The Bastardization of the Second Amendment

[Flame]

I, personally, have given up attempting to defend the 2nd amendment to a full extent (high capacity sport rifles/handguns). All I have left is a .308 bolt action, a 12 gauge shotgun and a small collection of military bolt action service rifles.

 

[leibowde84]

In light of recent SCOTUS rulings:

"In the twenty-first century, the [Second] amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "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" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare"
Source: Wikipedia
​

What's the difference between:

"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."
​

And

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
​

I ask because "the people" today who choose to keep and bear arms are neither part of a well regulated militia nor any kind of a militia whatsoever, yet the SCOTUS ruling protects them. As I see it, there is no difference between the two versions.

.

​

I see there being a big difference. The right is protected so long as a well-regulated militia is necessary to preserve the security of a free-state. We don't need "well regulated militias" anymore, as we have local, state, and federal police. We have state military and national military. We have the risk of a tyrannical government taking over and removing the constitution. So, I don't think the 2nd Amendment applies anymore.

That is not to say that I think guns should be illegal. I just don't see it as a 2nd Amendment issue. The Supreme Court doesn't agree with me, so that's that. But, that is just my opinion.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

They never intended to have a standing army like we do now, that is why they saw a need for the right to form a militia.

 

[Mister Emu]

We don't need "well regulated militias" anymore, as we have local, state, and federal police. We have state military and national military.

What do you say against the opinion that these forces are precisely why an armed militia might be necessary? The Battle of Athens, which I referenced, involved civilian use of arms against a corrupt sheriff and police force, as they attempted to rig the local elections.

 

[Skwim]

What do you say against the opinion that these forces are precisely why an armed militia might be necessary? The Battle of Athens, which I referenced, involved civilian use of arms against a corrupt sheriff and police force, as they attempted to rig the local elections.

If so, then militias should be constructed and every gun owner be made an active member. Lacking that, there's no reason for the amendment.

.

 

[LuisDantas]

My considerations about the actual meaning of the Amendment aside, there is also this.

The Amendment is from 1791, when the most recent firearms were flintlocks. The typical hand weapon was a dueling pistol, the longarms were muskets and very early rifles, expensive, uncommon, and with limited range and rate of fire.

The percurssion cap came in 1807. The first revolvers, in the 1830s, around the same time when mass production (and the resulting lower prices) began for firearms. Shotguns arose around 1850, about the same time as the telegraph. Repeating weapons, cartridge revolvers, double-action revolvers and rifles came even later.

It is obviously difficult to discuss disarmament once people are used to the idea that they "ought to" have access to firearms, but the plain fact is that the weapons of 1791 were a much more limited breed than those of today, to the point that it is ludicrous to simply assume that the same decision would have been made today from a fresh start.

It is also easy to overlook how significant the changes in the general society since are. Communications and transports have changed the landscape enough to bring serious question to how necessary and significant civilian firearms are now in relation to 1791. A very convincing argument can IMO be made that the World Wars of the 20th century show that the firearms of the day go well beyond what human beings can actually handle with any responsibility. And then there is the widespread, nearly unrestricted use of psychoactive drugs both legal and illegal at the current times.

And then there are aerial bombings, drone weapons, missile weapons. These days people actually demand decisive military actions without commitment of boots on the ground. Ethical considerations aside, would that even make any sense in 1791? Even if it did, how seriously can the idea that civilian firearms are supposed to keep the government well-behaved be raised now?

The current world inherited the Amendment, but the Amendment sure was not made for this world. Which may be one reason why its wording is so difficult to meaningfully parse now.

 

[Revoltingest]

Did someone suggest losing the constitutional right to maintain well regulated militias?

Did anyone?

As Stevens points out in Heller:

In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating “‘the National Guard of the several States,’” Perpich, 496 U. S., at 341, and nn. 9–10; meanwhile, the dominant understanding of the Second Amendment’s inapplicability to private gun ownership continued well into the 20th century. The first two federal laws directly restricting civilian use and possession of firearms--the 1927 Act prohibiting mail delivery of “pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person,” Ch. 75, 44 Stat. 1059, and the 1934 Act prohibiting the possession of sawed-off shotguns and machine guns—were enacted over minor Second Amendment objections dismissed by the vast majority of the legislators who participated in the debates.37​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Intentions behind a creation are not always realized.
And the definition of "militia" is broader & more complex than would fit The National Guard.
Ref....
Militia (United States) - Wikipedia

I don't think it's in the letter or spirit of the Constitution for us to cede all such power to government.

 

[metis]

I ask because "the people" today who choose to keep and bear arms are neither part of a well regulated militia nor any kind of a militia whatsoever, yet the SCOTUS ruling protects them. As I see it, there is no difference between the two versions.

And that was the bizarre ruling by the SCOTUS that especially was pushed by Scalia. And an interview of Scalia after this decision was even more bizarre when he admitted he would have to think about whether a hand-held ground-to-air missile that could bring down jetliners should also be allowed in civilian hands.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In light of recent SCOTUS rulings:

"In the twenty-first century, the [Second] amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "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" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare"
Source: Wikipedia
​

What's the difference between:

"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."
​

And

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
​

I ask because "the people" today who choose to keep and bear arms are neither part of a well regulated militia nor any kind of a militia whatsoever, yet the SCOTUS ruling protects them. As I see it, there is no difference between the two versions.

.

​

I've yet to hear an argument which rationally defends gun rights in relation to the wording of the second amendment. Because one doesn't exist. It's clear that the lack of infringement to keeping and bearing arms is predicated on the necessity of a well-regulated militia, which is not only not necessary, but which hasn't existed in quite some time.

