2nd ammendment skepticism

[Smiledriver]

Hello,

I have noticed that an ever present fixture in the gun control debate in the U.S. is an argument over the intention of the 2nd ammendment to the American constitution.

The ammendment seems to be viewed as either...

1.) That well regulated miltias are crucial to the security of a free state therefore the people must be free to keep and bear arms so as to be able to raise up such militias in short order to aid in the common defence.

2.)...or well regulated militas are crucial to the security of a free state therefore the militias (in contrast to the people) should be free to keep and bear arms to aid in the common defence.

The second of these interpretations seems to me to be dead wrong and flys in the face of everything I have ever read about the American founding and the much older idea of an armed citizenry.

My question is this: How old is this contraversy? How far back can we go and see a lively debate over the intention of the 2nd ammendment? Is it actually a argument meant to get at the founder's intention or a political ploy to forward one political agenda or another?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Tiktaalik]

The way I've heard it phrased is, is it an individual right or a collective right? I've heard people expound upon it from both sides of the debate.

I decided I couldn't personally make a decision until I knew what the founders were thinking, without relying upon the interpretations of others. So I bought a bunch of Thomas Paine, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and some other writings of influential individuals around that time, and I'm slowly working my way through them paying special note to any comments regarding the right to bear arms.

So far I reserve judgment...

 

[rwguinn]

The way I've heard it phrased is, is it an individual right or a collective right? I've heard people expound upon it from both sides of the debate.

I decided I couldn't personally make a decision until I knew what the founders were thinking, without relying upon the interpretations of others. So I bought a bunch of Thomas Paine, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and some other writings of influential individuals around that time, and I'm slowly working my way through them paying special note to any comments regarding the right to bear arms.

So far I reserve judgment...

I've always wondered at the convoluted thought process that brings folks to the conclusion that in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, every mention of "The People" is accepted as meaning the Citizens and residents of the country, except in this one (1) instance, where it doesn't...

 

[quixotecoyote]

I've always wondered at the convoluted thought process that brings folks to the conclusion that in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, every mention of "The People" is accepted as meaning the Citizens and residents of the country, except in this one (1) instance, where it doesn't...

I've never seen anyone (eta: excluding random internet wackos, who will say anything) actually hold that position. Only pro-gun people claiming to be astounded by those egnurnt libruls. Could be wrong of course, but it smells of well worn straw.

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.


It's not that "the people" doesn't refer to the citizens and residents of the country, it's that the amendment starts off by saying that militias are important, so people should have the right to keep and bear arms. Since militias are no longer important, the logic of the sentence suggests the people should no longer have the right to keep and bear arms.

The construction "X is important, therefore Y is a right" creates the right of Y as contingent on the importance of X.

 

[WildCat]

No longer a debate, it's settled law now.

 

[quixotecoyote]

No longer a debate, it's settled law now.

Until another court takes it up and the dissenting opinion becomes the majority opinion. Then that will become settled law.

Until another court takes that up and the dissenting opinion becomes the majority opinion. Then that will become settled law.

Until another court takes that up and the dissenting opinion becomes the majority opinion. Then that will become settled law.

Until another court takes that up and the dissenting opinion becomes the majority opinion. Then that will become settled law.

Until another court takes that up and the dissenting opinion becomes the majority opinion. Then that will become settled law.

 

[JamesDillon]

I think it's fairly unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule Heller's fundamental conclusion that the Second Amendment right is an individual rather than a collective one in the foreseeable future, not least because the Court's conservative wing is not likely to lose its majority at least during the Obama administration. Future litigation will more likely be fleshing out what the individual right means-- what kind of state regulation and control over firearms is constitutional given the Court's decision in Heller?

 

[Alex Libman]

Though they happened to be right, what a bunch of aristocratic slave-owners put on paper hundreds of years ago is irrelevant.

Weapon ownership is a natural right, an extension of one's right to produce and keep any other form of property. You can regulate it through voluntary agreements (i.e. you come to Singapore, you leave your gun and your pot behind), but there is a natural need for people to defend themselves (as opposed to waiting for cops to pick up their dead bodies).

Armed societies have been shown to reduce crime, while societies where government tries to forces itself to have a monopoly on defense become defenseless, and often tyrannical.

