Why the Second Amendment Exists.

[Visbek]

Or not, the potential is more important than how such a reality would pan out statistically you could point at the American Revolution.

lol

Have you ever heard of this crazy place called Canada? Yeah, it was another colony that did not have a violent rebellion, peacefully gained its independence, and has done just fine. In fact, in some respects they're better off than the US.

Again... The authors made a fairly thorough study of civil resistance -- and they're not the only ones. The reality is that non-violent resistance is more successful than violent resistance. Maybe next time, you should take some time to read the research (or at least, look into it) before commenting on it.

Gun safety not in schools? Are you kidding me, this is our first and foremost duty.

No, I'm not kidding. We should not force our children to handle guns, and there is abundant evidence that what you're proposing is completely and utterly unnecessary.

There are some arguments above about the militia extending to the individual.

Oh, really? What are these mysterious and inexplicable arguments?

The term "militia" refers to a collection of citizens who are called upon to perform military duties. It makes no sense whatsoever to suggest that the 2A's references to militias is actually a top secret hidden encoded reference to "individuals."

 

[Visbek]

The general malitia is every single person that is legally allowed to own a gun nowdays.

And again... There is no "general militia."

Or are you saying that owning a firearm obligates military service? Can the government draft you because you own a gun? That is what a militia is, after all -- civilians who perform military duties.

I.e. Stop making stuff up. It really is not helping your position at all.

 

[expat_panama]

...the 2nd Amendment explicitly refers to militias, but not self defense from criminals.

That would be the case if the 2nd amendment read "...only members of militias have the right to bear arms". It doesn't say that; it reads thus:

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.​

Suppose there were an amendment that read:

Well educated voters, being necessary for elections in a free State, the right of the people to read, shall not be infringed.​

That would not mean we could prohibit non-voters under the age of 18 from learning how to read. It would mean that everyone needs to read because it is their right, and also if everyone reads then voters would be literate.

 

[lefty louie]

Big GIANT man punches girl. (extremely hard I might add)

Co-worker girl pulls out gun.

Big giant man gets scared and runs away.



ITS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

That is in part why the 2nd exists, but not the only reason. It's important to keep that notion alive and in the forefront of every anti gun argument.

PS, the militia is but "THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES".

 

[Exquisitor]

lol

Have you ever heard of this crazy place called Canada? Yeah, it was another colony that did not have a violent rebellion, peacefully gained its independence, and has done just fine. In fact, in some respects they're better off than the US.

Again... The authors made a fairly thorough study of civil resistance -- and they're not the only ones. The reality is that non-violent resistance is more successful than violent resistance. Maybe next time, you should take some time to read the research (or at least, look into it) before commenting on it.



No, I'm not kidding. We should not force our children to handle guns, and there is abundant evidence that what you're proposing is completely and utterly unnecessary.



Oh, really? What are these mysterious and inexplicable arguments?

The term "militia" refers to a collection of citizens who are called upon to perform military duties. It makes no sense whatsoever to suggest that the 2A's references to militias is actually a top secret hidden encoded reference to "individuals."

I don't want to argue the last point.

My gun safety course generally use wooden guns.

Thanks for the observance, it matters not the outcome, a revolution is better than many dictators and the potential is more important than the probability.

 

[expat_panama]

... There is no "general militia."...

Sure there is, let's first understand what the word means; there are three related definitions:

mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə
noun
noun: militia; plural noun: militias

• a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
• a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
• all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

​

The first definition is that which has evolved into our national guard. The third is where we get our regular army. The third (proposed by many --most famously Thomas Jefferson) is necessary to confirm the understanding that Americans are loyal to the State out of choice and not compulsion.

 

[calamity]

Whoops thats what I meant to put. 15,000,000 x 20/th of 1 = 300,000,000

And some men are not equal, i dunno why you are shaming men.

Some people are born cowards or some guys only weigh 120 pounds (less than the average woman) so I dont see why you dont want males having guns. These tiny men have a right to defend themselves. From men and women.

Ive seen a 300 pound woman beat the snot out of a 120 pound guy. Its really confusing as to what to do. My first instinct was to just kick the bitch in the head and make her go night-night. But I thought about all the police and how they would percieve it (2 guys vs 1 girl)... and lucky shaming and yelling at her seemed to have an effect.

Maybe wimpy guys should stay in the kitchen and lick boots. There is no need for a man to carry a gun in modern society.

 

[jimbo]

Is it?

