Soapbox: What does the 2nd Amendment Mean?

[Lillefix]

Ours is still based on what happened 230 years ago.

I think I've spotted the main problem with the American political system.

 

[FriendlyFire]

No, its not. Today's national guard is far more comparable to the regular army today than probably ever before in our nations history. In some cases, National Guard units have spent more time deployed than their active duty counter-parts. That was never the true militia's role as a last line of defense of the homeland.
.

The 3rd Amendment for the housing of the US military points to a time where the government could not even provide for barracks and logistical support for a standing army. Back then the militia was consider vital for the defense and a nations military.

I doubt that national guard units are as laviously equipped or trained as regular US line units nor would they be used as spearhead invasion units.

The Irony is that G.W.Bush escaped combat in a national guard unit during the Vietnam war. Only for National guard units to be deployed into war under hes watch. I guess this is the new National guard .... be prepared to be sent overseas to serve multiple tours.

As originally drafted, the Constitution recognized the existing state Militias, and gave them vital roles to fill: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15)

I Guess "repel Invasion" means fighting a war half way across the world now.

 

[MobBoss]

I doubt that national guard units are as laviously equipped or trained as regular US line units nor would they be used as spearhead invasion units.

You would be wrong. Hell, the Washington Army National Guard has Special Forces units in it, and a Combat Infantry Brigade. National Guard units train on the same equipment and deploy just like (if not more so) their active duty counterparts.

The Irony is that G.W.Bush escaped combat in a national guard unit during the Vietnam war.

And a huge number of Guardsmen didnt. Your point is just misinformed.

Only for National guard units to be deployed into war under hes watch. I guess this is the new National guard .... be prepared to be sent overseas to serve multiple tours.

That's been the case since the first gulf war.

I Guess "repel Invasion" means fighting a war half way across the world now.

No, you're just ignorant of things US military is all. Again, the state militia isnt the organized militia (i.e. the national guard).

 

[Patroklos]

So the questions I put before are:

1. Should the constitution be interpreted in the context in which it was written?

It is interpreted as written. The punctuation is very specific, intentionally breaking down the line to make specific points. It specifically states that the a well organized militia should be maintained AND citizens should be allowed to be armed.

You can interpret the National Guard to satisfy the militia part if you want, but given they are actually controlled by and armed through the Federal government and insepersble from the national standing army this doesn't really fly. The national guard is more of a group of units on loan to the state, not a state organization. If the president orders them to do so ething then his orders take precedence over that of the governor. That is not the case for the state police for instance.

If you assume that one of the reasons the founders wanted feely armed citizens to provide a resource to said militias I don't think that is unfounded, though to assume that is the only reason for that right is not supported by anything.

In any case saying that portion is obsolete due to the national guard doesn't fly anyway, as just because the state has decided to arm the militia themselves does not erase the requirement to allow citizens to arm for the same purpose from the Constitution. That requirement is not a department policy to be effortlessly modified on a whim. You can't claim all enshrining freedom of speech via the airwaves is now obsolete be the government runs a few radio stations that cover that can you? No newspapers are needed because the government publishes a publication duplicating private effort?

So to anwer your question the context unquestionably enshrines the right for private citizens town firearms.

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?

You can't ignore the law, and the Constitution is the most fundamental of laws. If you think it's obsolete fair enough, but you have to change it via the prescribed process if want to remove any of the perceived obsolecense.

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.

That's a nice opinion of yours, it has no support via the Constitution.

The 3rd Amendment for the housing of the US military points to a time where the government could not even provide for barracks and logistical support for a standing army. Back then the militia was consider vital for the defense and a nations military.

Seriously?

The 3rd amendment points to nothing other than the fact that troops on campaign would much rather sleep in beds inside houses rather than bed rolls in tents if they can. I can't blame them.

It has nothing to do with peace time barracks needs or the ability of the Army to function, it just keeps them from going the easy route and taking over the local facilities for their own use.

 

[MobBoss]

I think I've spotted the main problem with the American political system.

And what problem would that be?

And Pat, to state the NG is controlled by the federal government is still a slight misnomer. They can be activated by a call from the President, but until that status occurs, they are still under the control of their specific state government. They are certainly not 'on loan' to the state, but rather the states loan them out to the federal government to fill in where needed. The Presidents orders will take precedence, but they also have to conform with a narrow set of circumstances. They cant just be called out willy nilly or on a whim.

