How important is the Militia clause in the right to bare arms?

[Burgold]

I think that this clause is the big troublemaker for people trying to interpret the second amendment. How important, how relevent, is the "militia" clause? What does it mean in a modern context?

Should the clause be ammended to remove well-regulated militia?

[JimboDaMan]

I think that this clause is the big troublemaker for people trying to interpret the second amendment. How important, how relevent, is the "militia" clause? What does it mean in a modern context?

Should the clause be ammended to remove well-regulated militia?Not only the big troublemaker, but I suspect deliberately so. Many of the founders, in other writings, expressed the notion of unfettered access to arms (even defining "arms" in modern terms is tricky). Yet when authoring the amendment, rather than taking the opportunity for clarity they chose the awkward construction. The current set of Supremes, or at least a one-vote mojority, seems to feel that clause is a completely separate thought, which seems unlikely to me seeing as they're in the same friggin sentence. Yep, its the troublemaker as you say.

[MDRedskinsFan]

Burgold, you mean I can't wear short sleeve shirts anymore unless I join a militia?:silly:

In current terms, I'd say it is the reason why the vote on the SCOTUS was a narrow 5-4. It depends on the person's interpretation of "militia." Some think the National Guard counts as a militia, and some think that since we have a full-blown military, militia consists of the rest of American citizens. If that clause were not in the 2nd amendment, and the vote were not 9-0, then whoever dissented should be immediately removed from the bench in lieu of their attempt to 'legislate from the bench.'

I think it needs to be amended, for the simple reason that I feel that a citizen has the right to defend themselves. If they are incapable of doing that with their strength, then a gun is the next best thing, provided they are mentally stable and know how to shoot. Criminals won't obey laws, and will always be armed to do harm to others. So, since the police can't be everywhere, I think an armed and alert society is the next best thing.

To take it a step further, in this age of terrorism, an armed society can be a scary thought, because of tensions. However, if the vast majority of us are armed, should a terror attack occur, its damaging effects can be minimized. We might still have nuts with guns, like the shooter in the Va Tech shooting, but if even one of those students in that building is armed with a gun, there's no way he'd have killed 30 people. An armed society is not only safer, but is a polite society.

[Burgold]

I don't think it needs to be amended, for the simple reason that I feel that a citizen has the right to defend themselves. If they are incapable of doing that with their strength, then a gun is the next best thing, provided they are mentally stable and know how to shoot. Criminals won't obey laws, and will always be armed to do harm to others. So, since the police can't be everywhere, I think an armed and alert society is the next best thing.


See, if this is the case, then I think it must be ammended. Because if that's the meaning, then there shouldn't be a 5-4. It should be 9-0. It should be made clear and absolute.

I'm on the fence about gun control. I generally am pro-restrictions. Background checks. Licensing. Safety locks. Mandatory training. All sound good to me. Heck, I'd like it if we could develop a sensor where a bullet would only fire if it recognized the thumbprint of the shooter.

Still, I can buy and accept the right to arm yourself in self-defense and even for self-offense to defend yourself from a tyrannical ruler. Although honestly, the mental image of me with my hand gun facing off against a stealth bomber and smart bombs doesn't fill me with confidence for my chances. Still, against the neighborhood thug or a home invasion, I understand the want to be able to protect yourself.

Non the less, the militia bit is a puzzle, because I can't see an interpretation of a well regulated militia as one composed of me, myself, and I. I mean I like to be well-regulated, that's why I eat my bran, but I don't think that's what the founders were getting at.

So, I think the clause should be ammended or followed.

[MDRedskinsFan]

See, if this is the case, then I think it must be ammended. Because if that's the meaning, then there shouldn't be a 5-4. It should be 9-0. It should be made clear and absolute.

I'm on the fence about gun control. I generally am pro-restrictions. Background checks. Licensing. Safety locks. Mandatory training. All sound good to me. Heck, I'd like it if we could develop a sensor where a bullet would only fire if it recognized the thumbprint of the shooter.

Still, I can buy and accept the right to arm yourself in self-defense and even for self-offense to defend yourself from a tyrannical ruler. Although honestly, the mental image of me with my hand gun facing off against a stealth bomber and smart bombs doesn't fill me with confidence for my chances. Still, against the neighborhood thug or a home invasion, I understand the want to be able to protect yourself.

