The Meaning of the Second Amendment

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Can I take that to mean you have no sinificant objection to my interpretation of the second amendment?

who are the county lieutenants?

I can give you a full history and commentary concerning the miltia circa 1790 and how things have changed since then (you were reading Jefferson's "state of the state" in Virginia).

First, I'd like an answer to my question, if that's not too difficult.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SkyDekker 1,465]

if there are no county lieutenants, then obviously there is no militia, if there is no militia, there can be no members, hence no right to those arms either.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

The second was intended to cover military arms of the "average" infantry soldier.

So why do you draw the line in the RPG, i am sure that the average infantry man have more equipment than that. Like explosives... wether it is a hand granade or C4 (not that the RPG is not, but it is a bit cumbersome). So why would you want to deprive your neighbour from such joy.
Why only infantryman? If we are talking about defending your country from whoever, you would need a navy and an air force. What about WMD?
I am just playing devil´s advocate, but it just shows how there is an agenda and some people uses the 2nd amendment to further it. If you read literally the 2nd amendment, i could, if i was an american citizen, own a figter jet with a nuke in the garage, and you wouldn´t like to be my neighbourgh or anyone else for that matter.
We have the same opinion on the subject, there is some things that shouldn´t be freely available, you draw the line in WMD, i draw the line in guns. Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment does not justify why your "line" is better than mine.

Quote

The Second Amendment Recognizes and Individual Right

There is many individual rights granted by your constitution that are not recognized if some criteria are met, like being a suspect of terrorism. I think that is at least as important as your second amendment yet no one is giving it nearly as much attention.

Quote

Concealed Carry

AFAIK there is not reference to that in the 2nd amendment. This is another case of having an agenda and trying it to further it with the 2nd.
If the true reason for guns was to serve in a militia, your guns could be kept securely locked at home till the moment come, or do you think that you are going to be invaded by surprise while you are at the mall?

[Kennedy 0]

Not only is your overall statement illogical, none of the single connections are true.

Quote

if there are no county lieutenants, then obviously there is no militia,

Not true. Not only does that one attribute of a militia not have to still be true today, it was not true in every state (colony) in the 1780s.

Quote

if there is no militia, there can be no members,

Wrong. The militia is composed of every able-bodied free man aged 18-45, I believe. The US code refers to these men as the unorganized militia. Just because they haven't been called up and don't have standing officers, that doesn't mean the millitia doesn't exist.

Quote

no members, hence no right to those arms either.

Riiiiiiiiiiight, the founding fathers created an amendment which doesn't recognize a right. Sure. You go ahead and stick with that one.


Finally, I'm still waiting for an answer to a simple question.

Quote

Can I take that to mean you have no sinificant objection to my interpretation of the second amendment?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,991]

>the founding fathers created an amendment which doesn't recognize a right.

Amendment 3 does not confer any rights to people. It merely proscribes what the government can do in terms of quartering troops.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

We do hereby and henceforth decree that the right of the people to be free from quartering troops shall not be infringed, blah, blah, blah.

There, is the indirect fashion more to your liking?

ps - your use of proscribe comes across ackwardly. Wouldn't something along the lines of "proscribes the government from..." be more correct?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proscribe

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,991]

>There, is the indirect fashion more to your liking?

"We do hereby and henceforth decree that the right of people to be free from handgun violence shall not be infringed . . ."

The obvious problem with delineating the opposite.

I think you're going about this from the wrong direction. Parsing the second amendment in every possible way is an interesting exercise in semantics, but (I think) misses the point. The bottom line is contained in the tenth amendment - that is, since ownership of guns is not expressly forbidden, that right becomes the right of the states/the people. It is clearly subject to some restrictions; even the NRA does not object to the more reasonable gun laws on the books. That balance between rights and restrictions is fundamental to the whole issue of gun rights.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

In 1781 in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query IX, Thomas Jefferson described the militia: "Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. .... In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. .... The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."

Quote

Not true. Not only does that one attribute of a militia not have to still be true today,

Funny how you get to pick and chose which part of the descriptions you get to keep and which you don't.

Second, since according to your quote the law requires every militia man to provide himself with arms and according to you:

Quote

The militia is composed of every able-bodied free man aged 18-45, I believe

There are some slight problems....not every able bodied free man in the US is armed. According to you, the law says they have to. Since that law has never been enforced, it can be assumed it is not in place, it will be next to impossible to get a conviction.

So, in all reality, not every able free man between those ages is part of the militia, there are no county lieutenants, sounds like this mentioned militia really doesn't exist. From that flows that therefore the right to be armed to be part of this non-existent militia is in question to.

[Botellines 0]

On top of that, no one over 45 should have the right to bear arms according to the 2nd amendment...

