2nd amendement modification?

A

Apom

New member
"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."

Everyone keeps stating they have the right etc etc..but haven't met many or any if at all that are part of a well regulated militia. If you are in the military obviously you are given the right to carry. If you are part of your state's reserves I'm assuming you get the right to carry..

But I'm missing the part of where the milita was edited out and now includes everyone. I dont have a problem with people carrying as long as they are qualified, tested, and checked.. But how are people determining they have the right?
 
I believe militia implies you are not employed by the government.They are by definition Civilian.No military connection required.It does NOT say "well regulated Army"

Another important thought,the "well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state" is a rationale.It is not the statement,it is not the point.


"The right of the PEOPLE (not militia,not under 45,people! Includes women!)

"The right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms(not vague at all.Have them at home,pick them up,hold them)....Now,check this out,seems quite powerfully clear: "Shall Not Be Infringed".

So,what is the problem?It says what it says.
 
I dont have a problem with people carrying as long as they are qualified, tested, and checked..
Click to expand...

Then you better stay out of Vermont (and a lot of other places), because no one asks permission here, or gets "tested" to your satisfaction...
 
Only the true, real, and greatest Americans believe in our rights to bear arms. The rest of the people are just letting the government take from you! I pay taxes! I am a law abiding citizen and if I wanna gun I have that right to protect myself and my state! I mean if it ever where a SHTF situation the Constitution is saying grab your guns and neighbors; load up, and now ya gotta militia!
 
To your comment, if one is a part of the military or reserves, it doesn't automatically gives the person the right to carry in private life. Also, by your definition, one's right to arms ends at whatever the upper age limit is.

Regarding milita - YOU are the milita, therefore YOU have the right to have arms, weapons, guns...whatever to defend/fight against whatever is necessary for the country. (note: broad brush definition - one can research this themselves on the Interweb)
 
Apom said:
. . . . I dont have a problem with people carrying as long as they are qualified, tested, and checked. . . . .
Click to expand...
By who? Who, exactly, do you suggest gets to decide who has or does not have this particular fundamental, individual right?

As for the rest, the 2A refers to the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE MILITIAS.
 
I hesitate to get into this again because I've stated my views plainly on the subject. But nevertheless, it is clearly subject to government authority. Not only were those who came up with that short amendment fearful of the army, they also clearly did not want armed bodies that were not subject to government authority. Federal laws were passed not long after specifying some of the details of militia service.

The militia were actually embodied on several occasions in the early days of the United States. Sometimes they did all right, other times, not so well. It was the fact that the militia really couldn't stand up to a trained army and sometimes not even to the Indians, that they decided that having a regular army wasn't such a bad idea after all.

You may note that the National Guard in some states was still being referred to as the state militia well past WWI. You are all free to join the National Guard if you are qualified. The original notion of the militia hardly included everyone, by the way, and you probably wouldn't want everyone in today, either. In any event, personal self-defence was not the point of the militia as described in the 2nd amendment. I seriously doubt that the idea of women carrying pistols ever entered their heads when the amendments were being considered.

Of course, I believe many of you don't like any form of control over one's actions whatsoever and I can understand that.
 
According to the Supreme Court, in DC v. Heller:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

(...)

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...
 
And once again, is our Constitution a beautiful thing or what? I keep wondering how those guys could be so brilliant to create something like this that is still a corner stone guiding our country over 200 years later. Even despite all the changes in the world that no one could envision. Pretty cool when you think about it.
 
"And once again, is our Constitution a beautiful thing or what? I keep wondering how those guys could be so brilliant to create something like this that is still a corner stone guiding our country over 200 years later. Even despite all the changes in the world that no one could envision. Pretty cool when you think about it."

They were guided by the hand of God.
 
To whatever extent that I agree or disagree with the Heller decision, I have no argument with this:
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

The prefatory clause (or preamble) merely states a singular purpose, it in no way states the entire purpose (or any other reasons) for the amendment.

This is no different in using the prefatory clause of the Bill of Rights: That they are further restrictions and declaratory statements to restrict the Federal Government.

This seems to get lost in these arguments, however.
 
What Tom Servo and HiBC said; the militia statement is a prefatory clause that doesn't change the absolute meaning of the operative. Plus, the other amendments are all individual rights, making it hard to understand why the intention of only one amendment would be to argue for a collective right.

Read Heller closely. And stop trolling.
 
The backstory also involves the words "arms", "keep" and "bear".

These words are terms of legal art which existed in law predating the broad use of firearms and the Constitution by a couple of centuries, and which dealt with the human right of self-defense of an indvidual against predation, small (local thugs) or large (government tyranny).

The Founders knew this, and knew that any other rights enumerated by the Bill were only so good as the ability to effective self-defense. When and if firearms are obsolete, whatever replaces them at the individual level will be "arms" and the 2A will be as vital and fundamental to individual freedom as it ever has been.

I dislike framing the debate over 2A as "gun rights" as it IMO is the right to self-defense (by any "arm" necessary and proper for that task). An individual, to have access to arms, has to be able to "keep" them, and to have arms available when trouble finds the person, must be able to "bear" them.

Hence"...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.".
 
BlueTrain, while you have argued your point many a time, I don't recall you having ever addressed why you think only one amendment in the Bill of Rights would be collective vs individual.

Do you have anything to say about that, aside from your usual fallback on the prefatory clause?
 
I don't claim it's a collective right. You became a member of the militia as an individual and for that matter, being a member of the militia was not a right; it was an obligation, though not everyone had that obligation. Even now one is obliged to register for the draft but in the same way, not everyone has that obligation (at least, I don't think so). And when you go into the armed forces, you go in as yourself, as an individual.

I will admit it's no longer the popular view of the subject, including being obligated to serve.
 
So your argument is it is an individual right, but only to members of a collective class?

Huh, that also conflicts with all the other individual rights...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top