Why does the Constitution include reasoning for the right to keep and bear arms?

[Cameron]

"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 know there is a lot of dispute over the meaning of this clause, but to me at least, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is clearly intended to support or justify why "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms[] shall not be infringed."

Yet that in and of itself is unique. There is no equivalent explanation for any other right specified in at least the other original amendments to the Constitution, and possibly not anywhere in the Constitution (if you a similar clause, please point it out)--not for the freedom of religion, not for the freedom of speech or the press, not for the prohibition on the quartering of soldiers, not the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, not the right to a speedy trial or impartial jury, not the prohibition on excessive bail ... well, you get the idea.

I'm generally anti-Second Amendment as a policy matter, but as an interpretational matter I think it establishes an individual right to own guns. This isn't a trick question and I don't really have an agenda in asking it--it doesn't seem clear to me that the existence of this reason limits the effect of the Second Amendment in any way. I just finding the inclusion of reasoning strange, and am curious what others think.

 

[CLAX1911]

"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 know there is a lot of dispute over the meaning of this clause, but to me at least, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is clearly intended to support or justify why "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms[] shall not be infringed."

Yet that in and of itself is unique. There is no equivalent explanation for any other right specified in at least the other original amendments to the Constitution, and possibly not anywhere in the Constitution (if you a similar clause, please point it out)--not for the freedom of religion, not for the freedom of speech or the press, not for the prohibition on the quartering of soldiers, not the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, not the right to a speedy trial or impartial jury, not the prohibition on excessive bail ... well, you get the idea.

I'm generally anti-Second Amendment as a policy matter, but as an interpretational matter I think it establishes an individual right to own guns. This isn't a trick question and I don't really have an agenda in asking it--it doesn't seem clear to me that the existence of this reason limits the effect of the Second Amendment in any way. I just finding the inclusion of reasoning strange, and am curious what others think.

Why does it contain that because the author wrote it.

If you're asking why they wrote it, because the militia is necessary to the free state. Militia is made up of citizens. Without armed citizens you don't have a militia. Therefore it's part of the second amendment.

 

[ttwtt78640]

"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 know there is a lot of dispute over the meaning of this clause, but to me at least, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is clearly intended to support or justify why "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms[] shall not be infringed."

Yet that in and of itself is unique. There is no equivalent explanation for any other right specified in at least the other original amendments to the Constitution, and possibly not anywhere in the Constitution (if you a similar clause, please point it out)--not for the freedom of religion, not for the freedom of speech or the press, not for the prohibition on the quartering of soldiers, not the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, not the right to a speedy trial or impartial jury, not the prohibition on excessive bail ... well, you get the idea.

I'm generally anti-Second Amendment as a policy matter, but as an interpretational matter I think it establishes an individual right to own guns. This isn't a trick question and I don't really have an agenda in asking it--it doesn't seem clear to me that the existence of this reason limits the effect of the Second Amendment in any way. I just finding the inclusion of reasoning strange, and am curious what others think.

IMHO, it serves two purposes: 1) the population can’t be disarmed and hope to be able to defend itself to remain free and 2) to define the type of arms (those most suitable for armed combat) to which it applies.

It should remove any doubt as to the moronic nature of asserting that the people keeping and bearing “military style” arms is not the express purpose of the 2A or that guns suitable for duck hunting or target plinking are what the 2A was really about.

 

[Helix]

The composition of that sentence could use a bit of work. FFS, how many commas does it take?

It is fun to make up constitutional parody sentences, though.

 

[swing_voter]

The 2nd Amendment was added to protect our young democracy from the US military.

During the late 1700's, it was thought that the US military was the greatest threat to our democracy.

Citizens were supposed to be power enough to defeat the US military. To do that, citizens needed to arm themselves.


.

 

[Captain Adverse]

"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 know there is a lot of dispute over the meaning of this clause, but to me at least, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is clearly intended to support or justify why "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms[] shall not be infringed."

