Today is part two of this series on the Bill of Rights from our most sacred Constitution.
Amendment 2
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.
What a powerful and protective Amendment. I'm sure it is no secret as to what my personal view is on this Amendment. In fact, I would dare to be bold and arrogant enough to suggest that I am known for it.
What is the meaning of the phrases? Let's start with the less controversial ones:
"shall not be infringed.' Congress is, specifically, prohibited from making any federal laws to infringe on the rights of gun ownership. They are unable to say that person A or group B cannot own a firearm, as they were specifically not given that power. (We'll cover the rights of states in another Amendment)
"being necessary to the security of a free State," . . Firearms are the utmost personal protection of freedom, but a nation of protected free people is also the utmost societal protection for the State (and the Federal Government as well, if they could understand such a thing!). Whether it was the muskets they carried back then, or the Ruger kp-95 I keep at my hip, firearms afford a protection like none other, and the Founding Fathers recognized this.
"A well regulated Militia," This one is the first of the phrases that causes a great amount of arguments and discussion. What is meant by 'well regulated'? Did the Founding Fathers refer to a group that is well-trained and practiced in the use of their firearms, or do they mean a group that has passed strict checks to ensure that they are safe and sane enough to have firearms? Does this mean that Congress can make up laws as they wish to regulate militias? Does this mean that Congress cannot make up laws to regulate militias, since that would make them less effective (and therefore NOT a 'well regulated' Militia)?
Regulated, now, means heavily restricted and guarded by laws and requirements. If an Industry is heavily regulated, then the government is involved in many aspects of its business, passing laws to govern what and how things can be done. The use and transport of nuclear materials would be an example of a heavily regulated industry (as is commercial trucking in general).
However, this has not always been the chief definition of 'regulated.' There was a time that something regulated meant 'practiced.' Often, groups of soldiers were referred to as "Regulars," as they had basically dedicated their time and energy into being well-practiced and efficient with their weapons (and fighting in general). It stands to reason, then, that the Founding Fathers likely had 'practiced' in mind, rather than 'riddled with laws and requirements' when they mentioned a "Well regulated militia."
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Here is the tough one, for some. The right "of the people." It is very clear that this amendment is over the right to keep and bear arms, and that congress cannot infringe on that right, and that the purpose is to ensure that there is a well-practiced militia available.... but who are 'the people' ?
There are two schools of thought. One school suggests that 'the people' refers to the Militia. They will say that this right only applies to those in the Militia, some even suggesting that this militia is the National Guard. I happen to not believe in this view, for the reasons below.
The other school of thought suggests that by 'the people,' the Founding Fathers meant.... us. You and I. We are, the people. What evidence supports this? The Bill of Rights, for one. In a list of Amendments designed to protect the individual's rights, it makes no logical sense to slip in an Amendment that applies to someone other than the individual. Another piece of evidence is that they used the term 'the people.' If they wanted to refer to the state, they'd have said "the State" as they did previously. If they wanted to refer to the Militia, they'd have said "the militia" or "the militia members" as they did previously. They said "the people." Why is that?
The militia was made up of the individuals. It stands to reason that the Founding Fathers wanted an effective militia, and recognized that this is only accomplishable by having individuals who are able to both keep and bear firearms on an individual level.
But, it clearly says "the militia," so this must apply to a militia somehow, yes? Basically, one needs to recognize that the Constitution grants rights to the Militia, and defines their roles. However, that is not in the bill of rights, it is in Article 1 Section 8. There is no effective or logical purpose in putting a right for militias in the bill of rights.
