The 2nd Amendment Semantics Thread

[TexasMexican]

"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."

The way that I read this is, "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, because of this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Basically the founders felt that our country would not have security unless the people were armed, and its sort of implied that you cant have a well regulated militia if the people dont have arms.

I think I've heard somewhere that the phrase "well regulated" back then refers to something different than what we now at days would consider well regulated. Does anyone know anything more about this line of argument.

I've seen some antigunners get hung up on the phrase "well regulated," however I think that is kind of irrelevent, even if just for the sake of argument well regulated means what it does today, no where in the 2nd amendment does it say that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to those in a well regulated miltia.

[Trajan]

1. Regulars form a 'Regulated' force ...

Regulars possess 'regular' standards, issues and equipment ...

Being a supporter of gun REGULATIONS, I read it thusly:

A well regulated ( WELL Regulated = highly ordered by a governing command structure to promote standardization of orders, code, processes, tactics and equipment) militia ( elemental military group ) being necessary to the security of a free state: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ...

In other words: a group of citizens formed into highly regimented and standardized military groups by the state for the purpose of security shall possess whatever arms are necessary while in that capacity .... they shall be 'well regulated' IE under the control of a state command structure ...

Unfortunately: the wording of 2nd amendment is so poorly designed it lends itself to confusion and misinterpretation ... there is NO correct interpretation of an illogical statement ...

Perhaps it made sense then: it certainly doesnt make sense now ...

[TexasMexican]

3. Would you say that the US Military and National Guard...

are well regulated? I would say so.

So like I said in the first post, lets say I agree with your definition.

Well regulated militia's are necessary for the security of a free state, and guess what, we already have well regulated militias atleast in the form of the US Military and the National Guard.

So how does that effect the right of the people to keep and bear arms? It doesnt specify that the people have to be in the milita to have the RKBA.

[Trajan]

4. Indeed: State and national militias ARE the 'well regulated' force ...

defined in the 2nd amendment ...

Let's use a hypothetical to show this point:

Let's say that EVERY man did possess an individual firearm, and that the purpose of such possession was to promote security within their state ...

First: there is no 'regularity' to individual possession: EACH weapon could be of ANY type, of ANY size, of ANY load, and of ANY caliber ... so there goes the notion that the WEAPONS are 'regular' in any way ...

Second: When militias are formed for such a purpose: the effectiveness of that militia, and its relative efficiency, would be dictated by the ability of command to provide proper equipment to each member during times of war: ... EACH member would be under the control of state command, and the state would be obligated to provide the equipment necessary to execute their duties: ... BUT : IF each man brings his own individual weapon, with its VARIOUS sizes, loads, and calibers: there is NO WAY that the state could properly equip such a force efficiently, in that the stores would have to include each and every instance of equipment possible: now the 'individual' weaponry becomes a burden to the purpose of the militia because command must try to direct the MANY different parts and ammo to the MANY different weapons spread thoughout the theater ... This is hardly conducive to the efficient execution of security operations in the heat of battle ... such a force would LOSE the day to a 'well regulated' force ....

For example: Does the National Guard or US military request that each man bring his own arms when he shows up for duty ? ..... chuckles: ..

Think of what laughter and derision THAT would engender ...

WHY would individuals be expected to bring UNregulated arms to a WELL REGULATED militia setting ? ...

WHY, then, would the 2nd amendment make such a unlikely assertion ???

The term 'well regulated' should not be taken lightly ... it means uniformity and standardization, which are critical elements to an effective fighting force, and to the logistics of battlefield management ...

So: ... having the people 'bear arms' for the purpose of security cannot imply that EVERY man can just own whatever weapon they wish .. it doesnt correlate to being 'well regulated' in the slightest ...

[TexasMexican]

5. well...

Heh, for a moment after I posted my reply to you, I thought maybe you were going to say something like, "the people" refers to "the well regulated militia."

However to that I would reply that the whole bill of rights uses the phrase "the people" several times so its a pretty good chance that all those times they arent refering to the "well regulated militia."

Anyways lets get down to answering your post.

In the time that the Consitution was written it wasnt possible for the government to provide for all the needs of its soliders.