Was she in a militia? Because for some reason, the 2nd Amendment explicitly refers to militias, but not self defense from criminals.

Did the ratifiers want women to carry guns with them all the time? Seems unlikely. Women couldn't vote, certainly weren't eligible for militia or military service, in some cases had limited property rights. I.e. I'm reasonably certain that, to whatever extent original intent matters, this wasn't on the list.

So much for simplicity.

Explicitly it doesn't. Explicitly the 2nd refers to the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[jimbo]

Uh... No, she isn't part of any militia. That's just hilarious.

Actually, male white citizens of age didn't have a choice about militia service. E.g. the Militia Act of 1792 required all male citizens aged 18 to 45 to enroll in local militias.

I have no idea what you mean with your reference to the police.

I'm not saying we should take away her rights. I'm pointing out that the ratifiers of the 2nd Amendment did not intend for women to carry concealed weapons to work for self-defense. I'm pretty sure they'd be horrified by almost everything in that sentence. We should also keep in mind that when it was ratified, the 2A only restricted the powers of Congress.

So I reiterate: The 2A is not "THAT SIMPLE." Your interpretation omits critical elements about militias, and imputes aspects that were not part of the original intent, and are not a part of the text.

No it didn't. That would be the first. There are no limits on the 2nd. That's what shall not be infringed means.

 

[Rucker61]

Is it?

Was she in a militia? Because for some reason, the 2nd Amendment explicitly refers to militias, but not self defense from criminals.

Did the ratifiers want women to carry guns with them all the time? Seems unlikely. Women couldn't vote, certainly weren't eligible for militia or military service, in some cases had limited property rights. I.e. I'm reasonably certain that, to whatever extent original intent matters, this wasn't on the list.

So much for simplicity.

If self defense wasn't mentioned in the Constitution or BoR, the federal government was not given any power to regulate it.

 

[VanceMack]

I disagree with the premise of the OP. The right of self defense is a natural right...something the founding fathers would have thought no one would ever be stupid enough to try to defeat.

No...the 2nd Amendment was written to guarantee the citizens (the militia IS the people of the United States) the right to keep and bear military grade firearms for the ultimate defense of the country. And to THAT I would agree that yes...it truly IS just that simple.

 

[VanceMack]

Uh... No, she isn't part of any militia. That's just hilarious.

Actually, male white citizens of age didn't have a choice about militia service. E.g. the Militia Act of 1792 required all male citizens aged 18 to 45 to enroll in local militias.

I have no idea what you mean with your reference to the police.

I'm not saying we should take away her rights. I'm pointing out that the ratifiers of the 2nd Amendment did not intend for women to carry concealed weapons to work for self-defense. I'm pretty sure they'd be horrified by almost everything in that sentence. We should also keep in mind that when it was ratified, the 2A only restricted the powers of Congress.

So I reiterate: The 2A is not "THAT SIMPLE." Your interpretation omits critical elements about militias, and imputes aspects that were not part of the original intent, and are not a part of the text.

In modern parlance you are simply...wrong. Intentionally/willfully/deliberately so or just uneducated, but the MODERN US Code specifically describes both the Unorganized militia and the Organized militias. However...going back to when the 2nd Amendment was written there is no question that the militia was 'the people'. We know that because we ALSO know for a fact that the organized militias werent even formed or codified until years later. That...and we have the founding fathers own words stating who the militia is.

 

[vegas giants]

No it didn't. That would be the first. There are no limits on the 2nd. That's what shall not be infringed means.

No limits. Now that is funny

 

[vegas giants]

If self defense wasn't mentioned in the Constitution or BoR, the federal government was not given any power to regulate it.

They are free to regulate commerce. I refer to wickard

 

[Visbek]

That would be the case if the 2nd amendment read "...only members of militias have the right to bear arms". It doesn't say that....

Re-read the OP. He's claiming that the basis of the 2nd Amendment is self-defense. It isn't. The basis of the restriction on Congress' ability to regulate arms is because they wanted a functional militia.

As such, prior to the extreme revisionism and judicial activism of Heller, the 2A itself did not protect any individual right to bear arms. That's why Heller was such a radical decision.

Thus, the OP's claims that his tendentious reading of the 2A is "SIMPLE" is, in fact, anything but.

 

[trixare4kids]

lol

There is no such thing as a "general militia."

Sorry, but pretty much everything you're saying is wrong. Neither gun rights, or gun control, or the 2A, are simple.

