• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199:2834]

Anti-Party

Banned
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
145
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
*admin if this belongs in guns sorry, feel free to move it*

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.

I'm blown away by how many different interpretations I've heard of the 2nd Amendment. There are 3 words that have multiple definitions which make it more complicated than what it seems. Regulated, Militia and State. I've also heard people debate the term Arms.

The kicker is that everyone I talk to is absolutely certain their definition is the correct one and has a very long drawn out story of why. eace
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Actually, there's a fourth: "arms". According to the dead president channelers (originalists), we have to use terms as the founders understood them. Which means "arms" don't include revolvers or semi-automatics, which hadn't been invented them.

The argument is stupid, of course, but it's theirs and they need their noses rubbed in its implication. The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect any modern firearms. It protects only muskets and some primitive breech loading pistols.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

head of joaquin said:
The argument is stupid, of course, but it's theirs and they need their noses rubbed in its implication. The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect any modern firearms. It protects only muskets and some primitive breech loading pistols.
Click to expand...

And the 1st Amendment only protects the printing press and religions that existed in 1783.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Viktyr Gehrig said:
And the 1st Amendment only protects the printing press and religions that existed in 1783.
Click to expand...

Haha, that's a very good point.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

"arms" seems to me to mean all swords, knives, and firearms.

comes from the word armament...
the latin word armāmenta: which means to fit out. This was applied to military equipment.

So technically it means all military equipment that our military "fits on" as infantry, so I don't even think it protects the common firearm, but just military grade firearms for civilians! SO IT"S BEEN THE OPPOSITE ALL ALONG!!!... we are all supposed to have "assault" weapons.
 
Last edited:
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State",
A well trained (drilled) citizen army, being necessary to the security of a free State. (my interpretation)
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The citizens shell have the right to possess weapons capable of fighting a war, this right shell not be restricted
At the time of the ratification, Private citizens could and did possess every weapon available
to the armed forces of our new republic, including cannon and armed ships.
As to the argument that the writers of the Constitution could not foresee the advances in weapons,
Logic would dictate, that our Citizen army should keep up with any army they might have to fight.
Imagine if our Militia forces had tried to take Cuba from Spain with Flintlocks?
I have seen headlines saying pro 2nd amendment people are not willing to compromise,
I say the compromise has already occurred. No full auto rifles(post 1986), no surface to air missiles,
no anti tank rockets, ect..
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Ambiguity.

It can be introduced by the statement itself .. or by the phrasing of the question about the statement.

If the 2A was written and implemented prior to the federal regulation of a regular standing state-regulated military, December, 15, 1791, then it would seem that the 2A was an authorization of such, and does not refer to the keeping of arms of common citizens which simply wasn't in question back then, as like everyone owned a gun -- that was completely normal back then.

Also, the word Militia is capitalized, so that implies a formal entity.

Said Militia is well regulated.

And, of course, it's all about keeping the security of a free State, "State" also capitalized, implying, once again, a formal entity, like the U.S. itself.

But then comes the nebulous contradiction in the third clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". "People" is not capitalized, so there's no formal entity referenced so that could mean people in general, not associated with a specific formalized entity, and "Arms" is capitalized, so what's up with that?!

"Shall not be infringed" could refer to Congress keeping their hands off of America's right to defend itself with a standing Militia .. or it could mean the government couldn't interfere in the lives of individual citizens to carry a gun.

If I recall, many of the framers were concerned about America having a big standing army that could be called on to enforce a coup or infringe rights, so debate might have ensued about how big the military could be, like maybe just "Militia"-size .. and maybe the 2A was all about that.

But again, the government interfering with individual citizens carrying a gun simply was not an issue back then, so why make an entire amendment about it .. unless, of course, King George III had tried to enact such a revolution-preventative edict, and then it makes reactive sense, from an overpowering government preventative perspective, I suppose.

And sure, back then they seemed to capitalize words willy-nilly, like such capitalization or the absence of it didn't really mean much .. though others said it wasn't as willy-nilly as it looks and there was definite meaning to it.

All in all, I'd have to say that either the 2A was really accidentally poorly written so as to be rather nebulous in meaning .. or it was purposely written the way it is to keep things unclear and an active debate always open and fluid.

And how the hell am I gonna know which it is?!
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

My State Constitution has a modern version of the 2A which I find very agreeable:

South Dakota, Article 6

§ 24. Right to bear arms. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.
Click to expand...
This is how I read the Second Amendment.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]




Hell, why wonder? Let's ask the guys who wrote it...


"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison


The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Viktyr Gehrig said:
And the 1st Amendment only protects the printing press and religions that existed in 1783.
Click to expand...

