Question regarding 2nd Amendment

G

Gary Conner

New member
Got to thinking about the 2nd. amendment, and have a question.

It says a "...well regulated militia" being necessary to a free state.
Then if goes on to say, "....the right of the people, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Could it be they meant the militia members themselves are subject to regulation, but the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?

I can't see the writers of that sentence declaring the right to keep and bear arms "can't be infringed", and then in the very same sentence, intend that the uninfringable right they just recognized, can be "well regulated".

Wouldn't that be similar to declaring you have the right to "free speech", but your "free speech" is subject to being "well-regulated" by the Federal Government?
 
Could it be they meant the militia members themselves are subject to regulation
Click to expand...
From what I've come to understand, the problem is about what is meant by "well regulated militia". It seems that the term has a meaning that has gotten lost in the intervening years since that was written. We tend to think about "well regulated" as being in terms of "under the control of the government authorities", but back then the meaning was more along the lines of " well trained", or "competent", or "effective". The basic idea at the time was that the militia consisted of all able bodied males who are able to fight, and they were expected to be able to do that with the arms and expertise they had already attained in their normal civilian life. Say, for instance, that you have a frontier settlement, and that settlement came under attack by the French or one of their allied Indian tribe proxies -- a fairly common occurence that the framers would have been quite familiar with (recent French and Indian War). The inhabitants would be forced to fight for their own safety with the manpower and arms that they had on hand as chances are the army wouldn't be able to help them -- the citizen fighers would be that militia, and their competence to do that fight would be their level of regimine, or how "regular" or "regulated" they were.

edited to say "well regulated militia" instead of "well regulated" in 1st sentence
 
Last edited:
Gary, from what you express, I gather only that your thinking about the grammar and logic of the sentence is not very clear.

The first part of the sentence is not tightly tethered to what the second part sets out to establish. In fact, if you lopped off the first part altogether (the part that simply says something in an expository manner about why a militia is necessary) the second part can easily stand on its own: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In fact, there are a number of "reasons" that the framers could have placed in the first part. What if they had written it this way:

"Since we all know good and well that keeping the people armed is the best way to prevent a tyrannical government from rising, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That's very nearly what is said in the Second Amendment that we do have (given that the militia is pretty much "the people.")

I can't see the writers of that sentence declaring the right to keep and bear arms "can't be infringed", and then in the very same sentence, intend that the uninfringable right they just recognized, can be "well regulated".

Wouldn't that be similar to declaring you have the right to "free speech", but your "free speech" is subject to being "well-regulated" by the Federal Government?
Click to expand...

You're not reading it the right way, first of all. Even if you were heading at this from the right direction, the construction of the sentence does not say what you just claimed it does -- that "the uninfringable right they just recognized, can be "well regulated." It says that the militia should be "well-regulated." So your point there is moot. They might very well have intended for an absolute right being established for a well-regulated group.

(It was already cleared up for you that "well-regulated" had a different meaning at the time, and did not mean "under the watchful eye of the government and subject to all kinds of rules and laws.")

But the whole issue is moot, because there is nothing in that text to indicate that the right to keep and bear arms is predicated on being in the militia, the national guard, or any other "regulated" body.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't matter what came before that to modify the sentence: you still have to come back to this and realize that whatever the reason why it's a good idea, you can't (constitutionally) infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. That would include limiting the right to carry, ammunition type, ammunition capacity, rate of fire, etc.


-azurefly
 
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't matter what came before that to modify the sentence: you still have to come back to this and realize that whatever the reason why it's a good idea, you can't (constitutionally) infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. That would include limiting the right to carry, ammunition type, ammunition capacity, rate of fire, etc.
Click to expand...

Unless it is preceded with something like:

Aside from bottle rockets, .50BMG rifles and full-auto machine guns, The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Obviously it isn't, but the beginning of a sentence can contain a heavy dose of modification to a clause at the end of it. I'd love to see a dictionary from 1790 and look up "regulated". But, judging by the lack of spelling standards in that time period, something as consistent as a dictionary probably didn't exist.
 
The 2nd Amendment:

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...
The grammar sounds a little convoluted to modern ears, but if you put other terms into the critical spots, the structure of the sentence becomes more clear.
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...
Does anyone want to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes ... ? Or that all tomatoes have to be well-crafted?

That's basically what you're doing when you argue that the right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd Amendment applies only to militia members, or that the 2nd Amendment requires firearms to be regulated.

pax
 
I think there is (1) the principle that a standing army is dangerous to liberty and should be avoided, that the proper defense of a free State is the people themselves, trained to arms, and (2) the concern that the federal power to arm the militia might somehow lead to a power to disarm the militia.
 
(1) the principle that a standing army is dangerous to liberty and should be avoided, that the proper defense of a free State is the people themselves, trained to arms
Click to expand...
Sounds good in theory but in reality most people in the nation wouldn't be willing to die for their freedom. Besides, how many private organizations could not only contain the manpower but the discipline of a standing military? It's not rhetoric, I really don't know the answer to that question.
 