During the US Civil War it wasnt uncommon for soliders to purchase thier own weapons, such as those that choose to buy more modern repeating rifles instead of using the muzzleloaders that they were issued. So here several decades after the Bill of Rights was written there is evidence that the "militias" werent regulated in the manner that you describe.

Parts and Ammo Standardization is a relatively modern concept, it didnt really come into effect till this past century (the 20th century), starting maybe in WWI and increasing through the years.

I'm not so much of a history buff that I know what all types of firearms were used during the Revolutionary period, however regardless of musket I assume gunpowder was gunpowder, and flint was flint and all were interchangable among weapons. Thus the only question would be the size of the musket ball, and I'm not sure what kind of standardization there was in that, maybe most muskets of that time used standard sized ammo.

Your quote: "WHY, then, would the 2nd amendment make such a unlikely assertion ???"

Lets assume that at the time most muskets used a standard sized ball, gunpowder was interchangable among muskets, and so was flint. Then it would not be an issue. Many antigunners say things to the effect "our founders could not have forseen the kinds of weaponry we have developed since the Bill of Rights was written." So by that same token maybe they didnt forsee the wide variety of firearms and ammo that would be available.

Your quote:"The term 'well regulated' should not be taken lightly ... it means uniformity and standardization, which are critical elements to an effective fighting force, and to the logistics of battlefield management ...

So: ... having the people 'bear arms' for the purpose of security cannot imply that EVERY man can just own whatever weapon they wish .. it doesnt correlate to being 'well regulated' in the slightest ..."

As I said in my first post, The second amendment sort of implies that you cant have a well regulated milita if the people dont have the RKBA.

Maybe the founders made a wrong assumption, they assumed you cant have militas without people having arms, at the time it was impossible for the government to arm everyone itself.

Now at days we have a military and state national guards that the government equiped.

However the 2nd amendment is still in effect, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Maybe if some people want to argue that the RKBA of the people isnt necessary to have a well regulated Militia,

Or maybe if some other people want to argue that a well regulated militia isnt necessary to the security of a free state,

Then they are free to do so, however the 2nd amendment is still the law of the land untill it gets amendment or repealed, so I would appreciate it if lawmakers would not infring on my right.

[hansberrym]

21. You might note that both Aymette and Miller place some restrictions

on the types of arms that citizens may keep and bear (meaning "possession and use" as per Miller holding),
but there are no restrictions/qualifications on the persons who may keep and bear arms. They did not restrict this right to persons in the organized state militia.



Also Miller used the broad language "reasonable relationship" is describing the connection between the arms that may be kept and thier possible use in the common defense.

[T Town Jake]

6. Well...

...the Second Amendment was adopted SPECIFICALLY to satisfy the concerns of the Anti-Federalists, who where the Democrats of their day. Thomas Jefferson started his career in the new Federal Union of 1789 as an avowed anti-Federalist - though, of course, the gun control crowd would probably insist today that HE wasn't a "real" Democrat of any sort. Anyway, in the vernacular of 1787 the "militia" simply meant the "whole body of the adult, male populace." The first National Guard unit was not formed until early in the 20th century. "Well-regulated" is simply another one of those pieces of slop the gun control crowd always tries to ladle out onto people's plates to reinforce their weak arguments in the name of grabbing guns. The Founders themselves would be astounded at the puerile focus on those two words - what they MEANT and where referring to was something quite different than all the freight the gun control crowd attempts to ladle out from those buckets of anti-gun slop. "Well-regulated" refers not to the right to own or posses arms, but to the people "bearing" them ONCE CALLED INTO ACTIVE SERVICE AS A MILITIA. All it did was provide a legal basis to hold those so duly called into active service to the standards of military discipline & law once so summoned to that duty. THAT'S IT. The very reason they placed a comma between those two clauses - "A well-regulated milita being..." & "the right of the people to keep & bear arms" - was to forcefully assert that when "bearing" arms in that capacity they would be subject to military discipline, but when NOT they still had the absolute right as regular citizens to "keep and bear" the same.
But I see your point: all those folks who pushed hard for the Bill of Rights - like Jefferson, Madison, etc. - where not "real" Democrats, after all...why, how could they be? They OWNED guns. And sometimes used them. So why should we care what they believed or had to say? /Sarcasm

[JayS]

2. Well regulated = well trained. n/t

n/t

[OpSomBlood]

7. Well regulated = trained and armed.

I have no idea how anyone can interpret the words "right of the people" to mean "right of the government-run military."

