2nd amendement modification?

Another way of explaining it.In modern times,we have the DCM and CMP as examples.It us beneficial to have a population of the PEOPLE skilled with arms in case the security of the free state has the "drop the hoe and grab the rifle" need.

A competent militia is drawn from a population of THE PEOPLE who keep and bear arms.

George Washington had to get help from Von Steuben,Von Steuben's Regulations.

I'm not a legal scholar,but I look at a "well regulated"set of duelling pistols,"regulating" the barrels of a double rifle,and "regulating" the .50 cal guns on a P-51 Mustang,or "regulating "the guns of an artillery battery to find a meaning in context with ARMS rather than the agenda of a government increasing its power.

And,while I'm sure legal scholars would dismiss me,I read "free state"as a state of being.

A well regulated militia being necessary for a state of being free.

It might be reasonable to consider the founders were writing a document to preserve the state of being free,and they clearly were not writing a document to give the State power over the People.
 
The idea that the Government needs to be 'protected' by the Government is repugnant, and is a specious claim.

Rights are enjoyed by people.
 
To those who believe the 2nd is about the militia,and the def of militial is "able bodied men betyween the ages of"

I invite you to explain to PAX that,because she is not a man,the Right to Keep and Bear Arms does not apply to her.

And the spirit of the 2nd amendment does not include the INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN's (man or woman) right to defend themself with arms.

That,once and for all,ought to put and end to this "militia"' arguement
 
I'm convinced that we have an almost entirely different perspective on the COTUS than did the founders.

Consider that until at least the Civil War, most people identified themselves primarily as citizens of their STATE, not The United States. They were "Virginians" not "Americans".

The founders likewise identified themselves by state rather than nation and intended to form a national government that would protect the states as a whole, "oversee" the relationship between the states and maintain relations with foreign powers.

The states had (or would create) their own constitutions. The COTUS did not and was never meant to be applied to the states. Consider that a number of states actually had official states religions, which were not challenged by the founders as in some sort of modern "incorporation" idea. Official state religions were not (and are not) violations of the COTUS because the COTUS does not apply to the states.

Consider also that many states have their own "2A" (as well as duplicates of virtually every other right) in their own constitutions. Why would this be if the COTUS applied to the states? It doesn't make sense.

At the time of the founding, the people were in control of their states. The state governments were small and more trusted, the founders didn't fear the states. They feared the overseer. The people took care of the states, and took care to write their constitutions to address whatever fears they likewise had about the powers thereof.

The COTUS was written to protect the STATES (the "people" as a whole) from the NATIONAL government.

The prefatory clause to the 2A, I believe, is tied to the reason why the NATIONAL government would want to disarm the people. The national government really wouldn't have any other reason to disarm the people, except to fear their militias.

Therefore, the prefatory clause isn't the reason why the people HAVE the right, it is the reason why the government might want to REMOVE that right.

The essential meaning is:

Since having a well regulated militia protects the people from the government, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, lest they lose the ability to protect themselves.

I believe that other uses of those arms, such as individual self-protection, are completely unaddressed and rightly so. They are issues of basic choices of daily life. They aren't mentioned, I believe, because the founders never considered that we would so lose control of our government, that we would so lose sight of it's purpose and allow it so much power, that it would even be conceivable that the NATIONAL level government would ever be concerned with such trivial, daily life choices of individual citizens.
 
Spats McGee said:
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.
Click to expand...
The 2nd Amendment also does not say that "... the right of those People whom Apom has deemed qualified to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

BlueTrain said:
The original notion of the militia hardly included everyone, by the way, and you probably wouldn't want everyone in today, either.
Click to expand...
But the militia exists today under Federal law, and as written it includes all gang bangers between the ages of 17 and 45 who have not been convicted of a felony. The militia is NOT the National Guard. The NG is one component of the militia, but it is not THE militia.

The current version of the Militia Act is found at 10 USC 311:

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering if the men who wrote the Constitution would be proud of where we are heading today. I'm sure they would shake their heads at us.
 