As technology progresses, natural incentives will lead to guns being replaced with non-lethal / less-lethal weapons to incapacitate the aggressor.

 

[Smiledriver]

It's not that "the people" doesn't refer to the citizens and residents of the country, it's that the amendment starts off by saying that militias are important, so people should have the right to keep and bear arms. Since militias are no longer important, the logic of the sentence suggests the people should no longer have the right to keep and bear arms.

The construction "X is important, therefore Y is a right" creates the right of Y as contingent on the importance of X.

I would suggest this proposition is far from being established as true.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I would suggest this proposition is far from being established as true.

I suggest you need to do a lot more than that to argue against it.

Offer an actual argument instead of assertion, for example.

The supreme court interprets what the constitution means. Different courts interpret it differently. That this one says this now doesn't prevent us (or anyone else) from arguing that other interpretations are better/worse, only that other interpretations do not carry the force of law.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I think it's fairly unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule Heller's fundamental conclusion that the Second Amendment right is an individual rather than a collective one in the foreseeable future

Oh sure, America's been trending towards individual gun rights for a while and court decisions have been following the sentiment, generally.

I just think the interpretations of the second amendment that see it as granting an individual right divorced from the rationale of a militia are stretched, as did Justice Stevens in the dissent.

 

[Smiledriver]

Offer an actual argument instead of assertion, for example.

The supreme court interprets what the constitution means. Different courts interpret it differently. That this one says this now doesn't prevent us (or anyone else) from arguing that other interpretations are better/worse, only that other interpretations do not carry the force of law.

Alright, an armed citizenry stands as a bullwark against tyranny. We are guarenteed our rights in our various founding documents, however, we know that these rights can be abridged or ignored by those in power. Thus, right to keep and bear arms is truly what Charelton Heston called a first among equals i.e, this right gives us the power to ensure the others. Tyranny is eternal, we are never free from it or the threat of it. We have the right to defend ourselves not just from personal harm, but the taking of our property and our freedom.

 

[JamesDillon]

Alright, an armed citizenry stands as a bullwark against tyranny. We are guarenteed our rights in our various founding documents, however, we know that these rights can be abridged or ignored by those in power. Thus, right to keep and bear arms is truly what Charelton Heston called a first among equals i.e, this right gives us the power to ensure the others. Tyranny is eternal, we are never free from it or the threat of it. We have the right to defend ourselves not just from personal harm, but the taking of our property and our freedom.

But if that's the argument, then isn't the Second Amendment obsolete? It's not much of a bulwark when tyranny has modern military technology and you've got a few hunting rifles. It seems like you have to either argue for a constitutional right to maintain a personal nuclear arsenal, or acknowledge that if this was the principal purpose of the Second Amendment, it has long since outlived its usefulness.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I think Cecil Adams did a pretty good treatment of the subject in his Straight Dope column. Check out is article on the Second Amendment

 

[quixotecoyote]

But if that's the argument, then isn't the Second Amendment obsolete? It's not much of a bulwark when tyranny has modern military technology and you've got a few hunting rifles. It seems like you have to either argue for a constitutional right to maintain a personal nuclear arsenal, or acknowledge that if this was the principal purpose of the Second Amendment, it has long since outlived its usefulness.

Exactly, although you don't even have to go so far as a nuclear arsenal.

If the second amendment is to provide for the possibility of armed revolution and overthrow of the government, then explosives and rocket launchers and mobile SAM equipment and mortars should be the subject of debate, not handguns.

I suppose you could argue that you're trying to drive a thin wedge, but even the most gun-loving hunters I know tend to agree that most weapons like that should be kept out of the general market.

I think a more reasonable interpretation was that the armed citizens militia was meant to protect the government, not destroy it. eta: Given that the founders had just fought off the British to protect the newly formed American government, i think it's reasonable to think they had outsiders in mind, not themselves.

 

[Dragoonster]

[/B][/I]It's not that "the people" doesn't refer to the citizens and residents of the country, it's that the amendment starts off by saying that militias are important, so people should have the right to keep and bear arms. Since militias are no longer important, the logic of the sentence suggests the people should no longer have the right to keep and bear arms.

