Second Amendment
 

What exactly does "a well regulated Militia" mean in the constitution? That normal people have arms? Are any of these "militias" active? I want to know more. I think that the Second Amendment rules and we should have it in Sweden to. :thumbsup:

This is always a hot topic and has been debated for years and year. I guess it really depends on who you asks and how it is interpreted.

The way I read into the 'well regulated Militia' and how it's implemented is how it currently is. States have their National Guard, and Federally, there is the Active Duty military and the Reserves.

It's a 1791 term. In today's language, some say it means "a well-provisioned" militia - that is, everyone shoudl have a gun so that if they have to resist an encroaching federal govt, they'll be able to do it. Others say it's "well trained" - if you have your own gun, chances are you'll know how to use it and will be useful in a militia. And yet others say it provides for state control of how you get to use your gun - which in 2008 isn't a crazy reading of the words, but I gotta tell you it's inconsistent with the rest of the bill of rights to read it that way.

According to the current Supreme Court, there is no "well regulated militia". They left that out that part of the definition. They allowed the right to keep and bear arms.
At the time it was written (I believe), "well regulated" meant descplined, or controlled. That is why we have police forces in local, state and national levels.
Also, at the time, youngsters were trained on the proper use of weapons, i.e. you shoot the deer for food; you do not shoot the dog for sport. Or to put it in todays verbiage - you shoot to defend yourself; you do not shoot to take someone's money.
Personally, I have no problem w/gun ownership (w/training). You don't know who may show up in your house in the middle of the night. (Wait-most of those have their own guns used against them.) But I also have conflicts w/current state laws (as my own in FL) that flaunt it. Why should someone be allowed to take a gun to work? Is he that threatened? If you are that scared, get another job. If you are that scared of the area you work, move.

You must look at the time it was written. The US had just defeated the greatest world power (albeit with help), with an Army that consisted of little more than farmers and merchants.

The "Well Regulated Militia" has been a problem judicially for some time. The Well-Regulated part gives rights to states to put limits on said paramilitary bodies. However, they chose the word usage Militia for a reason.

mi·li·tia Audio Help /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-lish-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

They did NOT state Well-Regulated Army. Militia's are citizen organizations. Those who point to the National Guard as said militia are only partially correct, as during the forming of the Constitution the US Government did not supply the majority of weapons used during the Revolution.

I'm sorry to continue, but simply asking the "well-regulated militia" part can not be asked without the second part of the Amendment. "...The right to bear arms shall not be infringed." This shatters the argument of those who claim the militia's are for National Guard and better answers what the "militia" is to consist of.

Definitions on the Web of militia as relates to the above:

☆ in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not already members of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia

Civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army

The entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service


Edit: There are many defs of militia to mean any group of armed citizens, sometimes groups that oppose the govt. I dont think that is what our forefathers had in mind. They were operating under very different circumstances, technologies, time factors when they penned our Constitution. I believe the above defs in order of importance might have been more to their way of their thinking today. Note that the Consitution also states "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia". Not just a or any or an all citizens militia, but the militia. We normally operate under the first def.

Second edit: I have to say I dont want normal citizens to have the right to bear arms unless there would be a true emergency where we were being actively invaded as a country, where enemy soldiers might be walking our streets killing our citizens randomly. Maybe then. I believe this is what those old dudes might have been thinkin. Note the words "well regulated" in the OP. Having millions running around with guns in their pockets really cant ever be well regulated can it?

At the time the constitution was ratified, a 'well-regulated' militia consisted of the people, trained to arms and martial exercise. The people meaning farmers, merchants, everyday average citizens. It wasn't until 1903 that a Kansas Supreme Court did something totally unorthodox and unethical for a judiciary body. They decided to look at the right to keep and bear arms as an 'original question' and redefined militia to mean state armed forces. The rest, as they say, is reinterprative history.

so presumably there's no legal basis for disarming gangs in a city, based on this reading of the second amendment--i mean, what's the difference between a militia and a gang, really, except that presumably one approves at some level of a militia and does not approve of a gang?


so let's see: the constitution was ratified in 1791.
this is 2008.
what's changed in the interim?
well, one thing that's changed is the development of a modern state. and one of the things that defines the modern state is its "monopoly on legitimate violence"....
maybe the second amendment is among the more entirely time-bound elements of the constitution, speaking *entirely* to 1791 and not at all to conditions that obtain now.