That's a good question, though not one that anyone can answer. It can't be inferred from what they wrote because they were unaware of where we are today (and who knows where we're headed). However, they were not all of one mind. Some were much more liberal than others, particularly Jefferson.

As to people thinking they were citizens of their state before the United States, I'm not so sure. They may have but I don't think it made all the difference on which side they were on during the Civil War. It's just not that simple for some people. For instance, Samuel Cooper, who was married to one of George Mason's granddaughters, was Adjutant General of the Confederate Army. He was from New York. In his case, I suspect that he went with the South because he had previously been Adjutant General of the US Army under Secretary of War Davis and partly, perhaps, because he married a Southern Belle. In any event, they are my wife's great-great grandparents (on her mother's side).

In another twist on the funny things people do, Davis's widow, Varina, moved to New York for a while but then so did General Santa Anna of Mexico. These days they'd probably move to McLean, Virginia.

Apparently there is much interest in what exactly the militia is, still, partly I suppose of the inconvenient use of the term in the amendment. But the militia was a well established institution at the time, both here and elsewhere, and I imagine it was seen as a given. Never heard of the naval militia.
 
I'm wondering if the men who wrote the Constitution would be proud of where we are heading today. I'm sure they would shake their heads at us.
Click to expand...

For myself I am sure they would in general be horrified. They might not understand our technology or living conditions but they would understand things like limits on free speech, arms are virtually banned in some places and would probably start with burning our 100,000's of pages of unnecessary federal laws and regulations.

I do not think they would call us the same free nation they created. The federal governement was never intended to be so strong.. I think they Federal government was really suppose to be responsible for defense and fair trade with not a lot of other powers added to that..

As for the 2A, the fact is there was little if any debate in its passing which to me shows that arms were considered essential and above being banned overall.
 
There was not agreement even in the beginning as to how strong the federal government should be. Odd there is so little discussion as to how strong the state governments should be.
 
I'm wondering if the men who wrote the Constitution would be proud of where we are heading today. I'm sure they would shake their heads at us.
Click to expand...


Maybe I am reading too much into this, but if you put it together with your OP, I have to ask the question. Are you insinuating we are headed in a poor direction due to the availibility of guns to the unqualified, un-tested, and un-checked?
 
Yes, militia is any abled body person. If you read history you would know what a militia was. Many have provided the definition already. Just because a word looks like military does not mean it is the same word. It also says the right of the people. Why do people have such a bad habit of partial reading to prove a point. The entire amendment is there for all too read and take in in it entirety. The second amendment is designed for citizens to protect themselves from invading forces and their own government. It truly is a simple issue but to many people would rather be subjects instead of citizens.
 
I know what the definition of the word militia is but, IMO, the following are militias within the US; Black Panthers, organized Gangs, the TSA, ATF, ICE and a few other government agencies that are presently being upgraded. :)

The Second Amendment does not make mention of any special qualifications to have a weapon, it states the "Right of" to bear arms.
 
Harry Schell said:
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.".
Click to expand...
You are correct, the 2A refers to "arms," not "firearms." Those who don't understand that should read the statement of Tench Coxe, who wrote at the time the Constitution was being debated, "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” (Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)
 
Instead of dumbing down the second amendment, we could offer free reading classes for lawyers, judges and politicians. Based on my understanding of the English language, I fail to see how any obstacles, limits or restrictions on gun ownership are remotely constitutional.

Only when you base your argument on previous failures to understand the wording, do attacks on the second amendment make any sense. For example, often "the people" is interpreted as the "people in the militia", but since that wasn't said and people is not a pronoun, it needs no reference and therefore means all people in the USA. The phrase "the people" would be used to point to a group of all US citizens instead of the phrase all people or a people's.....