Non the less, the militia bit is a puzzle, because I can't see an interpretation of a well regulated militia as one composed of me, myself, and I. I mean I like to be well-regulated, that's why I eat my bran, but I don't think that's what the founders were getting at.

So, I think the clause should be ammended or followed.Haha, I just reread that, and meant to suggest that it be amended.

[Bang]

I've always felt it is rather straightforward.
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.

Well regulated miliia meaning organization, militia, not every man for himself.
Security of a free state means a free state, not a free living room.

So, if we wanted to form a militia, have regular drill and duty in order to keep other states or nations from disrupting the security of our state, fine.
But somehow that has been taken to mean that every citizen has the right to arm themselves to the teeth, with no regulation of any militia, and for no other reason than he wants to be able to shoot things.

~Bang

[Corcaigh]

There is no right to bare arms, whether in a militia or not.

There is no right to arm bears either.

[Thiebear]

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

“ 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 original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“ 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.


I see a distinct difference between the two.

[Buford]

http://6.content.bustedtees.com/d1/bt/2/3/bustedtees.ef270fa215d10509c3fd5a7396959940.gif

[Popeman38]

Well, the definition of militia has changed over the years. When the second was written, militia was defined as:
the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military serviceToday, we define a militia as:
civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular armyThat is a huge difference. When the colonies organized an army to fight the British, they called the militia to serve. Meaning every able-bodied man that is able to serve. It was NOT like calling the National Guard forward. These guys were no more trained in the art of war than the senior classes that just graduated high school.


To interpret the second amendment in todays definitions is dishonest.

Now, I fully expect someone to come forward and say "OK, you can now own black powder muskets and single shot pistols". :rolleyes:

[PokerPacker]

I think that the militia part implies that this group of armed citizens should be capable of fighting off a government's military forces

[IbleedBnG83]

I never understood how the term "a well regulated milita" is interpreted as everyone has the right to have a gun.

[Kilmer17]

I think it's incredibly important.

It means that citizens have the PERSONAL right to have firearms, so they can, at any time, join a militia without the Govt preventing them from having the necessary weaponry to do so.

The purpose was to protect citizens from the Govt, not from other citizens.

[Corcaigh]

http://6.content.bustedtees.com/d1/bt/2/3/bustedtees.ef270fa215d10509c3fd5a7396959940.gif

No matter how you interpret it, those aren't bare arms.

[Popeman38]

I never understood how the term "a well regulated milita" is interpreted as everyone has the right to have a gun.Because militia did not mean then what it means today. Today, we see a militia as similiar to the National Guard. Then, it was ever able-bodied male up to like 60 yrs old. Basically, an adult male. To transform the meaning to todays definition of militia distorts the document.

[Burgold]

Well, the definition of militia has changed over the years. When the second was written, militia was defined as:

If that's the case, it sounds like the militia that the founders were thinking of might be best described as today's volunteer standing army. I don't think they were quite thinking that either, but it seems the word militia demanded some kind of organization. Oversight. The founders were big on individual rights, but bigger on organizational checks and balances.

[IbleedBnG83]

I think it's incredibly important.

It means that citizens have the PERSONAL right to have firearms, so they can, at any time, join a militia without the Govt preventing them from having the necessary weaponry to do so.

The purpose was to protect citizens from the Govt, not from other citizens.

Well thats just it. If you spin the interpretation as such, it makes sense in terms of enforcing the right for individuals to have guns. But there is no factual evidence as to what the founding fathers were attempting to do. I would also be remiss if I did not acknowledge as others have done the ingenious writing drafted by the fathers to have their laws be open to interpretation for changing times.

[MDRedskinsFan]

If that's the case, it sounds like the militia that the founders were thinking of might be best described as today's volunteer standing army. I don't think they were quite thinking that either, but it seems the word militia demanded some kind of organization. Oversight. The founders were big on individual rights, but bigger on organizational checks and balances.By oversight, I think that is accomplished through the various regulations that can be placed on owning a gun (mandatory training, background checks, etc). The organization is our government, and we are citizens of that organization. If interpreted in that way, the citizens would be considered a balance against the government, and would fit the organizational checks and balances theory. Again, all depends on interpretation.

