The 2nd Amendment - An Epiphany?

[jsimmons]

I was puttin' some thinkin' on the 2nd Amendment this weekend, and had what I now consider to be an epiphany. Since I can't recall ever seeing it put this way, I thought I'd share:

-----------

As most of you probably know, the framers were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of its own.

I think the 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognize the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State..."

But then they followed that idea up with this:

"...the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

In other words, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was put in place in order to resist/put down an out-of-control federal government that used the military as a vehicle for oppression of said citizens, or worse, a military that attempted to take over the government by force.

The 2nd Amendment really has nothing to do with defending one's family/property, although that's a happy accident involving the right to keep and bear. Instead, it's about defending the principles set forth in the Constitution and to preserve the ideology as stated in the Declaration of Independence against a standing army - and/or its nefarious use by the federal government, and perhaps equally as important, to protect those things from ourselves.

 

[ACP230]

One of the Founders wrote something like this when the Bill Of Rights was being debated:

"The people may use their arms in their own defense."

The same idea was repeated, in different language, in many of their writings. It was also included in some state constitutions.

So the 2nd does cover defense of person, family, and property.
Leaving those out is incorrect.

 

[jsimmons]

One of the Founders wrote something like this when the Bill Of Rights was being debated:

"The people may use their arms in their own defense."

The same idea was repeated, in different language, in many of their writings. It was also included in some state constitutions.

So the 2nd does cover defense of person, family, and property.
Leaving those out is incorrect.

But I think the primary intent was to keep the Consitituion protected while still allowing the country to have a standing army.

If it came down to nuts and butts, there are over 80-million gun owners in the country, andjust 3 million in-uniform service members. I think the 2nd is holding up it's end of the bargin.

 

[Pote]

I'm still always amazed that states and politicians alike even have debates about definitions. What part of "shall not be infringed" is debatable?

Then again, when you have presidents like Clinton on national tv making statements (re Lewinski affair) like, "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is...." it starts to become clear. LMAO.

 

[auburn2]

But I think the primary intent was to keep the Consitituion protected while still allowing the country to have a standing army.

Many of th founding fathers did not want a standing army. Many, including Jefferson, Madions and Hamilton wanted it prohibited in the constitution and this topic was hotly debated.

A quote from TJ:

With respect to the new Government, nine or ten States will probably have accepted by the end of this month. The others may oppose it. Virginia, I think, will be of this number. Besides other objections of less moment, she will insist on annexing a bill of rights to the new Constitution, i. e. a bill wherein the Government shall declare that, 1. Religion shall be free; 2. Printing presses free; 3. Trials by jury preserved in all cases; 4. No monopolies in commerce; 5. No standing army. Upon receiving this bill of rights, she will probably depart from her other objections

He obviously did not get an amendment for "no standing army", but got the second amendment instead. Here is aquote from James Madison:

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.

 

[Steve in Vermont]

In Vermont we added a 16th amendment to our State Constitution "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state". Clear, concise, never to my knowledge been challenged. Works for us.

 

[sootsme]

One of the Founders wrote something like this when the Bill Of Rights was being debated:

"The people may use their arms in their own defense."

"The same idea was repeated, in different language, in many of their writings. It was also included in some state constitutions.

So the 2nd does cover defense of person, family, and property.
Leaving those out is incorrect."

The Founders were of the opinion that the right of defense of ourselves and others is a God given right. The 2nd Amendment grants nothing, but merely reiterates and supports this natural right of all people. And yeah, what about "shall not be abridged"? Durn...ignorance and apathy sure are expensive, eh?

 

[jtpur]

These are great points and while I happen to agree with jssimmons, one only need read the dissenting opinions of the four justices who voted against McDonald and Heller. It does not matter what you, or I think it means or why the framers wrote it into the Constitution. It means we are one very, very slim vote from having the SCOTUS redefine what it means.....and there are far too many jurists who want to define the 2nd to mean that we do not have a right to keep and bear arms.........

 

[Steve in Vermont]

These are great points and while I happen to agree with jssimmons, one only need read the dissenting opinions of the four justices who voted against McDonald and Heller. It does not matter what you, or I think it means or why the framers wrote it into the Constitution. It means we are one very, very slim vote from having the SCOTUS redefine what it means.....and there are far too many jurists who want to define the 2nd to mean that we do not have a right to keep and bear arms.........

And that is why the appointment of the next Supreme Court Justice is so important. The SCOTUS is supposed to be apolitical, but.........

