• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

  • You can have any gun you want and no one can stop you.

    Votes: 15 34.9%
  • You can have any ARM you want. Why stop at guns? Knives, grenades, nunchucks, tanks...it's all good!

    Votes: 8 18.6%
  • Yeah, you can have a gun, but there are limits to that right, like every other right.

    Votes: 15 34.9%
  • You can have a gun so you can join in a militia instead of having a standing army.

    Votes: 7 16.3%
  • You can have an 18th century single-shot firearm and no one can stop you.

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • You and your gun cannot be singled out by the government, it has to follow it's own laws

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • As a principle you should have the right to a gun, but we're not going to explain how.

    Votes: 4 9.3%
  • It's purposefully vague.

    Votes: 4 9.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 10 23.3%

  • Total voters
    43
You are demanding we accept an absurd premise . . . You need to understand that the framers wrote the 2nd Amendment within the context of the Lockean rights theory the founders / framers embraced.

Well, help me understand how much a right can be or not be limited. Could the federal government write a law that said that a blind person could not carry a concealed weapon? If not, could a state or local government? Or is that infringing on their right?

I'm not trying to be facetious, I really just want to understand where limits on rights can be placed.
 
Well, help me understand how much a right can be or not be limited. Could the federal government write a law that said that a blind person could not carry a concealed weapon? If not, could a state or local government? Or is that infringing on their right?

I'm not trying to be facetious, I really just want to understand where limits on rights can be placed.


My rights end where yours begin.


My right to carry a gun ends where it would infringe on your rights.


That is how fundamental rights are measured.


Restrictions to fundamental rights are usually done under Strict Constitutional Scrutiny. This is a specific form of review with specific points.

1. The restriction must be NECESSARY to the preservation and function of society; not merely preferred or desired.
2. The restriction must narrowly construed... that is very specific rather than broad.
3. It must be the LEAST RESTRICTIVE possible way of achieving the necessary goal in question.


Very very few gun laws meet this criteria.
 
Gun control is a hot issue, but it all comes down to the 2nd Amendment, which reads:

"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."

But what does that sentence actually guarantee?

why don't we hear from the very people who wrote and debated the 2nd amendment

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
Benjamin Franklin

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

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 governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776
George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselvesand include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
Richard Henry Lee

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Samuel Adams

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies.” – Speech in the United States Congress, January 8, 1790; George Washington: A Collection, compiled and edited by W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988), Chapter 11
George Washington

“[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” – Letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787; The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 5

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].” – Proposed Constitution for Virginia – Fair Copy, Section IV: Rights, Private and Public, June 1776; The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5); Vol. 2
Thomas Jefferson

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them.” – Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775; The Writings of Thomas Paine, Collected and Edited by Moncure Daniel Conway (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1894) Volume 1, Chapter XII
Thomas Paine

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778; “Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution,” Jonathan Elliot, editor, vol. 3, pp. 50-53
The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”– Debates in the Several State Conventions on Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed. 1836, vol. 3, p. 386
Patrick Henry


it is pretty clear what they meant
 
Last edited:
My rights end where yours begin.


My right to carry a gun ends where it would infringe on your rights.


That is how fundamental rights are measured.


Restrictions to fundamental rights are usually done under Strict Constitutional Scrutiny. This is a specific form of review with specific points.

1. The restriction must be NECESSARY to the preservation and function of society; not merely preferred or desired.
2. The restriction must narrowly construed... that is very specific rather than broad.
3. It must be the LEAST RESTRICTIVE possible way of achieving the necessary goal in question.


Very very few gun laws meet this criteria.

nicely put!
 
Just going by what it says (the letter of the law) is not enough. You must also go by the Spirit of the Law. Which was to have the citizenry as well armed as the governments active military. Which means the Citizens should be allowed to have anything that is commonly used by the active military.

And therein lies the problem. That is an interpretation and that is what the Supreme Court does. The recent Citizens United decision that Corporations are people doth diminish the credibility of the interpreting icon however. Interpretation doth not seem to be the venue of the lowly dolts or whatever.
 
But certainly if you want to talk about the intent of the founding fathers you must accept that they wrote the 2nd amendment in the context of the 18th century. They wouldn't have had any idea about how it would be applied in the future.

that's moronic. their view was that civilians have the same weapons as regulars. You seem to think that the state of the art should continue for the government but citizens be mired in 18th century technology.

Only the very dishonest say that the right does not encompass change in weaponry. If you actually understand the purpose then the weapons don't matter.

btw do you think the first amendment is limited to churches that existed in the 18th century or to say manual printing presses?
 