But militias are important, to local security and crisis intervention. They're now called the National Guard. And while it appears that they + the regular armed forces are capable of meeting any threat (or have enough arms), it may be necessary in a quick-acting crisis for citizens to join it, using their own arms. This was more important when the US wasn't as powerful as it is now, and embroiled in actual continental warfare, but the idea may still be sound.

I guess this isn't how the Constitutional or rhetorical arguments go, but that's how I've seen it and it seems a reasonable explanation for why the Amendment was put in, historically. Not to give citizens a chance to fight against a corrupt US government, but to quickly form to fight a foreign invader or rebellion on behalf of the US governement.

ETA: Yeah, as in your last paragraph above. Didn't see your post while I was writing mine.

 

[JamesDillon]

Given that the founders had just fought off the British to protect the newly formed American government, i think it's reasonable to think they had outsiders in mind, not themselves.

I guess you could read history either way; Thomas Jefferson did argue for a God-given right to secession from tyranny in the Declaration of Independence and the principal theme of the U.S. Constitution is putting checks on the federal government's ability to become tyrannical, so I think it's fair to say that the Founders were somewhat suspicious of governmental power generally and cognizant of the need to prevent the United States from turning tyrannical over time. That said, for the reasons stated in my prior post it seems to me that the right to keep small arms just isn't an effective check on governmental overreaching any more, if it ever was. For better or worse, the real checks on tyranny these days include a committment to the rule of law and democratic decisionmaking, an informed and engaged public, and, to no small extent, good faith and integrity on the part of elected officials. The right to bear arms, or lack thereof, seems pretty irrelevant in comparison.

 

[Aerik]

I've come to learn that he 2nd amendment necessarily applies to individuals, as the Constitution and it's amendments, including the bill of rights, is not in the business of enumerating the rights of institutions. Corporate personhood is a sham, and so is any idea that the Constitution gives groups of people rights rather than individuals.

This stems from a singular issue: it is illegitimate to apply the law as if the people are consenting to government. You can't consent when you're underage, so simply existing here doesn't count, and it was impossible for every first citizen of the United States to have consented to the ratification of the Constitution. If you read the Constitution and dive into some studies on it, you'll find that what the Constitution does is acknowledge rights of persons, rather than create them. For the branches of government and its institutions, they have not rights, but functions.

All this stems from the fact that individuals have rights, but not groups. Remember this at all times.

So the 2nd amendment deems that we have the rights to militia. Because only individuals are endowed with rights, there is no other way to enable the right to bare arms except to allow individuals the right to own guns privately. For a group, a formed militia to express this right, it has to first exist. It's illegitimate, absurd even, to talk about the rights of a thing that does not always exist (and in fact rarely ever does).

Does the second amendment prescribe that we may gather and form a militia, but only the government or some other institution/business can supply the arms? Absolutely not. That would be giving the government the right to create and nullify militia. That is clearly not the intent of the 2nd amendment by any stretch of the imagination.

The pre-requisite of a militia is private gun ownership. Anything else is a military. That's just the way it is.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Though they happened to be right, what a bunch of aristocratic slave-owners put on paper hundreds of years ago is irrelevant.

Weapon ownership is a natural right, an extension of one's right to produce and keep any other form of property. You can regulate it through voluntary agreements (i.e. you come to Singapore, you leave your gun and your pot behind), but there is a natural need for people to defend themselves (as opposed to waiting for cops to pick up their dead bodies).

How do you come to the conclusion that gun ownership is a natural right?

Thus, right to keep and bear arms is truly what Charelton Heston called a first among equals i.e, this right gives us the power to ensure the others.

My father-in-law, a lifetime member of the NRA, quoted that to me as well. I responded, "Well, if it's the most important, why isn't it the 1st Amendment?"

 

[Smiledriver]

But if that's the argument, then isn't the Second Amendment obsolete? It's not much of a bulwark when tyranny has modern military technology and you've got a few hunting rifles. It seems like you have to either argue for a constitutional right to maintain a personal nuclear arsenal, or acknowledge that if this was the principal purpose of the Second Amendment, it has long since outlived its usefulness.

No, have you not heard of the Cuban revolutiuonaries defeating the Batista gov't. The Viet Kong rebels, the Mujadeen fighters and so on and so on. Guerilla armies have no need for more than semi-auto rifles and the support of the people.