 

[Patroklos]

And what problem would that be?

And Pat, to state the NG is controlled by the federal government is still a slight misnomer. They can be activated by a call from the President, but until that status occurs, they are still under the control of their specific state government. They are certainly not 'on loan' to the state, but rather the states loan them out to the federal government to fill in where needed. The Presidents orders will take precedence, but they also have to conform with a narrow set of circumstances. They cant just be called out willy nilly or on a whim.

I understand that the NG units answer to the state government normally. However, that is only in regards to certain things (the state government has no input into how they are armed or trained for instance) and since in reality the state government is subordinate to any national security apparatus orders, it really is more of an on loan situation. Once the NG was integrated into the Army at large they stopped being a primarily state organization for all intents and purposes.

Again, the stat policy do not have the same federal control interference, they are solely a resource or the individual state.

The governor can't counteract orders from the Army or Executive branch chain of command.

 

[FriendlyFire]

You would be wrong. Hell, the Washington Army National Guard has Special Forces units in it, and a Combat Infantry Brigade. National Guard units train on the same equipment and deploy just like (if not more so) their active duty counterparts.
.

I guess the National guards which have served as a ready reserve and only part time soldiers as opposed to regular military forces are more or less now seen as first rate combat units.

And a huge number of Guardsmen didnt. Your point is just misinformed.

I stand corrected. In 1968 at the height of the Vietnam war. The National guard organization was changed so that it would have to be used in any major wars.
around 7000 total severed out of ?, I wouldst call that huge number but I would say it wasn't insignificant either.

The Total Force Policy was adopted by Chief of Staff of the Army General Creighton Abrams in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and involves treating the three components of the army – the Regular Army, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve as a single force.[13] Believing that no U.S. president should be able to take the United States (and more specifically the US Army) to war without the support of the American people, General Abrams intertwined the structure of the three components of the army in such a way as to make extended operations impossible, without the involvement of both the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve.

No, you're just ignorant of things US military is all. Again, the state militia isnt the organized militia (i.e. the national guard).

.he experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troups, perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper support. And what added to his mortification was, that the laws gave him no power to correct these evils, either by enforcing discipline, or compelling the indolent and refractory to their duty" ... "The militia system was suited for only to times of peace. It provided for calling out men to repel invasion; but the powers granted for effecting it were so limited, as to be almost inoperative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

So the US militia evolved/changed form local levied civilian forces into the national guard. Which was then changed again into a major component of the Armed forces. Then where dose that leave the original 2nd amendment militia law ?

 

[Kaitzilla]

When was the last time a militia formed?

Citizen militias only form when law and order breaks down completely I think.

Like Mexico

http://live.wsj.com/video/vigilante...BC.html#!60CACE2B-4FFA-4198-8D42-C7D93EB444BC

 

[Agent327]

It is interpreted as written. The punctuation is very specific, intentionally breaking down the line to make specific points. It specifically states that the a well organized militia should be maintained AND citizens should be allowed to be armed.

Actually, it isn't: there exist at least two versions of the 2nd, with different punctuation. One should further note that punctuation in the late 18th century wasn't unified nor codified as it is today.

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.[8]

Note that the punctuation in the second version is the only one making sense in modern grammar.

Simply put the amendment states 2 things:

- the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

- a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state;

the first is the statement or declaration, the second explains the purpose of the first.

Also note that the first makes no sense without the second. (The right to bear arms was a given in colonial times, especially in the 13 frontier states.)

Thirdly it should be noted that it is implied that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" might be infringed, but this shall not happen for the reason of "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".

Finally, the amendment makes no explicit mention of any individual right to bear arms sec (as it is not relevant to the purpose of the amendment).

Now, it is only in the late 20th century that any such individual right to bear arms was inferred from the 2nd Amendment. Prior to that it simply played no role.

 

[ace99]

Sup, yo if you want to interpret the constitution sentence structure and punctuation isn't how you do it.

Precedent, precedent, precedent.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So the US militia evolved/changed form local levied civilian forces into the national guard. Which was then changed again into a major component of the Armed forces. Then where does that leave the original 2nd amendment militia law ?

Exactly.

Which would indeed occur today if the government needs them to. In Washington, the state law expressly makes a difference in the National Guard and another entity referred to as the state guard.

