Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Does the Second Amendment belong in the Bill of Rights? Why or why not? [View all]Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)88. It is not a qualifier, it is one reason for existence.
If they believed in the unfettered right of the people to own whatever weapons they wanted for whatever reasons they saw fit; the easiest way to accomplish that would be to simply say that. Yet, they put a qualifier right up front.
They must have had a reason.
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.
Firstly, the preamble does not say that the only reason the people shall keep and bear arms is for use in a militia. It merely states a reason, probably the reason of overriding concern for the founders - that the people shall be armed so that they can serve in a militia.
We can be fairly certain that the founders did not intend this to be the only reason to keep and bear arms, as one of the initial drafts of the amendment read "keep and bear arms for the collective defense", and this draft was struck down.
We also can be fairly certain of the founders' intent because if the intent was just to serve in a militia, why would they not reserve the right to keep and bear arms to the militias, or to the states? If militia use was the sole idea, then surely it would have made more sense for the arms to be in the hands of the state.
So being able to serve in a militia is but one reason why the people are to be armed. But it's not the only reason.
Secondly, the second amendment is almost universally considered to be speaking about small arms appropriate for infantry use. It is not about "whatever weapons they wanted for whatever reasons they saw fit". It is about arms that enable a single man to serve as an infantryman. Today such a weapon would generally be an assault or battle rifle and handguns.
They must have had a reason.
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.
Firstly, the preamble does not say that the only reason the people shall keep and bear arms is for use in a militia. It merely states a reason, probably the reason of overriding concern for the founders - that the people shall be armed so that they can serve in a militia.
We can be fairly certain that the founders did not intend this to be the only reason to keep and bear arms, as one of the initial drafts of the amendment read "keep and bear arms for the collective defense", and this draft was struck down.
We also can be fairly certain of the founders' intent because if the intent was just to serve in a militia, why would they not reserve the right to keep and bear arms to the militias, or to the states? If militia use was the sole idea, then surely it would have made more sense for the arms to be in the hands of the state.
So being able to serve in a militia is but one reason why the people are to be armed. But it's not the only reason.
Secondly, the second amendment is almost universally considered to be speaking about small arms appropriate for infantry use. It is not about "whatever weapons they wanted for whatever reasons they saw fit". It is about arms that enable a single man to serve as an infantryman. Today such a weapon would generally be an assault or battle rifle and handguns.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
165 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Does the Second Amendment belong in the Bill of Rights? Why or why not? [View all]
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Jun 2012
OP
Didn't the first militia of this country (colonial) fight *against* the government (British)?
Nuclear Unicorn
Jun 2012
#146
I'm willing to bet money you're still legally in at least two militias n/t
Glaug-Eldare
Jun 2012
#85
"The fear inspired by black people with guns also led the United States Congress to consider new gun
hack89
Jun 2012
#135
"Gun-control measures, like many other laws, were used to oppress African Americans." nt
hack89
Jun 2012
#137
"The most infamous of these disarmament posses, of course, was the Ku Klux Klan." nt
hack89
Jun 2012
#138
North sought to reaffirm the freedmen’s constitutional rights, including their right to possess guns
hack89
Jun 2012
#139
It is part of our Constitution, as are the other parts of the Bill of Rights.
kestrel91316
Jun 2012
#7
That's fair. I'd argue that limitations on any enumerated right in the BoR should
petronius
Jun 2012
#39
But before we can discuss such restrictions, we have to agree on the intent of the amendment.
Atypical Liberal
Jun 2012
#89
I happen to agree, we need to ditch any mention of militia, so it's clear for everyone.
ileus
Jun 2012
#41
If you feel that strongly about it, then start a drive to ammend the US Constitution.
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#11
When you write that an amendment to the US Constitution is *obsolete*, that's an extremely
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#130
One amendment or the entire Constitution is the same. You really are a one trick pony.
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#145
Repealing part of the Constitution is one thing -- violating it is another
Glaug-Eldare
Jun 2012
#154
As I said earlier, if you don't like the 2nd amendment, then work to repeal it. It worked out well
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#158
People, as in Private Citizens, make up The National Guard and the US Armed Forces
Tuesday Afternoon
Jun 2012
#52
fail. but, whatever. sell your own soul if it makes you happy. liberty for me.
Tuesday Afternoon
Jun 2012
#81
This, of course, is PRECISELY why the right to keep and bear arms was reserved to the PEOPLE.
Atypical Liberal
Jun 2012
#90
Maybe when the right wingers on the Court are removed, we'll revisit this w/o the NRA up their ass.
Hoyt
Jun 2012
#21
So "loathe" that they overturned precedent in this case. Besides, every case is a bit different.
Hoyt
Jun 2012
#80
Yeah, we might be approaching the tipping point of not having any violent crime. LOL
Atypical Liberal
Jun 2012
#97
"Rushing towards the tipping point of gun violence"? The FBI disagrees with you, Shares:
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2012
#91
BREAKING: Part of the US Constitution declared to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL...
cherokeeprogressive
Jun 2012
#157