JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum The U.S Constitution Amendment #2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution:

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:


Is it just me or does this amendment read incredibly weird. How does a "well regulated militia" fit in with the right for me to bear arms. And the punctuation just confuses me to no end.

Now this brings up "Gun Control". I think this is a incredibly decisive issue -- which it shouldn't be at all. For instance, do you believe that your neighbor should have the right to have:

a) nuclear weapons
b) biological weapons like VX nerve gas or anthrax spores
c) surface to air missiles
d) fully automatic weapons
e) shot guns
f) hand guns
g) etc., etc. etc......

So I don't think gun control is the right phrase. It should be "weapon systems" control. I feel that anyone should be allowed to posses handguns, shotguns and rifles in their own home, however I would feel uncomfortable if my neighbor had a machine gun nest and a few surface to air missles on top of their house.

I don't believe the rights of a state to "ignore" this amendment has ever been tested in court.


Kevin

I interpret it as, "Since a well-regulated militia may be necessary to insure individual freedom, individuals shall have the right to keep and bear arms and to join with one another to form a people's army."

"People's Army" -- not sure about that one, but the wording sure is confusing to me.

Kevin

I don't think so. i think the idea was one way you keep government in line is if the citizenry are able to take up arms against it. I think the Founding Fathers had the American Revolution in mind when they wrote that.

As far as whether my neighbor ought to have surface-to-air missiles, et al., I think he should. Just as long as I get to have 'em, too. (We don't always get along.) An application of the old Robert Heinlein proverb: "An armed society is a polite society."

Joe

That's what a "militia" is - an army made up of ordinary citizens.

Maybe this is better:
"Since a well-regulated army made up of ordinary citizens may be necessary to insure individual freedom, peoples' right to keep and bear arms shall not be limited."

I hope you're not serious on this one.

Kevin

The idea is that the government should never have any weapons that the people don't have. Government is always the enemy. While it may be an necessary evil it's still evil. The only reason you don't say Hail Fuhrer every morning is there are more guns in civilian hands than in the government.

That begs the question, "Who does the regulating"?

To me, it reads like the intent was not to give citizens the ability to overthrow the government, but rather to allow citizens to take up arms, if needed, against an invader. The word "regulation" just doesn't make sense to me, otherwise....

I suppose they could have meant that the commanders of the armed forces do the regulating and that the armed forces therefore had the responsibility to overthrow an evil government.... I dunno...

But if the government regulates (as they do now), I can't wrap my mind around it...

I'll admit to never really being able to figure out what they had in mind. Does anyone know if there are any historical documents of the time that shed light on what they were thinking?

I wonder if any of them thought about the ramifications of new technologies that would be developed?

Scott

Scott, I do think the intent was to give the citizenry the ability to overthrow the government when and if need be. These guys were operating from experience. They had just done that.

The dudes who wrote the U.S. Constitution were trying to sell it to the 13 state (nee colonial) governments, remember, and were having a hard time because no one really wanted a strong central government (except maybe Al Hamilton, who was looking forward to playing with the money). I forget which state came up with the idea of "we'll buy in if you add these here ten things," but over roughly a 4-year period, all the states agreed, and that's why we got what we got.

No, the Founding Fathers didn't anticipate any technological advances, as far as I know. The only guy in America who was doing experimental stuff was Ben Franklin, with his penchant for flying kites in lighning storms--but they took care of him by sending him to France. However, they did have confidence that if something happened, intelligent people would figure out a way to deal with it.

I think the "well-regulated militia" they had in mind is what they had during the Revolution. It was just a bunch of local guys who formed themselves into impromptu regiments, and it worked surprisingly well. I think the Founding Dudes had the idea it would work again--provided everybody had the ability to keep a gun around and knew how to use it.

And I was serious about the surface-to-air missiles. An armed society is a polite society.

Joe

Fair enough. I'll have to think on that some more. Do you think any line should be drawn in the sand? I was under the impression that 99.99% of the population would be against neighbors having nuclear weapons, but maybe I'm wrong.

Kevin

I'd be against my neighbor having a nuclear weapon because I can't afford one. I'd be jealous.

Bill, if everybody had them, they'd be cheaper. They're expensive because they're hard to get.

Joe

It appears to me that the founding fathers intended the right to bear arms to be in order to defend their states from invasion by another state, or indeed to overthrow the government if necessary. Look at the times and look at the revolutionary concept of a self-governing populace. Absolutely radical notion at the time...strong governments were run by monarchs and despots, and "the people" did whatever the monarchs and despots wished. The government had all the rights, and the people had none. So it seemed essential to the founders that American citizens, who were replacing monarchy and despotism with their own selves, be granted the power to fight any incursion on their own government with deadly force.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

The right to bear arms is a flat-out radical notion. It's not about hunters and it's not about being able to blow away a New York mugger--it's about States' rights, and the right of all of its citizens to rise up as an armed force. And so this makes our modern arguments very much out of context with the original intent...they barely equate with each other. In 2008, it is almost inconceivable to us that Minnesota might contemplate armed force against Wisconsin, but I believe this is closer to what the founders feared when they passed the 2nd Amendment.

It was not passed without a lot of passionate debate...this was no unanimous sentiment at the time.

Like anything else it's not what your neighbor owns it's what he (or she) does with it.
Some people are not safe with automobiles, booze, or knitting needles
Some I'd trust with any gun, or weapon, on the planet.

Reading the Federalist Papers shows, without a doubt, that the Founders wanted an armed populace both for "private defense" and as a check on government going from a Republic to a tyranny.

"Regulated" in the 1770s meant "trained" or "well practiced."
I've known some rifle and pistol match shooters who are more "regulated" in that sense than some cops or soldiers. (My brother was an Army cook back in the 1980s. He went to the range to shoot his rifle once a year then).

Read "The Origin Of The Second Amendment" by David E. Young if you'd like more info on this.

Mark: That link was a great read!

Lee: Looks like a interesting book.

Thanks,

Kevin

The idea that only Franklin was an innovator is bogus.

Jefferson was an inventor of note and tried to bring grape growing and winemaking to Virginia. Many of the Founders were landowners and actively looked for better ways to grow crops and turn a profit from their land. Most had large libraries for the time too. Washington made whiskey at Mt. Vernon and I think he was using the best technology he could get, or invent.

The flintlock Kentucky/ Pennsylvania rifle was a technoligical advance over the British Brown Bess musket. It had longer range and more accuracy. It was used effectively in the Revolution, although muskets and bayonets were still the main infantry weapon. (Look up Tim Murphy, The Battle Of Freeman's Farm, and King's Mountain, for info on what Americans with rifles could do on the field).

The Americna tactic of shooting British officers first in any battle was also an innovation. Tne British resented it but never really found a way to deal with it.

American privateers in the War Of 1812 also came up with some interesting tricks.

Americans in general were known for industry and inventiveness long before the Revolution.

I agree with Lee, those founders all seemed to be inventors, but Jefferson was exceptional and much more active than Franklin.

http://storis63.tripod.com/jefferson2a.html

Well...I take that back...Franklin was pretty darned good:

http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/inventor/inventor.html

They sent Jefferson to France, too.

Joe