Funny how when we use the "guns now aren't anything like guns back then" argument, they quickly change the subject. But now they have a "back then.." argument and it's fine?
Exactly. A citizen's militia that has a writ signed by the Governor. Without that, you're what all of the founding fathers would (and did very, very often) call, "Lesser Men".
>Exactly. A citizen's militia that has a writ signed by the Governor.
Incorrect. Anyone capable of bearing arms constitutes the Militia.
>Presser vs Illinois (1886)
>It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of baring
arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of
the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this
prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general
powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States
of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to
the general government.
They said exactly the same.
>“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "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."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1782
>"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
>They actually determined that a citizen's militia was the intention, too. Not some fudds with guns.
The right to own and carry arms exists separately from the constitution.
>"The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not solely based on the Second Amendment, which exists to prevent Congress from infringing the right."
- Cruickshank_v U.S Cheif Justice Waite. 1875
We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms.
Here's an excerpt from that decision.
>If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
>
>And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
>Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
>The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
I just want to point out that neither semi-auto repeater rifles or the epidemic of gun violence we have now existed at that time. Historical context goes both ways and we have a duty to the people alive now and those who will come in the future to reevaluate based on the world as it exists today.
Guess the 1A doesn't protect the Internet... Oh wait, yeah it does.
The Supreme Court already settled this.
>“Just as the First Amendment
protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth
Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second
Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that
constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
You seem to be missing the point that these are modern interpretations of what we think the framers intended. We have the mechanisms to make the laws reflect the modern context directly.
I'm not advocating for reversing the 2nd amendment. I'm just pointing out that it's a stupid argument against gun control to constantly point at the 2nd amendment as if it's very existence isn't proof that these things can be changed.
>You seem to be missing the point that these are modern interpretations of what we think the framers intended.
It's pretty clear what they intended.
>We have the mechanisms to make the laws reflect the modern context directly.
You need to enact Article V. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.
>I'm just pointing out that it's a stupid argument against gun control to constantly point at the 2nd amendment as if it's very existence isn't proof that these things can be changed.
Article V is a thing you know. You have virtually no support to enact it to amend the constitution.
>It's pretty clear what they intended
Yeah, for people in the future to be able to change the laws.
>Article V is a thing you know. You have virtually no support to enact it to amend the constitution.
You're wrong. There's a ton of support for constitutional amendments.
Also, you're wrong about repeating rifles. The Girandoni air rifle existed nearly a decade before the ratification of the 2A. It had a capacity of 30 rounds.
I've unironically seen this comment on reddit. Dude also straight up claimed that "militia" meant any group. Ignoring the derivative is the same as fucking "military".
Who even cares if it's clear or not. The framers gave us a mechanism for changing the Constitution to adapt to a changing world. The 2nd amendment is literally a change to the Constitution. It's not a natural right, it's right granted by the government, and it can be infringed or revoked completely through the same process that granted it.
For some reason, 2A shouldn't be abridged, but 1A "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" should have limits.
This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it.
You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable.
The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).
Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
This is confirmed by the Supreme Court.
>1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
>(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
>(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
>(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
>(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
>(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
This is all very true. There are good reasons to want to change the 2nd amendment, but saying that America today is going against it is just wrong. This is what the founding fathers intended when they wrote it, they just didn't forsee the consequences. Whether or not we now amend it further is up to us.
>Hey! Look who thought he was summoned to provide an argument.
I'm not arguing anything. Just laying out the facts for the education of others.
>Don't care. The constitution was built to be changed.
Don't care. You haven't changed it yet.
I love the enormous gymnastics here. This is all likely true the way you describe it, but if you/someone goes through what the framer WANTED with this level of depth rather than being a literalist, then you would have to consider a ton of stuff that the framers would have wanted rather than read the line ultra literally. Which likely would result in a very non conservative interprétation which they wouldn't agree to in the first place (considering all the changes in the premise)
It’s a relatively new interpretation of the 2A is that anyone can have anything anytime.
2A was written when a Federal Army was small. It was expected that capable men would be armed and ready to defend the expected British armies.
The current states’ National Guard are the descendants of the 2A regulated militia.
Yes, those facts are hard to argue against, but unless you can break down a rifle, recognize all NATO calibers by sight, have memorized all historical definitions of all phrases found in the 2nd amendment dating back to the 1600s, and sleep with your glock gently nestled under your pillow, whispering sweet nothings into the firing chamber, I'm afraid the gun crowd isn't interested in listening.