Every amendment in the Bill of Rights deals with inalienable rights of the individual. There is no reason to consider the Second to be an exception.

[OpSomBlood]

8. Bill of Rights - Revised for the 21st Century

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the National Guard peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the National Guard to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the National Guard, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the National Guard to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the National Guardsman or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No National Guardsman shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any National Guardsman be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused National Guardsman shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law against the National Guard, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted against the National Guard.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the National Guard.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the National Guard.

[OpSomBlood]

11. Anyone? Bueller?

Didn't think so.

[OpSomBlood]

12. Kick again. I'm eager to hear a rebuttal to this one.

n/t

[RoeBear]

13. Damn good!

Did you come up with that yourself?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the National Guard to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

A much clearer way of showing how ridiculous the arguement is that the 2nd doesn't refer to us as individuals.

[OpSomBlood]

14. Yeah, I came up with it myself.

Although I imagine I'm not the first one to think of it.

I was just thinking about how people argue that 2A refers to the National Guard (which didn't exist until more than a hundred years later), so I figured I'd re-write the amendment to reflect that.

And if "the people" can be used interchangeably with "the National Guard" in 2A, it should be done so with all of the amendments.

Further discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x65092

[cheezus]

9. it's either one of two ways:

1: the 2nd amendment means that people can have whatever weapons they want without any restrictions whatsoever. this includes heavy artillery and, yes, wmds

2: the 2nd amendment means that the government can't take your musket, in the event that king george were to send the redcoats back to take the country.

[FrontPorchPhilosophr]

18. WMD's?......

Actually, that PARTICULAR issue becomes a LITTLE more interesting for us rabid RKBA types....

There is a little thing called "Prior Restraint" and the "Supremes" accept it's use with GREAT reluctance....

Live in a townhome? No WMD's. TOO much risk to your fellow citizens.

Live in the middle of a 10K acre spread? Maybe.... Depends upon the TYPE of WMD, and the risk to the neighbors...

Have your own Atlantic/Pacific island? Probably.... Again deponds upon the risk to the neighbors and a "reasonable man" test.....

Works for me!

:nuke:

[Bowline]

10. Only individuals have Rights, not groups, organizations, or governments.

The Second Amendment, like the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights, enumerates the rights of individuals that are to be protected at all cost against the intrusion of the federal government.

[JohnLocke]

15. Here's my reading:

"Because a well-regulated 'milita' is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear 'arms' shall not be infringed."

How to define a milita and arms, I do not know.

[OpSomBlood]

16. Militia = all able-bodied citizens.

n/t

[TexasMexican]

17. Thats pretty much how I read it.

[OpSomBlood]

19. It would help if 2A were a complete sentence.

I think the grammar of the Amendment contributes to a lot of the confusion.

[FrontPorchPhilosophr]

20. Complete Sentence?

But in the language of the times.... the grammatic usages of the times.... and consistent with the rest of the document, it WAS....

It's your "Johnny Come Lately's" who cannot parse "See Spot run,".... that feel that the language can be interpreted any old way that THEY feel like AT THE MOMENT, who have a problem with it....

;-)

[T Town Jake]

22. I agree...

...I've thought a lot about this precise issue. The Founders themselves would be astonished, I think, at the spin today's gun control crowd have tried to place on it, but that's neither here nor there in this consideration. I think that where they writing the 2nd Amendment today, it would go something like this:

A well-armed citizenry being necessary to the security of a free nation, the right of the people to keep and bear arms--excepting only those duly convicted at felony (unless pardoned) or adjudicated non compos mentis--shall not be infringed

They probably would have also added a clause to allow exceptions to be made for the several states to have some latitude in determining where arms could be carried, i.e., not into a courtroom or bar, but other than that I think the right would clarified as absolute - just like it was the first time, though in plainer language.