[Bang]

Because militia did not mean then what it means today. Today, we see a militia as similiar to the National Guard. Then, it was ever able-bodied male up to like 60 yrs old. Basically, an adult male. To transform the meaning to todays definition of militia distorts the document.
I understand that, and it's a good point, but what about the preceding "well regulated".
It would seem to me that even in the context of the meaning of the word "militia" in the 1780s "well regulated" still would mean the same.
Is this simple registry of the guns, of eligible men, or is this mean that these citizens must act as a single fighting force at least part of the time like the Guard does?

~Bang

[Popeman38]

If that's the case, it sounds like the militia that the founders were thinking of might be best described as today's volunteer standing army. I don't think they were quite thinking that either, but it seems the word militia demanded some kind of organization. Oversight. The founders were big on individual rights, but bigger on organizational checks and balances.Think 1776. You call on the "militia" to fight the British. Who arms the militia? No-one, they bring their own arms. Now, they had a standing army. That is the same as todays army. The militia is nothing more than 18 - 60 year old men. No other qualifications or requirements. Common sense need to prevail here. If they meant a state controlled military, how would this in any way allow the citizens to protect themselves from the state govt becoming over bearing? The state controlled the means of a rebellion. They would have simply written that the state has the right to arm citizens. They intended the people to have the right to bear and keep arms in order to maintain a free state. NOT VICE VERSA.

Look at the British definition of Militia: The obligation to serve in the militia in England derives from a common law tradition, and dates back to Anglo-Saxon times. The tradition was that all able-bodied males were liable to be called out to serve in one of two organisations.These were the posse comitatus, an ad hoc assembly called together by a law officer to apprehend lawbreakers, and the fyrd, a military body intended to preserve internal order or defend the locality against an invader.

[Kilmer17]

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html

A cool site that has quotes and statements from the FFs.

Pretty clear what they meant.

[MDRedskinsFan]

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html

A cool site that has quotes and statements from the FFs.

Pretty clear what they meant.Agreed. Look at the quote by Samuel Adams about "peaceable citizens." It's clear that they left the door wide open for regulations governing what types of people could own guns, but never supported an outright ban. That's what Chicago and DC have had for years, and now they have been rendered unconstitutional. It is clear that the dissenters on the SCOTUS decision yesterday have a different opinion on what government can and can't do. It is the job of the SCOTUS to protect the rights of the citizens from the legislative branches, and the dissenters wanted to "legislate from the bench." Although, I guess the same could be said for those who opposed abortion rights, even though it is ending a life?:whoknows:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I've always felt it is rather straightforward.
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.

Well regulated miliia meaning organization, militia, not every man for himself.
Security of a free state means a free state, not a free living room.

So, if we wanted to form a militia, have regular drill and duty in order to keep other states or nations from disrupting the security of our state, fine.
But somehow that has been taken to mean that every citizen has the right to arm themselves to the teeth, with no regulation of any militia, and for no other reason than he wants to be able to shoot things.

~Bang

I really agree with this.

I think the opinion Scalia wrote is somewhat embarassing from a legal perspective because he chooses to ignore the first two parts of the Amendment. Maybe its me, but the first clauses are supposed to be the most important clauses of any amendment.

I think that Scalia could have made a much more intelligent argument if he discussed how the founding fathers' application of the amendment was different than what we have now, and that now it makes sense to interpret the amendment in light of how the world works today.

The opinion, which ultimately may have had the right result, was reached for all the wrong reasons. The idea that you can parse out clauses in any part of the Constitution and CHOOSE to ignore them, as opposed to apply the entire sentence to the facts, is arrogant. This is going to be a black eye on Scalia, whom until now I thought of as a brilliant yet misled justice. Now he looks like an arrogant one with no real respect for the Constitution.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Think 1776. You call on the "militia" to fight the British. Who arms the militia? No-one, they bring their own arms. Now, they had a standing army. That is the same as todays army. The militia is nothing more than 18 - 60 year old men. No other qualifications or requirements. Common sense need to prevail here. If they meant a state controlled military, how would this in any way allow the citizens to protect themselves from the state govt becoming over bearing? The state controlled the means of a rebellion. They would have simply written that the state has the right to arm citizens. They intended the people to have the right to bear and keep arms in order to maintain a free state. NOT VICE VERSA.