Now, I am not for banning gun ownership, and have owned various firearms myself, throughout my life, and plan to continue to do so. However, I find no constitutional backing for this in the wording or meaning of the second amendment.

Regardless, we live in different times, that the founding fathers couldn't even imagine. A rational look at gun control laws based on the actual data and the realities of the world today would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath as long as ideologists on both sides are unable to act or think at all rationally about the issue.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I see a lot of talk about history, but it was also the intended role of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. That was the intent of the Founding Fathers as well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no difference, functionally. A militia is made up of the populace; so if a situation occurs such that a militia is necessary, see the seige of athens, the people have to have access to arms.

The Consitution gives Congress the power over discipline of the militia. With that in mind, do you really want to argue that every citizen - including yourself - is a member of the militia (and thereby subject to "discipline" by Congress)?

 

[leibowde84]

What do you say against the opinion that these forces are precisely why an armed militia might be necessary? The Battle of Athens, which I referenced, involved civilian use of arms against a corrupt sheriff and police force, as they attempted to rig the local elections.

That was 70 years ago. So, I don't find it relevant.

 

[Revoltingest]

That was 70 years ago. So, I don't find it relevant.

More relevant would be urban strife which erupts periodically.
One such even here was when students rioted over something (a football game loss, as I recall), & began beating & robbing people, destroying property, & setting at least one fire. The cops stayed away. The fire dept abandoned a truck there. Government is often either useless in the face of or the perpetrator of crimes. So the right to defend myself with deadly force against an unprovoked attack is one I won't give up.

Well to do liberal white kids can be dangerous too.

 

[leibowde84]

More relevant would be urban strife which erupts periodically.
One such even here was when students rioted over something (a football game loss, as I recall), & began beating & robbing people, destroying property, & setting at least one fire. The cops stayed away. The fire dept abandoned a truck there. Government is often either useless in the face of or the perpetrator of crimes. So the right to defend myself with deadly force against an unprovoked attack is one I won't give up.

In a situation like that, I would think it better that the rioters not have guns.

 

[Revoltingest]

In a situation like that, I would think it better that the rioters not have guns.

I agree.
But if everyone is armed, it's hard to hold a riot.
Who would want to be out on the street?
But I can hole up in me building.

 

[metis]

If the proliferation of guns is supposedly making us in the States safer, then why isn't it working out that way as compared to states like the UK, France, Canada, etc. that have significantly lower homicide rates? It's like theorizing that if we have more cars on the road, accident rates would go down.

No.

 

[Stevicus]

In light of recent SCOTUS rulings:

"In the twenty-first century, the [Second] amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "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" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare"
Source: Wikipedia
​

What's the difference between:

"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."
​

And

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
​

I ask because "the people" today who choose to keep and bear arms are neither part of a well regulated militia nor any kind of a militia whatsoever, yet the SCOTUS ruling protects them. As I see it, there is no difference between the two versions.

.

​

I'm not sure why the Second Amendment would even be necessary if it was just referring to the military or the National Guard. Even countries where the citizens don't have any rights at all would still have the "right" to arm their own military forces. Every sovereign nation has such a right, even if it's not specifically delineated in the law or constitution. The Constitution already gives Congress the power to raise armies, which would imply the right to provide them with weapons.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure why the Second Amendment would even be necessary if it was just referring to the military or the National Guard. Even countries where the citizens don't have any rights at all would still have the "right" to arm their own military forces. Every sovereign nation has such a right, even if it's not specifically delineated in the law or constitution. The Constitution already gives Congress the power to raise armies, which would imply the right to provide them with weapons.

Aye, it's an odd argument that the 2nd of only 10 amendments in the Bill Of Rights
is the singular amendment which grants a right to government instead of individual
citizens.
Consider the ACLU's take on the Bill Of Rights.....
The Bill of Rights: A Brief History

"[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse."
- Thomas Jefferson, December 20, 1787

In the summer of 1787, delegates from the 13 states convened in Philadelphia and drafted a remarkable blueprint for self-government -- the Constitution of the United States. The first draft set up a system of checks and balances that included a strong executive branch, a representative legislature and a federal judiciary.

The Constitution was remarkable, but deeply flawed. For one thing, it did not include a specific declaration - or bill - of individual rights. It specified what the government could do but did not say what it could not do. For another, it did not apply to everyone. The "consent of the governed" meant propertied white men only.

The absence of a "bill of rights" turned out to be an obstacle to the Constitution's ratification by the states. It would take four more years of intense debate before the new government's form would be resolved. The Federalists opposed including a bill of rights on the ground that it was unnecessary. The Anti-Federalists, who were afraid of a strong centralized government, refused to support the Constitution without one.

In the end, popular sentiment was decisive. Recently freed from the despotic English monarchy, the American people wanted strong guarantees that the new government would not trample upon their newly won freedoms of speech, press and religion, nor upon their right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures. So, the Constitution's framers heeded Thomas Jefferson who argued: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

The American Bill of Rights, inspired by Jefferson and drafted by James Madison, was adopted, and in 1791 the Constitution's first ten amendments became the law of the land.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I agree.
But if everyone is armed, it's hard to hold a riot.

Considering how relatively frequent riots are in the USA, that simply doesn't hold true. Especially considering many of those riots are started by shootings.

 

[Revoltingest]

Considering how relatively frequent riots are in the USA, that simply doesn't hold true. Especially considering many of those riots are started by shootings.

Rioters proceed without expecting to be shot.
As soon as shots are fired, they flee.
This is the case even in riots which are a reaction to an earlier shooting.