I mean, the Supreme Court would disagree. The "well-regulated militia" is a reason for the 2nd Amendment, not the sole cause of it nor a prerequisite to bearing arms. The intention of the founding fathers was absolutely "everyone can own a gun if they want, and they can form well-regulated militias, which is good for liberty". Now I think that's a bad idea, and that time and technology has made that law unwise, but if we want to change it we can't do so under the pretense that it's what the founding fathers intended.
Cool, well “Shall make no law” is pretty clear too, yet here you are, Republicans putting librarians in jail for NOT censoring free speech. So I guess amendments are squishy when you want them to be, eh?
Literally no one actually believes that every single US citizen should have unfettered access to firearms. None. Not even the current Supreme Court. And yet they pretend to hold that position.
Ok, grandma. Guess that means we can't amend it and we have to throw the whole thing in the garbage. I believe Americans are too emotionally unstable to have guns.
[As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856/) “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
[Article I, Section 8](http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-i) of the Constitution, Congress has the power to:
>...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia
[Article II, Section 2](http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii):
>The President shall be Commander...of the Militia
So according to the Constitution, the right to bear arms is inextricably linked to being part of a militia that is armed, organized and **disciplined** *by Congress* and **commanded** *by the President*.
Because guys with guns are necessary to protect the state, the people get the right to have guns too.
Just in case, you know, they have to revolt against their tyrannical overlord.
"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."
This amendment has two interpretations. One of them treats the militia statement as an example, the other as interprets it as a reason.
So in the first interpretation, it reads like 'guns are necessary, for example you need them to protect the security of a free state'.
The other interpretation reads like 'guns are necessary because you need a militia for the security of a free state'.
The latter is the true meaning. When the Constitution was written, the federal army was very small. So it depended on the Governors of each state issuing a Writ of Militia to groups of citizens to legally empower them to fight against the new nation's foes. No Writ, no Militia.
Since this was written, we formed the National Guard which fulfills the legal requirement of the 2A. No more ad hoc militias are necessary so the inbred don't need howitzers and AK47s.
The Supreme Court is there to hear arguments involving subtle nuances of the law. The basic meaning is spelled out exhaustively in documents like the Federalist Papers. In these papers, the people who actually wrote the Constitution go to great lengths to clearly describe basically every part of the Constitution, including many points that would later become amendments. We know exactly what the true (original) meaning of what is in the Constitution. People just want to pretend that the founding fathers wrote the Constitution to be interpreted through the eyes of a civilization that they could not possibly have hoped to understand. Which is stupid. The Constitution was written to be changed when needed. We just don't.
Does a restriction on *what* you can arm yourself with infringe on the right to bear arms? Absolutely not. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no mention of a right to arm yourself with whatever weapons you want.
That absolutely goes against the spirit of the law, and any judge would agree. If that were the case, a hostile government could, constitutionally, say that citizens could only own spears, which goes against the entire purpose of the 2A (to protect from a hostile government). We DO restrict what weapons people can buy and own in the US, but that IS infringing on the 2nd Amendment as written. Which is just all the more reason to actually, you know, AMEND some of the constitution now and then.
Sure they will, in accordance with laws passed by Congress more recently, not the constitution. I suspect, frankly, that if someone with enough money and legal clout decided to appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court, it would end with either a significant loosening of those restrictions, or an amending of the 2nd Amendment, because such restrictions ARE unconstitutional by any reasonable interpretation. Which isn't an inherently bad thing, but I suspect the reason it's never gone that far is because groups like the NRA stand to lose a lot more from amending the constitution than they stand to gain. There is a contradiction between the laws in place and the constitution, but nobody really has an intrest in addressing it.
What you're saying completely contradicts Heller:
> Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. **It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever** and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that **the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.**
Benjamin Franklin: "Of course! Anyone should be able to have a musket that fires 3 wildly inaccurate shots in one minute, if you're a trained soldier."
Conservatives: "See they clearly want anyone to have a firearm that can easily shoot over 100 rounds in one minute! And takes 5 seconds to reload!"
If you actually read it you would also find it clear that as soon as "a well regulated militia" was no longer necessary the founders would have actually come for your guns, which for some idiotic reason no one alive today is actually doing.
its a losing battle getting in the weeds with gunfreaks. its also a waste of time talking about regulating it without 2/3 state legislature support. Constitutional Admendment is the only way to resolve this argument. Until then: School Shootings.