Look at the British definition of Militia: The obligation to serve in the militia in England derives from a common law tradition, and dates back to Anglo-Saxon times. The tradition was that all able-bodied males were liable to be called out to serve in one of two organisations.These were the posse comitatus, an ad hoc assembly called together by a law officer to apprehend lawbreakers, and the fyrd, a military body intended to preserve internal order or defend the locality against an invader.

A much more intelligent argument than the one Scalia made.

[sacase]

If you want to take those quotes further it places no limitations on what weapons people can own, especially if they have to deal with a tyrannical govt.

[Popeman38]

I understand that, and it's a good point, but what about the preceding "well regulated".
It would seem to me that even in the context of the meaning of the word "militia" in the 1780s "well regulated" still would mean the same.
Is this simple registry of the guns, of eligible men, or is this mean that these citizens must act as a single fighting force at least part of the time like the Guard does?

~BangWe have that. It is called the THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT http://www.sss.gov/PDFs/MSSA-2003.pdf

This is every able-bodied male 18 - 25 (we narrowed the age window, most likely due to population).

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Agreed. Look at the quote by Samuel Adams about "peaceable citizens." It's clear that they left the door wide open for regulations governing what types of people could own guns, but never supported an outright ban. That's what Chicago and DC have had for years, and now they have been rendered unconstitutional. It is clear that the dissenters on the SCOTUS decision yesterday have a different opinion on what government can and can't do. It is the job of the SCOTUS to protect the rights of the citizens from the legislative branches, and the dissenters wanted to "legislate from the bench." Although, I guess the same could be said for those who opposed abortion rights, even though it is ending a life?:whoknows:

This is anything but a defense of the Constitution. If you are "defending" it, you do not ignore the parts you find inconvenient.

The legal logic behind this opinion is severely flawed. There is absolutely nothing Constitutionalist about it. In fact, the people that you refer to as "legislating from the bench," were the ones with the concerns about what the Constitution actually says. THAT is a defense of the Constitution.

[PeterMP]

A ban should unconstitution IMO. That doesn't mean the goverment can't have strict regulations ('well regulated'), including where the weapons are stored.

[Popeman38]

A bunch of responses seem to be wrapped around the axle on the militia definition. Most seem to be defining militia as we do today. So I will repost the contrasting definitions:

1776 Militia defined: the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service

2008 Militia defined: civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army

[Popeman38]

A ban should unconstitution IMO. That doesn't mean the goverment can't have strict regulations ('well regulated'), including where the weapons are stored.So you think they should be able to restrict you to storing them in govt controlled areas?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

A bunch of responses seem to be wrapped around the axle on the militia definition. Most seem to be defining militia as we do today. So I will repost the contrasting definitions:

1776 Militia defined: the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service

2008 Militia defined: civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army

As someone pointed out, I think the "well-regulated" clause is the sticking point for most people.

[Mr. S]

To add, while militia were people mustering together grabbing their muskets, militia were also trained. I guess I'm thinking American Revolution times here. The standing army still existed, but mustering a militia also involved training at the outset of the war. Towns would help entice people to band up by providing food, money, and beer.

On that note though, they were still allowed to have their guns as hunting was part of their livelihood. They did have to bring a gun with them, but supplies and munitions were probably provided. The "well regulated" part still is up for question, but I think it does apply to people, not the standing army.

However, it's a 'well regulated' militia being necessary for the security of the free state. Our security is now preserved by the standing army. From that viewpoint, militia does mean the standing army. People don't need to muster together for now to fight attacks, and if there is a war, people can join the standing army.

I'm still split on how to interpret this. I'm all for restrictions, but I think normal people with no violent history and whatnot should be allowed to have a gun. I also think the restrictions should be standardized.

On a side note, where does the technology argument come into play? There were no handguns back then. Long-barrel guns were not rifled then, so accuracy was horrible. It's why armies had to move soo close to one another and exchange volleys. On top, they were still using gunpowder, which does not have as great of a range or force either compared to what we have now.

