The Bastardization of the Second Amendment

[Skwim]

In light of recent SCOTUS rulings:

"In the twenty-first century, the [Second] amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare"
Source: Wikipedia
​

What's the difference between:

"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."
​

And

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

I ask because "the people" today who choose to keep and bear arms are neither part of a well regulated militia nor any kind of a militia whatsoever, yet the SCOTUS ruling protects them. As I see it, there is no difference between the two versions.

.

​

 

[Brickjectivity]

Sometimes citizens need to form our own militias. For example if law and order breaks down citizens may form a militia to restore order, or suppose that a sheriff needs to deputize citizens but has not got enough weapons. In a more rare situation suppose that the government goes bad and must be overthrown, then people may need to form a militia against it. The country begins as an insurrection against a standing colonial government, so perhaps this is reflected in the 2nd amendment.

 

[Skwim]

Sometimes citizens need to form our own militias.

So when was the last time a well regulated militia composed of US citizens needed?

For example if law and order breaks down citizens may form a militia to restore order, or suppose that a sheriff needs to deputize citizens but has not got enough weapons.

That's what we have National Guard units for.

In a more rare situation suppose that the government goes bad and must be overthrown, then people may need to form a militia against it.

Not that any such militias would stand a chance in hell against the US armed forces, but just where are these "well regulated militias" you feel are so necessary?


.

 

[tytlyf]

So when was the last time a well regulated militia composed of US citizens needed?


That's what we have National Guard units for.


Not that any such militias would stand a chance in hell against the US armed forces, but just where are these "well regulated militias" you feel are so necessary?


.

Think the Bundy Boys. These people can't wait for the crap to hit the fan. Paranoid, probably Infowars watchers too.

 

[Mister Emu]

As I see it, there is no difference between the two versions.

There is no difference, functionally. A militia is made up of the populace; so if a situation occurs such that a militia is necessary, see the seige of athens, the people have to have access to arms.

 

[Thehoodedmonk]

"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."

You will notice in the 2nd Amendment that there is no mention of hunting, nor any mention of self-defense. Why? The reason is because the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or self-defense, yes those are important. But What the 2nd Amendment is about is securing a Free State. Only the people can be trusted to secure a free state. Foreign powers can not guarantee our freedom, the U.S. government can not guarantee a free state. Only the people can guarantee a free state. But how can this be accomplished? Only if the people are well armed and organized with modern weapons (not muskets!) can this be accomplished. But the Federal Government has watered down the 2nd Amendment to the point that it is useless as a means for securing a free state. Why do they do this? Because the Federal Government is full of crooks! All evil governments want to disarm the people. Evil governments are afraid of the people. If the American People could understand just how evil "our" government is they would march on Washington by the millions. The truth is that our "founding fathers" did not write a very good constitution.

 

[esmith]

Sometimes citizens need to form our own militias. For example if law and order breaks down citizens may form a militia to restore order, or suppose that a sheriff needs to deputize citizens but has not got enough weapons.

So when was the last time a well regulated militia composed of US citizens needed?


That's what we have National Guard units for
.

Every hear of Posse Comitatus?
Sheriff Threatens To Deputize His Citizens To Help Eliminate Federal Overreach | We Are Change

 

[Skwim]

Every hear of Posse Comitatus?
Sheriff Threatens To Deputize His Citizens To Help Eliminate Federal Overreach | We Are Change

I have, but so what?

 

[Shem Ben Noah]

That's what we have National Guard units for.
.

Um, the National Guard has NOT been a militia but part of the US Armed Forces since 1947.
They would be exactly the same as the army, in a military coup.

The first modern one formed after the Civil War, comprised of veterans and their descendants.
I have the honor of being one.

Not that any such militias would stand a chance in hell against the US armed forces, ...
.

You mean like the VC didn't stand a chance in hell?

 

[Skwim]

Um, the National Guard has NOT been a militia but part of the US Armed Forces since 1947.

Didn't say they were.

.

 

[LuisDantas]

The way I see it, the Second Amendment is very much a 18th century text, and has essentially been decreed to mean the very opposite of what it originally said.

 

[tytlyf]

The way I see it, the Second Amendment is very much a 18th century text, and has essentially been decreed to mean the very opposite of what it originally said.

Some crooked corporations rely on the 2A for their massive profits. Any damage to the buying power of people will drastically hurt profits. Which is why the NRA lobbies congress to make sure the people they buy up don't touch the 2A.

Fear is a powerful selling tool. Which is why RW media specializes in it.

 

[Thehoodedmonk]

The way I see it, the Second Amendment is very much a 18th century text, and has essentially been decreed to mean the very opposite of what it originally said.

Would you like to explain that remark somewhat more fully? Do you mean that those who wrote the 2nd Amendment really meant that the people shouldn't be armed? That the people should not try to save their free state. Is that what you are saying? Would you please clear this up, I am really confused as to your meaning.

 

[Revoltingest]

So when was the last time a well regulated militia composed of US citizens needed?

