What Does the Second Amendment Really Say?

[Mudcat]

Before we get to the discussion, let me get this out the way that this is not a topic intended to be about gun control. Rather it is about the constitutional amendment and what it says. Because, let's face it, the wording isn't exactly clear.

Here it is, as ratified by the states and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson:

"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."
​

For two centuries it was accepted that the amendment had two clauses, the first pertaining to militias and the second pertaining to the ownership and that the first trumped the second. Meaning that the ownership of firearms was secondary to maintaining well regulated militias and that private ownership of firearms is not what it guarantees and not what it was intended for.

It is this interpretation I most agree with. The founding fathers were not stupid people and understood that firearms are dangerous weapons and not everyone is suited to own and operate one.

 

[elbe]

Using my fancy english language skills (which isn't easy considering how poorly that sentence was written) it seems to me that the militia part is the reasoning behind the second part and that, since we no longer do the well regulated militia thing, we should probably reevaluate the necessity and/or reasons for the second part.

The courts appear to have ruled that the militia part is superfluous, so I guess that's the closest thing we'll get to a reevaluation.

So, I guess as a response to the poll options, I would say it does both. Because of the need for a militia it guarantees private gun ownership, without the militia it (the amendment as written) does not.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Using my fancy english language skills (which isn't easy considering how poorly that sentence was written) it seems to me that the militia part is the reasoning behind the second part and that, since we no longer do the well regulated militia thing, we should probably reevaluate the necessity and/or reasons for the second part.

The courts appear to have ruled that the militia part is superfluous, so I guess that's the closest thing we'll get to a reevaluation.

Just because we do not currently need a militia doesn't mean we won't need one again. The world may very well look very different a hundred years from now.

 

[elbe]

Just because we do not currently need a militia doesn't mean we won't need one again. The world may very well look very different a hundred years from now.

Also true, but I'm not sure how what I wrote says otherwise.

 

[lobosrul]

Before we get to the discussion, let me get this out the way that this is not a topic intended to be about gun control. Rather it is about the constitutional amendment and what it says. Because, let's face it, the wording isn't exactly clear.

Here it is, as ratified by the states and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson:

"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."
​

For two centuries it was accepted that the amendment had two clauses, the first pertaining to militias and the second pertaining to the ownership and that the first trumped the second. Meaning that the ownership of firearms was secondary to maintaining well regulated militias and that private ownership of firearms is not what it guarantees and not what it was intended for.

It is this interpretation I most agree with. The founding fathers were not stupid people and understood that firearms are dangerous weapons and not everyone is suited to own and operate one.

YOU may interpret it any way you wish. The founding fathers most certainly did not:

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." - John Adams

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians." - George Mason

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Dessi]

For two centuries it was accepted that the amendment had two clauses, the first pertaining to militias and the second pertaining to the ownership and that the first trumped the second. Meaning that the ownership of firearms was secondary to maintaining well regulated militias and that private ownership of firearms is not what it guarantees and not what it was intended for.

It is this interpretation I most agree with. The founding fathers were not stupid people and understood that firearms are dangerous weapons and not everyone is suited to own and operate one.

I think the growing historical consensus is that the second amendment is not necessarily to allow citizens to defend itself against government tyranny, but to protects states against congressional acts which might disarm the slave patrol ("well regulated militias") and slaveholders.

I don't think slave states would ratify the constitution if they were not guaranteed the firepower needed to suppress slave revolts.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Also true, but I'm not sure how what I wrote says otherwise.

You didn't, I liked your nuance.

 

[uke2se]

I'd say that the amendment pretty much guarantees private gun ownership. I'd also say that the US would do well to abolish the amendment, not that I believe that will happen in any foreseeable future.

ETA: It should be noted that I'm not from the US, and English isn't my first language, but you did ask.

 

[elbe]

You didn't, I liked your nuance.

My mistake, then, I thought you were arguing that I'd meant something else.

 

[tyr_13]

I think the growing historical consensus is that the second amendment is not necessarily to allow citizens to defend itself against government tyranny, but to protects states against congressional acts which might disarm the slave patrol ("well regulated militias") and slaveholders.

I don't think slave states would ratify the constitution if they were not guaranteed the firepower needed to suppress slave revolts.

Interesting. This is the first I've heard of this growing consensus. Did you have evidence of the consensus?

 

[GlennB]

1. The 2A is couched in horrendously ambiguous English. Shame on them.

2. Invalid poll. On Planet X we grow guns from our hip-tentacles in puberty.

 

[WildCat]

It says neither of those things. As far as private ownership goes it says the government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. It, like the 1st Amendment, does not grant rights it protects rights from government infringement.

 

[Loss Leader]

The poll doesn't have enough options.

In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment has a sunset clause. It guarantees the right to private gun ownership only so long as a citizen's militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

That condition expired at some point between the end of the Civil War (when a standing army was firmly established) and WWI (when weapons were created that made personal rifles irrelevant to modern warfare).

In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment no longer applies. I am aware that my opinion is not accepted by any actual court or tribunal, let alone the Supreme Court.

 

[WildCat]

I think the growing historical consensus is that the second amendment is not necessarily to allow citizens to defend itself against government tyranny, but to protects states against congressional acts which might disarm the slave patrol ("well regulated militias") and slaveholders.

I don't think slave states would ratify the constitution if they were not guaranteed the firepower needed to suppress slave revolts.

That Bogus paper (couldn't resist), is that the history of the 2nd Amendment THEY don't want you to know?

If that was the "growing consensus" back in 1998 it appears to be growing at a glacial pace.

 

[Upchurch]

Define "guarantee". That is a very troublesome word.

 

[Ladewig]

2. Invalid poll. On Planet X we grow guns from our hip-tentacles in puberty.

Maybe I should start a poll on what Planet X option means.

My interpretation is that it means one or more of the following:

The question as stated either
Is unanswerable or unknowable,
Is too silly to answer,
Requires nuances not present in the answer choices,
Is Worded in such a biased manner as to make the poll useless,
Is far from being binary,
Is useless in solving the underlying problem,
Or
Something else not covered in this list.

In this 2nd Amendment poll, I would have voted Planet X.

 

[GlennB]

In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment has a sunset clause. It guarantees the right to private gun ownership only so long as a citizen's militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

That condition expired at some point between the end of the Civil War (when a standing army was firmly established) and WWI (when weapons were created that made personal rifles irrelevant to modern warfare).

In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment no longer applies. I am aware that my opinion is not accepted by any actual court or tribunal, let alone the Supreme Court.

My take on it, in a nutshell.

 

[GlennB]

It says neither of those things. As far as private ownership goes it says the government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. It, like the 1st Amendment, does not grant rights it protects rights from government infringement.

Where did these initial "rights" come from then? God-given in the 11th Commandment?

 

[twinstead]

Where did these initial "rights" come from then? God-given in the 11th Commandment?

According to a lot of gun folks I know, that's exactly where those rights came from

 

[lobosrul]

Where did these initial "rights" come from then? God-given in the 11th Commandment?

According to a lot of gun folks I know, that's exactly where those rights came from

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

The Bill of Rights just enumerates which of these rights the authors held to be unalienable.