Soapbox: What does the 2nd Amendment Mean?

[Agent327]

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

Actually, it is:

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

Thank you. I'm quite particular about grammar.

Precedent, precedent, precedent.

I guess you overlooked the part about precedent mentioned in my post: precedents on the exact meaning of the wording only occurred in the late 20th century - that's over 150 years after the Amendment was originally ratified.

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

Actually, I'm not quite sure about your position. (I didn't vote in the poll, as it would require me to vote for more than one position.)

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.|

While the first is correct, it is also to a degree completely irrelevant: future (Supreme) courts may overthrow prior rulings, regardless of precedents; that is also how the law works. The Mexican constitution has a similar "right to bear arms" written into it. Yet private gun ownership has been strictly limited in recent years, arguably as a result of endemic gun violence on a scale somewhat larger than in the US. Since individual citizens are the ones suffering from this gun violence, there has been surprisingly little resistance to it. The only thing barring effective gun control in Mexico is the unlimited supply of US fabricated guns that continuously keep crossing the border...

 

[lovett]

While the first is correct, it is also to a degree completely irrelevant: future (Supreme) courts may overthrow prior rulings, regardless of precedents; that is also how the law works. The Mexican constitution has a similar "right to bear arms" written into it. Yet private gun ownership has been strictly limited in recent years, arguably as a result of endemic gun violence on a scale somewhat larger than in the US. Since individual citizens are the ones suffering from this gun violence, there has been surprisingly little resistance to it. The only thing barring effective gun control in Mexico is the unlimited supply of US fabricated guns that continuously keep crossing the border...

Sure. But we are not talking about what the supreme court might do in the future, or even what the supreme court should do. We are talking about what the second amendment means. It might change its meaning, if the supreme court changed its mind, but what it means now is quite clear.

This isn't irrelevant to the government of the United States; it means Congress cannot legislate on a vast swathe of issues. I am inclined to say that it should be irrelevant to that government as might be clear. But, evidently, the two aren't the same.

 

[Camikaze]

I agree with lovett. The relevant question is what should it mean, or what did it mean, not what does it mean (although that is still an open question to the extent that the Court's rulings must be interpreted).

Of course, once you're asking what the meaning should be, you're essentially just arguing whether there ought to be an individual right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution. And what the 2nd amendment actually does mean is completely irrelevant to that.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

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).

I have been told by multiple English/Lit/Creative Writing professors that the words on the page read out to mean whatever the audience takes them to mean, despite the authors intent.

 

[ace99]

Actually, it is:

No, not really.

I guess you overlooked the part about precedent mentioned in my post: precedents on the exact meaning of the wording only occurred in the late 20th century - that's over 150 years after the Amendment was originally ratified.

Yeah, and the most current precedent is the most valid. That's how it works. Heller and McDonald are the law of the land until the Court decides otherwise because the Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution. Until it says otherwise, which will probably take another decade or two.

 

[Flying Pig]

I have been told by multiple English/Lit/Creative Writing professors that the words on the page read out to mean whatever the audience takes them to mean, despite the authors intent.

That is correct in literary criticism: however, in law, the intent of the lawmaker is generally held to be of primary importance. The reasons for this are, I hope, obvious.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That is correct in literary criticism: however, in law, the intent of the lawmaker is generally held to be of primary importance. The reasons for this are, I hope, obvious.

Good point.

 

[ParkCungHee]

That is correct in literary criticism: however, in law, the intent of the lawmaker is generally held to be of primary importance. The reasons for this are, I hope, obvious.

The problem of course, is that we have a system of governance that passes laws based on the lawmakers ability to appeal to as many diverse intents as possible.

 

[Flying Pig]

That is an equally good point, that I hadn't really considered.

 

[MobBoss]

But how we see militia today is not relevant to how the founders saw it.

Actually, given today each state's laws are slightly different in regards to its own militia, organized militia/national guard, etc. to say 'how the founders saw it' isnt probably accurate either. Each state/territory/township would have had its own particular method of how it raised a militia with some certainly being more formalized than others.

A more formalized federal method wasnt made into law until the militia act of 1792.

You seem to be trying to retrofit a modern interpretation of militia into the original context.