From what I've read, at the time of writing and in subsequent years, the term "well regulated" was taken to mean well maintained, rather than something all bound up in red tape and bureaucratic edicts.
 
I think the idea was not just a bunch of armed individuals but rather the people organized into militia and trained and drilled to function as military units. Here is what Webster's 1828 Dictionary says about "militia":

MILITIA - The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.


And I think the proper definition of "regulated" would be "put in good order":

REGULATED - Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.
 
When talking about the 2nd amendment, look at the 4th and 14th as well. That helps to clarify RTBR, at least it does for me.
 
My belief is the founders wanted this discussion to be entertained. They were bright guys, and if they wanted it to simply say "private ownership of firearms shall not be infringed" they would have said that.

I think what they're up to is laying the groundwork for the defense of why we should all understand firearms, and the use of force. They wanted you to have an idea what guns are capable of and respect that force, and use it judiciously. It was important that you became part of a militia knowing full well the importance and the responsibility implied in that undertaking.
 
I don't know if this is an aside:

I have seen the 2nd as quoted above and also:

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...

(IIRC)

That they (I have no clue who "they" are) added the other two comma's.

Wayne
 
My belief is the founders wanted this discussion to be entertained. They were bright guys, and if they wanted it to simply say "private ownership of firearms shall not be infringed" they would have said that.
Click to expand...


You think that rather than having an actual point, and and actual right to guarantee, they wanted to be deliberately unclear and engender endless debate on convoluted text while a human right gets eviscerated?

How does that make any sense?


-azurefly
 
How does it make sense? Because they could have been a lot more clear had they wanted to; they simply wouldn't have included any caveats at all. The FF expressly did not want haphazard, fast government--they wanted conscientious govt and debate on important issues. This is why they favored checks and balances and a bicameral legislature.
 
Helmetcase,

In over 200 years, the use of words, and it's context, has changed. They were clear:

1. A militia (and back then, it was made up of those 16 to 45, not a standing army) civilians.

2. Was necessary to ensure that the State they lived was protected, since they didn't have, or want, a standing army.

3. That the People, who made up this militia, was well armed (aka, the citizens of that state, aged 16 to 45).

4. And that said civilians, which made up the milita, be trained in the use of arms and be ready to assemble and march if the need ever came up.

It's really not that hard to understand. People like you and I were to have any arms that we needed for conventional warfare, that we trained on such arms, and that when the call was made, that we would kiss our wives (or SO's) and march into war in order to protect our State and our Country.

Wayne
 
I don't know if this is an aside:

I have seen the 2nd as quoted above and also:

Quote:
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.

(IIRC)

That they (I have no clue who "they" are) added the other two comma's.

Wayne
Click to expand...

I've seen this argument before presented by gun control advocates and it still boggles my mind how simple grammar tends to escape even the most educated Senators. :confused: Regardless of the extra commas that "they" put in or took out or whatever, the meaning of the sentence doesn't change one bit because the latter part in the text you presented is the actual message being relayed. The first part, however jumbled it may become, is nothing more than a clarifyer and serves as an example.

To expand on pax's example:

A well regulated transportation system being necessary to the productivity of a busy metropolitan area, the right of the people to keep and bear quarters shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

The point of the message is still the quarters, though it not only doesn't restrict using quarters solely for public transportation but it doesn't restrict other forms of transportation nor does it limit public transportation to ensure productivity in a busy metro area. Removing the tranportation clause doesn't alter the meaning of the message, it merely provides what I believe is the most important reason for the protection of quarters. The right of people to have quarters is not dependant on the existence of public transportation.

Even if well regulated militias weren't necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear would still not be infringed.

But then that's just my take on it; it's not like I have a doctorate in linguistics......yet. :)
 
if they wanted it to simply say "private ownership of firearms shall not be infringed" they would have said that.
Click to expand...
Without attempting clever interpretations and reading between the lines I have a hard time understading what is NOT clear about the text of the Second Amendment.

Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.

It is only when one applies interpretation to the wordage that it becomes unclear, it makes no sense when viewed as a non-literal statement. Non-literal interpretation pretty much defeats the purpose of being literal while documenting the requirements of a proposed government, but how else can one make it any more clear than being completely literal?

An amazing and frustrating paradox indeed.
 
For many nations in the earlier times, the people were considered soldiers of the realm...

This is the case in Israel today.
It was the case in the United States until the liberal left destroyed the Draft and began to pass laws that infringed on the keeping and bearing of arms.

The people were expected to be called up in national emergencies, to defend the land against invaders and all other enemies...

The people were "drafted" en masse into the militia, as needed, and they were expected to keep arms and to bear them...

The 2nd Ammendment refers to this fact and fortifies all the freedoms of the people.

The only ones who want to take this right away... also want very much to take all our individual freedoms away and then take TOTAL CONTROL. :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top