The 2nd Amendment

[Jayhawker Soule]

The 2nd Amendment reads:

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.​

Is it still relevant?

I voted "yes", it's still relevant. I'm not absolutely certain, though.

I voted "no" but I consider your yes vote as sufficient cause for reconsideration. Could you explain why you feel gun ownership might warrant unique constitutional protection?

I read the amendment as stating:

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.​

What is this militia? Is it too relevant (or even possible irrespective of the 2nd amendment)?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why....because it sounds like fear mongering. Requiring universal and a more robust comprehensive background checks, limiting high capacity clips and banning combat weapons has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment at all. No one is coming for your guns......

The 2nd Amendment is entirely about combat capable guns.
(It wasn't about duck hunting & target shooting.)
And yes, many Dems have gone public about coming for them.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

All this gun control talk is just an emotional response and will not achieve the desired results.

As it should be. Sometimes you don't know you need it until something tragic happens like Newtown etc. Some commonsense laws and safety measures should be implemented to keep the mentally challenged from obtaining guns of ANY type. Universal background checks we should all agree with because it just makes sense. Banning combat weapons won't hurt gun owners and it should be waved to those who already posses their combat weapon. Banning high capacity clips and drums should be done as well.

IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.

No one is trying to ban all guns....nor should they.

The only solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

No it isn't...

If certain guns are outlawed, you just created a lucrative black market for them which will make them more accessible to the bad guys.

Bad guys don't need laws to prevent them from obtaining guns illegally.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The only thing I oppose in your post is the banning of combat weapons. And I happen to own one, so yes, they are coming for my gun.

The only person I've seen calling for retroactive gun bans is a lawmaker in Iowa. This isn't going to happen. No one is coming for your gun.....and I believe you're being paranoid which seems to be causing your hysteria over a non-issue.

 

[Willamena]

I'm suggesting changing the "why".

Then "why" not just make a new amendment?

The original amendment has not lost its necessity. Today, more than ever, the power to prevent despotism should be built into the legal system.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The 2nd Amendment is entirely about combat capable guns. ... And yes, many Dems have gone public about coming for them.

Are there any military weapons that you feel warrant strict controls?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The 2nd Amendment is entirely about combat capable guns.
(It wasn't about duck hunting & target shooting.)
And yes, many Dems have gone public about coming for them.

No one is coming for the ones you have.

And while the 2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms...I don't think it guarantees you the right to bear any type of weapon you want. A weapon can be banned without infringing on the second amendment right to bear arms.

 

[Tarheeler]

Then "why" not just make a new amendment?

That is essentially what it would do.

 

[Willamena]

That is essentially what it would do.

At the expense of the 2nd Amendment?

Edit: What I mean is that the right of the individual to own a gun has nothing to do with preventing despotism, so you are effectively throwing together two unrelated rights; then, inexplicably, you remove the phrase that, in its antique and colloquial way, provides a means for the people to go up against the despotic government, but you don't replace it with anything else meaningful. The National Guard would be on the side of the despot.

 

[Tarheeler]

At the expense of the 2nd Amendment?

Edit: What I mean is that the right of the individual to own a gun has nothing to do with preventing despotism, so you are effectively throwing together two unrelated rights; then, inexplicably, you remove the phrase that, in its antique and colloquial way, provides a means for the people to go up against the despotic government, but you don't replace it with anything else meaningful. The National Guard would be on the side of the despot.

No, it would redefine the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

It would read something along the lines of: In order to ensure personal safety and self-defense, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I'm much more concerned with the right to arms than the government recognizing the right to revolt. The last part is irrelevant anyway; no government is going to sit back and authorize an armed insurrection. It will happen whether or not it appears anywhere in the Constitution, and I think revolting against a despotic government qualifies as personal safety.

 

[Willamena]

No, it would redefine the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

It would read something along the lines of: In order to ensure personal safety and self-defense, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I'm much more concerned with the right to arms than the government recognizing the right to revolt. The last part is irrelevant anyway; no government is going to sit back and authorize an armed insurrection. It will happen whether or not it appears anywhere in the Constitution, and I think revolting against a despotic government qualifies as personal safety.