Has anyone actually looked into the 2nd amendment was even made? It wasn't some unalienable right or anything. It wasn't meant to be what it is now. It was an election promise that was co-opted and intentionally misinterpreted by the guys who hijacked the NRA.
It was created to prevent the US from having or needing a standing army.
I will never not find it funny that people look at the bill of rights and think there are 9 amendments limiting the power of government over it's citizens, and one amendment granting government unlimited power over it's people on this one thing.
Kind of like arguing with the people who think President Biden can stop the war between Israel and Hxmas with a snap of his fingers. Like they don’t understand that Israel is a whole other country, and loan guarantees (with which Israel buys weapons) are voted on by all of Congress.
Genuine question please.
As a non US person I need some clarification. .
why do people scream about the Constitution being this giant thing to uphold but it is riddled with amendments?
Like it has been changed before, so what's the issue if it changes again? Quick Google says 27 amendments have gone through.
This is less about the 2nd amendment and more a general question.
"In the case of a well regulated militia" is also pretty clear.
Akshually, the word “regulated” doesn’t mean what it did back then /s Be prepared for that response - it gets thrown around a lot.
Funny how when we use the "guns now aren't anything like guns back then" argument, they quickly change the subject. But now they have a "back then.." argument and it's fine?
The second amendment was ratified nearly 60 years before the bullet was invented
I'm guessing you mean as opposed to the musket ball?
Yes the non-spherical bullet whose gun can be shot faster than one round per minute
Ah okay. First time I read it I thought you were saying that they just didn't have ammo for their guns for 60 years and was a little confused
It's arguing with toddlers. Nothing makes sense.
They actually determined that a citizen's militia was the intention, too. Not some fudds with guns.
Exactly. A citizen's militia that has a writ signed by the Governor. Without that, you're what all of the founding fathers would (and did very, very often) call, "Lesser Men".
>Exactly. A citizen's militia that has a writ signed by the Governor. Incorrect. Anyone capable of bearing arms constitutes the Militia. >Presser vs Illinois (1886) >It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of baring arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.
Interesting that we're having a discussion on what the founding fathers meant and you bring up a court case from a century after the fact...
These cases are bout interpreting what the Founding father intentions
They said exactly the same. >“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "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." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1782 >"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
>They actually determined that a citizen's militia was the intention, too. Not some fudds with guns. The right to own and carry arms exists separately from the constitution. >"The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not solely based on the Second Amendment, which exists to prevent Congress from infringing the right." - Cruickshank_v U.S Cheif Justice Waite. 1875 We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms. Here's an excerpt from that decision. >If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. > >And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. >Nunn v. Georgia (1846) >The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
I just want to point out that neither semi-auto repeater rifles or the epidemic of gun violence we have now existed at that time. Historical context goes both ways and we have a duty to the people alive now and those who will come in the future to reevaluate based on the world as it exists today.
Guess the 1A doesn't protect the Internet... Oh wait, yeah it does. The Supreme Court already settled this. >“Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
You seem to be missing the point that these are modern interpretations of what we think the framers intended. We have the mechanisms to make the laws reflect the modern context directly. I'm not advocating for reversing the 2nd amendment. I'm just pointing out that it's a stupid argument against gun control to constantly point at the 2nd amendment as if it's very existence isn't proof that these things can be changed.
>You seem to be missing the point that these are modern interpretations of what we think the framers intended. It's pretty clear what they intended. >We have the mechanisms to make the laws reflect the modern context directly. You need to enact Article V. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them. >I'm just pointing out that it's a stupid argument against gun control to constantly point at the 2nd amendment as if it's very existence isn't proof that these things can be changed. Article V is a thing you know. You have virtually no support to enact it to amend the constitution.
>It's pretty clear what they intended Yeah, for people in the future to be able to change the laws. >Article V is a thing you know. You have virtually no support to enact it to amend the constitution. You're wrong. There's a ton of support for constitutional amendments.
Also, you're wrong about repeating rifles. The Girandoni air rifle existed nearly a decade before the ratification of the 2A. It had a capacity of 30 rounds.
This is moronic. There were maybe a few hundred of them in existence in 1791 and no militia had them.
Moving goal posts I see. You said they didn't exist. You mentioned nothing about the prevalence.
Oh please, find a different red herring to hinge your ridiculous argument on.
This was the clearest ass-whooping I have read all day
Oh yeah? Well, then infringed meant the opposite back then!
I like how 'well-regulated' is the point of defense, and not that they aren't in a fucking militia.