Yet that in and of itself is unique. There is no equivalent explanation for any other right specified in at least the other original amendments to the Constitution, and possibly not anywhere in the Constitution (if you a similar clause, please point it out)--not for the freedom of religion, not for the freedom of speech or the press, not for the prohibition on the quartering of soldiers, not the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, not the right to a speedy trial or impartial jury, not the prohibition on excessive bail ... well, you get the idea.

I'm generally anti-Second Amendment as a policy matter, but as an interpretational matter I think it establishes an individual right to own guns. This isn't a trick question and I don't really have an agenda in asking it--it doesn't seem clear to me that the existence of this reason limits the effect of the Second Amendment in any way. I just finding the inclusion of reasoning strange, and am curious what others think.

How many times does this have to come up? Especially when people try to use terms or phrases as viewed today as if they always have the exact same meanings when first coined?

Not really. The problem is a matter of interpretation. Basically what many of us today assume "well-regulated" meant when written, is contrary to what it meant back when the Constitution was being written.

Today we often presume terms read have the meanings we give them today, thus many assume the term used means "governed by rules," "well-trained," or "subject to regulations."

But back then? It meant "properly functioning" or "functioning as expected."

For example: These quotes from various literary sources around the time:

"He did not like to own that he had not as yet been to his parents and his dear sister Anne--a remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the major." Vanity Fair: A Novel Without a Hero - William Makepeace Thackeray - Google Books

"Marriage is a most important relation. Young men can not be too cautious in regard to it. It is not an affair of the feelings merely; but common sense dictates that when new relations are likely to arise, suitable provision should be made. Hence every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view." Trumps: A Novel - George William Curtis - Google Books

Reviews provided by other historians cite various examples of the word use found in the Oxford English Dictionary, including this from 1789:

"If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

So at the time of writing all the Framers were doing was stating in todays terms would be:

"A properly functioning Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That would be the proper interpretation as the Framers envisioned it back then.

Thus, at the times used it meant things like properly functioning, self-controlled, organized, disciplined, etc..

Think if it this way. The word "woke" stood for someone who recovered consciousness from a sleep or a coma. Now it has been coined to indicate someone is "awakened to (alleged) social reality."

 

[pinqy]

"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 know there is a lot of dispute over the meaning of this clause, but to me at least, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is clearly intended to support or justify why "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms[] shall not be infringed."

Yet that in and of itself is unique. There is no equivalent explanation for any other right specified in at least the other original amendments to the Constitution, and possibly not anywhere in the Constitution (if you a similar clause, please point it out)--not for the freedom of religion, not for the freedom of speech or the press, not for the prohibition on the quartering of soldiers, not the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, not the right to a speedy trial or impartial jury, not the prohibition on excessive bail ... well, you get the idea.

I'm generally anti-Second Amendment as a policy matter, but as an interpretational matter I think it establishes an individual right to own guns. This isn't a trick question and I don't really have an agenda in asking it--it doesn't seem clear to me that the existence of this reason limits the effect of the Second Amendment in any way. I just finding the inclusion of reasoning strange, and am curious what others think.

The framers were opposed to a large standing army and believed the state militias should be the primary military forces. Most (all?) of the state militias relied on individuals providing their own arms if called up. Therefore, any Federal regulations restricting ownership of weapons would directly affect the capabilities of the militias.

 

[HangLow]

IMHO, it serves two purposes: 1) the population can’t be disarmed and hope to be able to defend itself to remain free and 2) to define the type of arms (those most suitable for armed combat) to which it applies.

It should remove any doubt as to the moronic nature of asserting that the people keeping and bearing “military style” arms is not the express purpose of the 2A or that guns suitable for duck hunting or target plinking are what the 2A was really about.

​

 

[Captain Adverse]

The framers were opposed to a large standing army and believed the state militias should be the primary military forces. Most (all?) of the state militias relied on individuals providing their own arms if called up. Therefore, any Federal regulations restricting ownership of weapons would directly affect the capabilities of the militias.

They were also opposed to "select militias" which is what IMO they would view the National Guard as.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

"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 looks to me like the right to bear arms only applies during wartime. Conservatives go crazy over "shall not be infringed" by completely ignoring "the security of a free state" on purpose to fit their anti-American, pro-death agenda.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The 2nd Amendment was added to protect our young democracy from the US military.

