Purpose of the second amendment?

Turn it around

"this "right to bear arms" was written into the US consitution nearly three centuries ago, when americans had to protect themselves against the natives. this is clearly not the case today."

I submit that this clearly is the case today. Only the "natives" are different.

Mass shooting simply do not happen at gunshows, NRA conventions, or at police stations, nor military bases, because the people in those places WILL defend themselves.

Every single mass shooting incident has at least two things in common. The police (and the law) did not prevent it, and the shooter chose a location maximizing the odds that his victims would be unarmed.

Although largely forgotten today, there was a much worse mass murder a few years back at a night club. But the murderer didn't use a gun. After chaining the doors shut, he killed 97 people. His weapon was a gallon of gasoline and a book of matches!
 
Another Point

A good counter-argument for 2nd Amendment "problems" that are pointed out, is that it's a psuedo-issue. The "issuse" is modern, there is no history that the citizenry in 1790 suddenly began to give up private use of arms because the 2nd's authors - who were contemporaries - were known to have wanted that. Firearms continued to be used for hunting, self-defense etc. as they had. There was no controversy, or protests, restatements by the Founders of intent wherein they demanded - or explained - a new prohibition against private use of arms - no records of any of that.
The reason was that there wasn't any. There is no such prohibition in the 2nd so there was no issue.
 
Last edited:
lots of good answers from the protection point to that of preventing a dictatorship and a corrupt government.
The purpose of the 2nd was to have an armed citizenry and militia act as a disuader to a national government turning tyrannical - or as a defense against one already become tryannical. Like all amendments, it protected the citizenry from the governmnent's power.
Click to expand...
or how about this THE 2nd amendment Americas true Homeland security :D
 
 
Interesting political cartoon, SecDef. Do you agree with it?

FYI, the "militia clause" is not a true clause at all. It is merely a statement of purpose, a preamble. Nor was it unusual to use such in writings of the time. It's that language thing we are discussing in another thread!

Consider this statement from the R.I. Const. art. I, § 20 (1842):

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty...

and contrast the 2a:

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.

There are several more examples of the ordinary usage of preambles in documents of the time, should you need such. See The Commonplace Second Amendment, Eugene Volokh, 73 NYU Law Review 793 (1998).

So your political cartoon is just that. A political rendition that tries to say that originalists are writing out something that has little, if any, bearing on the right itself. Perhaps to the common man, this may mean something. But to anyone who has educated themselves to common writing practices, it means nothing, short of another liberal whine.

As a politic stunt, it merely shows the cartoonists own ignorance at language and how language must be interpreted.
 
The first half of the Second Amendment ("A well-regulated militia...") is prefatory language and has no bearing on the meaning of the main statement ("...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.")

I have no idea why so many people try to invalidate the Second Amendment by harping on the prefatory first part. It makes no sense, logically or linguistically, to argue that only militias have the right to keep and bear arms.

"A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed."

This sentence has exactly the same structure as the Second Amendment. Try to argue from it that only pizzas have the right to keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted pizzas at that.
 
Marko Kloos said:
"A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...
SO sigged. :D
 
Nah, I can't claim credit for that one. I read it a few years back when someone was deconstructing the language of the Second Amendment, but I forgot the exact name of the author. I merely fished it out of some dusty memory bank in the back of my head.

The rest of the post is all mine, though. :)
 
I find it amusing.

It is obviously accurate. Two moderator posts just spent energy defending the fact that the first part of the 2nd amendment can just as well be scratched out without impinging on the meaning.

If what you are asking is whether I believe the first part SHOULD be ignored? I prefer an interpretation that gives me as much personal freedoms as possible. I do find it fascinating that the "useless clause" exists at all. It looks to me to be an anamoly in the Bill of Rights.
 
Look, there's simply no debate about the meaning of the 2A if you are aware of the nature of the Bill of Rights. It doesn't put restrictions on the citizenry, it puts restrictions on the government. Why on earth would the Second, out of all the amendments in the BoR, enumerate a "government right" and not a citizen right? It simply makes no sense, logically or semantically.
 
