The 2nd Amendment

[Toad]

To the point:

The Second Amendment:
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.


Of course, the when lawyers enter the fray, words can mean anything. So what do these words mean?

"Militia" is usually a big point of contention. Here's a definition from the current US Code:

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

That bold part should be drawing attention from the feminists, no? Discrimination?

The founders intended a clear distinction between "milita" the people at large and organized, standing military forces.


*********
"Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Tench Coxe was America's first Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Commissioner of Revenue, and Purveyor of Public Supplies. He also was a prolific writer, leaving behind a massive collection of papers relating not only to his involvement with and service to the government of early America, but also to his family's commercial interests, his land dealings, his support of the U.S. Constitution, and his views on the nation's fledgling economy.

**********
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... 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.
        --- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764  
*************

Quotes from the Founders During the Ratification Period of the Constitution
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
         ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

*****
[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
         ---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
*******

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
         ---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.
 

[StSanta]

Toad:

You are saying that women do not have the right to bear arms? Unless that are part of the national guard?

Not very fair, let's throw equality out the door  . Why aren't women, who are physically weaker than men, allowed to be able to defend themselves against violent criminals, who tend to be men?

Just sounds a wee bit odd and outdated to my ears  .



------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime

[Toad]

Santa,

No, _I'm_ not saying that. I don't write 'em, I just read 'em.  

The US Code is saying that. Go figure.

I just wonder why our "women's rights" folks haven't jumped on this one yet.

You'll never hear me say that there aren't some things that need to be fixed around here.

I'm just against moronic "quick fixes" that have no substance or result other than to make some people feel good about themselves while the original problem continues.

This, I guess, makes me a "radical".  

[StSanta]

Heh, ok Toad.

Being a radical is fun  



------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime

[leonid]

Toad,
If the 2nd amendment was created as "being necessary to the security of a free State," then if it is to remain effective those arms referred to in that amendment of long ago need to be reassessed.  The reason is simple: should the United Stated government ever take a chronically undemocratic turn, then the military forces of the United States will have no trouble whatsoever crushing a bunch of people with pistols and rifles.  Fully loaded F-15s (god forbid a fully loaded B-52) will be out of range of most semiautomatic pistols and rifles.  Thus, if gunowners really believe the amendment to mean this, then new laws will have to be passed, allowing people to own weapons that would give a chance of defeating the military forces of the United States of America.  This means some very serious weaponry: SAM rockets, portable anitank weapons, heavy machineguns, recoiless rifles.  And if gunowners don't push for something like this, then they're fooling themselves, or taking advantage of a clause so they can plink things out in the woods.

Back in the late 18th century a bunch of guys with muskets were serious trouble for any army.  This context must be tied in with the 2nd amendment, or it is no longer valid.

Of course, the day we start allowing people to own such weaponry is the day I emigrate to Canada, and leave the insanity behind.

[-towd_]

what can you say . it is all confusing as hell. but one point is clear our government abuses power when ever it can. always has always will . and all the b 52s in the world wont stop a dedicated populace with small arms and a bad atitude . ask the vietnamese

stay away from my guns i will vote to keep um and fight if nessisary . but really just want to be left alone.

p.s. two dudes with rifles only killed 130 odd  hevely armed regulars in nam .dont umderestimate the rifle as a wepon

[Toad]

Well, no big sparks on the "militia" aspect. The writings of the framers of the Constitution make it pretty clear that it includs all able bodied men and is specifically not restricted to "standing" armed forces like the Guard.

So, who are the "people"? The following is clipped from: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

because it is clear and to the point. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel  

"The People

This paragraph shouldn't be necessary. That one must explain why the "people" in the Second Amendment means individuals, rather than the state or the people "collectively," is a sad commentary on the intellectual honesty of our day. Where are the quotes from the founders indicating that the right to keep and bear arms is solely a right belonging to the state? None have yet to be brought forth.

The first nine amendments were meant to preserve individual rights. The people are mentioned throughout the Bill of Rights. Were the Founding Fathers so careless in constructing a legal document that they would use the word "people" when they meant the "state?" It is unlikely. Evidence of an individual right to keep and bear arms is presented throughout the Second Amendment section of GunCite, and will not be repeated here. However, additional evidence follows, showing that the "people" means the people as individuals (everyone) rather than some amorphous body or the state.

First, let's look at the Bill of Rights itself. The Fourth Amendment states in part:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
The use of people in the Fourth Amendment obviously indicates an individual right. The Tenth Amendment reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Tenth Amendment above, distinguishes between the states and the people.
Looking at other declarations of rights from the time clearly shows that "the people," in other words everyone, were entitled to certain rights (freemen in those days)."

Next up...there have been 5 Supreme Court cases that dealt with 2nd Amendment rights.

[Spinout]

If a "bunch of people with pistols and rifles" is so defensless against modern weapons, why does every organized army consist (at least in part) of a bunch of people with pistols and rifles?

[leonid]

 

Originally posted by Spinout:
If a "bunch of people with pistols and rifles" is so defensless against modern weapons, why does every organized army consist (at least in part) of a bunch of people with pistols and rifles?