For example, from the Revised Code of Washington 38.04.010:

Many other states have similar provisions in their own state law. You can plainly see what I referred to earlier in this law - a decided difference in the militia, the organized militia (i.e. the National Guard) and the rest of the military.

No, its not. Today's national guard is far more comparable to the regular army today than probably ever before in our nations history. In some cases, National Guard units have spent more time deployed than their active duty counter-parts. That was never the true militia's role as a last line of defense of the homeland.

It's precisely relevant because thats how the law is written and interpreted (and will continue to be thusly so).

But how we see militia today is not relevant to how the founders saw it. You seem to be trying to retrofit a modern interpretation of militia into the original context. Or is that original intent not important? If the NG is not the best representation of a colonial militia, then fine, but that just makes the amendment even less relevant to the discussion about guns and gun control.

Not going to happen.

I vote every election.

I am not expecting it too, but I would like to see a court case that does exactly that. And I would like you opinion on the first two options in my poll.

1. Should the constitution be interpreted in the context in which it was written?
2. All 27 words need to be taken as a single sentence.

It is interpreted as written. The punctuation is very specific, intentionally breaking down the line to make specific points. It specifically states that the a well organized militia should be maintained AND citizens should be allowed to be armed.

There is no "and" where you wish it to be.

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 amendment is a single sentence. The key words are "being necessary". Those particular words subordinate the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" to the need of a militia. The right to have guns was necesasry if there were to be chartered militia. Freedom is shown to be most important, the militia were the means to secure that freedom and to be in militia people had to have guns. The amendment was a very practical one and described exactly how the right fit into their society. When tyranny arises, the local leaders would form organized militias and the participants would bring their guns.

In this version, I have deleted the reason for the militia. I think it helps understand the sentence structure better and shows the actual purpose of the right to bear arms: be in a militia.

A well regulated Militia being necessary, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If you assume that one of the reasons the founders wanted freely armed citizens to provide a resource to said militias I don't think that is unfounded, though to assume that is the only reason for that right is not supported by anything.

What is unsupported is that they meant more than they said. As shown by another, the amendment had been edited. I'm sure they said everything they felt was necessary to protect the new nation. Their language was quite precise. I see no evidence that they meant anything but what they actually said. if they had some other motive, why didn't they spell it out? The edits we know about certainly narrowed its focus.

In any case saying that portion is obsolete due to the national guard doesn't fly anyway, as just because the state has decided to arm the militia themselves does not erase the requirement to allow citizens to arm for the same purpose from the Constitution. That requirement is not a department policy to be effortlessly modified on a whim. You can't claim all enshrining freedom of speech via the airwaves is now obsolete be the government runs a few radio stations that cover that can you? No newspapers are needed because the government publishes a publication duplicating private effort?

So to answer your question the context unquestionably enshrines the right for private citizens to own firearms.

My point is that the 2nd amendment says people can and should have guns so that they can participate in a militia as the Founders understood that word. It does not say that if the local militias go away that they should be allowed guns. Read the words, they are very precise. You clearly want to expand their words to mean more than what they actually say. That is one approach to interpreting the constitution.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thank you Jeelen. You made a good point about the commas.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I only skimmed the soapbox intro thread so I could be totally wrong. But I thought the point of soapboxes threads was for one person to make a narrow argument and for others to knock that argument apart or support it, not to make their own arguments about the topic. This thread seems identical to any other thread here unless I am missing something.


It doesn't seem many people actually want to address your specific points Birdjaguar other than to use them as jumping off points for their own ideas or soapboxes. Again, maybe I am missing something and I don't understand the concept.

It is much more civil than a typical gun thread, but then again a mod posted it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, we seem to be taking about what the 2nd amendment means which was my point. Its meaning is tied closely to its language and we are having a discussion about it. Militia is an important word in it and there seem to be several points of view on how that word should be interpreted. So far we seem to be having a pretty civil discussion that is reasonably focused for a "gun" thread. There is no rush; it's superbowl weekend after all. Feel free to contribute.

If folks are not lining up to shoot my position down, maybe everyone thinks I am correct.

 

[cardgame]

As has been said, the national guard isn't militia — it's just another branch of the army. They have all the extremes the army does, for the most part, minus things like special forces. They've been deployed overseas in an undeclared war. It's absurd.