I know. It's a stupid argument the orginalists make, isn't it? So when the moan that social security or health care isn't mentioned in the constitution, we should all laugh accordingly.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Militia- citizens are the first line of defense- nuff said
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

head of joaquin said:
I know. It's a stupid argument the orginalists make, isn't it? So when the moan that social security or health care isn't mentioned in the constitution, we should all laugh accordingly.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Personally, I think Social Security and healthcare are covered under the intent of the general welfare clause. My issue is that current gun control regimes are against the intent of the Second Amendment and a large portion of our government and our populace simply has no regard for that intent, or for the principle of gun rights in general.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]


And who are the militia ? Many liberals may be surprised to find out, they are part of the militia.

And if these Americans who don't own and posses an infantry rifle or a firearm that can be used in combat, can't say they served honorably in our militia.

In my particular case, I served honorably in the U.S. Marine Corps. After my tour of duty in the Marines, under federal law I was a member of the militia and when I reached that age of 46, I was no longer obligated to be part of the militia but I still continue to be serving in our militia.



10 USC Sec. 311 01/03/2012 (112-90)

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt
 
Last edited:
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]


Interesting stuff. But all of that only broke down one word, Militia. No one debates the right to keep and bear arms.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]


I've never met a Liberal confused about he word militia. I've met LOTS of Right Wingers confused about it though.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]


We agree on SS. As to the 2nd Amendment, there is no issue whether we can regulate and limit it: all rights are subject to limitation and balancing in American jurisprudence. The issue is which regulations are reasonable and pass constitutional muster.

So while you and I could argue the merit of this or that regulation, the issue here is that the gun lovers assert that any regulation is invalid. And that's just silly.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

APACHERAT said:
And who are the militia ? Many liberals may be surprised to find out, they are part of the militia.
Click to expand...

Actually when George Mason defined the militia what he meant was the armed white death squads that were used by slave owners to hunt down and shoot runaway slaves, the major preoccupation of the south at the time and the real reason we have a second amendment.

Pretty sick history:

University of California at Davis Law Review
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

I tend to read it for exactly what it says;

Militia means the armed people. If it meant the armed government the 2nd Amendment wouldn't protect our right to bear arms at all, just the military's.

Regulate means regulate. Not well trained or well groomed. It means certain conditions may have to be met to prove you are worthy to carry a gun. It could also mean the ability to regulate certain weapons/accessories/ammo.

State means State of Being.

If you put this together, you get a pretty smart and common sense approach to gun ownership. I'll try to word it differently to show the perspective.

"We must regulate our armed citizens to ensure an environment free from excessive gun violence, then we can assure we will always have the right to keep and bear arms"

Pretty straight forward and simple.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]


I read about that. It's a pretty well written argument.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]


Are you willing to use that originalist interpretation when discussing, say... freedom of speech ("The internet hadn't been invented yet") and cruel and unusual punishment ("They agreed with hanging, so should we")?
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Anti-Party said:
I read about that. It's a pretty well written argument.
Click to expand...

It puts the NRA narrative about armed citizens protecting the rights of the oppressed from government in a new light. I'd note that the NRA and gun lovers NEVER, I mean NEVER, lifted a finger to assist oppressed minorities or groups in this country from government action. Indeed, the NRA and the rest were pro-segregation, pro-Vietnam war, anti-environmental. It has never said a supportive word, much less taken up arms, to citizen groups who actually have resisted bad government policy.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Dezaad said:
Are you willing to use that originalist interpretation when discussing, say... freedom of speech ("The internet hadn't been invented yet") and cruel and unusual punishment ("They agreed with hanging, so should we")?
Click to expand...

Whoosh, right over your head.

I don't use any originalists arguments. They're stupid.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]


You share a perspective lots of people are getting today. I don't know who is saying it, if it's Libertarians or who. The interpretation basically means;
The 2nd Amendment ensures the armed citizens will be regulated exactly the same as the military (using militia for both of it's meanings in one). Meaning we should be allowed to have tanks, RPG's, AH-64D Apache etc. These same people oppose all background checks because they say, "If people are too dangerous to carry a weapon they shouldn't be allowed in society in the first place". Of course this assumes our criminal screening process is 100% perfect. This also means they believe someone should be able to purchase a AH-64D Apache with no background check..

Needless to say, I do not agree with this perspective and I don't think it's well thought out.
 
re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Dezaad said:
Are you willing to use that originalist interpretation when discussing, say... freedom of speech ("The internet hadn't been invented yet") and cruel and unusual punishment ("They agreed with hanging, so should we")?
Click to expand...

I do not believe in gun grabbing at this point of weapons technology, but I believe "Head of Joaquin" is correct on this one. There is no denying that the 2A was written in the time of muskets that took around 10 seconds to reload each bullet. It's also why the Founders created a way to make Amendments because they knew times would change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…