[JackC 0]

Quote

The militia is composed of every able-bodied free man aged 18-45, I believe. The US code refers to these men as the unorganized militia. Just because they haven't been called up and don't have standing officers, that doesn't mean the millitia doesn't exist.

If they are unorganized, have never been called up and don't have any standing officers, how can they be considered well regulated?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

"We do hereby and henceforth decree that the right of people to be free from handgun violence shall not be infringed . . ."

I think they already passed that when they made assault, battery, murder, etc illegal. Also, the SCUS is currently deciding just how far the government has to go to enforce its laws, and what liabilities it might have.

Really Bill, I rephrased quartering of soldiers to say the same thing, and you removed anything respecting gun rights and made up some nanny-state amendment. Not exactly the same meaning, now is it?

Quote

I think you're going about this from the wrong direction. Parsing the second amendment in every possible way is an interesting exercise in semantics, but (I think) misses the point. The bottom line is contained in the tenth amendment - that is, since ownership of guns is not expressly forbidden, that right becomes the right of the states/the people. It is clearly subject to some restrictions; even the NRA does not object to the more reasonable gun laws on the books. That balance between rights and restrictions is fundamental to the whole issue of gun rights.

You're right, and gun rights can also find constitutional support at the state level when one combines the militia clauses and the supremacy clause.

However, the second amendment does say a few thigns very clearly, and I wanted to see if anyone could reasonably differ from my interpretation. No one has done so for the gun control side.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Funny how you get to pick and chose which part of the descriptions you get to keep and which you don't.

I didn't pick and choose what to apply. I didn't apply any of it to today. I quoted that to clearly show original intent. The requirement for a man to provide himself and his arms if called is still part of the federal law today.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Fafarman1.html

Congress still controls the militia, and congress still supports a self armed militia, as seen by the Civilian Marksmanship Program and support of the National Matches.

Quote

Second, since according to your quote the law requires every militia man to provide himself with arms and according to you.

There are some slight problems....not every able bodied free man in the US is armed. According to you, the law says they have to. Since that law has never been enforced, it can be assumed it is not in place, it will be next to impossible to get a conviction.

The law no longer clearly requires every man to own firearms, but if called a man is still expected to provide himself and his arms. Remember, Jefferson was commenting on Virginia law and militia, not federal law. Here in the US, there is a distinct difference.

Quote

So, in all reality, not every able free man between those ages is part of the militia, there are no county lieutenants, sounds like this mentioned militia really doesn't exist. From that flows that therefore the right to be armed to be part of this non-existent militia is in question to.

Again, your conclusion is completely wrong. A basic understand of the english language shows the militia clause of the second amendment is the subordinate clause. It is one reason, not the only reason.

As explained above, the characteristics of the state militia in the 1780s do not have to be the same characteristics for a militia today. A simple search or browse through the US Code would tell you that. You would find Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 13, § 311.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

As to how well funcitoning the militia is/could be right now, well, write your congressman. They're in charge of steering that ship.

Personally I wouldn't mind if a few things were required of the populace right now. Most of them could use a good swift kick in the pants.

--------
Unorganized merely refers to the fact that they aren't the National Guard and aren't being called up at the moment. It doesn't mean disorganized.

What does the fact that they haven't been called up have to do with how well they'd function? We should all be thankful that the militia hasn't been called since the 1860s.

Also, though I don't know the details, most (all?) states do have standards and practices to either name or maintain militia officers. It's just not the same everywhere as it was in 1780s Virginia, as skydekker apparently wants it to be.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[waltappel 1]

It occurs to me that what the founding fathers were thinking is pretty much irrelevant--it's what they wrote that counts.

Much has been made of the "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." phrase. Who cares? What if instead, they had written, "Because the sky is blue today, ..."? The phrase apparently explains their reasoning, but it doesn't place a condition on the right granted in the remaining portion of the sentence.

If we really wanted to adhere to their thoughts, we would only own muskets. "We", of course, referring to Caucasion males over the age of 21.

Bottom Line: I think your reasoning is sound, but I don't think the first phrase is relevant.

Guns for everyone!!!

Walt

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

It occurs to me that what the founding fathers were thinking is pretty much irrelevant--it's what they wrote that counts.

Much has been made of the "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." phrase. Who cares? What if instead, they had written, "Because the sky is blue today, ..."? The phrase apparently explains their reasoning, but it doesn't place a condition on the right granted in the remaining portion of the sentence.

If we really wanted to adhere to their thoughts, we would only own muskets. "We", of course, referring to Caucasion males over the age of 21.

Bottom Line: I think your reasoning is sound, but I don't think the first phrase is relevant.

see, that I can't really argue with and agree with. It is the militia argument and some of the arguments that are quite laughable due to the snake like maneuvres needed to bring the argument to current conditions.

There is no militia in current times.

[mnealtx 0]

Just because it hasn't been called up does not mean it does not exist...

