Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment?

[theprestige]

So what is new? Keep calm and carry on is a meme not a law.
If people already have a right you don't need a law to simply repeat that right.

What's new for me is a satisfactory resolution of the militia clause conundrum.

What isn't new for me is the position that the right is not created by the amendment, nor did the authors intend to create it, only to not infringe on it.

---

But I'm not sure understand what you're arguing, here.

If you're arguing that rights do not exist, unless they are first created by some law, I disagree with that position. And as far as I can tell, it's essentially a disagreement about axioms, so there's no point in arguing about it. You believe one thing. I believe another. The best we can do is acknowledge our disagreement, and move on.

On the other hand, the right to free speech, the right to free assembly, and several other rights are all enumerated in our constitution. Do you find all of these clauses objectionable, or just the one about the right to bear arms?

In fact, I suppose I should just ask you directly: Do you believe in a human right to bear arms for self defense and the defense of others?

 

[theprestige]

The militia definitions I have seen all post date the amendment.
What is inescapable however is the amendment gives a purpose of a Militia and a well organised one. Words in this type of thing are carefully considered and you don't tend to find superfluous ones hanging around. They had something in mind they described as a well organised Militia.

"Well regulated" in 1776 is not synonymous with "well organized" in 2024. Or 1924, for that matter. Probably not even 1824. It's synonymous with "well equipped". In the context in which the amendment was drafted, we can interpret the entire passage to mean "people equipping themselves with arms for defense of themselves and their community is their right, and also a good thing for the community, therefore the federal government will not try to prevent them from so equipping themselves."

 

[Thermal]

The militia definitions I have seen all post date the amendment.
What is inescapable however is the amendment gives a purpose of a Militia and a well organised one. Words in this type of thing are carefully considered and you don't tend to find superfluous ones hanging around. They had something in mind they described as a well organised Militia.

As I read it, it's kind of a qualifier for why the government in particular takes a special interest in protecting that right, which is otherwise taken as a given.

Like, the federal government doesn't have any particular need to push or guarantee the practice of a religion, nor do they say much about that right, standalone. But they go out of their way to say that the right to practice a faith shall not be trampled on by the State. Same with 2A, methinks.

Eta: guaranteeing a right is entirely a different animal than guaranteeing the State won't deliberately squash that existing right. I'm reading 2A as the latter.

 

[theprestige]

Ok, but does that not lead to the 2nd amendment not giving any gun rights? If it is saying we won't change the rights you have, where are those rights for all US citizens to own guns codified?

In your heart, Lothian. The rights you believe in are codified first and foremost in your heart. That's why you're able to condemn a government that infringes on rights it doesn't recognize. It's also why you're able to condemn a government for codifying a right you don't believe in.

 

[jt512]

I think the additional context provided by Hercules allows for another interpretation: "People have the right to own arms for defense of themselves and others, and we're not going to infringe upon that."

Under that interpretation, "well-regulated militia" is just old-timey jargon for "people owning guns for defense of themselves and others (as is their right)".

Not according to this article, which of linked before. The body of private citizens was termed the "militia." "A well regulated militia" meant that the process of activating members to serve in an organized, federalized militia should be we efficient and orderly (I've read elsewhere that the 18th century meaning of "regulated" was "organized").

 

[jt512]

So what is new? Keep calm and carry on is a meme not a law.
If people already have a right you don't need a law to simply repeat that right.

If you to ensure that the government doesn't infringe on rights, you need a constitution that prevents them from doing so. You know, like a...Bill of Rights. This is junior high school civics.

 

[arthwollipot]

(I've read elsewhere that the 18th century meaning of "regulated" was "organized").

I've heard this a lot, exclusively from 2nd Amendment advocates. It's essentially a complete change to the meaning of a common word, which I doubt, because "subject to regulation" is a more parsimonious definition of "regulated" than "organised" is. I mean it's right there. English has changed in 300 years, sure, but not so much that regulated did not mean regulated. I can't think of any other word which changed in this way - that the literal reading of the word is the newer meaning.

In every context other than discussions with American advocates of the 2nd Amendment, "regulated" means "subject to regulation".

 

[Thermal]

I've heard this a lot, exclusively from 2nd Amendment advocates. It's essentially a complete change to the meaning of a common word, which I doubt, because "subject to regulation" is a more parsimonious definition of "regulated" than "organised" is. I mean it's right there. English has changed in 300 years, sure, but not so much that regulated did not mean regulated. I can't think of any other word which changed in this way - that the literal reading of the word is the newer meaning.

In every context other than discussions with American advocates of the 2nd Amendment, "regulated" means "subject to regulation".

The Constitutional Center begs to differ.

"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight."

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

 

[arthwollipot]

The Constitutional Center begs to differ.

"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight."

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

I'd be more inclined to support this interpretation if I saw the word used in this way in literally any other context.

 

[Thermal]

I'd be more inclined to support this interpretation if I saw the word used in this way in literally any other context.

Would you feel any less incredulous referring to Oxford, citing the very same usage going back to the 1500s?

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/well-regulated_adj

ETA: I mean, if the context is well-armed, etc, what other contexts would you be looking for beyond talking about militia and soldiers?

 

[arthwollipot]

Would you feel any less incredulous referring to Oxford, citing the very same usage going back to the 1500s?

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/well-regulated_adj

Alas, I can only see a summary, and when I try to click "Meaning and Use" it requires me to purchase a subscription before proceeding.

ETA: I mean, if the context is well-armed, etc, what other contexts would you be looking for beyond talking about militia and soldiers?