Did the framers anticipate newer technology? From their standpoint, everyone used a muzzle loading musket that could fire at best 3 rounds a minute.

[PeterMP]

So you think they should be able to restrict you to storing them in govt controlled areas?

Yes. That could be a goverment regulation and the Ammendment clearly allows for that to the point of saying not just regulated but "well regulated"

[Thiebear]

I understand that, and it's a good point, but what about the preceding "well regulated".
It would seem to me that even in the context of the meaning of the word "militia" in the 1780s "well regulated" still would mean the same.
Is this simple registry of the guns, of eligible men, or is this mean that these citizens must act as a single fighting force at least part of the time like the Guard does?
~Bang


The problem with the above theory is:
Every time a group consolodates to create a well organized group of able bodied people outside of the government: they get waco'd, rubyridged, etc.

So to act as a single fighting force means the ATF will destroy you.

Or does being a member of the NRA count?

[Popeman38]

As someone pointed out, I think the "well-regulated" clause is the sticking point for most people. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.

If this is true, and the militia was every able-bodied male 18-60, the individual had to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Well regualted is covered by the Selective Service.:2cents:

[Popeman38]

Yes. That could be a goverment regulation and the Ammendment clearly allows for that to the point of saying not just regulated but "well regulated"But the govt could then deny access to the arms and prevent the citizens from overthrowing a tyrannous govt. Defeats thge entire purpose of bearing arms.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.

If this is true, and the militia was every able-bodied male 18-60, the individual had to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Well regualted is covered by the Selective Service.:2cents:


No, no, no. You can't say that there is a right to a well-regulated militia which gives individuals the right to bear arms, and ALSO provides for the selective service. That is not consistent.

The second amendment did not establish TWO rights. That is really pressing it.

[PeterMP]

But the govt could then deny access to the arms and prevent the citizens from overthrowing a tyrannous govt. Defeats thge entire purpose of bearing arms.

The second ammendment mentions overthrowing a tyrannous goveremnt :whoknows:

[Popeman38]

The second ammendment mentions overthrowing a tyrannous goveremnt :whoknows:No, but it mentions maintaining a free state. And if the govt becomed tyrannous, there is no longer a free state. They never mention that the threat will be external. :2cents:

[DarrellsMyHero28]

No, but it mentions maintaining a free state. And if the govt becomed tyrannous, there is no longer a free state. They never mention that the threat will be external. :2cents:

Its too bad the far left nuts are anti-guns.

They could have made a case that Bush was a tyrant and just overthrown his sorry ass.

Then we could have free health care, replace the DoD with the Department of Peace, weed for everyone and love would reign supreme!

:laugh:

[Popeman38]

No, no, no. You can't say that there is a right to a well-regulated militia which gives individuals the right to bear arms, and ALSO provides for the selective service. That is not consistent.

The second amendment did not establish TWO rights. That is really pressing it.My reference to the Selective Service was to point out that we have a well regulated militia (militia defined using the 1776 definition).

If the govt called the militia (again, 1776 definition) to defend the state, the private citizen would supply their own arms. If the individuals did not have a privately owned arms, what would they defend the state with?

[bschurm]

It is interesting how people can interpret 27 words with four punctuation marks so differently.

It was reported yesterday that the Supreme Court went so far as to include a dictionary when debating this case. So let's break it down as they did looking at the punctuation marks included because the punctuation marks are what give the ammendment the structure that ultimately dictates the true meaning.

A well regulated Militia,

The first phrase in the ammendment we have a group of able-bodied males who should be controlled by a rule or principle.

***important to note the comma placed there does not introduce a new thought, it introduces a supporting idea.

being necessary to the security of a free state,

I think this is fairly self explanatory. I think it means that we need Militia to ensure our freedom.

This next part of the ammendment is the controversial issue.

the right of people to keep and bear arms,

First off, what do the commas here signify? Are there two separate thoughts? Or does it simply imply that the previous supporting statement is over and the Miltia statement needs to be included here?

If it is indeed two separate thoughts, 1. A Militia - 2. people to keep and bear arms, then it is obvious that both should be regulated. It means that a Militia is to be regulated and separately the right to keep and bear arms should be regulated. If this is the case, why didn't they include the word AND between militia and people?

