What does the 2A really mean?

[bd]

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.

2A is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that has a "qualifier". None of the rest have an opening statement like:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

I fear another president who does not respect the Constitution or feels it's outdated or uses the threat of terrorism as a factor to push the commonly recognized intent of the document to the edge as we have seen could easily say "I have made you safe, a militia is no longer relevant".



bd

[sjp2452]

Originally Posted by bd

If they can give it to you- they can take it away.

"They" is the government of the people, by the people and for the people. We are "They." If "They" du jour take it away, "We" (being the real "They") get rid of "They" du jour. This was the intent of the framers, and that is not a political statement--it's just the simple truth, as stated in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[sjp2452]

Originally Posted by bd

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
"I have made you safe, a militia is no longer relevant".

There's quite a difference between "free" and "safe".

[gsh341]

Originally Posted by KP Ling

Just to add some food for thought; TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 311 defines the militia and the various classes as this: (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

This actually seems wrong to me since the Natl. Guard did not exist until over 100 years after the signing of the Constitution.

Actually KP, The National Guard is the oldest branch of the US Armed Forces and traces it's roots back to the original colonial militias in 1636 when colonists formed organized local militias to protect themselves. The Army National Guard officially received it's title in 1798.

You can learn more here. http://www.arng.army.mil/History.aspx And here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_National_Guard And here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...National_Guard


As for the 2nd Amendment you can easily cut through the clutter of the wording by substituting a different subject matter in place of arms.

Original:

"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."


Altered:

"A well fed Work Force, being necessary to the productivity of a prosperous state, the right of the people to keep and use Refrigerators shall not be infringed."

Basically the same sentence structure, but using a different topic, food. Does the altered version mean that only working people have the right to keep and use refrigerators? No, for if that was the case retired people would not have the right to use refrigerators and would be malnourished. What it does say is that because we need a well fed work force to maintain productivity and prosperity, people shall not have their right to own refrigerators infringed. Infringement would be something as simple as only allowing very small "dorm size" refrigerators for unemployed people.

Crazy, isn't it?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." is only a reasonable justification why the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." is the real meat of the sentence. Only what infringement really means can be debated here, and using the refrigerator example it can't be debated much in my opinion.

[Delija]

Some good well thought out points have been made in this thread.

Problem seems to me that while we all seem to agree that the right to bear arms is a right granted by our Constitution, we still have not (and probably never will in this thread) come to an agreement on what the purpose of those three comas are, and what the words "shall not be infringed" really means....or more accurately, what "infringement" implies in both today's world and in the world as it was 250 years ago.

This is not the first time I have seen the argument made that driving a car is a "privilege", while owning a gun is a "right".

I disagree - which does NOT mean I don't believe in the "right" to bear arms, just in how that "right" should be regulated. Now I know using the word "regulated" will raise some ire here. So let me explain what I mean rather than have anyone jump on me for being in favor of gun "regulation". (although I am sure some will no matter what I say).


First off, let me be clear.....I am against "gun control" as the term is commonly perceived by most.

As I already stated, I believe that we, as law abiding adults should be unrestrained in (conventional) gun ownership. Including fully automatic weapons, silencers, short barreled rifles and shotguns, whatever floats your boat.

Personally I see no need for many of these types of weapons, but that's just me. I'd like a silencer just to protect my hearing, and a machine gun just for the fun of it. If I stay in Florida (up in the air now), I intend to have both. But a sawed off shotgun (for example) holds no attraction for me. I just see no practical legal use for such a thing.

Each to their own.

What I DO believe in is some kind of minimal competence in firearm safety before someone can just walk in and buy a gun if they have the money.

I have said this before and was viciously attacked by the first person to respond. I had said a one page little quiz, something like what a 14 or 15 year old must pass to get a drivers license LEARNER'S PERMIT would be a reasonable thing. Maybe coupled with the requirement of a licenced gun dealer to take just a few minutes going over the safety basics (and perhaps the specific operation) of a newly purchased gun.

The attack that followed my statement was predictable. I was told that a driver's license was a "privilege" and owning a gun was a "right".

Well, driving a horse-drawn buggy or riding a horse or a donkey may never have been addressed in the Constitution, but only because it was clearly an element of the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". No one ever had an age limit or a competence requirement in the pre-automotive days to ride or drive a horse or carriage. This goes back to pre-history.