RB, the problem with your approach is that there hasn't been a constitutional amendment getting rid of the 2nd Am. That's how, in this country, we get rid of outdated or unworkable provisions like the restriction of the franchise to men or the prohibition on an income tax or the method of electing a president. Saying we should ignore a law because we don't like it or think it's outdated is the opposite of the rule of law.

As far as the militia goes, the US Code (if it's important, I'll dig out the provisions) defines both unorganized and organized militias. Each is treated separately. You and I (lord help us both) are both members of the unorganized militia, like it or not (except that I might not be considered able-bodied or sound of mind :lol:). Unless you really think it's impossible for the federal government ever to become oppressive - and surely you can't believe that, not after the hue and cry that has been raised about the current President's policies - the second amendment is the citizenry's backup.

And btw, I happen to support a fair degree of gun control (specifically, licensing and registration with periodic proficiency and safety tests as part of the licensing and registration process). That is a separate question from whether the 2nd amendment protects an individual right or is "outdated."

i wasn't actually suggesting that the amendment be ignored--i was just thinking about it as i wrote the post--bouncing off the scalia decision to some extent--this notion of "original meaning" and such.

i do wonder about the question of time-boundedness of this amendment, though--that it speaks to a very specific situation that has been erased in all ways but for the amendement itself. part of the logic of a precedent-based system would be to move to generate new fits for elements in the starting document, until that element is eliminated (if it is).

the principle that runs against this is basically what you raised--that to eliminate it would be to also say that the state cannot become oppressive--personally, i don't think that a bunch of people having guns are any more or less able to react coherently to that situation than a bunch of people who do not have them, because the reaction itself is political--and guns are simply one of a number of possible instruments that can be used in the context of a project that is oriented by a political view/position--they are no in themselves a politics--any more than a toaster is. they're just things.

so for example, say that we are in a soft-authoritarian system at the moment--arguably we are in many respects culturally, and politically---
i don't see much in the way of coherent responses to that--hell, the issue isn't even framed as an issue--and there is no relation between people having guns around and any possibility of being able to even name the present system, much less fashion responses to it. worse still, most of the folk who are REALLY committed to confusing having a gun-commodity and "being free" tend to be politically on the right. so i don't see it--having a gun as a guarantor of anything--if anything, it is now part of an illusion.

i am thinking about the two of us as part of an unorganized militia. everybody is part of this i take it.
is unorganized militia another way of referring to the citizenry?
or are we part of it because we are alive?
does militia mean anything in that case?

when does it become organized?
can we appoint ourselves to positions within this unorganized militia?
and we both be generals?
do we get badges and hats?
where is my hat?
did you get one?

10 USC sec 311:

So, Roachboy, it looks like you and I are in. In my case, the emphasis should certainly be on "unorganized" for sure!

ok so first off i am not part of any militia unless i get an outfit to wear.
i want a hat.

secondly--when was that law made? if the text is not amended, it'd have to come from after the civil war...so it'd be an attempt to fit the second amendment into a post-1865 era, yes?

Does the Second suggest that one is required to behave as a member of this militia should a given appropriate situation arise? Under what circumstances do I go from Joe Schmo to active militia member? What if I'm not particularly "regulated" with weapons, in other words what if I'm not training in the use of firearms?

the whole entire aspect of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the government did NOT have the monopoly on legitimate violence. It was to ensure that the people would always be able to maintain control over freedom and liberty should the ballot box not work.

The 2nd Amendment protects YOUR right to retain liberty and freedom from an oppressive government, foreign invasion, or domestic insurrection. If YOU fail to be 'regulated' (knowledgable and proficient with weapons) then YOU fail freedom and liberty. end of story, point blank, and period.

I'm more than knowledgeable and proficient in hand to hand combat, bladed weapons, and spears. I'm plenty proficient with some weapons. I'm just not so proficient with weapons that use chemical reactions to fire projectiles. I'm even okay with a bow and arrow. And this isn't to suggest that I'm going to karate-chop a secret service member if I think the president is amassing power in the executive or suspending habeas corpus. I don't particularly like the idea of a violent uprising.

What about my first two questions?

when you get a hat.
obviously.

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/c...racter0110.gif Miwitia, hewe I come. Heh heh heh...

where's crompsin?

Heres a winter militia hat used by the ruskies that I think is not only warm and practical, but stylish too.

Pointy, sort of.