Look, there's simply no debate about the meaning of the 2A if you are aware of the nature of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you think it is that I don't see? :confused:

I think you are failing to see that the cartoon itself reveals much more about the author and his position (as is the usual when you view such social commentary in context) than he realizes.

It is precisely the fact that they think it is an "aha!" moment of catching someone who was actually doing nothing wrong. A subtle version of Tom catching Jerry in his hands and opening them up to find that he didn't catch Jerry at all.

I see that a sense of irony and humor is lacking.
 
Ah, no worries Marko, just a small attribution change in the sig, and I'm willing to keep it. :cool:

By the way, I think a discussion about the meaning of the second amendment here is about as pointful as a discussion of the merits of tomatoes on an Italian cooking forum. :)
 
I do find it fascinating that the "useless clause" exists at all. It looks to me to be an anamoly in the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...


I believe that this thing that y'all call a subordinate clause, a useless clause, a preamble, an anomaly, and so on, is in reality the essence of the declaration. In my view, the evil that most directly sparked the Second Amendment was King George having British Troops here to dominate us. Virginia declared that a standing army in times of peace is a danger to liberty, and that the proper way for a free State to defend itself was to have militia, because a standing army could turn against the people, but militia is inseparable from the people. The essence of the amendment, as I understand it, is that the military power must be subordinate to the civil power.

The July, 1775 issue of Gentleman's Magazine reported:

In Virginia at a meeting of the delegates of the colony, it has been unanimously resolved that a well-regulated militia, composed of gentlemen and yeomen is the natural strength and only security of a free government, and that the establishment of such a militia is at this time particularly necessary, and that a plan for arming, embodying and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient for that purpose should be immediately carried into execution.
Click to expand...

1776: Virginia adopted a Declaration of Rights which included an Article declaring that the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State is well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms:
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
Click to expand...

1788: Virginia ratified the US Constitution, while requesting twenty modifications/amendments, and a Bill of Rights with twenty Articles. One of the requested Articles read:
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
Click to expand...

1791: A US Bill of Right becomes effective, the Second Amendment declaring:
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.
Click to expand...
 
SecDef said:
Two moderator posts just spent energy defending the fact that the first part of the 2nd amendment can just as well be scratched out without impinging on the meaning.
Click to expand...
Un-confuse me, would you?

Are you saying that we (staff) cannot post as ordinary members, or are you saying that because we posted, it makes some sort of difference? Or perhaps. both?
I do find it fascinating that the "useless clause" exists at all. It looks to me to be an anamoly in the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
As the article I referenced shows (assuming you cared to read it), it wasn't an anomaly at all. It was a style of writing that was at the time, in vogue. Hence the name of the article: The Commonplace Second Amendment.

Etymology is a fascinating subject. You should look into it sometime....
I see that a sense of irony and humor is lacking.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Perhaps not.

When the gun control crowd has so harped upon the so-called "militia clause," this cartoon merely caters to that end.
 
Un-confuse me, would you?

Are you saying that we (staff) cannot post as ordinary members, or are you saying that because we posted, it makes some sort of difference? Or perhaps. both?
Click to expand...

I'm saying you BOTH felt the need to defend the very thing the cartoon says you need to defend, where the irony lies in the fact that it doesn't need to be defended. Being moderators makes it interesting, as by that virtue you generally have a better feel for when to step in and when not to.

This was a toothless attack by a cartoonist. That's amusing.

As the article I referenced shows (assuming you cared to read it), it wasn't an anomaly at all. It was a style of writing that was at the time, in vogue. Hence the name of the article: The Commonplace Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

I noted it was an anomaly in the Bill of Rights. Of the 10, only the second felt the need to use some kind of justification/purpose A to delineate right B.

Etymology is a fascinating subject. You should look into it sometime....
Click to expand...
This would be classic example of a "petty" portion of a debate.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

When the gun control crowd has so harped upon the so-called "militia clause," this cartoon merely caters to that end.
Click to expand...

You clearly did and do not see the humor in the cartoon. There is no "perhaps" about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top