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

[VanceMack]

I didn't think you'd be willing to answer that question and watch your whole argument unravel.

Again...you ask questions rooted in ignorance, you dont really have much of a leg to stand on when people choose not to play your stupid game.

 

[Gaius46]

"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 “well regulated militia” clause - the prefatory or justification clause - wasn’t used in any other place in the Federal Constitution but they were widely used in State Constitutions at that time. They were never interpreted as limiting.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Holy shit.

You know literally **** all about US history...

It is a "trick/trap" comment.

Yes, prior to the creation of the USA under the Constitution, and prior to the Articles of Confederation established in 1781, while the Continental Congress was in charge there was established and "Army of the United States."

During that period Washington and some others argued for a regular force which could be counted on to stay in service, unlike arguing militia units who often wanted to go home after their "volunteer" period ended. So a regiment of "regulars" was created and the service was called the Army of the United States.

Not in reference to the USA, but rather in deference to the thirteen "Independent States" supporting the Revolution.

However, men like Thomas Jefferson and other citizens and leaders did oppose standing armies as a threat to liberty. They did not support them and preferred to depend on citizen's militia.

So arguably there were many people who considered a standing army a threat to individual liberty and independence.

He is just taking those two facts and stating a blanket opinion.

 

[CaughtInThe]

The Founders had to include it. They had just fought a revolution (where they could have hung by the neck until dead) and they had no idea who was going to invade/re-invade them next.

Plus, Dan'l Boone was out hunting and trapping. How were they not gonna protect folks like him in a country of wilderness and coming expansion? Tell everyone to fight with bows and arrows?

 

[j brown's body]

Again...you ask questions rooted in ignorance, you dont really have much of a leg to stand on when people choose not to play your stupid game.

I am simply extended your argument to its own illogical conclusion and now you're melting down. Be best!

 

[j brown's body]

It is a "trick/trap" comment.

Yes, prior to the creation of the USA under the Constitution, and prior to the Articles of Confederation established in 1781, while the Continental Congress was in charge there was established and "Army of the United States."

During that period Washington and some others argued for a regular force which could be counted on to stay in service, unlike arguing militia units who often wanted to go home after their "volunteer" period ended. So a regiment of "regulars" was created and the service was called the Army of the United States.

Not in reference to the USA, but rather in deference to the thirteen "Independent States" supporting the Revolution.

However, men like Thomas Jefferson and other citizens and leaders did oppose standing armies as a threat to liberty. They did not support them and preferred to depend on citizen's militia.

So arguably there were many people who considered a standing army a threat to individual liberty and independence.

He is just taking those two facts and stating a blanket opinion.

Either way, their rationale for a second amendment, based on what you have argued here, is now clearly moot.

Interesting some of the 2nd amendments biggest supporters are also supporters of a strong military.

Kind of ironic.

 

[VanceMack]

It is a "trick/trap" comment.

Yes, prior to the creation of the USA under the Constitution, and prior to the Articles of Confederation established in 1781, while the Continental Congress was in charge there was established and "Army of the United States."

During that period Washington and some others argued for a regular force which could be counted on to stay in service, unlike arguing militia units who often wanted to go home after their "volunteer" period ended. So a regiment of "regulars" was created and the service was call the Army of the United States.

Not in reference to the USA, but rather in deference to the thirteen "Independent States" supporting the Revolution.

However, men like Thomas Jefferson and other citizens and leaders did oppose standing armies as a threat to liberty. They did not support them and preferred to depend on citizen's militia.

So arguably there were many people who considered a standing army a threat to individual liberty and independence.

He is just taking those two facts and stating a blanket opinion.

While ignoring the reality that states AND the country relied on the citizen militia in a variety of manners. Sure...the individual states were skeptical of a large military force, especially considering what they just fought to defeat. Te intent of most was pretty clear...the people are the militia. There were several isntances after the revolutionary war where both the US Army and Militia presence was used. Eventually states implemented 'organized' militias, but the unorganized militia remains, even today...as a last line of defense.

 

[VanceMack]

I am simply extended your argument to its own illogical conclusion and now you're melting down. Be best!

I love the typical leftist response when the stupidity of your argument gets exposed.

You still know nothing of the militias. Your question was born of your ignorance. And frankly from your continued response...I think you still dont even know why.

And that's...hilarious.

 

[Visbek]

Its REALLY not very complicated.

Here we go

The passage of the Bill of Rights was included NOT as a guarantor of rights but rather as a limit ON GOVERNMENT.

True. But keep in mind, the Bill of Rights also applied exclusively to Congress, until a) the passage of the 14th Amendment, and b) the SCOTUS agreed that specific provisions of the BoR were incorporated to the states, typically on the basis that they implicitly protected an individual right. Thus, the 14th Amendment radically changed the BoR.