Something to think about if you get a TFP militia going.
*

The literal definition has been discussed. What it means is that nobody is going to agree on what the second amendment means anytime soon.

so then after 1865 anyway, the regulated milita was the national guard--until the reagan period, of course, at which point the national guard became an aspect of the military which enabled republicans to wage illegal little wars without that pesky draft to create political trouble for them. from between 1865, say, and the reagan period, the unorganized militia was everybody.

but now the national guard's status has been changed de facto.
has it been changed de jure as well?
is there an "organized militia"?

and i thought that the purpose of a militia was to protect the citizenry from the state--the purpose of the national guard, prior to the reagan period, was to protect the state from the citizenry.
it doesn't seem to me that the national guard was ever a militia in the sense of how dk and others interpret it in the 2nd amendement--if anything, it was the opposite.

it all starts to get confusing when you think about it.

but the hats are key---nice siggestion, gd.
i want one.
who sends them out in the context of the unorganized militia?

nice. people hate guns, hate violence, hate anything that isn't offered, sponsored, or supported and approved by the US government, your giver of privileges that you're too afraid to lose so you submit to the higher authorities. After all, you can still vote, you still have 'free speech', just make sure you do it in the zone, but whatever anyone does, just make sure you ridicule the whole entire notion that it is the lowly citizen, scuse me, make that 'subject', who is the soveriegn power of this state. Because there isn't any way ever that we could defeat such a massive military that would smile and nuke us if we ever reacted violently against oppression.

having a gun makes you no more free than having a toaster.

really RB? if i'm unarmed and am ordered to do something, I get two choices......do it or die.

if i'm armed, I have two choices......do it or say no, make me.

seems im free to say no if i have a gun and then they have to violently force me......and possibly die themselves.

i'd say that makes me freer than someone without a gun.

which matters more, dk?
the possession of a commodity "gun" or your thinking about when and how to use it?

if it's the gun itself, then i can assume you imagine freedom is something you can buy, keep around, look at from time to time---a chia pet.

what makes me more free is that should I decide I will not be forced to do something, I have the means and ability to back up my refusal. Without it, I'd be like any of the other sheeple. To just shut up and do as i'm told. Not going to be a slave.

so it's your thinking, not the gun.

decisions are intentional acts.
a gun is an object.

you clearly don't get it. You can 'think' about it all you like, but if you don't have the means of force to back it up, you don't really have the choice to say no and live, just say no and die or be forced to do it anyway.

that's not what i am asking you, dk.
what matters is your decision process---the politics that enframe the gun, that make it meaningful, that position it as an instrument.
your own position is rooted in a political vision.
you confuse that politics with the object "gun" which your *politics* cause you to make a fetish.

if you think about the history of revolutionary movements dk--which is part of the larger set of groups which dreamed about revolution--which is part of the still larger set of groups which dream about toppling the existing order--it is pretty bloody obvious that there is no single politics that unifies them. a host of possible outcomes follows from a host of political orientations. anarchists in the 19th century differed from leninists differed from the khymer rouge.
they all were armed.
if a politics followed directly from being armed, you couldn't explain this variation.
nor could you explain the fact that politically, so far as i can tell, you'd have opposed all of these movements.

unless you're defining politics as the act of being free or not, your statement makes almost no sense. You're not doing anything different than most other gun haters by innuendos about fetishes, revolution, or anarchy.

A 'politics' did indeed come directly from being armed. The politics of individual freedom and liberty that had never before been attempted, because a handful of people believed that they have the right to make their own choices, to provide for their own selves, without having to submit to a ruler.

The other choice/choices is/are not acceptable.

It has always confused me, those who always believe the Rights of the Press, Speech, and Religion shall not be infringed are often the very same who wish to ignore or dismantle the 2nd.

If the Amendment is out of date, what is to say the others are? Granted, we have changed added and subtracted Amendments in the past. However, it has taken further Amendments to do it, which require the approval of the people and a massive judicial/legislative efforts. The 2nd Amendment has taken a PR blitz from those who oppose it that would never work with the other Amendments.

Who would could claim that the 5th Amendment is no longer applicable? It would make our cities safer. It would help reduce crime. It would put those who deserve it in prison. Remember, it's for the Kids. No, it's absurd to claim this. The forefathers understood this, and provided provisions for it. A society with freedom will always have a form of danger inherent in the system. Give people rope and someone will find a way to hang themselves, give them a fork someone will stab someone else with it.