Dude, open a book and read,
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

 

[vegas giants]

Dude, open a book and read,
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Yeah they go that one wrong

 

[Rucker61]

Re-read the OP. He's claiming that the basis of the 2nd Amendment is self-defense. It isn't. The basis of the restriction on Congress' ability to regulate arms is because they wanted a functional militia.

As such, prior to the extreme revisionism and judicial activism of Heller, the 2A itself did not protect any individual right to bear arms. That's why Heller was such a radical decision.

Thus, the OP's claims that his tendentious reading of the 2A is "SIMPLE" is, in fact, anything but.

Miller affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms. Cruikshank pointed out that the government wasn't empowered to restrict the arms of the people.

 

[vegas giants]

Miller affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms. Cruikshank pointed out that the government wasn't empowered to restrict the arms of the people.

And yet the government does restrict the arms of the people. Odd. LOL

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re-read the OP. He's claiming that the basis of the 2nd Amendment is self-defense. It isn't. The basis of the restriction on Congress' ability to regulate arms is because they wanted a functional militia.

As such, prior to the extreme revisionism and judicial activism of Heller, the 2A itself did not protect any individual right to bear arms. That's why Heller was such a radical decision.

Thus, the OP's claims that his tendentious reading of the 2A is "SIMPLE" is, in fact, anything but.

Arguments that "the people" means different things in different places within the constitution and its several amendments is weak at best.

 

[vegas giants]

Arguments that "the people" means different things in different places within the constitution and its several amendments is weak at best.

At the time it sure did not mean women and blacks

 

[Visbek]

I don't want to argue the last point.

Then you probably shouldn't have raised it...

Thanks for the observance, it matters not the outcome, a revolution is better than many dictators and the potential is more important than the probability.

"Outcomes don't matter?" What the what?

You're claiming that violence is the only option. I'm telling you that non-violence not only works, it works better than violence.

Or perhaps you are inchoately suggesting that gun ownership is a prophylactic against autocracy? If so, that doesn't hold up either. Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Iraq all have high gun ownership rates, and are autocracies. Japan, India, and most European nations have low gun ownership rates, and are in no way under threat to lose their democratic governments. In fact, I can't think of any examples where citizen ownership of firearms stopped a democratic nation from turning into an autocracy.

And no, the American revolutionary example isn't terribly persuasive on that point. The existence of colonial militias obviously did not stop the English Parliament from repeatedly taking heavy-handed actions that riled many of the colonists, or strike such fear that the Brits immediately capitulated. The colonial militias were in sad shape at the start; the laws were inconsistently enforced, the citizens older and poorly trained, and materiel (including ammo) in short supply. (Washington regularly complained about poor discipline.) Much of the success was because France armed the US and took advantage of the situation to harry their ancient foes; even with that aid, the war was long and difficult, and the outcome far from certain -- even at the very end.

And of course, within 20 years after the end of the war, the Republicans were accusing the Federalists of moving towards autocracy -- and not without some reason, given the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion, and passage of the Sedition Acts.

I.e. the American experience is not a great example of "arming citizens prevents dictatorships."

Better luck next time.

 

[TurtleDude]

After that Pulse night club shooting I would be carrying a gun if I was allowed to.

why can't you?

 

[TurtleDude]

Is it?

Was she in a militia? Because for some reason, the 2nd Amendment explicitly refers to militias, but not self defense from criminals.

Did the ratifiers want women to carry guns with them all the time? Seems unlikely. Women couldn't vote, certainly weren't eligible for militia or military service, in some cases had limited property rights. I.e. I'm reasonably certain that, to whatever extent original intent matters, this wasn't on the list.

So much for simplicity.

massive fail-the second amendment was intended by the founders to RECOGNIZE and GUARANTEE the natural right of SELF DEFENSE.

 

[ttwtt78640]

At the time it sure did not mean women and blacks

Exactly, and since that time the US constitution has been amended to include those subsets of the people into the people. Some (now) see the 14th as having done precisely that, yet others insisted that the 19th be added (for added clarity, I suppose).

The problem now is that folks want to see all manner of things interpreted into or out of the constitution by SOTUS (5/4?) decisions as if they were explicitly included or excluded by amendment. SSM as the 'law of the land' came about in basically that manner - the SCOTUS just made it happen.

That was clearly not the founders intention - they wanted big changes to the US constitution to require amendment(s) approved by super-majoritoes of 3/4 of the states - not to have SCOTUS 5/4 (squeaker?) split decisions to establish 'precedent' (serving basically the same function as an amendment) instead.