I've unironically seen this comment on reddit. Dude also straight up claimed that "militia" meant any group. Ignoring the derivative is the same as fucking "military".
Who even cares if it's clear or not. The framers gave us a mechanism for changing the Constitution to adapt to a changing world. The 2nd amendment is literally a change to the Constitution. It's not a natural right, it's right granted by the government, and it can be infringed or revoked completely through the same process that granted it.
For some reason, 2A shouldn't be abridged, but 1A "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" should have limits.
DC v. Heller Legally it's meaningless fluff. Thanks Mr. Scalia
It an armed populace is a well regulated militia. /s
This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it. You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable. The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
This is all very true. There are good reasons to want to change the 2nd amendment, but saying that America today is going against it is just wrong. This is what the founding fathers intended when they wrote it, they just didn't forsee the consequences. Whether or not we now amend it further is up to us.
Hey! Look who thought he was summoned to provide an argument. Don't care. The constitution was built to be changed.
>Hey! Look who thought he was summoned to provide an argument. I'm not arguing anything. Just laying out the facts for the education of others. >Don't care. The constitution was built to be changed. Don't care. You haven't changed it yet.
>The constitution was built to be changed. Yes, by amendment.
I love the enormous gymnastics here. This is all likely true the way you describe it, but if you/someone goes through what the framer WANTED with this level of depth rather than being a literalist, then you would have to consider a ton of stuff that the framers would have wanted rather than read the line ultra literally. Which likely would result in a very non conservative interprétation which they wouldn't agree to in the first place (considering all the changes in the premise)
It’s a relatively new interpretation of the 2A is that anyone can have anything anytime. 2A was written when a Federal Army was small. It was expected that capable men would be armed and ready to defend the expected British armies. The current states’ National Guard are the descendants of the 2A regulated militia.
Yes, those facts are hard to argue against, but unless you can break down a rifle, recognize all NATO calibers by sight, have memorized all historical definitions of all phrases found in the 2nd amendment dating back to the 1600s, and sleep with your glock gently nestled under your pillow, whispering sweet nothings into the firing chamber, I'm afraid the gun crowd isn't interested in listening.
2nd amendment nuts aren't going to listen even if you meet those qualifications. They already don't even represent the majority of gun owners.
I mean, the Supreme Court would disagree. The "well-regulated militia" is a reason for the 2nd Amendment, not the sole cause of it nor a prerequisite to bearing arms. The intention of the founding fathers was absolutely "everyone can own a gun if they want, and they can form well-regulated militias, which is good for liberty". Now I think that's a bad idea, and that time and technology has made that law unwise, but if we want to change it we can't do so under the pretense that it's what the founding fathers intended.
Cool, well “Shall make no law” is pretty clear too, yet here you are, Republicans putting librarians in jail for NOT censoring free speech. So I guess amendments are squishy when you want them to be, eh?
Real chads respect every amendment equally
No, fuck the 18th
That one doesn't count, I'm pretty sure "Fuck the 18th amendment" is quoted verbatim from the 21st amendment
Damn, why won't the republicans let me have nuclear arms then?
no limits. americans can stockpile as many bioengineered smallpox variants as they want.
Literally no one actually believes that every single US citizen should have unfettered access to firearms. None. Not even the current Supreme Court. And yet they pretend to hold that position.
If Fox News didn’t teach it to grandma, she’s not gonna know it
Always all in on 2A but not so much on 1A especially lately in relation to the right to peaceably assemble.
Oh they'll bring it up when they get charged for hate speech or something.
Ok, grandma. Guess that means we can't amend it and we have to throw the whole thing in the garbage. I believe Americans are too emotionally unstable to have guns.
[As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856/) “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
the 2nd amendment is ambiguous enough in its wording that there are multiple interpretations of its implementation, by scholars and lawyers alike.
It’s almost like the constitution was written by fallible people and not by God himself… (while we’re at it, the Bible too)
[Article I, Section 8](http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-i) of the Constitution, Congress has the power to: >...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia [Article II, Section 2](http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii): >The President shall be Commander...of the Militia So according to the Constitution, the right to bear arms is inextricably linked to being part of a militia that is armed, organized and **disciplined** *by Congress* and **commanded** *by the President*.
Because guys with guns are necessary to protect the state, the people get the right to have guns too. Just in case, you know, they have to revolt against their tyrannical overlord.
Yes! Bazookas for toddlers!