That said, at a minimum we should recognize that Heller radically altered the interpretation of the 2A as an individual right, whereas previously it was only seen as protecting arms to keep militias operational.

The founding fathers recognized the importance of 'the militia...the people...and they codified in writing the rights of citizens....

Well, sort of. Some of that generation's politicians were strongly against standing armies, hence the desire to ensure militias were properly armed. Keep in mind that many were in favor of standing armies, including George Washington and Alexander Hamilton.

It wasn't about a hunting rifle or a handgun...it was about military weapons. ANY TIME someone says "people don't need ARs to defend themselves"..well..

You may have a point, except that it is up to legislators to ultimately decide what citizens can own, and the rules around them. What they can't do is make the rules so onerous that owning certain classes of firearms (notably pistols and standard rifles) is nearly impossible.

That said, if you do agree with Heller, then the claim that citizens should be granted unfettered access to assault rifles because they are "military weapons" goes out the window.

When a gun banning leftist claims you don't need an AR to hunt, they are 1-proving they know nothing about hunting AND 2-They know nothing about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

Well, I know quite a bit. I'm curious though, what are you hunting that you'd actually need an AR? Are the deer firing back now? Anyway...

People get lost on the term "well regulated"...but that's only because in today's day and age they cant think of that term in any means other than governmental control. Its not what the term meant.

It meant that Congress was empowered to set rules for firearm ownership -- but it couldn't cross the line into making it impossible for militias to function. There were also plenty of laws around firearms, though far more common in Europe than in the US. So yes, the idea does hold up.

One of George Washington' greatest laments as a General was that the citizen soldiers in the militias tht came to him during the beginning of the war were untrained....

True, but that's why he was in favor of a professional standing army, and proposed that (along with better trained militias) in 1783:

A regular and standing force, for Garrisoning West Point & such other Posts upon our Northern, Western, and Southern Frontiers, as shall be deemed necessary to awe the Indians, protect our Trade, prevent the encroachment of our Neighbours of Canada and the Florida’s, and guard us at least from surprizes; Also for security of our Magazines....

Altho’ a large standing Army in time of Peace hath ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a Country, yet a few Troops, under certain circumstances, are not only safe, but indispensably necessary. Fortunately for us our relative situation requires but few. The same circumstances which so effectually retarded, and in the end conspired to defeat the attempts of Britain to subdue us, will now powerfully tend to render us secure. Our distance from the European States in a great degree frees us of apprehension, from their numerous regular forces and the Insults and dangers which are to be dreaded from their Ambition.

What we know for an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY is that it did not mean...an organized federally recognized Militia. We know that because the Constitution and Bill of Rights were both passed years before the 1st Militia Act.

We also know, with absolute certainty, that Washington, Hamilton and others favored a standing army.

As to militias? It's very obvious that they are an outdated and obsolete concept. A citizen militia cannot possibly keep the US safe, or protect its interests abroad. Their time has passed. And with them, no matter how flawed the legal reasoning or hypocrisies of Heller, the links between the 2A and militias.

 

[VanceMack]

Here we go



True. But keep in mind, the Bill of Rights also applied exclusively to Congress, until a) the passage of the 14th Amendment, and b) the SCOTUS agreed that specific provisions of the BoR were incorporated to the states, typically on the basis that they implicitly protected an individual right. Thus, the 14th Amendment radically changed the BoR.

That said, at a minimum we should recognize that Heller radically altered the interpretation of the 2A as an individual right, whereas previously it was only seen as protecting arms to keep militias operational.



Well, sort of. Some of that generation's politicians were strongly against standing armies, hence the desire to ensure militias were properly armed. Keep in mind that many were in favor of standing armies, including George Washington and Alexander Hamilton.



You may have a point, except that it is up to legislators to ultimately decide what citizens can own, and the rules around them. What they can't do is make the rules so onerous that owning certain classes of firearms (notably pistols and standard rifles) is nearly impossible.

That said, if you do agree with Heller, then the claim that citizens should be granted unfettered access to assault rifles because they are "military weapons" goes out the window.



Well, I know quite a bit. I'm curious though, what are you hunting that you'd actually need an AR? Are the deer firing back now? Anyway...



It meant that Congress was empowered to set rules for firearm ownership -- but it couldn't cross the line into making it impossible for militias to function. There were also plenty of laws around firearms, though far more common in Europe than in the US. So yes, the idea does hold up.



