The Second Amendment, and overthrowing the government

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Rachael Maddow explores the idea. (Which, of course, means that some people around here will refuse to watch it. Librul idears, oooooh!)

One thing she hints at: Belief in a strong US military, and belief that the 2nd Amendment allows us to violently overthrow the government, are mutually exclusive. You cannot have it both ways. You *could* strike some sort of weird balance, but you cannot consistently claim both that we need a strong military, and we the people should have the right to overthrow it.

 

[Skwim]

"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."

 

[Requia]

Winning is not necessary to a successful rebellion. The people who took up arms against the Whiskey Tax got what they wanted despite crushing defeat, the tax became nearly unenforceable and was later repealed.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

"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."

It would seem to me, that is a single sentence divided by a comma.
The right of the people to bear arms is fulfilled in a states well regulated militia.

It would need to be two distinct statements to mean, that a state can bear arms in a well regulated militia.
And also that the people in a state have an individual right to bear arms.

But then I am English

 

[bobhikes]

Rachael Maddow explores the idea. (Which, of course, means that some people around here will refuse to watch it. Librul idears, oooooh!)

One thing she hints at: Belief in a strong US military, and belief that the 2nd Amendment allows us to violently overthrow the government, are mutually exclusive. You cannot have it both ways. You *could* strike some sort of weird balance, but you cannot consistently claim both that we need a strong military, and we the people should have the right to overthrow it.

Why not, I makes sense to me and I will never own a gun. I want a strong military to protect my interests and those of my country, however if my country ever goes to far to right or left of my interests I want the ability to get rid of it. I may even feel strong enough to go to arms myself to protect my family.

In my opinion the only government that will work for the people is one under constant jepordy of losing its job because of the people. This is why democracy could work very well. We just need to bring the constant jepordy back.

 

[Skwim]

It would seem to me, that is a single sentence divided by a comma.
The right of the people to bear arms is fulfilled in a states well regulated militia.

It would need to be two distinct statements to mean, that a state can bear arms in a well regulated militia.
And also that the people in a state have an individual right to bear arms.

But then I am English

Not quite understanding your explanation, but as I read it the first part of the sentence, ""A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," qualifies (explains the condition under which what follows is true) "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's like saying, "In order to go to the prom, you may have the car tonight." So just as the need to go to the prom functions as the reason for having use of the car, so too does "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," function as the reason that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." outside of each qualifying condition, there is no given right to have the car or bear arms.

The only reason to include a qualifier in a sentence is to constrain what follows to the circumstance(s) in the qualifier.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not quite understanding your explanation, but as I read it the first part of the sentence, ""A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," qualifies (explains the condition under which what follows is true) "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's like saying, "In order to go to the prom, you may have the car tonight." So just as the need to go to the prom functions as the reason for having use of the car, so too does "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," function as the reason that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." outside of each qualifying condition, there is no given right to have the car or bear arms.

The only reason to include a qualifier in a sentence is to constrain what follows to the circumstance(s) in the qualifier.

That's one way to view it.
Another:
The 2nd part is the right.
The 1st part is the reason.
I see no provision that the right disappears if the gov't denies the reason.
That's not an authority which I'd want to grant to power hungry politicians in DC.

 

[Skwim]

That's one way to view it.
Another:
The 2nd part is the right.
The 1st part is the reason.
I see no provision that the right disappears if the gov't denies the reason.

I don't see the government denying the reason, but only establishing the conditions under which it sanctions the ownership of arms. The 2nd Amendment is a conditional right granted by the government; however, it's often cited as conferring a lawful right to own arms outside of or regardless of the qualifying condition.

That's not an authority which I'd want to grant to power hungry politicians in DC.

Well, like it or not it's there. Now whether the government should be able to exercise its conditional qualification is another matter. Lawfully, it could.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see the government denying the reason, but only establishing the conditions under which it sanctions the ownership of arms. The 2nd Amendment is a conditional right granted by the government; however, it's often cited as conferring a lawful right to own arms outside of or regardless of the qualifying condition.

This is a fundamental difference.....I see it as granted by the Constitution, not by government.
Moreover, you call it a "qualifying condition", but I call it a reason.

 

[Skwim]

This is a fundamental difference.....I see it as granted by the Constitution, not by government.

To be precise, you're correct.

Moreover, you call it a "qualifying condition", but I call it a reason.

Yes. My wording simply describes the kind of reason.

 

[Revoltingest]

To be precise, you're correct.