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

[Kennedy 0]

Apparently he doesn't believe me that US Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 13, § 311 exists.

Or maybe I should say he doesn't believe Cornell Law.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Why only infantryman? If we are talking about defending your country from whoever, you would need a navy and an air force. What about WMD?
I am just playing devil´s advocate, but it just shows how there is an agenda and some people uses the 2nd amendment to further it. If you read literally the 2nd amendment, i could, if i was an american citizen, own a figter jet with a nuke in the garage, and you wouldn´t like to be my neighbourgh or anyone else for that matter.

If you understand the meaning of a militia, then you understand that it is meant to provide more infantry men. It is not meant to include an entire second army navy and air force. It is meant to provide more meat for the grinder when all else fails.

Quote

We have the same opinion on the subject, there is some things that shouldn´t be freely available, you draw the line in WMD, i draw the line in guns. Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment does not justify why your "line" is better than mine.

Where I draw the line is where the founding fathers did, in their writing and their later explanations. You cannot change the meaning of the written word simply because you choose to chnge the definition to suit your needs.

Quote

There is many individual rights granted by your constitution that are not recognized if some criteria are met, like being a suspect of terrorism. I think that is at least as important as your second amendment yet no one is giving it nearly as much attention.

This is incorrect, and fostered by some a number of misunderstandings. The constitution recognizes the rights of free men. When convicted or indicted some rights are put on hold or revoked while others come into play to protect the accused/convicted.

No one is giving it much attention? Haven't you heard the furor over Gitmo? the masses of people opposed to confiscation wihtout due process? and all the other infractions of civil liberties? Gun rights is just the topic of this thread. None of the others are being ignored, and none are more or less important than this.

Quote

(Concealed Carry)
AFAIK there is not reference to that in the 2nd amendment. This is another case of having an agenda and trying it to further it with the 2nd.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear that I don't use the second amendment to further tha cause of concealed carry, even though that argument can be easily made.

Would you call "keep and bear arms" not related to the idea of owning and carrying firearms?

Quote

If the true reason for guns was to serve in a militia, your guns could be kept securely locked at home till the moment come, or do you think that you are going to be invaded by surprise while you are at the mall?

Once again, the militia clause of the second amendment is a subordinate clause. It is one reason for the right. It is not the only reason. I use the militia clause to explain to people the types of firearms clearly covered by the second amendment. However, militia service is not the only reason for the right, and not the only protected use of arms under the constitution.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[goalie35 0]

Quote

Amendment 3 does not confer any rights to people.

And neither do any of the others. They merely take cognizance of SOME of the rights free people enjoy. Some of the most important ones are enumerated within the first eight amendments; the Ninth and Tenth are there to say "we can't list all your rights here, so anything we haven't said the federal government can do, it can't do!"

"Mr Franklin, what kind of government do we have?"
"A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."

Guess what? We couldn't...

More on topic, a free society would take no notice of whether I carry a weapon or not. They would be concerned only about what I do with it. Prior restraint is slavery disguised.

[Alias 0]

To want the average person to be able to own full auto military weapons is ridiculous! The level of responsibility is just not there.

I'm a lifer in the NRA, a collector, shoot competitively, past NRA Pistol Instructor and have trained citizens for CCP.

Things have changed. As mentioned before, even the NRA reconizes regulations that makes sence.

It seems you are as radical on the pro side as are the radicals on the control side....I guess we need one side to balance the other....still isnt logical to allow military grade weapons to the average citizen

- Like you would really feel safer

Carpe Diem

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

To want the average person to be able to own full auto military weapons is ridiculous! The level of responsibility is just not there.

It seems you are as radical on the pro side as are the radicals on the control side....I guess we need one side to balance the other....still isnt logical to allow military grade weapons to the average citizen

Tell that to the men who wrote the constitution and bill of rights. I never said it fit the (unfortunate?) realities of today, just that that's what the second amendment means.

You could also notice that I'm not out ther suggesting required ownership, or suggesting that WMDs are covered, or any of te truly radical ideas thrown out by extremists.

OK, so you've disagreed with me. What do you think it means? How do you interpret the second amendment? Does it only cover technology that existed when it was written? If so, does that apply to all other amendments?

Or is the constitution "just a good place to start, and kind of an outdated bit of parchment" to you?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[sammer 0]

Quote

To want the average person to be able to own full auto military weapons is ridiculous! The level of responsibility is just not there.

The average person can own "full auto military weapons", he just has to save up a little more $ now days. I'm not aware of this causing any problems to date.

I don't understand how adding 3-shot burst to an AR, or allowing the barrel to be shortened 1.5" would make the firearm any more lethal. Full auto is fun, but it doesn't make a firearm any more lethal.

[Alias 0]

The NRA and other gun groups have consciously steered away from 2nd Amendment arguments and have put money into research hoping to change the legal landscape -- and eventually winning judicial respect for the right to bear arms.

