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

[Nickyjo]

Agreed,

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.

Agreed, but let’s be fair. The amendment is a poorly written sentence. It needed a”therefore” or a “thus” between the two clauses to make the two alternative interpretations we argue about clear. Bad Founders.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The continental army was kept deliberately small to prevent a possible coup. In order to respond rapidly to an external threat, the army needed to be swiftly reinforced at such times. To ensure a ready supply of semi-skilled troops, with their own weapons, a militia was necessary, and gun ownership was part of that preparedness, since it avoided the government having to maintain an expensive armoury for the backup militia.

 

[Captain Adverse]

not wikipedia

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

www.army.mil

1775, the US army was founded.

I stand corrected...semantically.

 

[Visbek]

Agreed, but let’s be fair. The amendment is a poorly written sentence. It needed a”therefore” or a “thus” between the two clauses to make the two alternative interpretations we argue about clear. Bad Founders.

Heh

I guess, but it doesn't really matter. The extremists aren't interested in grammar, or history, or facts, or textual variations, or hermeneutics. The 2A could read "Congress shall not ban militia members from bearing arms" and they would still say that it functions as an individual right.

Of course, that's just how constitutions and laws work. No matter how precise a text may be, ultimately you can't control how that text will be interpreted, even in your own time. (E.g. there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, but we classify it as "implied" by several rights.)

What is galling is how so-called "Originalists" and "Textualists" are actually massive hypocrites, who blatantly violate their own alleged constitutional interpretive methods and/or distort history in order to justify their preferred policy goals.

 

[HangLow]

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.

Mass shootings are extremely rare,

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Captain Adverse]

Mass shootings are extremely rare,

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

LOL

Look at the list. The vast majority of such "mass shootings" appear to be (as shown in FBI statistics) with handguns. Often gang and/or criminal activity related.

Maybe you should be asking yourself why those kinds of "mass shootings" don't seem to get much national coverage.

They are NOT the kind of "mass shooting" we see greatly highlighted...as in a man with an "assault rifle" acting out in "racism," or "religious mania," or any other "political" reason.

I stand by my post.

Try again.

 

[zsu2357]

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.

This is the only sentence of import. The Second Amendment reads: "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." So apparently three.

 

[Wayne Jr]

"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 Article 1 Section 8 gives the Federal Congress power over the militia and Congress was using that power to undermine State militia. The Constitution does not give Congress power over the media or the church, for example, and that's why you do not see similar language in the 1st Amendment. The Fed is always trying to undermine the States which is the core of most gun control movements today.

 

[Individual]

Basically, if government ever found it necessary to bring together a militia, they would be able to do so without a need to provide arms.
But the fact that government is unable to provide 24 hour a day protection for all citizens, it remains an inalienable Right for individuals to do what they feel necessary to provide self protection.

 

[Helix]

This is the only sentence of import. The Second Amendment reads: "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." So apparently three.

It just reads to me like they are hedging their bets. The sentence is also full of unnecessary commas that can blur the meaning even if you go into it strongly supporting one interpretation or the other. IMO, it should have been edited for clarity.

 

[Rich2018]

LOL

Look at the list. The vast majority of such "mass shootings" appear to be (as shown in FBI statistics) with handguns. Often gang and/or criminal activity related.

Maybe you should be asking yourself why those kinds of "mass shootings" don't seem to get much national coverage.

They are NOT the kind of "mass shooting" we see greatly highlighted...as in a man with an "assault rifle" acting out in "racism," or "religious mania," or any other "political" reason.

I stand by my post.

Out of interest, at what point would you consider mass shootings to have reached critical mass and surrender your guns willingly ?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Out of interest, at what point would you consider mass shootings to have reached critical mass and surrender your guns willingly ?

At the same point that rapes reaching “critical mass” would make me decide to cut off my penis willingly.

 

[Rich2018]

At the same point that rapes reaching “critical mass” would make me decide to cut off my penis willingly.

So there is no point you would surrender your guns ?

No amount of death and injury caused by guns that would lead you to thinks guns have no place in a civilized society

Ten a day, a hundred, a thousand...you value your guns so much more ?

 

[ttwtt78640]

So there is no point you would surrender your guns ?

No amount of death and injury caused by guns that would lead you to thinks guns have no place in a civilized society

Ten a day, a hundred, a thousand...you value your guns so much more ?

I fail to see how surrendering my guns (or penis) would have any impact on the murders (or rapes) already committed by someone else. After all, it is extremely unlikely that anyone intent on becoming a criminal would willingly give up their crime tool.

 

[Rich2018]

I fail to see how surrendering my guns (or penis) would have any impact on the murders (or rapes) already committed by someone else. After all, it is extremely unlikely that anyone intent on becoming a criminal would willingly give up their crime tool.

Because if you and all other gun owners gave them up...we'd have no shootings would we ?

We could shut off the supply of guns to people

Gradually most guns are drained from the "swamp"

Sure, you will never eradicate guns and therefore eradicate shootings - not completely anyway. But they can be brought down to the levels we have in the UK, where gun crime is very rare.