Misuse: Great misuses of this Amendment exist. I would go so far as to suggest that the wholly ineffective Clinton Gun Ban of the 90's was an example of Congress going against the 2nd Amendment. It was an instance of the federal government infringing on the rights of gun ownership. They 'squeaked' by with their ban by suggesting that the focus was on firearms, not firearms owners. They gave misleading examples (and still do) that we wouldn't let people own 'a nuclear weapon' so it made sense that we'd ban an 'assault rifle' . .. right? Well, their definition of assault rifle matches that of the network news reporters, in that it was wholly insane. The idea, it self, that you had to compare an assault rifle to a nuclear weapon should show how stupid it is to ban assault rifles. Any hunting rifle that had 'too many' rounds in it was considered a possibility for an assault weapons ban. (And, on an effective note... we didn’t' even see a reduction in crime as the Clinton Gun Ban promised... and even THEY admitted it)
Many groups call for congress to ban all firearms. This is a gross ignorance of the 2nd Amendment, as it specifically bans Congress from infringing on the right to keep and bear firearms.
STATES may have a right to limit firearm ownership, but not the federal government. For a state to try to ban firearms is stupid. For Congress to do it is unconstitutional.
In short, here is (what I believe to be) an accurate paraphrase of the 2nd amendment:
In order to make sure that at times of emergency, we have a militia that is well-practiced and able to fight, the right of the individual person to keep and bear firearms shall not be infringed by the united states congress.
O though the fun one...how did I know it would show up sooner or later.(Well it's the second amendment and lance is doing a piece on the amendments so it was actually bound to show up second...duh)
First off a state must abide by federal law as well as state law. Therefore no state could ban weapons, for more than a few weeks, without being taken to the supreme court. States can't just ignore federal/constitutional law and make w/e they want up. That's why you don't see even the most liberal, gun hating states banning weapons, cuz it is still unconstititional.
I'd again bring up historical references. Founders had no standing military and the US didn't offically have one till WW1, so a militia was their army. Today a militia is not necessary for the protection of our State(Country) because we have a professional, permanent military AND a professional militia-National Guard. (Concept of militia-fight when needed, live normal lives after that...same as the National Guard) However you could argue that, legally, the President and Congress can call every able-bodied man in the country-no age limit at all-to fight in times of great need....however they wouldn't be regulated would they.
So hear is how I read the 2nd: We need a militia to protect us, they(the people b/c everyone can be in the militia) need guns to protect them, don't make a law againist that. Well we don't need a militia anymore, so they don't need guns b/c our state is not in need of protection from militia any longer.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Founders had no standing military and the US didn't offically have one till WW1, so a militia was their army.
That's not accurate. The Marines have been in existance since prior to the United States of America. We had a successful navy and ground troops.
However, we ALSO had a fear of a federal controlled military, so we also had official state militias, but also private militias, made up of people in a community.
One the marines were those "regulars" you talked about earlier...the most trained, war-harden men made up the marines. But that doesn't mean THE MARINES, as we know today, existed.
Two, yes we did have a navy(and thanks to Teddy a huge one) and ground troops. But they were still on a militia style program. It wasn't until WW1 where we established the true, as we know it today, US military forces.
So there were stages of development but it wasn't until WW1 when soldiers became a job, full-time.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Uh.... yeah, they did. They were started in 1775, prior to the declaration of Independence, by the Continential Congress.
http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/Docs_Speeches/Continentialcongressestmarine...
That was the start of the Marines as we know them today, and that is per the Marines, not my opinion.
We had both a standing official federal army and also state militias, (and also private citizens who owned and used firearms on a daily basis)
I'm afraid that you're wrong. We had an official federal army, predating our own government, continued by our own government, and still in use today.
Marines started in November or 1775.
Army started in June of 1775
Navy started in October 1775
Air Force started in September 1947 (prior to that they were a part of the Army)
None of those were professional soldiers, they were militia based. Think of everything you know. Your saying we had a professional marines, army, and navy BEFORE the country was formed...that doesn't make any sense. Ignore what the marines home page says and think logically.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
They were professional soldiers of the army of the continential Congress. Upon formation of the United States of America, the existing professional standing armies were put to use elsewhere, primarily fighting the barbary pirates and further battles with the British.
To suggest that they were somehow akin to today's "National Guard" is not remotely accurate.