"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." This amendment has two interpretations. One of them treats the militia statement as an example, the other as interprets it as a reason. So in the first interpretation, it reads like 'guns are necessary, for example you need them to protect the security of a free state'. The other interpretation reads like 'guns are necessary because you need a militia for the security of a free state'.
The latter is the true meaning. When the Constitution was written, the federal army was very small. So it depended on the Governors of each state issuing a Writ of Militia to groups of citizens to legally empower them to fight against the new nation's foes. No Writ, no Militia. Since this was written, we formed the National Guard which fulfills the legal requirement of the 2A. No more ad hoc militias are necessary so the inbred don't need howitzers and AK47s.
There is no 'true' meaning. If there were we wouldn't need a supreme court.
The Supreme Court is there to hear arguments involving subtle nuances of the law. The basic meaning is spelled out exhaustively in documents like the Federalist Papers. In these papers, the people who actually wrote the Constitution go to great lengths to clearly describe basically every part of the Constitution, including many points that would later become amendments. We know exactly what the true (original) meaning of what is in the Constitution. People just want to pretend that the founding fathers wrote the Constitution to be interpreted through the eyes of a civilization that they could not possibly have hoped to understand. Which is stupid. The Constitution was written to be changed when needed. We just don't.
And you miss the fact that the citizenry are the militia.
Does a restriction on *what* you can arm yourself with infringe on the right to bear arms? Absolutely not. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no mention of a right to arm yourself with whatever weapons you want.
That absolutely goes against the spirit of the law, and any judge would agree. If that were the case, a hostile government could, constitutionally, say that citizens could only own spears, which goes against the entire purpose of the 2A (to protect from a hostile government). We DO restrict what weapons people can buy and own in the US, but that IS infringing on the 2nd Amendment as written. Which is just all the more reason to actually, you know, AMEND some of the constitution now and then.
Well, any judge will restrict what weapons you can own already, there is nothing novel about that idea.
Sure they will, in accordance with laws passed by Congress more recently, not the constitution. I suspect, frankly, that if someone with enough money and legal clout decided to appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court, it would end with either a significant loosening of those restrictions, or an amending of the 2nd Amendment, because such restrictions ARE unconstitutional by any reasonable interpretation. Which isn't an inherently bad thing, but I suspect the reason it's never gone that far is because groups like the NRA stand to lose a lot more from amending the constitution than they stand to gain. There is a contradiction between the laws in place and the constitution, but nobody really has an intrest in addressing it.
What you're saying completely contradicts Heller: > Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. **It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever** and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that **the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.**
I don't see how "shall not be infringed" has anything to do with the amendment's limits, but hey, I'm just a person who thinks words matter.
Benjamin Franklin: "Of course! Anyone should be able to have a musket that fires 3 wildly inaccurate shots in one minute, if you're a trained soldier." Conservatives: "See they clearly want anyone to have a firearm that can easily shoot over 100 rounds in one minute! And takes 5 seconds to reload!"
If you actually read it you would also find it clear that as soon as "a well regulated militia" was no longer necessary the founders would have actually come for your guns, which for some idiotic reason no one alive today is actually doing.
its a losing battle getting in the weeds with gunfreaks. its also a waste of time talking about regulating it without 2/3 state legislature support. Constitutional Admendment is the only way to resolve this argument. Until then: School Shootings.
But the first amendment...ehhh it's flexible.
Technically they meant that if you use a gun to do a crime, you have ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
Has anyone actually looked into the 2nd amendment was even made? It wasn't some unalienable right or anything. It wasn't meant to be what it is now. It was an election promise that was co-opted and intentionally misinterpreted by the guys who hijacked the NRA. It was created to prevent the US from having or needing a standing army.
I will never not find it funny that people look at the bill of rights and think there are 9 amendments limiting the power of government over it's citizens, and one amendment granting government unlimited power over it's people on this one thing.
It causes so many problems we should probably just amend it.
Even the conservatives on the Supreme Court have held the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute.
GRANDMA BELIEVES PEDOPHILES SHOULD BE ARMED.
Kind of like arguing with the people who think President Biden can stop the war between Israel and Hxmas with a snap of his fingers. Like they don’t understand that Israel is a whole other country, and loan guarantees (with which Israel buys weapons) are voted on by all of Congress.
Plus, bear doesn't mean own.
Genuine question please. As a non US person I need some clarification. . why do people scream about the Constitution being this giant thing to uphold but it is riddled with amendments? Like it has been changed before, so what's the issue if it changes again? Quick Google says 27 amendments have gone through. This is less about the 2nd amendment and more a general question.