True, but that's why he was in favor of a professional standing army, and proposed that (along with better trained militias) in 1783:

A regular and standing force, for Garrisoning West Point & such other Posts upon our Northern, Western, and Southern Frontiers, as shall be deemed necessary to awe the Indians, protect our Trade, prevent the encroachment of our Neighbours of Canada and the Florida’s, and guard us at least from surprizes; Also for security of our Magazines....

Altho’ a large standing Army in time of Peace hath ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a Country, yet a few Troops, under certain circumstances, are not only safe, but indispensably necessary. Fortunately for us our relative situation requires but few. The same circumstances which so effectually retarded, and in the end conspired to defeat the attempts of Britain to subdue us, will now powerfully tend to render us secure. Our distance from the European States in a great degree frees us of apprehension, from their numerous regular forces and the Insults and dangers which are to be dreaded from their Ambition.



We also know, with absolute certainty, that Washington, Hamilton and others favored a standing army.

As to militias? It's very obvious that they are an outdated and obsolete concept. A citizen militia cannot possibly keep the US safe, or protect its interests abroad. Their time has passed. And with them, no matter how flawed the legal reasoning or hypocrisies of Heller, the links between the 2A and militias.

The National Guard is a Citizen Militia. It is the organized militia (23 states have a Civilian Defense Force in addition to the National Guard, a true "Citizen Militia"). Citizens are the unorganized militia, we are a force of 140 million law abiding citizen gun owners. I absolutely hope shit never breaks down so bad that the unorganized citizen militia is called into service. But then...we have seen several instances where the civilian 'forces' are more mobile and able to respond immediately than the organized militias.

 

[Rich2018]

What I am saying is that any laws which are neither adequately enforced nor applied equally are basically worthless. It is rather moronic to call for ever more “gun control” laws while not insisting that existing “gun control” laws be adequately enforced.

It is already illegal for a prohibited person to possess any gun, so limiting the (newly made?) guns available to those with their full 2A rights is ridiculous. A good clue that a “gun control” law has gone too far is the perceived need to exempt LEOs (even when retired or off duty) from it.

Why should a retired LEO be permitted guns that other law abiding citizens cannot ?

Are you really saying that existing laws, if properly enforced, will stop gun crime ?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

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, whatever) ARE authoritarians.

There is no reason to criticize anyone for being an authoritarian while worshiping the ultimate one whose only goal was to be the world's most powerful person under the false belief that being a totalitarian dictator would make him immune to criminal liability.

Mass shootings obviously are not extremely rare. We just had two mass shootings in two weeks.

 

[ttwtt78640]

1) Why should a retired LEO be permitted guns that other law abiding citizens cannot ?

2) Are you really saying that existing laws, if properly enforced, will stop gun crime ?

1) They should not, but I look at it the other way around. Why should a retired or off duty police officer need more self-defense capability than anyone else?

2) Nothing is going to stop crime or prevent criminals from getting guns (or any other contraband). The better question is: why did we make federal, state and local laws concerning armed criminals if they were not intended to be enforced as written?

As noted in a prior post, over 500K attempts were made by prohibited persons to obtain guns from FFL dealers after lying on form 4473 (with their name, address and signature available as evidence), yet only a couple hundred of them were prosecuted for that federal felony offense. Was the thinking that all (or most) of them would simply cease their attempts to arm themselves by other (than FFL dealer) means? If so, then why does the federal law state that (first?) failed attempt was a felony?

 

[j brown's body]

The National Guard is a Citizen Militia. It is the organized militia (23 states have a Civilian Defense Force in addition to the National Guard, a true "Citizen Militia"). Citizens are the unorganized militia, we are a force of 140 million law abiding citizen gun owners. I absolutely hope shit never breaks down so bad that the unorganized citizen militia is called into service. But then...we have seen several instances where the civilian 'forces' are more mobile and able to respond immediately than the organized militias.

While the conspiracy to kidnap the governor in Michigan doesn't give us much confidence in thus utterly unregulated militia you describe, its hard to argue that this is what the founder's intended for it.

 

[Rich2018]

Mass shootings obviously are not extremely rare. We just had two mass shootings in two weeks.

And 420 in 2019.

 

[j brown's body]

There is no reason to criticize anyone for being an authoritarian while worshiping the ultimate one whose only goal was to be the world's most powerful person under the false belief that being a totalitarian dictator would make him immune to criminal liability.

Mass shootings obviously are not extremely rare. We just had two mass shootings in two weeks.

There is no reason to criticize anyone for being an authoritarian while worshiping the ultimate one whose only goal was to be the world's most powerful person under the false belief that being a totalitarian dictator would make him immune to criminal liability.

Mass shootings obviously are not extremely rare. We just had two mass shootings in two weeks.