Not really an argument against per se for the simple reason this is done with a myriad number of other laws/issues. For example, the 'congress shall pass no law....' of the separation of church and state certainly means something different to us than it did to the founding fathers since they incorporated religion far, far more into politics than we do today.

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.

Actually, no it doesnt. The best method to look at the difference is that a militia is non-professional. Its just regular civilians that come together as needed in defense of the common good. The National Guard is a professional military organization, trained and equipped to mirror the active army and be largely indistinguishable from them. Militia was never this.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The militia was the only army the US had at the time. You are comparing apples and oranges.

In the first Gulf War, the Army National Guard units were used almost exclusively for support roles due to the radical difference in their training and capabilities.

In the second Gulf War, they ironically had even higher fatality rates than regular Army soldiers. But that was because they were again used primarily for support roles which turned out to be frequently more dangerous than combat assignments:

There are several reasons for the greater death rates among so-called part-time soldiers, who generally drill one weekend a month and two weeks during the summer when there's no war. The Pentagon has called up thousands of part-time troops for tours of a year or more in Iraq. Some of the most dangerous missions, including driving convoys and guarding bases and other facilities, frequently are assigned to Guard and reserve troops. Iraqi insurgents have attacked convoys with roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades, and a Tennessee Guardsman publicly complained to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week about the lack of armor on some vehicles.

Active-duty casualties have spiked during major battles such as the attack on Fallujah, largely carried out by Army and Marine troops. But such engagements have rarely been waged since President Bush declared major combat over in May 2003.

In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, for example, the Army Guard suffered no fatalities out of 382 U.S. deaths. A total of 94 Army National Guardsmen and no reservists were killed out of 58,209 U.S. deaths in Vietnam.

To claim they are "largely indistinguishable" from regular Army units is disingenuous at best. They are "weekend warriors" who don't really expect to do anything except be called up by the governor when there is a natural disaster. Or if you are a future president with rich and influential parents, a way to avoid being drafted.

 

[TomYo689]

It's probably easy to distinguish the navy from the army too

 

[Patroklos]

Forma, the national guard mirroring the active military has been the case for multiple decades. It has nothing to do with GWB.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The Mexican constitution has a similar "right to bear arms" written into it. Yet private gun ownership has been strictly limited in recent years, arguably as a result of endemic gun violence on a scale somewhat larger than in the US.

Somewhat larger?

Actually, the tight restrictions came about 40 years ago in the aftermath of the Tlatelolco massacre. Students broke into gun stores and were shooting back at the soldiers. As a result, the military shutdown all gun and hunting stores and opened a single one inside a secure military base in Mexico City where it sits today.

The only thing barring effective gun control in Mexico is the unlimited supply of US fabricated guns that continuously keep crossing the border...

Not really. Central and South America have been awash with illicit US weapons from the proxy war days for many decades and drug cartels have have always had fairly easy access to them. The Cali and Medellin boys certainly didn't do their arms shopping at Jimbo's Gun and Pawn off I-35.

Civilian weapons illegally procured by Mexican cartels in the US are a local convenience rather than any kind of necessity. Additionally, The US sells thousands of assault rifles Mexico every year and a pretty good chunk (25%+ as of last year IIRC) end up missing or stolen.

Also, there exists world wide illegal arms trade in case you missed that excellent Nicolas Cage movie. Unlike illegal drugs, tons of weapons change hands everyday openly in seemingly legal circumstances (government/police/military purchases etc) but a good proportion of those are illicit transfers.

Brazil, for instance, is worse off than Mexico and they don't share a border with the United States from which their criminals can easily procure firearms.

Thus, just because a gun originates from the US doesn't mean it was bought in a gun store in Arizona. I'd say that tightening gun laws in the US will have little to zero effect on violence south of the border.

Edit: Or more to the point: Mexican authorities struggle with gun control enforcement for the same reasons they struggle with effective law enforcement in general which is typical of any developing nation.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The militia was the only army the US had at the time. You are comparing apples and oranges.

In the first Gulf War, the Army National Guard units were used almost exclusively for support roles due to the radical difference in their training and capabilities.