During the late 1700's, it was thought that the US military was the greatest threat to our democracy.

Citizens were supposed to be power enough to defeat the US military. To do that, citizens needed to arm themselves.

Not quite. There was no "U.S. Military" back then. Unless you are referring to the organization of the State Militias into the Continental Army? Otherwise the first regiment of the Army wasn't formed until 1784, and the USA didn't exist until 1789. I have to assume you are being sarcastic. In all probability alluding to the argument the 2A exists so citizens can oppose a tyrannical government...but expect today such citizens would be crushed by the US Military.

The Second Amendment was "added" after a war that lasted 8 years with the then premier military force in the Western world. A military force no one in Europe, and among a sizeable portion of the colonial population, expected to lose.

Still, the role of the Second Amendment is not to "guarantee victory" against "overwhelming force." It's purpose is (IMO) twofold; the first being to allow the people a chance to protect their personal liberties, and the second to give our own government pause.

Why else do you see so many elected and appointed officials in our Government seeking to reduce this right? Do you REALLY believe it has anything much to do with preventing "mass shootings?"

Mass shootings are extremely rare, so that when they DO happen, they create a sensation. One both hoped for and if occurring are constantly used by authoritarians to scare people into a panic so fearsome they are willing to give up essential liberties in exchange for faux security. Make no mistake; Socialists (be they Fascist, Communist, Progressives, w/e) ARE authoritarians.

Disarming the public is their major goal. A disarmed public is easier to control.

 

[ecofarm]

A government that tells people it can guarantee their personal security is up to bad stuff. Once people rely on the government for their very lives, they easily become useful pawns. A well-regulated militia is not essential for national defense and thus the continuation of a free state. A well-regulated militia (that is an armed and trained populace) insures that the people remain in control of their personal safety.

The reason it is required is not for defense against foreigners. The reason it is required is to keep the state in its place. Note: not to battle against the state. To keep the state from attempting to ensure personal security.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Not quite. There was no "U.S. Military" back then. Unless you are referring to the organization of the State Militias into the Continental Army? Otherwise the first regiment of the Army wasn't formed until 1784, and the USA didn't exist until 1789. I have to assume you are being sarcastic. In all probability alluding to the argument the 2A exists so citizens can oppose a tyrannical government...but expect today such citizens would be crushed by the US Military.

The Second Amendment was "added" after a war that lasted 8 years with the then premier military force in the Western world. A military force no one in Europe, and among a sizeable portion of the colonial population, expected to lose.

Still, the role of the Second Amendment is not to "guarantee victory" against "overwhelming force." It's purpose is (IMO) twofold; the first being to allow the people a chance to protect their personal liberties, and the second to give our own government pause.

Why else do you see so many elected and appointed officials in our Government seeking to reduce this right? Do you REALLY believe it has anything much to do with preventing "mass shootings?"

Mass shootings are extremely rare, so that when they DO happen, they create a sensation. One both hoped for and if occurring are constantly used by authoritarians to scare people into a panic so fearsome they are willing to give up essential liberties in exchange for faux security. Make no mistake; Socialists (be they Fascist, Communist, Progressives, w/e) ARE authoritarians.

Disarming the public is their major goal. A disarmed public is easier to control.

A dependent (thus obedient) public is easier to control. Conversion of individual rights into mere state issued privileges assures maximum dependency.

 

[calamity]

"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 know there is a lot of dispute over the meaning of this clause, but to me at least, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is clearly intended to support or justify why "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms[] shall not be infringed."

Yet that in and of itself is unique. There is no equivalent explanation for any other right specified in at least the other original amendments to the Constitution, and possibly not anywhere in the Constitution (if you a similar clause, please point it out)--not for the freedom of religion, not for the freedom of speech or the press, not for the prohibition on the quartering of soldiers, not the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, not the right to a speedy trial or impartial jury, not the prohibition on excessive bail ... well, you get the idea.

