The text of the second amendement and a question

[Christ]

This will most likely cause an inevitable argument, but it's something I thought about awhile ago regarding the exact text of the second amendment and how anti-gun folks might use it as an argument against personal gun ownership:

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.

It could be argued that self-defense is not included in this particular phrasing, because the intent that can be read in the text sort of precludes personal ownership in favor of Militia necessity.

That being the case, and since there's no mention of personal security, only that of a "Free State", one could certainly argue that even if people were allowed to use and carry guns freely, their USE could solely be relegated to the terms of the definition of Militia, which also does not include any personal status.

So while I agree that every man, woman, and child should be allowed to own weapons, and carry when mature enough to do so responsibly, there is the obvious argument that self-defense doesn't apply.

....Go!

[knight0334]

This will most likely cause an inevitable argument, but it's something I thought about awhile ago regarding the exact text of the second amendment and how anti-gun folks might use it as an argument against personal gun ownership:

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.

It could be argued that self-defense is not included in this particular phrasing, because the intent that can be read in the text sort of precludes personal ownership in favor of Militia necessity.

That being the case, and since there's no mention of personal security, only that of a "Free State", one could certainly argue that even if people were allowed to use and carry guns freely, their USE could solely be relegated to the terms of the definition of Militia, which also does not include any personal status.

So while I agree that every man, woman, and child should be allowed to own weapons, and carry when mature enough to do so responsibly, there is the obvious argument that self-defense doesn't apply.

....Go!

This was settled 4 years ago this June 28th.

The Heller v Washington DC case ruled that it is an individual right detached from the militia clause.

And even if it were still attached, the PEOPLE are the militia. So either way, the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court went further and ruled that personal protection is included in the reasons for keeping and bearing.

[Justin///M]

This was settled 4 years ago this June 28th.

The Heller v Washington DC case ruled that it is an individual right detached from the militia clause.

And even if it were still attached, the PEOPLE are the militia. So either way, the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court went further and ruled that personal protection is included in the reasons for keeping and bearing.

/end thread.

But besides that, the Founders were pretty clear about why we have the second.

Justin

[knight0334]

If some idiot presents to you the argument that "militia" means the National Guard - you need to point out to them that the National Guard was founded in 1903 via the Militia Act of 1903(aka, The Dick Act).

[ReconLdr]

This will most likely cause an inevitable argument, but it's something I thought about awhile ago regarding the exact text of the second amendment and how anti-gun folks might use it as an argument against personal gun ownership:

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.

It could be argued that self-defense is not included in this particular phrasing, because the intent that can be read in the text sort of precludes personal ownership in favor of Militia necessity.

That being the case, and since there's no mention of personal security, only that of a "Free State", one could certainly argue that even if people were allowed to use and carry guns freely, their USE could solely be relegated to the terms of the definition of Militia, which also does not include any personal status.

So while I agree that every man, woman, and child should be allowed to own weapons, and carry when mature enough to do so responsibly, there is the obvious argument that self-defense doesn't apply.

....Go!

The can argue all they want... it doesn't change the facts. The Militia at the time the Constitution was written and ratified, was all the people. This was added because the US was not supposed to have a standing military. It is actually prohibited in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. Since there would be no standing Army to respond to an attack, the people needed to be ready to defend themself and the nation.

Article 1 Section 8 states:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

In addition to the US Constitution, the individual states also covered gun ownership and self defense:

Pa Constitution:

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

[51158]

This will most likely cause an inevitable argument, but it's something I thought about awhile ago regarding the exact text of the second amendment and how anti-gun folks might use it as an argument against personal gun ownership:

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.

It could be argued that self-defense is not included in this particular phrasing, because the intent that can be read in the text sort of precludes personal ownership in favor of Militia necessity.

That being the case, and since there's no mention of personal security, only that of a "Free State", one could certainly argue that even if people were allowed to use and carry guns freely, their USE could solely be relegated to the terms of the definition of Militia, which also does not include any personal status.

So while I agree that every man, woman, and child should be allowed to own weapons, and carry when mature enough to do so responsibly, there is the obvious argument that self-defense doesn't apply.

....Go!

In the declaration of independence and through the constitution and bill of right. the word "people" is always referring to the "citizens".

[QuackXP]

This was settled 4 years ago this June 28th.

The Heller v Washington DC case ruled that it is an individual right detached from the militia clause.

And even if it were still attached, the PEOPLE are the militia. So either way, the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court went further and ruled that personal protection is included in the reasons for keeping and bearing.

I thought McDonald v. Chicago was what settled it in the states and not just Washington DC.

[FNG19]

It could be argued that self-defense is not included in this particular phrasing, because the intent that can be read in the text sort of precludes personal ownership in favor of Militia necessity.

As Knight0334 correctly pointed out, this is settled law as a result of District of Columbia v. Heller. If you want to see a deconstruction of the language of the Second Amendment, the majority opinion in Heller did a pretty thorough job of it, including examining what they refer to as the perfunctory clause and the operative clause of the Second Amendment. If you can get through that part of the opinion, it'll be quite instructive.

So while I agree that every man, woman, and child should be allowed to own weapons, and carry when mature enough to do so responsibly, there is the obvious argument that self-defense doesn't apply.

....Go!

There are lots of "obvious arguments" that are wrong and stupid. Don't argue with stupid people. They can't learn, and you can't win. The law of the land says whomever is making that argument is wrong, just like they'd be wrong to say "abortion is illegal in the United States" (Roe v. Wade) and "separate but equal education systems for blacks and whites is perfectly fine" (Brown v. Board of Ed). You can't pick and choose which decisions you like because it suits your purposes, even if there are some utterly horrendous decisions out there. For one example of a truly horrendous decision, look up the "Slaughter-House Cases". Legal scholars across the political spectrum widely agree that this decision is one of the worst ever to come out of the Supreme Court, and it should (IMHO) be overturned. However, as we saw in Heller, the court is not likely to do so out of respect for, as Alito (IIRC) put it, "120 years of jurisprudence".

That said, Heller covered self-defense and possession in the home. McDonald v. Chicago extended the federal prohibition to the states (called "incorporation"). The third leg of the tripod is carry outside the home. There are a few cases making their way up the court system about this, but nothing has reached SCOTUS yet. So, we don't know for certain if it will be legally recognized as a right, even if we believe it to be.

[Christ]

Hypothetically -

If the SCOTUS hadn't ruled in past cases, and we were effectively going on only the text itself, could someone not then argue that in order to own, carry, and legally operate or conceal a firearm, one must be "signed up" to stand in Militia duty for their state/country as a measure of state's defense?

In plain words, "IF you're gonna carry, you have to be willing to sign up for the Militia and ready to defend, should it become necessary."

I'm only asking because for me, the best way I've found to solidify and examine my own arguments is to "play from the opposite side" and analyze potential arguments against my stance.

And for the record, if a US or PA militia was a requirement, I'd be perfectly willing to "sign up", provided it's intent wasn't offensive, but solely defensive, as it should be.

[IronSight]

It's notable that in Heller and McDonald the losing side, aka the anti-gunners, recognized self defense as a right of the people.

Groups like CSGV can argue all they want, but they lost so badly that the stretches of the truth they come up with are absurd.