Or does it mean that the Militia is the one that needs to have the ability to keep and bear arms not the individual?


I am of the belief that there are two separate statments in there. The grammar used suggests there are two separate thoughts pertaing to Militia and People. It states that the Militia should be regulated and People keeping and bearing arms should be regulated.

The Supreme Court should have voted 9-0 on this. But it is nice to see they made the correct decision, regardless.

[Thiebear]

^^^^ dont forget People was capitalized
if you're going to parse punctuation you have to add that also.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

My reference to the Selective Service was to point out that we have a well regulated militia (militia defined using the 1776 definition).

If the govt called the militia (again, 1776 definition) to defend the state, the private citizen would supply their own arms. If the individuals did not have a privately owned arms, what would they defend the state with?

Well, that is an argument about what the intent of the founders was. And as I've said, its not a bad argument.

However, to say that alone does not answer the question "who does the Second Amendment give rights to?" That was the question: is it a right of the people, or is it a right of the State to have a militia in a way in which they deem necessary. That is, "does the Amendment say that all people have the right to have arms," or does it say that "the State has a right to have a well regulated militia," or does it say that the State has the right to determine how to regulate arms.

So, asking "who would have provided the arms," is really begging the question. Because the question that was asked is do the individuals have a right to have arms, or does the State have the right to say that people can have arms.

[PeterMP]

No, but it mentions maintaining a free state. And if the govt becomed tyrannous, there is no longer a free state. They never mention that the threat will be external. :2cents:

But it does give the goverment the right to 'well regulate'.

[GibbsFactor]

But it does give the goverment the right to 'well regulate'.

Only as people see fit.

It's hard to talk militia today since in the time of the framing, there was no military.

I think everyone liked the idea of the 2nd amendment back then, they just fought a war because of the ability to have a militia.

Once the military was formed under Adams, what was a militia needed for moving forward?

I argue that just because we have a standing army, the ideal of a militia must remain, even if never organized just to keep those in charge honest.

[JohnLockesGhost]

I'd only add to the conversation that the founders didn't think of rights as belonging to groups, but to individuals. So it's impossible for the right to bear arms to be a collective right.

All rights are individual rights. How would a collective even exercise its rights?

[PeterMP]

Only as people see fit.

As expressed as through their elected officials.

[KevinthePRF]

Gun owners=No importance whatsover

Gun control advocates=Exclusively important

Any questions?

[Burgold]

I'd only add to the conversation that the founders didn't think of rights as belonging to groups, but to individuals. So it's impossible for the right to bear arms to be a collective right.

All rights are individual rights. How would a collective even exercise its rights?

That's an interesting point/argument. I wonder if it's true?

We do know that for the founders all men being equal and having equal rights was not quite true. Rights were granted differently based on gender and race, and for a number of founders who didn't get their way... land ownership.

[Popeman38]

However, to say that alone does not answer the question "who does the Second Amendment give rights to?" That was the question: is it a right of the people, or is it a right of the State to have a militia in a way in which they deem necessary. That is, "does the Amendment say that all people have the right to have arms," or does it say that "the State has a right to have a well regulated militia," or does it say that the State has the right to determine how to regulate arms.Again, if you define militia in todays terms you change the intent of the amendment. It was designed to give individuals the right to keep and bear arms because a militia then was able-bodied male who owned arms and brought them with them when called.

[Darth Tater]

The militia clause is very important. It is one of the items that proves the anti-government leanings of the framers as the amendment is intended to provide a protection against the almost dead-certainty of tyrannical democratic government.

[Teller]

I think that this clause is the big troublemaker for people trying to interpret the second amendment. How important, how relevent, is the "militia" clause? What does it mean in a modern context?

Should the clause be ammended to remove well-regulated militia?

We'll acknowledge the "militia" clause, when you guys acknowledge the words "Congress shall make no law..."

If one limits scope. So does the other. If one is taken literally, then so must the other.

To pick and choose is dishonest, IMO.

[JohnLockesGhost]

I think restricting the right to bare arms is a terrible slippery slope.

Next liberals will be going after bare feet, and, heaven forbid, bare midriffs.

[Teller]

I think restricting the right to bare arms is a terrible slippery slope.