I'm generally anti-Second Amendment as a policy matter, but as an interpretational matter I think it establishes an individual right to own guns. This isn't a trick question and I don't really have an agenda in asking it--it doesn't seem clear to me that the existence of this reason limits the effect of the Second Amendment in any way. I just finding the inclusion of reasoning strange, and am curious what others think.

It kind of made sense after defeating an oppressive overlord nation likely to try taking the place back. Plus, the South had all those slaves to keep in line. So, guns for all and all for guns.

Today, the 2nd Amendment is retarded .

 

[Antiwar]

The 2nd Amendment was added to protect our young democracy from the US military.

During the late 1700's, it was thought that the US military was the greatest threat to our democracy.

Citizens were supposed to be power enough to defeat the US military. To do that, citizens needed to arm themselves.


.

I find that hard to believe.

How does that apply to the modern era where the US military is so heavily armed?

 

[Rich2018]

"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 know there is a lot of dispute over the meaning of this clause, but to me at least, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is clearly intended to support or justify why "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Of course it is

Gun lovers prefer to ignore the bit about the militia though

To them the 2nd Amendment may well have said: "Roses smell nice, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"

 

[Cameron]

I appreciate all the responses so far. I want to clarify that I’m less interested in what the “reasoning” language means for the interpretation of the Second Amendment than I am in WHY there is reasoning language, when there is none for any other right?

Is this a reflection that the Founders recognized that the right to bear arms was historically unusual and required explanation?

 

[swing_voter]

Not quite. There was no "U.S. Military" back then. Unless you are referring to the organization of the State Militias into the Continental Army? Otherwise the first regiment of the Army wasn't formed until 1784, and the USA didn't exist until 1789. I have to assume you are being sarcastic. In all probability alluding to the argument the 2A exists so citizens can oppose a tyrannical government...but expect today such citizens would be crushed by the US Military.

The Second Amendment was "added" after a war that lasted 8 years with the then premier military force in the Western world. A military force no one in Europe, and among a sizeable portion of the colonial population, expected to lose.

Still, the role of the Second Amendment is not to "guarantee victory" against "overwhelming force." It's purpose is (IMO) twofold; the first being to allow the people a chance to protect their personal liberties, and the second to give our own government pause.

Why else do you see so many elected and appointed officials in our Government seeking to reduce this right? Do you REALLY believe it has anything much to do with preventing "mass shootings?"

Mass shootings are extremely rare, so that when they DO happen, they create a sensation. One both hoped for and if occurring are constantly used by authoritarians to scare people into a panic so fearsome they are willing to give up essential liberties in exchange for faux security. Make no mistake; Socialists (be they Fascist, Communist, Progressives, w/e) ARE authoritarians.

Disarming the public is their major goal. A disarmed public is easier to control.

US Army was founded June 14, 1775

Marines are older than that.


.

 

[Nickyjo]

I appreciate all the responses so far. I want to clarify that I’m less interested in what the “reasoning” language means for the interpretation of the Second Amendment than I am in WHY there is reasoning language, when there is none for any other right?

Is this a reflection that the Founders recognized that the right to bear arms was historically unusual and required explanation?

I assume that the Second Amendment, as with at least some others in the Bill of Rights, was written as a reaction to England’s policies pre-Revolution. Why else would they bother with the Third Amendment, about quartering troops in people’s houses? The King’s representatives wanted to keep the colonists disarmed, without local militias, as I understand it. Hence the Second Amendment. But we do infringe it, often, else how does one explain metal detectors at airports, at Congress, or even at baseball games?

 

[Rich2018]

"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 know there is a lot of dispute over the meaning of this clause, but to me at least, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is clearly intended to support or justify why "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms[] shall not be infringed."

Yet that in and of itself is unique. There is no equivalent explanation for any other right specified in at least the other original amendments to the Constitution, and possibly not anywhere in the Constitution (if you a similar clause, please point it out)--not for the freedom of religion, not for the freedom of speech or the press, not for the prohibition on the quartering of soldiers, not the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, not the right to a speedy trial or impartial jury, not the prohibition on excessive bail ... well, you get the idea.