Who the **** are you to tell me what I've been saying when you obviously haven't read a goddamn thing I've written? You are wrong, and a liar, and if you are a man of any honor I await your retraction and apology for slurs against my character.

The second amendment is irrelevant to an individual right to possess and own weapons, as you yourself demonstrated with several quotes from caselaw. Which is why I maintain that the second amendment's original meaning relates only to a militia right.

you are being schooled by a guy who clearly understands the topic far better than you do. As someone who has actually lectured to peer groups about this amendment I can tell you Willie is correct.

that you are having a meltdown over that comment proves that he is right and all your posts on this subject is just nothing more than methane. Methane because its incendiary and stinks
 
that's moronic. their view was that civilians have the same weapons as regulars. You seem to think that the state of the art should continue for the government but citizens be mired in 18th century technology.

Only the very dishonest say that the right does not encompass change in weaponry. If you actually understand the purpose then the weapons don't matter.

btw do you think the first amendment is limited to churches that existed in the 18th century or to say manual printing presses?

Well, Jefferson thought the constitution should be rewritten by each new generation. And to begin with, the founding fathers never had a hive mind. They were from different regions, with different constituents, and they compromised as much as any generation. I think automatically falling back on what they said at the beginning of the country without questioning its wisdom verges on religiousness.
 
Who the **** are you to tell me what I've been saying when you obviously haven't read a goddamn thing I've written? You are wrong, and a liar, and if you are a man of any honor I await your retraction and apology for slurs against my character.

You poor thing. Have a cookie.

The second amendment is irrelevant to an individual right to possess and own weapons, as you yourself demonstrated with several quotes from caselaw. Which is why I maintain that the second amendment's original meaning relates only to a militia right.

No, you "maintain" it because you read a silly, unsourced op-ed by a judge who's not an historian.
 
Well, Jefferson thought the constitution should be rewritten by each new generation. And to begin with, the founding fathers never had a hive mind. They were from different regions, with different constituents, and they compromised as much as any generation. I think automatically falling back on what they said at the beginning of the country without questioning its wisdom verges on religiousness.

some comments are so clueless that I tend to view the utterer as beyond hope

for example

1) some claim that the second amendment's comment about "well regulated" DELEGATES POWER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to regulate ARMS (not militias)

2) some claim that the second only applies to muskets, pikes etc

those two comments exhibit such a complete lack of understanding of the constitution that I can never take anyone who says something like that seriously
 
You poor thing. Have a cookie.



No, you "maintain" it because you read a silly, unsourced op-ed by a judge who's not an historian.

It was a most amusing meltdown.
 
Well, Jefferson thought the constitution should be rewritten by each new generation. And to begin with, the founding fathers never had a hive mind. They were from different regions, with different constituents, and they compromised as much as any generation. I think automatically falling back on what they said at the beginning of the country without questioning its wisdom verges on religiousness.

well since the founders are reflecting on what is written in the constitution, and the limitations placed on government by the restrictive clauses of the bill of right cannot be changed.

what they have to say about those limitations is still valid.
 
The second amendment related to the militia, and the phrase "keep and bear arms" was a term of art referring to militia serve. Personal, individual gun ownership had NOTHING to do with the original meaning of the second amendment.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER


Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
.......
 
I think the responses of the poll suggest that what the 2nd Amendment really says is in dispute.

Do you actually think this thread represents the first time this was discussed here at DP? (Or, indeed, within the first 100 times?)
 
But certainly if you want to talk about the intent of the founding fathers you must accept that they wrote the 2nd amendment in the context of the 18th century. They wouldn't have had any idea about how it would be applied in the future.

That is simply silly. Do you also think that interstate highways are not postal roads? Or that aircraft should be left under state control? That electronic mass media is not the press? The idea of the constitution was to set limitted categories of federal powers, making the rest remain state powers and to assure basic individual rights cannot be trumped by either.

Arms was never intended to be limitted to single shot, muzzle loading arms, but to those capable of common military (defense) use.
 
Do you actually think this thread represents the first time this was discussed here at DP? (Or, indeed, within the first 100 times?)

it is only in dispute by the uneducated and misinformed the founding fathers made it perfectly clear what was meant in the 2nd amendment if you do a little research
 
Which is why I maintain that the second amendment's original meaning relates only to a militia right.

A "militia right"? You can't be serious.
 
A "militia right"? You can't be serious.

Who knows, he spews this crap trying to create controversy. There is no scholarly support for his comments.
 