Next liberals will be going after bare feet, and, heaven forbid, bare midriffs.

It's like they've barely given any thought to how unbearable that would be.

:silly:

[JohnLockesGhost]

It's like they've barely given any thought to how unbearable that would be.

:silly:
Out of my cold, bare hands!

[Burgold]

We'll acknowledge the "militia" clause, when you guys acknowledge the words "Congress shall make no law..."

If one limits scope. So does the other. If one is taken literally, then so must the other.

To pick and choose is dishonest, IMO.

I was honestly looking for an academic examination of the importance of the clause in this thread, not really looking to condemn. I do agree that we all pick and choose which verses we like based on our preferences and philosophies. And also think that even though we all do this, it is dangerous.



I think restricting the right to bare arms is a terrible slippery slope.

I think you may be right. My aversion to guns has much more of an emotional, than a logical or legal basis. As I explained once before, my aversion is based on the greatest bit of wisdom my dad ever shared with me.

When he was teaching me to drive he said-

"Andrew, I trust you. It's all those other idiots out there I don't trust."

And that's exactly the reason I believe in gun control. I may trust you. You seem responsible and have a good head on your shoulders. It's all those idiots out there that I don't trust to have a gun.

Ironically, I realize the logic also extends the other way. Because you don't trust all those other idiots, you need a gun, but I think my way of thinking is safest. If no one has a gun except me the world would be a safe place (and all of you would do my bidding... mwhahahahaha)

Next liberals will be going after bare feet, and, heaven forbid, bare midriffs.[/QUOTE]


Out of my cold, bare hands!

Entirely unfair being your own set-up man. :laugh:

[stevenaa]

As someone pointed out, I think the "well-regulated" clause is the sticking point for most people.


Why? Why can't an armed militia of private citizens, with private arms and standing against a tyrannical force be regulated by private Citizens. Why can't they stand well organized and regulated by leader of men who rise in the shadows of a government that defies the constitution and seeks to limit our freedoms? Why does it imply it should be regulated by the government?

[Burgold]

Why? Why can't an armed militia of private citizens, with private arms and standing against a tyrannical force be regulated by private Citizens. Why can't they stand well organized and regulated by leader of men who rise in the shadows of a government that defies the constitution and seeks to limit our freedoms? Why does it imply it should be regulated by the government?

I don't think that's the argument some are making. I think it's that this militia needs to have some kind of formal structure, be it civilian or governmental. To give an absurd example (well, absurd to me), if the Boy Scout local chapters declared themselves militias... and developed a set of rules and code of arms conduct, then they would be a well armed militia. More seriously, if a neighborhood watch organized to prevent local crime. I think you could call that a well-organized militia and it might even be close to what JohnLocke was calling the 1776 definition.

[Larry]

IMO, I see two possible ways to interpret that sentence.


It explains why the people must have arms: It's the only way to repel the Redcoats. If so, then it could be interpreted as being the only portion of the entire Constitution that has a build-in "expiration date". When the nation no longer needs armed citizens to defend our borders, then the clause no longer applies.
Or, it's simply an explanation of one reason why the right must be preserved. A preamble, so to speak.


I really think the evidence leans towards option 2. It's circumstantial evidence, I'll admit. But in the absence of a clear label that says "this phrase is meaningless", circumstantial evidence is what you've got to look at.

I'd say the #1 piece of evidence is those words "the Right of the People". That, to me, says that they thought of being armed was a fundamental right, one of the many that people had before governments came along. To me, that wording is almost good enough, by itself, to make it clear that they didn't intend the 2nd to have an expiration clause.

#2: Frankly, the Framers never intended the US to have the kind of military we have today. IMO, they wouldn't have put an expiration clause in the 2nd for the simple reason that the present state of the US military would have been inconceivable to them. You might as well wonder why they didn't include instructions on how to contact extraterrestrials.

#3: A lot of the Framers left personal writings that, IMO, make it clear what their views were on the proper relationship between the People and their Government.

In short, I don't see any reason to assume that the Framers intended the 2nd to expire. (Other than the (IMO, logical) argument of "then why'd they put it in there?")

[Burgold]

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that a group like a neighborhood watch is exactly what they had in mind in terms of a militia.