I also see the word infringed being exceptionally hard for judges to understand... Maybe examples of infringement would help:
NFA
FFL licensing
ATF establishment
GOPA
CCW licensing
Everything in DC
States imposing their own gun laws
Purchase permits
Background checks
Ordering mass quantities of ammo to throw the ammo & primer markets out of balance
Using tax money to destroy safe guns
Imposing excessive penalties on crimes using guns

Even gun owners often buy into some of this. That is where the problem. If you don't like the constitution, renounce your citizenship and move out. Don't dedicate your life to curbing freedom.

How do we change this patern of purposefully poor reading? Get 5 political parties or more in the process. There is no way that you can fairly split all Americans into 2 lines of thought. Any political argument which starts there is derailed. It wouldn't be a bad idea to make each candidate shoot a 10 shot in 10 sec 25 yard group either with a military grade 1911 and post the results online!
 
Define infringement. Also "right of the people". Who does that extend to? Minors? Convicted felons? There are many in either of the two aforementioned groups that I would rather see with firearms than some citizens that are legally allowed to carry guns, but that is a different story. There is much in the Constitution that is questionable and much that I think has been picked to pieces. I do agree with Brian P's post. The nation has become thought of too much as one entity rather than a group of individual states or republics. I believe I read somewhere that there was a guarantee of a republican form of government (not to be confused with Republican Party).
 
BlueTrain said:
There was not agreement even in the beginning as to how strong the federal government should be. Odd there is so little discussion as to how strong the state governments should be.
Click to expand...

You'd be hard pressed to argue that ANY of the founders thought it should be anything like what we have now.

"Stronger" or "weaker" is one thing. Over-arching, ever growing, with powers, regulations and restrictions on every manner of day to day activities of the average citizen? No way. They expressly opposed such things. That's WHY they fought the revolution. Over-bearing, over-taxing, over-reaching government with no power to change it.

Their opinions were more along the lines of should the national government have a navy or not, not if they should be able to dictate and control every aspect of daily life. It's like if there is disagreement if taxes should be 5% or 10%, you can't come in 10 years later and say must be 90% would have been acceptable because we couldn't even agree what level they should be... we CERTAINLY agreed they shouldn't be 90.

As to the state governments, I did mention that in my previous post. I don't believe the founders foresaw that we would ever so completely lose control of our governments. They considered the state and local governments to be well handled by the people. First we lost control of the locals, then the states and now the national government.

They feared that the national government would be distant and large and we could lose control. I don't think they ever saw us losing control of the states and they CERTAINLY never intended the constitution that they were writing to be applied to the states. If it were, there would be no need for state constitutions and there would be no need for redundant declarations of right in those state constitutions.
 
Last edited:
I don't feel particulary controlled in my daily life. And I certainly don't necessarily want government now to be what someone wanted 230 years ago. What exactly do you mean by having lost control of government? Or do you just mean that your party has lost control of government?
 
Define infringement. Also "right of the people". Who does that extend to? Minors? Convicted felons?
Click to expand...

I never really got how any of the bill of rights could apply only to adults, it says, 'the right of the people' , not, 'the right of the people who are eighteen or more years of age'.

I do agree with convicts not getting guns, or other basic rights, but never got how the Bill of Rights didn't apply to minors
 
Gunnut17, most (if not all) of the rights in the BoR have been limited in their application, and always have been. For example, 4-year-olds do not have a right to vote, and (AFAIK), never have had. Why? For one, because they cannot utilize that right in any meaningful way. I would also say that the RKBA has a similar logical limit as to the earliest point at which a person can exercise the right. Is 18 the right point? Certainly, there are 17-year-olds who could be trusted with a gun. 14-year-olds? Yeah, probably a few. The question becomes, then, "Where do we draw the line?"
 
I know that handing a 4-year-old a pistol and a ballot isn't going to end well, but how about the first and fourth amendments, almost all of the rights promised by them are subject to possible forfeiture on the behalf of a minor, 'Oh, don't worry, Tommy won't mind a pat-down.' If the founding fathers didn't think that kids and adolescents deserved to be able to speak freely, act freely,(within reason) or refuse searches of their persons or property, they should have said so in the Bill of rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top