Dang it! Now I can't fit my head thru my office door. Curse you.

 

[Requia]

The point is to prevent the government from denying the reason. The Feds don't have the authority to outlaw or regulate militias, and they also can't prevent them by outlawing weapons. You could argue that states have the right to outlaw guns as part of militia regulation I suppose.

 

[Mister Emu]

It's like saying, "In order to go to the prom, you may have the car tonight." So just as the need to go to the prom functions as the reason for having use of the car, so too does "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," function as the reason that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." outside of each qualifying condition, there is no given right to have the car or bear arms.

Another way of reading it, sticking with the car analogy, would be "In order to provide for your transportation to and from work, we have bought you a car". The reason for the buying of the car may be transportation to and from work, but that does notlimit the use of the car to only those functions, and even if you stop working, you still own the car.

 

[Skwim]

Another way of reading it, sticking with the car analogy, would be "In order to provide for your transportation to and from work, we have bought you a car". The reason for the buying of the car may be transportation to and from work, but that does notlimit the use of the car to only those functions, and even if you stop working, you still own the car.

Unfortunately, your sentence doesn't say anything about the use of the car. It simply explains why it was bought. For all anyone knows maybe the chauffeur will be driving the person to and from work. Thing is, laws are pretty carefully constructed conditionals, with attention payed to every word used and the form in which they are ordered. The writers of the 2nd Amendment purposely constructed the qualification so as to express the condition under which the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed. Had they thought other conditions merited inclusion they most surely would have included them. But they didn't, they wanted to narrow the right to a single situation: the necessity of a well regulated militia for the security of the State. So there's no basis to think reason A, or reason M, or reason 769 should also fall under the protection of the amendment. Had there been no need for a well regulated militia for the security of the State the second amendment would never have been constructed.

So, unless one is part of a well regulated militia there is no Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

Did it ever occur to you that even though they knew each state needed to be protected they also knew that no state wanted to foot the bill to pay for professional soldiers. They made every male over 18 (which is still in enforcement today) an involuntary member of their residing states militia and responsible for providing their own weapons.

 

[Skwim]

Did it ever occur to you that even though they knew each state needed to be protected they also knew that no state wanted to foot the bill to pay for professional soldiers. They made every male over 18 (which is still in enforcement today) an involuntary member of their residing states militia and responsible for providing their own weapons.

The "state" you speak of is not one of the 16 states in the union at the time, but a reference to the body politic and the internally autonomous territorial and political unit constituting the federation under one government: eg. a monarch dealing with state matters; the department that handles state security." This is why it was phrased as "security of the State" (capital "s") instead of "security of a state" (small "s").

As Eugene Volokh poites out in his piece “NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE” "we should recognize that the phrase “a free State” was not understood as having to do with states’ rights as such. Rather, it referred to preserving the liberty of the new country that the Constitution was establishing."

 

[Herman Tripleton]

The "state" you speak of is not one of the 16 states in the union at the time, but a reference to the body politic and the internally autonomous territorial and political unit constituting the federation under one government: eg. a monarch dealing with state matters; the department that handles state security." This is why it was phrased as "security of the State" (capital "s") instead of "security of a state" (small "s").

Whether referring to the nation as a whole or the individual states of the union it is still the same reason. We are all still involuntary members of the militia and they still didn't want to pay for our guns. Simple.

 

[Skwim]

Whether referring to the nation as a whole or the individual states of the union it is still the same reason. We are all still involuntary members of the militia and they still didn't want to pay for our guns. Simple.

So your definition of a member of a "well regulated militia" is: anyone able to hold a weapon. And a bunch of coke-head yahoos who sleep in their own vomit would be part of a "well regulated militia." Sorry, but I think I hear someone calling me.

 

[Rakhel]

Whether referring to the nation as a whole or the individual states of the union it is still the same reason. We are all still involuntary members of the militia and they still didn't want to pay for our guns. Simple.

Unless you join a well regulated militia or, as some might justify it, the US military.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

So your definition of a member of a "well regulated militia" is: anyone able to hold a weapon. And a bunch of coke-head yahoos who sleep in their own vomit would be part of a "well regulated militia." Sorry, but I think I hear someone calling me.

Its not mine, its my forefather's idea. Who do you think were these militiamen? Although back then the coke leaves were usually kept in a bowl at the pub. They kept the customers drinking.

You gotta stop superimposing your modern version of the world on my ancestors ideas. It warps them.