Fair enough. But repurposing the 2nd Amendment is the loss of that built-in protection against despotism.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I voted "no" but I consider your yes vote as sufficient cause for reconsideration. Could you explain why you feel gun ownership might warrant unique constitutional protection?

I read the amendment as stating:

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.​

What is this militia? Is it too relevant (or even possible irrespective of the 2nd amendment)?

Honestly, I don't think I can back up my position. It's just my initial gut reaction, perhaps a prejudice. Your points are valid and I defer to you and others who have given this issue more thought than I have.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The appeal to hopelessness.

There are always the writings of political commentators of the era.

I was hoping that was hopelessly appealing. ;0)

 

[Reverend Rick]

Rewording the second amendment does just what exactly to address these mass killings?

 

[Reverend Rick]

30 round magazines and drums being banned does seem to make the most sense to me until they want 15 round magazines illegal. This 10 round thing is bogus. It's like saying all cars must have 13 inch wheels.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are there any military weapons that you feel warrant strict controls?

Grenades.
They should be very very hard to get.

Certainly, the spirit of the 2nd Amendment is about military capability, but militia members wouldn't have had cannons or battle ships.
A line will be drawn where some weapons are protected, yet others (more large scale) won't be protected. Even we gun fanciers will argue about that line.

 

[Draka]

The 2nd Amendment reads:

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.​

Is it still relevant?

Definition of MILITIA

1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

"A well-regulated militia." Read that again. "A well-regulated militia". In the times that was written that "militia" was comprised of farmers and whoever else they could get to take up arms and come at the last moment to defend their lands. It came from the fact that those men were needed to defeat the British and gain that independence so that that document granting that amendment could even be written. Since then, that "militia" has been very "well-regulated" in the form of our reserve services. Our "citizen-soldiers". Called on in the case of an emergency when needed and well equipped with the arms they will need. They do not need to store their arms in their homes, they are stored in an armory just like the regular military.

For those people touting the 2nd amendment all the time, those politicians, those radio talk show hosts, those Faux News puppets...are there any of them really complaining because they are believing they are a member of some "militia"? That should guns be more regulated that they will somehow be hampered in their "militia" duties? I think not.

 

[Skwim]

"A well-regulated militia." Read that again. "A well-regulated militia". In the times that was written that "militia" was comprised of farmers and whoever else they could get to take up arms and come at the last moment to defend their lands. It came from the fact that those men were needed to defeat the British and gain that independence so that that document granting that amendment could even be written. Since then, that "militia" has been very "well-regulated" in the form of our reserve services. Our "citizen-soldiers". Called on in the case of an emergency when needed and well equipped with the arms they will need. They do not need to store their arms in their homes, they are stored in an armory just like the regular military.

For those people touting the 2nd amendment all the time, those politicians, those radio talk show hosts, those Faux News puppets...are there any of them really complaining because they are believing they are a member of some "militia"? That should guns be more regulated that they will somehow be hampered in their "militia" duties? I think not.

Agreed. And what I find amusing are the gun nuts' selective reading skills. to wit:

The Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

​

 

[Draka]

It is very much selective reading. They select not to read the part about it being for militia purposes. And if they do deign to acknowledge that part they don't seem to know what a militia is or what it is for. It is not for guerrilla tactics or warfare, it is not for anarchy purposes or the like. It is for the purpose of adding extra troops to the actual military to fight alongside them. Extra soldiers taken from volunteer citizens who serve as reserve units to be called when needed. We have that already in the form of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Reserves and the National Guard. These units have been equipped with something that the militia did not have back in the day the Constitution was written...armories. They do not need to have to worry about keeping and providing their own weapons. The 2nd Amendment itself had been rendered pretty much obsolete by the sheer existence of our military reserves.

 

[Reverend Rick]

If you read the co-author of the second amendments writings, he said "The American People are the militia". Does anyone know who the co-author was?

Reading old text and applying today's meanings for the old words perverts the true meaning of the writing.

Anyone who studies law will tell you that it is the intent of the words at the time that they where written is what really matters.