The Second Amendment is the least clear and most misunderstood of the ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. Likely that is because it deals with an arcane principle of self government. Be assured, it has nothing to do with guns, knives or any other weapon whether suitable for use in combat or not.

During the American Revolution, the colonists faced a professional army, that is, an army of persons who were in the army either because they wanted to be or because they were forced into it. The British army was not an army of common citizens called to arms to defend their communities. Consequently, these professionals had no reason to be particularly concerned about what they did as soldiers. Their lives and their professional success were tied to their performance as soldiers. If they were called-upon to abuse the citizens of the colonies, so be it. Following orders was the only thing that mattered because that resulted in promotions or, at least, no punishment. This was the standing army the Founders feared. Its loyalty was to itself not to the People.

To obviate the problem, the Founders wished to create a citizen army, an army of common citizens who would not abuse the rights of the People. Such an army, a militia could be trusted where a professional army could not. The Second Amendment declares for the People a right to a citizen army. In saying "keep and bear arms," it says the People may create and manage their citizen army and serve in it themselves. That phrase, widely and wildly misunderstood, is not about owning and carrying guns.
 
well since the founders are reflecting on what is written in the constitution, and the limitations placed on government by the restrictive clauses of the bill of right cannot be changed.

what they have to say about those limitations is still valid.

the authors of the 2nd amendment made it perfectly clear its purpose was so one can protect ones self, family, neighbor, property and liberty from foreign or domestic threats and those threats are just as relevant today as it was 200 years ago
 
Who the **** are you to tell me what I've been saying when you obviously haven't read a goddamn thing I've written? You are wrong, and a liar, and if you are a man of any honor I await your retraction and apology for slurs against my character.

The second amendment is irrelevant to an individual right to possess and own weapons, as you yourself demonstrated with several quotes from caselaw. Which is why I maintain that the second amendment's original meaning relates only to a militia right.

That is completely insane. Under what possible condidtions would the militia have to be protected from infringement by its own gov't?
 
The Second Amendment is the least clear and most misunderstood of the ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. Likely that is because it deals with an arcane principle of self government. Be assured, it has nothing to do with guns, knives or any other weapon whether suitable for use in combat or not.

During the American Revolution, the colonists faced a professional army, that is, an army of persons who were in the army either because they wanted to be or because they were forced into it. The British army was not an army of common citizens called to arms to defend their communities. Consequently, these professionals had no reason to be particularly concerned about what they did as soldiers. Their lives and their professional success were tied to their performance as soldiers. If they were called-upon to abuse the citizens of the colonies, so be it. Following orders was the only thing that mattered because that resulted in promotions or, at least, no punishment. This was the standing army the Founders feared. Its loyalty was to itself not to the People.

To obviate the problem, the Founders wished to create a citizen army, an army of common citizens who would not abuse the rights of the People. Such an army, a militia could be trusted where a professional army could not. The Second Amendment declares for the People a right to a citizen army. In saying "keep and bear arms," it says the People may create and manage their citizen army and serve in it themselves. That phrase, widely and wildly misunderstood, is not about owning and carrying guns.

I didn't know you was over two hundred years old and was there at the convention

luckly we have the written words of the ones who where there that wrote, discussed and debated the 2nd amendement to tell us what they meant

why don't we hear from the very people who wrote discussed and debated the 2nd amendment

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
Benjamin Franklin

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

“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 governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776
George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
Richard Henry Lee

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Samuel Adams

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies.” – Speech in the United States Congress, January 8, 1790; George Washington: A Collection, compiled and edited by W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988), Chapter 11
George Washington

“[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” – Letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787; The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 5

“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].” – Proposed Constitution for Virginia – Fair Copy, Section IV: Rights, Private and Public, June 1776; The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5); Vol. 2
Thomas Jefferson

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them.” – Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775; The Writings of Thomas Paine, Collected and Edited by Moncure Daniel Conway (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1894) Volume 1, Chapter XII
Thomas Paine

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778; “Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution,” Jonathan Elliot, editor, vol. 3, pp. 50-53
“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”– Debates in the Several State Conventions on Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed. 1836, vol. 3, p. 386
Patrick Henry


I don't know what convention you was at but it sure wasn't that one
 
Last edited:
Does that matter?

You seem rather surprised that there are divergent views on the matter, and your responses indicate you haven't looked into much of this. I suggest poring through the Gun Control and US Constitution sections; it's all -- and I do mean all -- been said in there.

So yeah, it matters, because a 497th discussion about it doesn't add much value.
 
Back
Top Bottom