As bad as they are, guns in the home are even worse. About 5 million women have reported that they were threatened by an intimate other with a gun.

The majority of people who die by a gun pull the trigger themselves.

Devotion to guns are a sickness in this country. Their value as protection is minimal, but as an evoker of tragedy, they are in a class almost by themselves.

If you equate owning a consumer good that terrorizes so many people with freedom, you got problems.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There is no reason to criticize anyone for being an authoritarian while worshiping the ultimate one whose only goal was to be the world's most powerful person under the false belief that being a totalitarian dictator would make him immune to criminal liability.

Mass shootings obviously are not extremely rare. We just had two mass shootings in two weeks.

Nope, we had over 10 mass shootings in those two weeks. The MSM is quite selective when deciding which among the many mass shootings best fit their political agenda. Most are personal or gang related in nature and have perps and/or victims who do not fit the white guy with an “assault rifle“ shooting random folks in normally “safe places” narrative - they are normal (black, brown or white) folks using handguns to kill their personal enemies, often in high crime areas. They are just normal “gun crime” with that occasional magical 4th victim (and perhaps even no deaths) which makes them mass shootings for statistical purposes.

 

[Visbek]

The National Guard is a Citizen Militia.

No, it isn't. It is a part of the federal military. It's a reserve, not a militia.

23 states have a Civilian Defense Force in addition to the National Guard...

Nope. State defense forces are not militias, either; the Militia Act of 1903 made that clear. They are professionally trained and paid soldiers; militias receive minimal training and pay (if any at all). Soldiers are committed to specific terms (e.g. Texas is 8 years, but you can spend most of that in reserve); militias are only called up when there is a crisis. Professional soldiers are supplied by the state; militias arm themselves.

Citizens are the unorganized militia, we are a force of 140 million law abiding citizen gun owners.

No, you aren't. Any citizen can potentially join a militia, but that doesn't mean that they are currently in a militia -- especially without knowing it.

Owning a firearm doesn't automatically turn you into a member of a militia. That would be like saying "because I own a Yankees cap, I am a member of the Yankees."

 

[Rich2018]

No, you aren't. Any citizen can potentially join a militia, but that doesn't mean that they are currently in a militia -- especially without knowing it.

Owning a firearm doesn't automatically turn you into a member of a militia. That would be like saying "because I own a Yankees cap, I am a member of the Yankees."

Actually he's right on that point, the Supreme Court ruling was that all, able bodied, males of military age are deemed to be members of the unorganized militia - as their justification for allowing people to have guns.

 

[VanceMack]

No, it isn't. It is a part of the federal military. It's a reserve, not a militia.



Nope. State defense forces are not militias, either; the Militia Act of 1903 made that clear. They are professionally trained and paid soldiers; militias receive minimal training and pay (if any at all). Soldiers are committed to specific terms (e.g. Texas is 8 years, but you can spend most of that in reserve); militias are only called up when there is a crisis. Professional soldiers are supplied by the state; militias arm themselves.



No, you aren't. Any citizen can potentially join a militia, but that doesn't mean that they are currently in a militia -- especially without knowing it.

Owning a firearm doesn't automatically turn you into a member of a militia. That would be like saying "because I own a Yankees cap, I am a member of the Yankees."

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

www.law.cornell.edu

(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.

Those are the two codified and identified Militia bodies. The states also have additional Civilian Defense funds.

The intent of the founders of the Constitution is clear.

Who are the militia? We all are.

 

[CLAX1911]

It would appear that with our well-regulated military, Washington's reason for having a well-regulated militia is now moot.

No a military is not a replacement for a militia. It never was. a military has to be deployed by the federal government. A militia is formed of citizens sometimes in a few minutes the military is no replacement for this.

Do you remember hearing about the minutemen during the revolutionary War? That wasn't the military that was a militia.

Different spellings and pronunciations of words should clue you in that they have two different meanings.

 

[jamesrage]

"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 if the 2nd amendment just said the right of the people to keep and bear arms then anti-gun people could say well you're allowed to own a knife,bows and arrows so your right to keep and bear arms hasn't been infringed on. It's to clarify what types of arms the people are allowed to own. Which are weapons a militia would need to defend against invasions and or a tyrannical government.

 

[Rich2018]

No a military is not a replacement for a militia. It never was. a military has to be deployed by the federal government. A militia is formed of citizens sometimes in a few minutes the military is no replacement for this.[/quote


A regular army unit is at a far higher state of readiness than a militia can ever be.

Do you remember hearing about the minutemen during the revolutionary War? That wasn't the military that was a militia.

Dude, that was like 250 years ago

Regular army units have come on a bit since then !!!

SMH