I'm generally anti-Second Amendment as a policy matter, but as an interpretational matter I think it establishes an individual right to own guns. This isn't a trick question and I don't really have an agenda in asking it--it doesn't seem clear to me that the existence of this reason limits the effect of the Second Amendment in any way. I just finding the inclusion of reasoning strange, and am curious what others think.

Because the Constitution was written by men in the 18th century who had a different style of writing.

 

[Captain Adverse]

US Army was founded June 14, 1775

Marines are older than that.

No.

Stop using "Wkipedia." There was no United States in 1775. The Continental Army was created by the Continental Congress. That was the only organized central authority at the time for the rebelling colonies. Followed by the Confederation Period under the 1781 Articles of Confederation. The United States of America didn't start until the ratification of the U.S. Constitution by nine of the 13 colonies. There could not have been a "U.S. Army" until there WAS a U.S.A.

 

[Visbek]

I know there is a lot of dispute over the meaning of this clause, but to me at least, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is clearly intended to support or justify why "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms[] shall not be infringed."

Yep

The explicit purpose, as discussed by Congress during the drafting and ratification, was to make sure that the federal government was able to regulate militias, but could not seize their arms. This was mostly a reaction to England attempting to seize matériel stored in militia depots early in the war (e.g. Battle of Lexington).

We should note that the 2A was not written as a "defense against internal tyranny" or to keep the government in check, as some gun extremists claim. The idea was that the US did not (and, some thought, should not) have a standing army, thus militias were the defense against external enemies like England.

I'm generally anti-Second Amendment as a policy matter, but as an interpretational matter I think it establishes an individual right to own guns.

It doesn't. The right to bear arms is explicitly linked in the 2A to the perceived need for militias.

During the drafting and ratification, there was no discussion at all of an individual right. Every 2A case before Heller recognized that there was no individual right. If there was an individual right, then the first half would not be required. England, whose laws formed the basis of US law, did not recognize any such individual right.

Basically, a combination of the acceptance of standing armies, the irrelevance of militias, propaganda by gun extremists, and partisanship wound up influencing enough judges (most importantly Scalia) into thoroughly bastardizing US history into supporting the idea of an "individual right to bear arms."

That said, from a functional perspective, Heller made almost no difference. Hundreds of cases were filed after Heller to try and strike down gun control laws, and almost all of them failed. Even Scalia couldn't avoid recognizing that governments are empowered to regulate firearms, even though he tried to bury that fact in footnotes. The line is that laws can't be so onerous that it becomes nearly impossible for a citizen to own one. You don't need an individual right to establish that, thus the twisted legal reasoning of Heller wound up being almost entirely for naught.

 

[Rich2018]

No.

Stop using "Wkipedia." There was no United States in 1775. The Continental Army was created by the Continental Congress. That was the only organized central authority at the time for the rebelling colonies. Followed by the Confederation Period under the 1781 Articles of Confederation. The United States of America didn't start until the ratification of the U.S. Constitution by nine of the 13 colonies. There could not have been a "U.S. Army" until there WAS a U.S.A.

But Gunny Ermey said the USMC is older than the USA in the movie "Full Metal Jacket"

 

[Visbek]

Because the Constitution was written by men in the 18th century who had a different style of writing.

It had nothing to do with any "style of writing." They had no problems explicitly stating that Congress could not restrict freedom of religion, speech, assembly, or due process without a bunch of superfluous words.

If they believed there was an individual right to bear arms, then the 2A would have simply been written as "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to bear arms." They didn't, because... they didn't believe in that individual right.

 

[swing_voter]

No.

Stop using "Wkipedia." There was no United States in 1775. The Continental Army was created by the Continental Congress. That was the only organized central authority at the time for the rebelling colonies. Followed by the Confederation Period under the 1781 Articles of Confederation. The United States of America didn't start until the ratification of the U.S. Constitution by nine of the 13 colonies. There could not have been a "U.S. Army" until there WAS a U.S.A.

not wikipedia

U.S. Army | America's First National Institution

www.army.mil

1775, the US army was founded.