Exactly they were akin to the NATIONAL GUARD, which is a militia style service. Not akin to our Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard. That's what I've been trying to say, they were akin to the national guard not the formal branches of service.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
And I'm saying that your view is not accurate.
Lol we both seem to do that to the other don't we?
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Indeed.
But one of us is wrong. I have the historical accounts of the Army, Navy and Marines saying that they were enlisted men, not 'weekend warriors'
"The National Army was the combined conscript and volunteer force that was formed by the United States War Department in 1917 to fight in World War I. The National Army was formed from the old core of the regular United States Army, augmented by units of the United States National Guard and a large draft of able-bodied males."
Ok so technically you win. There were the 3 branches(Army, Navy, Marines) prior to WW1. However they were orgainized into the fighting force we know today during 1917. The air force was added later.
So WW1 was the first time that the country's fighting forces were combined and used as we understand them today. Prior to WW1 there were enlisted men however the branches often acted independently and sporatically without formal cooperation between branches.
:'((
I lose.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
It's ok. Even I make mistakes.
One of the lines I've always loved from Rush Limbaugh (think of him what you will) is when he (using fake arrogance) says "I'm right... 99.9% of the time!"
The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of our fundamental rights as American citizens, and are considered unalienable...meaning that they cannot be surrendered. And, even it it were true that this right is not "needed" today, that doesn't mean that this right might not be "needed" tomorrow. Our fundamental rights don't just "go away" because right now, things are running more or less smoothly. The right of the States to form Militias (and of the citizens to subsequently Keep and Bear Arms) is to ensure that we continue to not "need" to protect ourselves from a tyrannical Federal Government. If you take away those arms, the likelihood of that "need" goes up, considerably.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
NYS hates firearms, but there's no way they'd actually be able to ban them up here. To many hunters - many people actually do depend on venison as part of their food supply. As for concealed carry, they do their best to limit it.
It would certainly be interesting to see a state try and ban firearms to some extent. I could see California or Florida trying it. I'm not sure the citizens would put up too much of a fight - but then again it could be pretty polarizing.
If the Supreme Court holds that the DC gun ban is legit, look for CA or PA to call for it, despite hunters.
(Maybe an exception that any hunters have to pay HEAVY taxes on gun ownership for long guns only.)
San Fran has a ban on firearms.
If anybody had a ban, I'm surprised it isn't LA. They have the worst reputation, and I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), the highest crime in CA.
I'm not sure about the intra-state crime in CA, but I do know that many of the folks living outside of the big liberal cities are pretty upset at the reputation they get. heh.
The majority of CA is Democrat. And the majority of CA don't live in big cities.
LA- 3 million
San Fran-770,723
San Diego- 1.2 million
San Jose- 912,000
Roughly 6 million people in those cities alone.
CA pop- 36,457,549
So thirty million people aren't happy with the reputation they get from 6 million? Maybe, but CA votes democrat unless we have famous actors running.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Right, but the way much of CA is structured, those cities outweight the rest of the state.
there are some VERY conservative areas in California.
however, much of it is moderate, much of it liberal, some of it radically liberal.
Lol that is how every state is structured. Unless the state doesn't have big cities.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
MN is that way, as it NY.
But most states are conservative except for the cities.
Texas is a good example. Their liberal havens are Houston and Dallas. The rest of the state is largely VERY conservative. Same applies to TN, WY, MT, etc.
CA and NY fall into the trap of thinking that they are more advanced and set the stage for the rest of the country.