Do we lose a constitutional right if we've not needed to exercise it in a long time?

That's what we have National Guard units for.

The National Guard is government, not militia.
And they just might murder civilians.....oh, wait....they already have.

Not that any such militias would stand a chance in hell against the US armed forces, but just where are these "well regulated militias" you feel are so necessary?
.

Have you considered all possible scenarios?

If small arms are so ineffective, then why does our military still depend upon them?

 

[Thehoodedmonk]

When I said that the writers of the constitution did not write a very good constitution I meant it. What should the constitution have said? The United States Constitution should have said: "The United States Government is forbidden to have a military. Only the people will possess a military." Ever notice how many times in this world that because governments possess the military they turn into dictatorships? If each of our states possessed a military, controlled by the people, the 2nd Amendment would have never been necessary.

 

[LuisDantas]

Would you like to explain that remark somewhat more fully? Do you mean that those who wrote the 2nd Amendment really meant that the people shouldn't be armed?

That is the general gist of it, yes.

There are variant wordings of the Amendment, but let's take this version for discussion's sake:

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.

The wording is a prime example of legalese, lacking clear premises and avoiding making clear statements while nevertheless acting like it did both.

Still, what it does clearly state is that a hypothetical right to be armed "shall not be infringed". It does not say that the right is pre-existent; it is ambiguous on whether a militia should be automatically be presumed necessary for the security of the state; it does not explain what would constitute a militia exactly, and to top it of, it insists that it should be well regulated, as opposed to well armed.

Many people read it as a ratification that people ought to be allowed to have firearms no matter what - even 21st century firearms as opposed to the considerably more limited 18th century ones - but the wording is far more suitable to a reading that refuses to pressupose the existence of such firearms rights and conditions those to both the existence of a need for security of a free state (presumably the USA, but that is not really stated either) and of a "well regulated militia" being necessary to enforce that security.

Maybe it is just me, but "well regulated" sure suggest that there ought to be restrictions as opposed to presumption of inherent rights.

That the people should not try to save their free state.

No, I am not, mainly because I don't think that is a concrete enough goal to be discouraged.

What is a free state exactly? The concept is somewhere between very abstract and all-out fantasious. A state is artificial enough an idea. What is it to be kept "free" from?

States are built by the common goal of people living in some region to defer a measure of authority towards each other. They are based on careful renounciation of some amount freedom in exchange for cooperation of others.

s that what you are saying? Would you please clear this up, I am really confused as to your meaning.

I hope I clarified it some.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In light of recent SCOTUS rulings:

"In the twenty-first century, the [Second] amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare"
Source: Wikipedia
​

What's the difference between:

"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."
​

And

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

I ask because "the people" today who choose to keep and bear arms are neither part of a well regulated militia nor any kind of a militia whatsoever, yet the SCOTUS ruling protects them. As I see it, there is no difference between the two versions.

.

​

Read about the minutemen. Who they were, and where they lived, and where their personal firearms were kept as well as the legal ownership of those firearms.

 

[Nous]

What's the difference between:

"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."
​

And

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

I ask because "the people" today who choose to keep and bear arms are neither part of a well regulated militia nor any kind of a militia whatsoever, yet the SCOTUS ruling protects them. As I see it, there is no difference between the two versions.

As you can see in Heller, Scalia wasn't able to make sense of the prefatory clause once he had decided that the Second Amendment had to codify “the ancient right” of possessing handguns for purposes of self-defense against intruders into the home.

He says repeatedly that the prefatory clause “announces a purpose” (which it does), but that announcement merely contradicts his claim that amendment codified that “ancient right” about having handguns in the home. No one can figure out why someone would begin a sentence with assertions about a “well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State” when trying to guarantee a right to possess unlocked handguns in the home for purposes of defense against intruders.

 

[Nous]

Do we lose a constitutional right if we've not needed to exercise it in a long time?

Did someone suggest losing the constitutional right to maintain well regulated militias?

The National Guard is government, not militia.

As Stevens points out in Heller:

In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating “‘the National Guard of the several States,’” Perpich, 496 U. S., at 341, and nn. 9–10; meanwhile, the dominant understanding of the Second Amendment’s inapplicability to private gun ownership continued well into the 20th century. The first two federal laws directly restricting civilian use and possession of firearms--the 1927 Act prohibiting mail delivery of “pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person,” Ch. 75, 44 Stat. 1059, and the 1934 Act prohibiting the possession of sawed-off shotguns and machine guns—were enacted over minor Second Amendment objections dismissed by the vast majority of the legislators who participated in the debates.37​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[Nous]

Ever notice how many times in this world that because governments possess the military they turn into dictatorships?

The US hasn't turned into a dictatorship. Right?

If each of our states possessed a military, controlled by the people, the 2nd Amendment would have never been necessary.

That was tried under the Articles of Conferation. It didn't work out well. The Framers decided that the federal government should have the power to raise armies and declare war. States retained police power.