A true militia is a gathering of citizens, not soldiers. As such, it is individual citizens who necessitate the individual's right to bear arms. I think this is about as simple as it can get — unless, of course, one argues militias and by extension weaponry isn't necessary. While it's quite true that mere small-arms are rather ineffective against a full army, that's an absurd simplification. The revolutionaries didn't have cannons or warships — they stole and made their own, though. The Arab Spring revolutionaries hijacked army equipment as well.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The context is in how we define 'militia'. It is usually defined as any person of age being eligible to bear arms in defense of the people,

In essence, here is the breakdown:

The active duty military (US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard all federal).
The active duty reserves (the reserve components of those groups all federal).
The National Guard (individual states organized Militia).
The militia(all citizens of fighting age).
.

If ALL citizens in the US between 16 and 45 (including women now, are legible for conscription). And thus consider to be in a "militia" thus able to bear arms.

Would that mean attacks against "militia" would thus be legitimate then ?
Would US "militia" in civilian uniform be liable to be executed as spies ?

EDIT: That's why militia is quiet antiquated, especially since the US has Hegemony in terms of military strength.
Of course law enforcement by letter of the law rather then intent seems to be the order of business with the 2nd amendment.

 

[MobBoss]

I understand that the NG units answer to the state government normally. However, that is only in regards to certain things (the state government has no input into how they are armed or trained for instance) and since in reality the state government is subordinate to any national security apparatus orders, it really is more of an on loan situation. Once the NG was integrated into the Army at large they stopped being a primarily state organization for all intents and purposes.

There isnt a single governor in the entire United States that would agree with you premise in regards to the guard being 'on loan'. And you are simply incorrect on the various NG of the states not being state organizations. They precisely are, and often state law takes precedence over them than active duty regulation.

For example, the National Guard soldiers of the state of Washington are not subject to the UCMJ but rather are subject to the Washington Code of Military Justice (WCMJ) as dictated by state law. This does not change until a guard soldier changes status from title 32 to title 10. Also many active duty regulations simply do not apply to the National Guard or they have to have specific chapters dealing with the guard within them.

The guard is an entirely separate entity that is similar but still much different than the active duty forces.

Again, the stat policy do not have the same federal control interference, they are solely a resource or the individual state.

Not sure what you mean by that.

The governor can't counteract orders from the Army or Executive branch chain of command.

Depends, and much of that is by which status the soldiers concerned are in, whether title 10 or title 32. For example, Governors appoint the Adjutant General of their state guard, not the Army or Executive Branch.

 

[WindFish]

Wasn't the 2A written at a time when the American nation had a very small army and was surrounded by the British,the French and the Spanish?

 

[Lillefix]

And what problem would that be?

It was written for a different time and for a different country than the current United States. If this constitution is going to have any relevance it has to be changed(or reinterpreted) so it reflects the current situation.

 

[lovett]

If folks are not lining up to shoot my position down, maybe everyone thinks I am correct.

There is, I think, a fascinating (and quite convincing!) argument to the effect that you are wrong.

Constitutions are quite peculiar documents.

They are peculiar in how meaning arises within them. For most documents, meaning depends (to a great extent) on the intention of the authors. When Dickens writes 'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...' the fact that he is referring to the vast inequality in European, especially Parisian, society at the time is a fact that arises from his intention; this is what he intends to mean. This is true generally; we mean what we intend to mean and facts about meaning are closely linked with facts about intention. Likewise, documents mean what there authors intend them to mean (there are some very interesting cases in which this fails but they need not concern us here).

However, this is not true in the case of constitutions, at least not the US constitution. The US constitution sets up a body for determining the meaning of the US constitution. This is the Supreme Court. The Court is tasked with interpreting the constitution and it is the only body granted interpretative powers. If one agrees with this, The Supreme Court's ruling is the mechanism by which the meaning of the US constitution is -when in doubt- fixed. Fascinatingly, the intentions of the writers have no fundamental significance whatsoever; they have significance only to the extent that the Court grants them significance.

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. Of course, in this case the court has unambigiously states what it is that the second amendment means, and they have stated that the second amendment means each individual has a personal right to bear arms. So this is what the second amendment means. You can't be right!

If this all sounds a little bit absurd, that only shows one how absurd it is so govern a nation-a dynamic, changing body of people- on the basis of a rigid document, written two hundred years ago, interpreted by unelected judges.