Oh, you know, any context other than the 2nd Amendment. I'm not fussy.

 

[jt512]

I've heard this a lot, exclusively from 2nd Amendment advocates. It's essentially a complete change to the meaning of a common word, which I doubt, because "subject to regulation" is a more parsimonious definition of "regulated" than "organised" is. I mean it's right there. English has changed in 300 years, sure, but not so much that regulated did not mean regulated. I can't think of any other word which changed in this way - that the literal reading of the word is the newer meaning.

Is that something you've often tried to think of?

The meaning of the sentence, "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the Security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," seems pretty clear to me: "In order that the federal government can in times of need efficiently form an organized fighting force comprising citizens who have firearms and know how to use them, the government shall not infringe upon the citizens' right to bear and own firearms."

 

[arthwollipot]

Is that something you've often tried to think of?

Not in any context other than the 2nd Amendment, no, which is why I'm fishing for other examples of the phrase "well-regulated" so that I can compare.

 

[jt512]

Not in any context other than the 2nd Amendment, no, which is why I'm fishing for other examples of the phrase "well-regulated" so that I can compare.

Check the OED. It's definition #2 of regulated is, "Of troops, an army, etc.: properly organized; formally constituted into a professional body. Also figurative and in figurative contexts. Obsolete. [Used in this sense from] 1650–1816.

 

[arthwollipot]

Check the OED. It's definition #2 of regulated is, "Of troops, an army, etc.: properly organized; formally constituted into a professional body. Also figurative and in figurative contexts. Obsolete. [Used in this sense from] 1650–1816.

Well, like I said, when I checked the OED it wanted me to pay for a subscription before it would show me a definition.

Merriam-Webster says:

regulate
transitive verb

1 a: to govern or direct according to rule
b (1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2): to make regulations for or concerning

2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to

3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of

(edited for legibility)

It doesn't have an entry specifically for "well-regulated".

If "well-regulated" has a separate definition specifically for the context of armies and the military, then I guess that's fair enough. Seems wrong to me though.

 

[Aridas]

The 2nd Amendment gives Americans and legal residents the right to protect themselves, their families and the public with firearms from violence.

Many Americans are AGAINST this right, and feel we should not be able to defend ourselves with deadly weapons like guns.

Should we repeal this right?

To poke at this without addressing the rest of the thread, just because -

At a fundamental level, I support gun rights to the extent and in the ways that they have an overall positive effect on society, much like I support pretty much any kind of right.

I have little objection to the 2nd Amendment itself and the interpretation that it had for the overwhelming share of US history.

I do have a serious problem with the extremists who acted to redefine it irresponsibly in relatively recent years for political purposes and the many harms to society that such irresponsibility has caused. It's entirely reasonable and understandable for there to be backlash against that irresponsibility and the harms that it has caused, including those who call for gun bans - because what they oppose is not the right to protect, it's the effective right to harm, with the harm being done in reality greatly outweighing the protection offered. So long as the actual problem is dealt with, this wouldn't be much of an issue. So long as the actual problem keeps being exacerbated (as keeps being done by the gun irresponsibility crowd), backlash will follow.

 

[Lothian]

---

But I'm not sure understand what you're arguing, here.

If you're arguing that rights do not exist, unless they are first created by some law, I disagree with that position. And as far as I can tell, it's essentially a disagreement about axioms, so there's no point in arguing about it. You believe one thing. I believe another. The best we can do is acknowledge our disagreement, and move on.

On the other hand, the right to free speech, the right to free assembly, and several other rights are all enumerated in our constitution. Do you find all of these clauses objectionable, or just the one about the right to bear arms?

Sorry for not bringing clear. Gun rights folk often refer to the 2nd amendment as allowing them to have guns. As I understand your argument that does not give any rights, it instead says they won't be taken away. You mention codified rights and that is what I would expect. Guns seems an exception, in it does not appear to be codified. I am trying to understand where it comes from.

In fact, I suppose I should just ask you directly: Do you believe in a human right to bear arms for self defense and the defense of others?

Hard to give one word answers to questions like this. I guess from both sides of the debate. I guess most pro gun people deny the right to arm for self defence to some groups eg, children felling, mentally ill.


I believe in self defense but I think that needs to be proportionate. There is in my view a risk when arming people for self defence that sone could use those arms for the wrong purpose and the more people you arm the more 'bad' people will be armed.
I guess I support arming people to protect a community but doing so by minimising those with arms.

 

[Lothian]

In your heart, Lothian. The rights you believe in are codified first and foremost in your heart. That's why you're able to condemn a government that infringes on rights it doesn't recognize. It's also why you're able to condemn a government for codifying a right you don't believe in.

Ok. Thanks I guess we have reached the point where we differ. You believe that all humans are born with a right to bear arms and the 2nd amendment said that would not be removed.

I don't think such a right exists

 

[Lothian]

If you to ensure that the government doesn't infringe on rights, you need a constitution that prevents them from doing so. You know, like a...Bill of Rights. This is junior high school civics.

I was asking where the right to bear arms comes from if the 2nd amendment doesn't give that right rather it says the right won't be removed.
Happy for you to point to where the right to bear arms is in the bill of rights. .
There is no need to be a twat just because you didn't understand my question.

 

[jt512]

I was asking where the right to bear arms comes from if the 2nd amendment doesn't give that right rather it says the right won't be removed.
Happy for you to point to where the right to bear arms is in the bill of rights. .
There is no need to be a twat just because you didn't understand my question.

There is no need for you to be a "twat" just because you haven't asked a question clearly.

Where does the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from?