In the second Gulf War, they ironically had even higher fatality rates than regular Army soldiers. But that was because they were again used primarily for support roles which turned out to be frequently more dangerous than combat assignments:

To claim they are "largely indistinguishable" from regular Army units is disingenuous at best. They are "weekend warriors" who don't really expect to do anything except be called up by the governor when there is a natural disaster. Or if you are a future president with rich and influential parents, a way to avoid being drafted.

It's probably easy to distinguish the navy from the army too.

Forma, the national guard mirroring the active military has been the case for multiple decades. It has nothing to do with GWB.

Back to the 2nd Amendment please.

 

[MobBoss]

To claim they are "largely indistinguishable" from regular Army units is disingenuous at best. They are "weekend warriors" who don't really expect to do anything except be called up by the governor when there is a natural disaster. Or if you are a future president with rich and influential parents, a way to avoid being drafted.

This is an overwhelmingly ignorant statement.

Each and every single National Guard unit that deploys has to achieve the same exact readiness and training standards that active component units are required to meet or they dont deploy. Period. In preparation for these deployments guard units often go on pre-deployment training cycles for months and months prior to the deployment phase in order to meet these standards - not just 'one weekend a month'.

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.

It is still quite relevant, and it can be amended.

 

[Agent327]

It's relevance has been largely ignored, however, until courts' rulings of the late 20th century. Seeing as today the US do not effectively have a militia - nor a need for one -, it is quite arguable that the 2nd Amendment has become to a larg extent irrelevant to present day circumstances. The fact that it has been used to claim a private right to bear arms with no relation to a militia whatsoever, only confirms this. It is quite clear that the amendment was not intended that way originally.

No, not really.

Your argument being?

Yeah, and the most current precedent is the most valid. That's how it works. Heller and McDonald are the law of the land until the Court decides otherwise because the Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution. Until it says otherwise, which will probably take another decade or two.

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

For example, the 'congress shall pass no law....' of the separation of church and state certainly means something different to us than it did to the founding fathers since they incorporated religion far, far more into politics than we do today.

I beg to differ. The Founders were quite opposed to mixing religion with politics, unlike their present day colleagues.

The best method to look at the difference is that a militia is non-professional. Its just regular civilians that come together as needed in defense of the common good. The National Guard is a professional military organization, trained and equipped to mirror the active army and be largely indistinguishable from them. Militia was never this.

So in present circumstances the US doesn't have (or need) a militia.

Somewhat larger?

I see you did not miss my euphemism.

Actually, the tight restrictions came about 40 years ago in the aftermath of the Tlatelolco massacre. Students broke into gun stores and were shooting back at the soldiers. As a result, the military shutdown all gun and hunting stores and opened a single one inside a secure military base in Mexico City where it sits today.

That is largely correct.

Central and South America have been awash with illicit US weapons from the proxy war days for many decades and drug cartels have have always had fairly easy access to them. The Cali and Medellin boys certainly didn't do their arms shopping at Jimbo's Gun and Pawn off I-35.

Civilian weapons illegally procured by Mexican cartels in the US are a local convenience rather than any kind of necessity. Additionally, The US sells thousands of assault rifles Mexico every year and a pretty good chunk (25%+ as of last year IIRC) end up missing or stolen.

Also, there exists world wide illegal arms trade in case you missed that excellent Nicolas Cage movie. Unlike illegal drugs, tons of weapons change hands everyday openly in seemingly legal circumstances (government/police/military purchases etc) but a good proportion of those are illicit transfers.

I did not miss that movie, I chose to not see it as it added little information. I don't see how what you are saying argues against stricter gun control in the US, however. It is currently extremely lax. I used the example of Mexico (not Brazil or another Latin American country) for the reason of it having a similar "right to bear arms" constitution. This, however, did not prevent it from enforcing a legally - though less so effectively - strict gun control.

Gun control, obviously, is only the first step as, as you point out, there is a huge internationational gun traffic, both legal and illegal.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Each and every single National Guard unit that deploys has to achieve the same exact readiness and training standards that active component units are required to meet or they dont deploy. Period..

You goto war with the Army you have, Not the Army you need.

 

[Formaldehyde]

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, 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.

This is a major reason why I think we definitely need to rewrite the Second Amendment. The use of the term "militia" simply doesn't pertain to the current situation anymore, and our actual rights in this regard should be enumerated.

 

[ParkCungHee]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Naval_Militia