Because, nowadays those "bunch of people with pistols and rifles" in organized armies have things called support assets, like artillery, armor, antitank, antiaircraft.  Oh, and air forces and navies too...

Against that a "bunch of people with pistols and rifles" are pretty much targets.  Or do you disagree?  And if so, give me a logical and valid explanation of why it would not be the case.  I'd like to here it.

[Toad]

Maybe because they wouldn't be willing to use B-52's against insurgents in downtown NYC?

Maybe because using armor in the streets of Chicago would be tough and look bad on CNN?  

Still doesn't change the 2nd Amendment though, does it?

[Hangtime]

 

At some point.. the military would have to choose. "Who's army is it?"

 

[leonid]

 

Originally posted by Toad:
Maybe because they wouldn't be willing to use B-52's against insurgents in downtown NYC?

Maybe because using armor in the streets of Chicago would be tough and look bad on CNN?  

Still doesn't change the 2nd Amendment though, does it?

And how would you know NYC had been bombed if there was martial law, outside of word of mouth?  During martial law CNN would be showing atrocities committed by 'traitorous bands of survivalist gang elements', not M-1 tanks chewing up the roads of Chicago.

As to the 2nd amendment, a major interpretation of it is that it allows the average American the means to maintain a free society.  Nowadays, that means would require a lot more than pistols and rifles, since a standing army is much much more than small arms (though in 1776 this was not the case).  My point is that if one is to uphold the 2nd amendment by this interpretation, then it only stands to reason that the common ownership of various heavy weapons are now in order.  And if, then, people are allowed to own such outrageous weaponry what does that do to us as a people?  As a society?  As a civilized and cultured nation?  It's all just a little too paranoid for me, is what I'm driving at.

Personally, I doubt we'll ever see the day America gives up the gun.  It's too much a part of our culture, and any concerted attempt to remove the gun from the American citizen will only result in widespread violence, which in turn will spark a thousand other causes of various minority and religious groups.  Basically, hell on Earth.

Civilization was an outgrowth of people's yearning for security.  People were tired of being in danger of a raid from an aggressor, and decided to live together within a community.  While this increased their collective security, it also posed some problems, since now a lot of people were in close proximity to each other, which in turn created a lot of tension.  Since the only reason these communities ever came into being was to reduce the level of violence in their lives, a nonviolent method had to be adopted - law and litigation.  Of course, violence outside the community could not be truly controlled, but internal violence had to be dealt with, or the idea of a community was mostly worthless.

When you allow citizens to own firearms, you are implicitly saying that the use of firearms (a very deadly weapon, allowing one to massively damage another living being from significant distances, and with little expenditure in physical energy) is an option within your society.  No matter laws against manslaughter or murder, it's still an option.  To me, this is contrary to the whole concept of civilized society, because it undermines the very basis of civilization - to increase security by reducing violence and promoting nonviolent methods for resolving disputes.

Now, I don't expect to open anyone's eyes with this post, but I just had to get that off my chest.  That's it for me in this thread, but I'll certainly read what anyone else has to say here.

[Tac]

How idiotic. If a nation can't trust its own military, albeit composed of its own citizens, then they give non-military personnel the false security of militias and other useless "defense".

C'mon, the moron with an M-16 at home will have to face a trained soldier who has an m-16, grenades, artillery, other buddies (also trained and with better weapons) if it comes to a "face the army" situation. Look at all the things that happen when gun nuts get followers and barricade 100 or so men into a bunker and shoot it out with the goverment... they get to face light Tanks, helicopters, snipers, soldiers with superior weapons and tactics.

BTW, the poor guys in Vietnam wouldve won in a few months if they had let the military do its thing, rather than have politicians in the middle. Desert Storm was good, not because of technology, but because the fricken politicans stayed away from the military's job.

"Back in the late 18th century a bunch of guys with muskets were serious trouble for any army. This context must be tied in with the 2nd amendment, or it is no longer valid."

This is EXACTLY what the problem is. NRA and other gun geeks hide and look the other way when this FACT is put into their faces.Their responses to this are heavy in claiming "its their right" yada yada yada. Yeah, you own the gun, let me buy a Tank, i'll feel much safer with it at home... just in case I need it. Bleh!

Its just a bunch of people who dont want to give up the power they now have over their fellow citizen's lives (by owning a gun). If they want to shoot something, go to a gun range, rent them, shoot some targets, return the guns, go home.

The USA is full of hillbillies and gun-totting rednecks whining about their right to bear instruments DESIGNED to kill.

The Anti-Tobbacco campaign was a major success..now lets see if the Anti-Gun campaign has the same result. I can only hope!

[Hangtime]

Nope.. Disagree.

The weapons are already in our hands.. and so is the military. Our armorys are stocked and controlled by our neighbors. Members of our community. Tax-payers and citizens from our own towns, guys we went to school with; work with... at the drop of a hat; these guys can and will make the right decision on WHOS army; WHOS amaments they are.

Think it through... would you; an American citizen, and American Soldier, trained to obey LAWFUL ORDERS open fire on the population of the United States? Do you know of any American soldier that would?

Who's Army is it?

 

Hang

[Naso]

I hope you're right Hang...
i pray you're right.