What one may take away from all this is that the 2nd Amendment does not protect either side of this debate. Every gun control law and safeguard for society is going to be challenged by the NRA through the court. NRA lawyers are finding ways to get around the 2nd Amendment while they search for judges who can be "persuaded" that this nation needs to protect the rights of gun owners rather than save the lives of its citizens.

THE NRA IS NOT IN FAVOR OF AVERAGE CITIZENS HAVING FULL AUTO MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS.....REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU INTERPET THE 2ND. And I would say the NRA has spend much energy on the subject. Thus providing a very educated and current look on the subject

At the time of conception, personal and military weapons were very close in effectivness when the 2nd was authored. You would agree times have greatly changed in the two classes of firearms.

I think what it ment and what it means are two different things for two different times and social environments. While I'll agree with personal firearms being legal(second part of the second) I do not think that it is limiting our freedoms as gun owners to have to file for a class 3 to posses "some" military grade weapons.

IT SHOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE AVERAGE CITIZEN. < I guess what you are calling "Militia"

Kind of a stretch in my eyes....

btw....A Class 3 is not like a driving permit....you are giving up many liberties and freedoms by having an application approved.

Does that answer your question on my opinion?

Carpe Diem

[livendive 8]

Without getting too involved, I'll simply state that I believe the second amendment was added so that the populace would remain sufficiently armed to combat our government should it travel too far down the path to tyranny. Given that premise, I believe it should be legal for private citizens to own the same weapons carried by our troops.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

The NRA and other gun groups have consciously steered away from 2nd Amendment arguments

The NRA isn't moving away from second amendment arguments, it is simply bolstering them with other supporting arguments. Do I need to provide you with links where the NRA and other pro gun rights groups mntion the second amendment?

The problem is that we're facing opposition that isn't bound by facts or truth, so the simple meaning of the second amendment does not deter them. Since that is the case, we have to answer every challenge with absolute overkill.

And when you think of the NRA using other arguemnts, it could be because the NRA is interested in more than just things covered by the second: hunting, education, competetion, recreational shooting, and more.

Quote

What one may take away from all this is that the 2nd Amendment does not protect either side of this debate.

Do you really think that the second amendment doesn't recognize the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms?

Quote

Every gun control law and safeguard for society is going to be challenged by the NRA through the court. NRA lawyers are finding ways to get around the 2nd Amendment while they search for judges who can be "persuaded" that this nation needs to protect the rights of gun owners rather than save the lives of its citizens.

Oh, here we go. You blame all guns and all gun owners for crime.

Quote

Things have changed. As mentioned before, even the NRA reconizes regulations that makes sence.

Yes, the NRA recognizes the utility of laws that punish offenders for crimes, without penalizing every gun owner in America.

By that "things have changed" logic, how hard would it be to argue that the first amendment stops at feather pens and printing presses?

Quote

THE NRA IS NOT IN FAVOR OF AVERAGE CITIZENS HAVING FULL AUTO MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS.....

The NRA is working slowly and methodically to regain the gun rights we never should have lost. They have to work in the political realities of the day. Compare the post-Columbine NRA position to the post-Red Lake position. In just fifteen years things have changed enough for the NRA to modify it's stance to further support our rights.

Quote

REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU INTERPET THE 2ND.

I'm still waiting for oyu to tell me exactly what you think the second amendment means.

Quote

At the time of conception, personal and military weapons were very close in effectivness when the 2nd was authored. You would agree times have greatly changed in the two classes of firearms.

They weren't close. They were the same weapons. The idea that there should be separate classes of firearms for the military and the rest of the citizens is a new idea, and one that does not fit with the second amendment. The second amendment meant specifically for citizens to have access to the same weapons as the military (at infantry level, as decided by US v Miller).

Quote

I think what it ment and what it means are two different things for two different times and social environments.

Ah, lovely. More "living breathing document" drivel.

More and more I'm starting to believe you don't give a damn for gun rights, and entered the discussion as a sheep in wolf's clothing.

Quote

While I'll agree with personal firearms being legal(second part of the second) I do not think that it is limiting our freedoms as gun owners to have to file for a class 3 to posses "some" military grade weapons.

What personal firearms do you believe should be legal? How do you draw the line?

You said:

Quote

I do not think that it is limiting our freedoms as gun owners to have to file for a class 3 to posses "some" military grade weapons.

and then:

Quote

btw....A Class 3 is not like a driving permit....you are giving up many liberties and freedoms by having an application approved.

Which is it?

Quote

Does that answer your question on my opinion?

Not at all. It raised far more questions than it answered.

Do you really believe that the second amendment has no place in gun rights vs gun control discussions? What is the second amendment, then, if not a recogniztion of rights?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*