things, but the meaning of the second stays the same.

Your example involved chopping a single clause in half. Sorry, penalty points for that one.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

If I say, "Blow me a kiss" and you only hear the sentance without the last two words . . . the meaning changes entirely.

Because I had a hard day, give me a kiss.
Because I love you, give me a kiss.
Because I'm horny, give me a kiss.

The first clause can be many things, but the meaning of the second stays the same.

Your example involved chopping a single clause in half. Sorry, penalty points for that one.

Let's once again revisit the actual wording of Amendment 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The sentance starts with, "A well regulated Militia" which says that the founders expected that "the people" being talked about are actually part of "A well regulated Militia".

I don't see how it could apply in any other way, shape or form since they tell you exactly what their reasoning is.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The sentance starts with, "A well regulated Militia" which says that the founders expected that "the people" being talked about are actually part of "A well regulated Militia".

I don't see how it could apply in any other way, shape or form since they tell you exactly what their reasoning is.

Might help if you accept the proper definitions of those words, not 21st century ones. They aren't referring to wingnuts in Montana.

You and I are the militia.

[sundevil777 102]

The Supreme Court of the United States just clarified this, in a very recent ruling. I'm not providing a link to it, but it is done, no need to speculate about how it should be interpreted.

Their ruling came down on the side of militia being ordinary people.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kelpdiver 2]

BTW, this is Madison's first draft:

When the first Congress convened on March 4, 1789, James Madison, who had previously advocated passage of the Constitution without amendments, now pressed his colleagues to act on a bill of rights. When his initial efforts failed to produce any response, he drafted his own version of a bill of rights and presented them to members of Congress on June 8 of that year. His version of what would later be the second amendment read:

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.

(the last bit concerned the Quaker question)

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

The sentance starts with, "A well regulated Militia" which says that the founders expected that "the people" being talked about are actually part of "A well regulated Militia".

I don't see how it could apply in any other way, shape or form since they tell you exactly what their reasoning is.

Might help if you accept the proper definitions of those words, not 21st century ones. They aren't referring to wingnuts in Montana.

You and I are the militia.

In the 21st century US law is clear on this. It's all able bodied males aged 17-44 inclusive and members of the National Guard regardless of sex who may be as old as 63 if they've previously served in the regular armed services.

10 USC 311(a)

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

10 USC 311(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

32 USC 313(a)

To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps.

[mnealtx 0]

Here ya go - a copy of the never-mentioned Senate Report on the Second Amendment...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[1969912 0]

DJZ,

Regarding whether or not military type weapons fall under the 2nd Amendment, look up United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), which is one of only a handful of times that the Supreme Court has ruled directly on the 2nd. In US v. Miller (as I understand it), the Supreme's interpreted the word "Arms" in the 2nd to mean common military weapons. They upheld the conviction of someone convicted for possession of a sawed-off shotgun because it had no military use.

Regarding WHO the 2nd applies to, see Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 416-17, 449-51 (1857). During a very pathetic period of US history, a former slave tried to claim rights as a US citizen to travel and live wherever he wanted to. The case ended up before the Supreme Court, which rejected his claim. One of the reasons they gave for not allowing him to be considered a citizen was that "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union . . .the full liberty . . .to keep and carry arms wherever they went." They knew that giving brown people citizenship would give them the constitutional right to own/possess weapons, something that they, and man Americans did not want to see happen. Sad as it was, it was a clear affirmation the term "militia" in the 2nd Amendment meant all citizens, not just military and cops.

Just a couple things to look at.....

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Indeed:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms

For those too dim witted to follow simple terse language, the Federalist Papers spelled out in detail.

What is "dim witted" it to take the sentance fragment out of context of the complete sentance.

Sentence maybe?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Indeed:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms

For those too dim witted to follow simple terse language, the Federalist Papers spelled out in detail.

What is "dim witted" it to take the sentance fragment out of context of the complete sentance.

SENTENCE maybe?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[1969912 0]

Another thing to look at are the documents written by the authors of the Constitution before and as they were writing it. The 2nd Amendment was very clearly intended to be a balance of power to keep the government in check.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[mnealtx 0]

A well seasoned steak, being critical to the happiness of my stomach, the right of the poster to use garlic shall not be infringed.

So...who gets to use the garlic? Me, or the steak?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706