To claim that getting rid of guns is for our safety is parking a car on a steep hill without a handbrake. There will always be the next step, that if not taken nulls out the previous steps.

Of course speech and religion are ideas. A gun is not. A fork and rope have purposes other than killing or maiming.

I dont understand your references to the fifth amendment or how they apply.

I think the larger issue is that NO right is absolute....that applies to speech, religion, guns, etc.

The Court affirmed that in the DC decision when Scalia, writing for the majority said: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..."

From your perspective, is the opposite true as well?
Lobbyists, not a majority of voters, would protect the Second Amendment from an amendment aimed at changing or overriding the Second. The NRA and it's siblings do carry weight, just like many other ideological organizations.
I could likely make an extremely strong case that the Fifth is actually a lot more necessary now than it's ever been, actually. I don't see the parallel at all.
"Getting rid of guns" isn't the position of most people in this country. Regulating sales, ownership, and use would be a better description.

And this is where we, as the supposedly soveriegn power of this country, screwed up royally. We allowed politicians to play on fears and tell us that we had too many rights and freedoms and we needed to limit these to less than absolute rights so that the government could protect us. It was never the authority of government to provide for our safety and security except in the manner of fighting foreign invasion and protecting our rights.

By accepting that government would make efforts to 'protect' us from our fellow citizens, instead of handling that responsibility for ourselves, we've allowed government, whose sole purpose is to limit freedom, from incrementally reducing our rights to token ideas at the whim of black robed tyrants, who usually do nothing more than further limit those rights.

So much for the American spirit.

How are people wanting not to have guns fearful? Wouldn't it be the person in a very safe country who owns several guns be the fearful? Wouldn't someone who's statistically not in any reasonable danger from crime having a gun be the very definition of fearful? Or would it just be the fun?

Even I can appreciate the attraction of a gun: the heft, the sleekness, the cool steel, the precision, and the power—the power to change lives, the power of god. And therein lies the problem. Guns are power. Just like that power that politicians wield. Just like the money that rich people have. It's the exact same thing. And instead of trying to balance power, guns are a continuation of escalation. Are you really comfortable giving a world of mutually assured destruction to your posterity?

anyone with intelligence knows that criminals will prey on people, weapons or no, and that a persons ONLY defense against a determined criminal with a gun is??????to have a gun.

now, you're premise that guns only allow a person to play god is wholly without a rational basis, considering that there are 80 million gun owners and 200 million guns. if your argument was even remotely correct, we'd be truly awash in blood. you're also broadly painting the typical gun owner as someone who merely wants the ability to have power and control over others. nothing could be further from the truth in reality.

If guns are a continual path of escalation, the arms race of people vs. criminals that i've heard you speak of, why on earth would you surrender to the criminals?

This is a pretty bad way to start a post. It assumes that your way is the intelligent way and anyone who disagrees is unintelligent, which isn't the case. Demonstrate that you're the most intelligent or that your point is correct.
Criminals break the law, they do not necessarily prey on anyone. Using the correct definition of criminal, a person who breaks the law, everyone from a jaywalker to people who engage in oral sex in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C. Who, I wonder, is harmed when a man goes down on a woman in our nation's capital? No one, of course. So no, not all criminals prey on people.
Guns allow people to play god in that they can take a life with it. Some people are responsible with the power and some aren't. Or are you under the impression that there is no gun violence in the world? It's unfortunate that you try to pepper your posts with things like "wholly without a rational basis" and "nothing could be further from the truth in reality". When you end up being wrong, it makes you look pretty bad.
This is a false choice. "Buy a gun or surrender to criminals" ignores other defensive measures. I have security doors and safety windows. For the same price as a gun and some ammo you could have a security door, too. But what kind of power does a defensive tool like a security door allow? None, really. A gun on the other hand, as an offensive weapon, is great power.

Not only that, but it ignores the reality that most people that never take any steps whatsoever to prevent being victimized by "criminals" go their entire life without being victimized. People on TFP have attested to this elsewhere. I'm sure you've seen Bowling for Columbine, yes? In Canada, many people don't lock their front doors. Has there ever been a high crime rate there? Of course not. In fact, Canada is multitudes safer than the US.

sorry if i'm coming across as a little naive here, but i was taught that congress made the laws, the supreme court interpreted the laws, and the executive branch enforced the laws...

what exactly is the "law" we here are trying to interpret?