The Second Amendment, and overthrowing the government

[Herman Tripleton]

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

If you are over 18 and a male and your state calls you up for the militia you gotta go, and you better have a gun.

 

[Rakhel]

If you are over 18 and a male and your state calls you up for the militia you gotta go, and you better have a gun.

That is what the National Guard is for. In fact, many states have called them in for duty and not for the purpose of going to war in other countries.
Arkansas called up the National Guard some 50 years ago, give or take, during the Little Rock 9 incident. They were also called up in Louisiana and Mississippi just after Hurricane Katrina hit to provide additional support in police and relief efforts. Several states have also threatened to call their guardsmen back because they disagreed with the governments handling of political affairs.
A well regulated militia is not just a group of woodsmen who feel they have the right to carry guns.

 

[Mister Emu]

Unfortunately, your sentence doesn't say anything about the use of the car. It simply explains why it was bought

Exactly... the same as the explanation as to why we have the right to bear arms.

Thing is, laws are pretty carefully constructed conditionals, with attention payed to every word used and the form in which they are ordered

Then why didn't they structure the right acknowledging clause to be limited? "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." If they wanted to limit it to militias it could easily have said "the right of the people to bear arms in a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed". That they very carefully select wording supports the argument that the right is to be enjoyed by all people, militia or not.

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

Plenty of people, including the Supreme Court, disagree.

 

[Rakhel]

According to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Second Amendment was modified seven times before they actually settled on the final draft.
The first draft being:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The final being:

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

Looks like a nice game of telephone to me.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

According to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Second Amendment was modified seven times before they actually settled on the final draft.
The first draft being:
The final being:
Looks like a nice game of telephone to me.

If it took seven attempts to get a final draft acceptable to all sides, it would seem that there were some very opposite views, that only the vague and debatable meaning of the final draft, could be read in sufficient ways that satisfied every point of view.

The debate here shows how easily it can be interpreted to mean quite different things.

I expect they agreed the words, but never the meaning.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

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.

How exactly do you intent do serve in a force that would have to be more powerful than the United States Armed Forces? And what is so bad about having to resort to bloodless elections? Look at the major changes in the last three elections; we didn't have to overthrow the government to change it!

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 not limit the use of the car to only those functions, and even if you stop working, you still own the car.

This does not address the mutual exclusivity described in the OP.

 

[Revoltingest]

How exactly do you intent do serve in a force that would have to be more powerful than the United States Armed Forces?

To be militarily less powerful does not mean to be ineffective. Were the military to fight the citizenry, resistance
would be diffuse, which is difficult for a major power. Moreover, soldiers would likely be reluctant to fire upon
civilians during a popular uprising against unreasonable authority.

And what is so bad about having to resort to bloodless elections? Look at the major changes in the last three elections; we didn't have to overthrow the government to change it!

You'll note that elections are the norm. But over many centuries, it's possible that things could become abnormally bad.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I think the Second Amendment speaks to decentralization.

IMO, the worry of the American Founding Fathers was a too-strong federal government. The Second Amendment is about the ability of the individual states to wage war against an oppressive federal government.

IMO, the modern-day situation that would be closest to the Founders' vision would be a strong National Guard in each state and a weak regular army.

 

[Skwim]

Unfortunately, your sentence doesn't say anything about the use of the car. It simply explains why it was bought

Exactly... the same as the explanation as to why we have the right to bear arms.

No. Your argument only mentioned owning a car, not personally using it. The argument regarding arms includes the right of those keeping them to bear them, "the right to load them and shoot them and use them." *

Then why didn't they structure the right acknowledging clause to be limited? "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." If they wanted to limit it to militias it could easily have said "the right of the people to bear arms in a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed". That they very carefully select wording supports the argument that the right is to be enjoyed by all people, militia or not.

No it does not, just as "In order to go to the prom, you may have the car tonight" defines the circumstance under which "you may have the car tonight." Now, stylistically the authors of the amendment could have written it the way you suggest, but they chose not to. Had they not seen the need to spell out the circumstance under which the right to keep and bear arms could not be infringed, they would not have stated it. In effect this establishes that the right is a conditional one, and one they only found a single reason for establishing.

Plenty of people, including the Supreme Court, disagree.

I know plenty of people do, but where has the Supreme Court disagreed?


*source

 

[Skwim]

If it took seven attempts to get a final draft acceptable to all sides, it would seem that there were some very opposite views, that only the vague and debatable meaning of the final draft, could be read in sufficient ways that satisfied every point of view.

The debate here shows how easily it can be interpreted to mean quite different things.

I expect they agreed the words, but never the meaning.

If you think the other amendments didn't go through at least several drafts then I suggest you get yourself a good history book.

 

[Requia]

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.

Actually militias were federally funded for quite some time, the right to bear arms was a defense against those militias being defunded.

 

[Kathryn]

 

[Requia]

How exactly do you intent do serve in a force that would have to be more powerful than the United States Armed Forces? And what is so bad about having to resort to bloodless elections? Look at the major changes in the last three elections; we didn't have to overthrow the government to change it!



This does not address the mutual exclusivity described in the OP.

Change from one war criminal being in charge to another doesn't really count.

Of course, bloody changes in power usually work the same way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They were all also in favour of a strong military.

I think you just provided an excellent example of the inconsistency that the OP talks about.

 

[Revoltingest]

They were all also in favour of a strong military.

I think you just provided an excellent example of the inconsistency that the OP talks about.

Perhaps 'inconsistency' is desirable.....a strong military controlled by gov't should be counter-balanced by an armed citizenry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps 'inconsistency' is desirable.....a strong military controlled by gov't should be counter-balanced by an armed citizenry.

I'm not sure this make sense. Consider the possibilities:

- strong military, armed citizenry
- strong military, unarmed citizenry
- weak military, armed citizenry
- weak military, unarmed citizenry

Which of these options is a better defense against potential tyranny from one's government? It sure isn't any of the options involving a strong military if the military in question is the one you're worried might try to oppress you.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure this make sense. Consider the possibilities:

- strong military, armed citizenry
- strong military, unarmed citizenry
- weak military, armed citizenry
- weak military, unarmed citizenry

Which of these options is a better defense against potential tyranny from one's government? It sure isn't any of the options involving a strong military if the military in question is the one you're worried might try to oppress you.

I pick door #1, Monty!
It keeps the Mongol hordes (aka ferriners) at bay.

 

[Kathryn]

Perhaps 'inconsistency' is desirable.....a strong military controlled by gov't should be counter-balanced by an armed citizenry.

I like it. It's crazy....but it just might work...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I pick door #1, Monty!
It keeps the Mongol hordes (aka ferriners) at bay.

Hmm. I think option #1 borders on schizophrenic: "I support my troops, but I'll be coming out with guns blazing if they try anything funny."

 

[Revoltingest]

Hmm. I think option #1 borders on schizophrenic: "I support my troops, but I'll be coming out with guns blazing if they try anything funny."

Sometimes the best control systems are dynamically unstable....like bipedalism, or hi-performance aircraft.