Soapbox: What does the 2nd Amendment Mean?

[Formaldehyde]

Ah. That's interesting. I wasn't familiar with that group.

And there are now 23 states and territories now have their own militias which operate solely at the command of governors.

But either way, I think it is clear that 2nd Amendment should now be rewritten much like the rest of the Constitution. These groups likely don't supply their own arms in many cases.

 

[MobBoss]

You obviously don't need the same level of "readiness" to "deploy" to a supporting role as you do with the personnel that is picked for major combat operations.

Again, National Guard support units train to the same standard that active duty support units have to meet. This is true across the board from combat units, to combat support units, to combat service support units.

You simply have no clue as to what you are talking about. I've spent a great deal of my career in helping send young men and women off to war, active, guard, and reserve. The units the process through all have to meet the same training requirements for the role that unit has, or else they dont go.

Again, the militia mentioned in the US Constitution was the only Army we had at the time. There is no militia below the level of the National Guard anymore.

Yes, there is. I just quoted for you the provision in Washington State Law that mentions it.

 

[Agent327]

Indeed:

As of 2005, these militias had a force strength of approximately 14,000 individuals nationwide.[1]

Which is as about effective a fighting force as the 13 colonies might field. To all intents and purposes the US today does not rely on a militia for homeland defense.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Again, National Guard support units train to the same standard that active duty support units have to meet. This is true across the board from combat units, to combat support units, to combat service support units.

You simply have no clue as to what you are talking about. I've spent a great deal of my career in helping send young men and women off to war, active, guard, and reserve. The units the process through all have to meet the same training requirements for the role that unit has, or else they dont go.

I'm sure that explains why they continue to be used almost exclusively in support roles:

Before Gen. Stanley McChrystal had even taken over in Afghanistan, he made a call to McKinley, leader of the U.S. National Guard. He told him that contributions from the Guard would be crucial to the U.S. mission there.

Gen. David Petraeus, head of Central Command, has already suggested they could use more of the agribusiness development teams — manned by National Guardsmen from rural areas — that train Afghans in modern farming techniques. Thirteen already are in place.

Even when they are supposedly trained for combat:

I don’t feel we are stretched too thin, yet," said Lt. Col. Gary Thurman of the Georgia National Guard’s 1st Battalion, 121st Infantry Regiment of the 48th Brigade Combat Team.

Thurman recently arrived in eastern Afghanistan with his battalion to assume command of Camp Clark, a base for teams training and mentoring the Afghan army. "I’d say at least 90 percent of the guys in this battalion wanted to come here."

But if you wish to continue to discuss this why don't you start a thread about what you don't know about the military, instead of continuing to hijack this one with your incessant discussions about me instead of the topic?

 

[Chiteng]

The Second Amendment is in the news once again because of the recent shootings. It is used frequently as a defense against any limits on gun ownership. There are a couple of things to note about the amendment. It is a single sentence that says, because of X, Y is important. The amendment itself makes three points. The security of a free state is important; a well regulated militia is necessary to preserve that free State and a militia requires that citizens have access to their own guns. The individual right to bear arms is directly linked to the militia.

Many people today like to ignore the first 13 words of the amendment and say that only the second part matters since militia’s are no longer important, therefore, those words can be ignored. We certainly don’t take such liberties with the other amendments.

My contention is that the 2nd amendment is outdated and should be either scrapped or applied to the National Guard. A new basis for guns and gun ownership by citizens should be developed.

Does the Second Amendment convey an individual right to bear arms, or does it only establish the means to arm the state military institutions that the Founders knew as the militia and we know as the National Guard?

The following article goes into some detail about why the 2nd Amendment is worded the way it is and what it meant to those living in late 18th C America. The bolding is mine.


So the questions I put before are:

1. Should the constitution be interpreted in the context in which it was written?
2. Should the 2nd Amendment be read as a single 27 word sentence or can we now in our modern age focus only on the last 14 words?


As I see it the 2nd amendment is only concerned with the ability of state militias defend local security and has no place in any discussion about individual gun ownership.

Poll coming.