They don't understand that the rest of the country gets to vote too, and we don't much like the arrogant view, or being called 'flyover country'
Why do you think that is. Why are big cities also the most liberal? New York, Chicago, LA, Dallas, San Francisco. All big, all liberal. And whatever you want to believe the big cities HAVE always been the places of the most progress, art, social growth. The aspects that this country has adapted all spawn from big cities, whether the rest of the country likes it or not.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Cities have large concentrations of people who live their life on welfare, misusing the welfare program. They tend to vote liberal, as conservatives would require that they become independent at some point (the point of welfare)
Cities also have large concentrations of people who really aren't all that bright. They believe what they are told, forgetting even most recent history. (which is why you see huge protests that are anti-war, calling Bush a liar or saying that he altered intel to show that Iraq was a dangerous place, but have forgotten that the Dems, Clinton included, suggested that Saddam was a huge threat that had to be dealt with. President Bush just did something about it... something the anti-military Clinton would never do. as President Bush has an R after his name, he is hated for it... Clinton was praised when the military was used in Bosnia)
I also believe that when you are packed together as tightly as people are in cities, you do develop a mentality of thinking it is OK for the government to intrude in personal lives to ban behaviors.
I think a better question is, rather than why are cities liberal, why are rural areas, where the majority of residents own land (most in cities rent), tend to be more conservative?
What is it about land ownership that gets a person to understand that a large government (and the money-pit it creates) is bad for the propserity of America?
Good point about land-ownership. Although I wouldn't say most people in cities are on welfare, I'd say a higher percentage are than other parts of the country.
Cities equal big businesses-lots of jobs. While rural areas are more likely to have family-owned, mom and pop shops that are greater effected by things like taxes and less affected by things like welfare programs. The values are different b/c the enviroment and outside forces are different. What motivates people in "flyover country," as you stated, is different motivation than people living in cities.
And my motivations are somewhere in between b/c I live in a middle sized city...yay.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
I didn't mean to imply that many in cities were on welfare, but many of those who would abuse welfare live in cities.
I've lived in big cities and small towns, I never had a strong desire to lock my car in my drive way when I lived in small towns.
In cities I always noticed more of an entitlement mentality... people were entitled to their jobs or to free money from the government... in the Rural areas, people understood more the idea of hard work in a way that people in urban and suburban areas generally do not.
Here's an example off the top of my head. If you see someone with a broken fence, those in the rural areas are more likely to repair it, whereas people in cities are more likely to 'call the fence guy."
Fence analogy...completly agree. There is a growing mentality, not just in cities but everywhere, that there is someone to do that work for me, so why do it myself. Kind of depressing. I'd like to think that if I saw a broken fence on my property, I'd fix it, and if I saw a broken fence on my neighbor's property I'd offer to help him fix it.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
that's the mentality that drives a person to support entitlements.
THEY won't do it, they want someone to do it FOR them.
As much as I hate the thought of ever having to possibly choose to kill someone, I definately plan to own a gun and keep several in my home.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I would hope that no one would find it easy or enjoyable to kill another human being.
I know I don't.
I'm willing to do it to keep myself or my loved ones safe, but I do not relish or even like the thought.
But, I would do so nonetheless.
Despite what some have suggested in a forum, I do indeed have compassion.
You're a robot...what compassion do robots have?!
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
heh... I'm glad someone remembered what I was referring to.
Such a shame to twist such a good movie into an insult against me.
There's a new dvd of the director's cut of that movie out as of Tomorrow I believe.
lol...The movie reference was unintentional, but I believe it was from I, Robot? Probably...There aren't many movies where the emotional capacity of robots is examined.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Bicentinnial Man with Robin Williams maybe...who knows but that movie was more about the emotional aspects of robots than I, Robot...which was a modern day terminator.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Well, Sonnie couldn't feel, or at least wasn't supposed to. Damn...I need to write the damned review for BtSL....
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
The movie reference was to Blade Runner.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071220/ap_on_go_co/congress_guns
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Notice that it was one of my guys who was the Lone Republican fighting against the Federal Government's power grab. He often is.
I support, I guess, the final compromise.. but my preferred solution to things like the Virginia Tech shooting is not disqualification of MORE people who cannot buy firearms, as if someone wants to kill people, they'll steal or buy a stolen one, but instead, the ability for people with a concealed carry permit to.... (crazy thought coming) be allowed to carry!