 

[Rawley]

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 .

Yeah. Because there is nothing at all oppressive about today's Federal Government. LOL You funny

 

[ttwtt78640]

Because if you and all other gun owners gave them up...we'd have no shootings would we ?

We could shut off the supply of guns to people

Gradually most guns are drained from the "swamp"

Sure, you will never eradicate guns and therefore eradicate shootings - not completely anyway. But they can be brought down to the levels we have in the UK, where gun crime is very rare.

Yep, just like we shut off the supply of illegal recreational drugs. That worked so well that only criminals have them now.

 

[Rich2018]

Yep, just like we shut off the supply of illegal recreational drugs. That worked so well that only criminals have them now.

Nope, they are not the same

You can ban guns effectively, history shows you cannot ban drugs.

 

[Fledermaus]

Nope, they are not the same

You can ban guns effectively, history shows you cannot ban drugs.

The bolded has proven to be a lie.

 

[Rich2018]

Yeah. Because there is nothing at all oppressive about today's Federal Government. LOL You funny

Not the one in power since 1/20/21.

 

[Visbek]

Yep, just like we shut off the supply of illegal recreational drugs. That worked so well that only criminals have them now.

Heh

By that same logic, we should also give up on enforcing immigration laws. It's pretty obvious that they have failed to prevent people from migrating to the US, no?

The thing is, these types of restrictions can have an impact. It's really a question of whether we are willing to pay the cost of the prohibition, and how that prohibition interacts with societal norms.

For example, prohibition of alcohol in the US was deeply unpopular. Enforcement was clumsy and ineffective, and caused the creation of both organized crime, and a true federal police force. In many senses it failed, because it was reversed fairly shortly, and widely flouted. In another sense, though, it worked -- it dramatically reduced the consumption of alcohol, and it took nearly 40 years for Americans to drink at the same rate as in the pre-Prohibition era.

With opiates, prohibition worked for a time. Then, drug companies started pushing opiates for legitimate use, lied about its addictive properties, and turned a blind eye to obviously abusive prescriptions. But did usage really skyrocket? It's hard to say. We know deaths increased, but that was a function of high-powered synthetics like fentanyl hitting the US.

With the border, strict enforcement backfired. Before enforcement, migrants would come to the US, work harvest season, and go home. After enforcement started, it was more difficult to go back and forth, so they came and stayed. Once migrants understood that's how it worked, stricter enforcement did not further reduce undocumented migration -- as typified by a decline in border apprehensions during the Bush and Obama years, and a huge spike in 2019.

And of course, we see numerous nations around the world who heavily restrict firearms, and have significantly lower rates of firearm ownership, lower rates of gun crimes, lower rates of crimes overall, fewer suicides, and so on.

So, it really isn't as simple as "bans don't work!"

 

[ttwtt78640]

Nope, they are not the same

You can ban guns effectively, history shows you cannot ban drugs.

They are the same in that the only effective ban would target the demand (simple possession) side mercilessly. We are not doing that now for guns possessed by prohibited persons.

 

[Rawley]

Not the one in power since 1/20/21.

LOL Sure. The President of the United States ordering my local high school o allow boys to run track on the girls team is not oppressive. You funny.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Heh

By that same logic, we should also give up on enforcing immigration laws. It's pretty obvious that they have failed to prevent people from migrating to the US, no?

The thing is, these types of restrictions can have an impact. It's really a question of whether we are willing to pay the cost of the prohibition, and how that prohibition interacts with societal norms.

For example, prohibition of alcohol in the US was deeply unpopular. Enforcement was clumsy and ineffective, and caused the creation of both organized crime, and a true federal police force. In many senses it failed, because it was reversed fairly shortly, and widely flouted. In another sense, though, it worked -- it dramatically reduced the consumption of alcohol, and it took nearly 40 years for Americans to drink at the same rate as in the pre-Prohibition era.

With opiates, prohibition worked for a time. Then, drug companies started pushing opiates for legitimate use, lied about its addictive properties, and turned a blind eye to obviously abusive prescriptions. But did usage really skyrocket? It's hard to say. We know deaths increased, but that was a function of high-powered synthetics like fentanyl hitting the US.

With the border, strict enforcement backfired. Before enforcement, migrants would come to the US, work harvest season, and go home. After enforcement started, it was more difficult to go back and forth, so they came and stayed. Once migrants understood that's how it worked, stricter enforcement did not further reduce undocumented migration -- as typified by a decline in border apprehensions during the Bush and Obama years, and a huge spike in 2019.

And of course, we see numerous nations around the world who heavily restrict firearms, and have significantly lower rates of firearm ownership, lower rates of gun crimes, lower rates of crimes overall, fewer suicides, and so on.

So, it really isn't as simple as "bans don't work!"

See post #47.

 

[Rich2018]

They are the same in that the only effective ban would target the demand (simple possession) side mercilessly. We are not doing that now for guns possessed by prohibited persons.

Guns and drugs have many different properties relating to how easy they'd be to ban or restrict.