I am too old to be in the NG. My rights would be denied me, if it applies only to militia

 

[illram]

I think it meant to arm a militia, i.e. a national guard, but I honestly don't care enough to think that is how we should look at it today since clearly there is a strong cultural desire to own firearms for sport and self defense. Ironically I would use a more liberal outlook on constitutional interpretation to support an individual right to own certain firearms for whatever reason.

However the level of paranoia and delusional thinking amongst some engaged in the political debate on the gun-owning side is highly troubling and invites some skepticism as to the legitimacy of the arguments for the movement on the whole IMHO.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Indeed:

Which is as about effective a fighting force as the 13 colonies might field. To all intents and purposes the US today does not rely on a militia for homeland defense.

And Obama laughed at the idea of Bayonets and horses !
The 274th line of defence, right behind the 273rd line of defence the girl scouts

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think it meant to arm a militia, i.e. a national guard, but I honestly don't care enough to think that is how we should look at it today since clearly there is a strong cultural desire to own firearms for sport and self defense. Ironically I would use a more liberal outlook on constitutional interpretation to support an individual right to own certain firearms for whatever reason.

However the level of paranoia and delusional thinking amongst some engaged in the political debate on the gun-owning side is highly troubling and invites some skepticism as to the legitimacy of the arguments for the movement on the whole IMHO.

I couldn't agree more with both points.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm sure that explains why they continue to be used almost exclusively in support roles.

Form, the guard has units of all kinds; combat arms, combat support and combat service support.

Now you might have to google those to actually learn the differences, but there it is.

 

[Birdjaguar]

But if you wish to continue to discuss this why don't you start a thread about what you don't know about the military, instead of continuing to hijack this one with your incessant discussions about me instead of the topic?

Please do that. the current chatter on this has little to do with the 2nd Amendment.

I am too old to be in the NG. My rights would be denied me, if it applies only to militia

If the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias, then you have no rights under it to begin with. Which is why I suggest a new set of laws pertaining to individual gun ownership.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Mobboss, I would really like to hear your take on the language of the 2nd Amendment, what you think the Founders were trying to say and what you think it says.

 

[ace99]

Your argument being?

I've never seen any court try to parse the lines and commas of the Constitution the way you lot are doing, in any of the cases I've ever read.

From which follows that the next precedent is just as valid.

Yes until some future court says otherwise. The law of the land is still the law of the land even if you disagree with it.

 

[MobBoss]

Mobboss, I would really like to hear your take on the language of the 2nd Amendment, what you think the Founders were trying to say and what you think it says.

Rofl, BJ, odds are the way the sentence is parsed, it probably meant something different to various founders....

That being said, I've always believed it to regard the 'militia' as all of the non-military citizens capable of being a last line of defense of this nation, and that our right to bears arms contingent upon being able to do so.

I'll agree its not written well, but bear in mind thats also probably the result of a lot of compromise from different founders on what the text should actually contain or shouldnt.

I think the actual key question here does the final part of the sentence pertain to civilians or solely to the military? If your answer is civilians (and that is the vast majority opinion and my opinion as well) then that right shall not be infringed.

The bottom line here is that particular sentence has been and will continue to be debated over and over and over again because of how it is written. And there isnt anything wrong with that.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thanks.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Rofl, BJ, odds are the way the sentence is parsed, it probably meant something different to various founders....

Dont be silly Mobboss, the founders were all religious conservative republicans. Hand off their guns, and slaves and drugs !

 

[cardgame]

You know what else is powerful? Standardized font size and aspect ratio.

 

[Perfection]

It means the Soviet-era warheads I bought in Kazakhstan are mine to keep and the government can't say a damn thing about it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

So, in ordinary cases the meaning of a document depends on the intentions of its authors. But not so with the US constitution. The US constitution has it that its own meaning depends on the rulings of the supreme court. The constitution means whatever the court says it means.

This is not the case, that's just what they've been telling us since 1804.

As for the second amendment, of course its an individual right, and it applies to all firearms as well.

If the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias, then you have no rights under it to begin with. Which is why I suggest a new set of laws pertaining to individual gun ownership.

That would be an odd thing to put in the Bill of RIGHTS.