 

[Sidewinder 319]

The shooting war started at Lexington Bridge when the English troops set out to confiscate all privately owned arms. That became what we call a hot button issue today. The Founding Documents all reflect the abuses of the time. Those abuses are and were common with Governments that over reach yesterday or today.

 

[russp1]

And that is why the appointment of the next Supreme Court Justice is so important. The SCOTUS is supposed to be apolitical, but.........

If relelcted, Obama has the potential to have appointed 5 of the sitting 9 supreme court justices because of those expected to retire. Think about how our constitution will be interpretted if that happens before you go to vote in November.

 

[DUCKHTR]

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in part that the right of the citizens to "keep" and to "bear" arms shall not be "infringed". We recently had a US Supreme Court Dicision that found that the 2nd Amendment "does" apply to the "individual" and not the state etc. Sooooooo the question is this: By what authority can any state or political subdivision thereof (cities, counties, townships etc.) pass any firearms laws or ordinance that in any way "infringes" on the "individual's" right to keep and to "bear" arms? This is the 2nd Amendment (not something burried in the bowls of a huge document) this is No. 2!! Lets put this in perspective. Does anyone believe that a state or city could pass a law restricting an individual's rights against self incrimination as provided by the 5th Amendment? What about passing a law restricting one's freedom of religion as provided for in the 1st Amendment? Could a city pass an ordiance that ignored the protections against "unreasonable search and seizure" as provided for in the 4th Amendment? I believe the answer to all of these questions is: NO!

Soooooooo why is the 2nd Amendment any different? Especially now that the question regarding whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to the state or to the individual has been answered by the Supreme Court and the answer is that it applies to the individual.

 

[russp1]

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in part that the right of the citizens to "keep" and to "bear" arms shall not be "infringed". We recently had a US Supreme Court Dicision that found that the 2nd Amendment "does" apply to the "individual" and not the state etc. Sooooooo the question is this: By what authority can any state or political subdivision thereof (cities, counties, townships etc.) pass any firearms laws or ordinance that in any way "infringes" on the "individual's" right to keep and to "bear" arms? This is the 2nd Amendment (not something burried in the bowls of a huge document) this is No. 2!! Lets put this in perspective. Does anyone believe that a state or city could pass a law restricting an individual's rights against self incrimination as provided by the 5th Amendment? What about passing a law restricting one's freedom of religion as provided for in the 1st Amendment? Could a city pass an ordiance that ignored the protections against "unreasonable search and seizure" as provided for in the 4th Amendment? I believe the answer to all of these questions is: NO!

Soooooooo why is the 2nd Amendment any different? Especially now that the question regarding whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to the state or to the individual has been answered by the Supreme Court and the answer is that it applies to the individual.

The argument has always been based on the statement that proceeds this..."In order to maintain a well organized militia". So does the rest mean the right only applies to those in the state militias (as provided in article I of the constitution)? Or does it mean that if you choose to keep and bear arms, you must be willing to be part of said militia?

I'm not taking the position that those using these arguments are correct, just that it's that wording that is causing the arguments.

 

[russp1]

Now that I'm somewhere I'm able to look at the actual wording "A well regulated militia being necassary for the security of a free state"; points out even more how the argument is made that the 2nd was intended to apply to people willing to be part of the state militias. Again, I don't support the argument but a better job could have been done to make their intentions clear.

 

[silentflyer]

Unlike so many of our current politicians, I understand EXACTLY what James Madison was saying....along with the rest of the Bill of Rights...

 

[Stan]

I think everyone who studies the constitution and the background that led to its creation, even in passing, knows exactly what it means.

There are some who don't want it to mean what it says. So obfuscation and re-interpretation is their only avenue of recourse.

 

[jasperbob42]

Fear of a 'standing army' goes back to the English Civil War of the 17 century. But following the American Revolution many feared that
General Washington might become King George 1 of America. Washinton's relationship, he was the president, of the Order of the Cinncinatti of former revolutionary army officers who might push Washington to accept and they become the new American aristocracy.
As had happened many times in history.

 

[jlrhiner]

Fear of a 'standing army' goes back to the English Civil War of the 17 century. But following the American Revolution many feared that
General Washington might become King George 1 of America. Washinton's relationship, he was the president, of the Order of the Cinncinatti of former revolutionary army officers who might push Washington to accept and they become the new American aristocracy.
As had happened many times in history.

As I recall, (not that I was there) Washington was offered the crown and declined.