Kids learned to ride when they were old enough as determined by their parents or guardians. Same was true of muzzle loading firearms. Children learned to load and shoot when it was determined by a responsible adult that they were old enough, responsible enough, or sensible enough to not kill themselves (or anyone else) while shooting or loading a muzzle-loaded musket.

Today, at least here in Florida, there is absolutely ZERO requirement to be aware of the most basic safety issues of firearms. If you have the money, and you are old enough, and not a convicted felon, you can buy virtually any kind of gun. From a .22 caliber Derringer type pocket pistol, to a fully automatic machine gun. Just lay down your money, wait a few days (depending on the county...while in some other states there is no waiting period at all) and off you go with your brand new (or used) XD45, Glock17, or perhaps a 50 caliber AR50 bolt action or Barret auto loader . Or maybe a fully automatic MP5 or Uzi....all depends on how much money you have and how big a gun you want. Buying a .50 caliber AR50 or buying a .22 caliber single shot rifle requires exactly the same paperwork and procedures in Florida.

All this is fine with me.

What is not fine with me is the more common first time gun owners purchases of guns like a Glock or a double action revolver with no external safety, and in the case of used guns, often not even an owners manual with safety instructions. And no requirement for any safety information.

A guy decides he needs a Glock, puts down his money, and three or five days later walks out the door with his new gun.

Meanwhile there is no requirement for him to even know how to load the thing. Or more importantly, how to UN-load the thing (without shooting it until it's empty).

My local gun shop has (by my last known count) eleven bullet holes in the walls and display cases.

Amazing no one has been killed there (at least not yet).

Because there is no requirement to be aware of basic safety or even basic operation of any legally purchased gun in Florida, people walk out with their new (usually first) guns and all to often come back with the gun to complain that it doesn't work right.

Big sign on the door says "No loaded or concealed firearms permitted beyond this point". Hard sign to miss. Eye level, big letters.

I don't think the "concealed" issue has been much of a concern. But the "no loaded" certainly has. People don't know how to unload a gun so they walk in with what they believe is a jammed or "defective" gun and before the people who work there (brave or crazy?) can even do anything to prevent a disaster....BOOM!

So what about OUR "rights"? If I am in the gun store, or in the attached range, am I not allowed the "right" to know the person next to me has some basic concept of gun safety?

Is requiring the reading of a one page document on gun safety and signing off on it an "infringement" on someones right to bear arms?

I am sure I am not the only guy here that gets a bit apprehensive when I see a guy with his girlfriend who obviously has never been to a shooting range (and most likely never shot a gun before) come onto the range. Sometimes it's the first time for both as far as I can tell.

It seems almost invariable that the "boyfriend" will tell the "girlfriend" (or maybe vice versa) to "line up the sights and gently squeeze the trigger" and that's pretty much the extent of the lesson on how to shoot.

The new shooter squeezes off a shot, hits the target, gets excited, turns around with a big smile on her or his face and brings the gun around with their entire body as she or he beams with pride.

Now the gun is pointed at the "teacher", the still loaded gun has swept everyone on one side of them along the entire line, and in 99+ percent of the times ther is still a finger on the trigger.

So do I believe in "gun control"?

NO.

I believe anyone should be allowed to buy and own and even carry a gun. Hell, if you can find a holster and belt that will hold an AR50, carry that by all means if it makes you feel "safer" LOL. (Might be hard to conceal where that's a restriction, but hey, how many of us can forget "XDBackupGun"? LOL).

Do I believe in the "right" to buy and own a gun with zero requirements of safety knowledge?

NO.

Do I believe requireing a few minutes of basic safety instruction, or the requirement to read a page or two about it an "infringement"?

NO.

Do I expect again to be told that driving is a priviledge and owning a gun is a right?

YES.

We all seem to agree that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". What is so difficult to accept that sometimes people kill people only because they don't know how to safely operate their guns? (Usually the people they kill are themselves).

Why is the "right" to bear arms more important to some than my "right" to be safe around people who do bear arms?

Why is it that in some people's minds (as I have read here) an unqualified "right" to own a gun is either a "God given right" or a Constitutional "right", while my "right" to be safe around other people's guns is NOT guaranteed by the Constitution, the laws of Florida, or according to some, the will of God?

Personally...if I owned a gun shop, I would insist that any gun sold came with an adequate explanation of the gun's workings, basic safety rules, etc.

But in Florida (don't know about other states), the requirements to buy a gun, other than a clean criminal background check and the money to pay for a gun is ZERO.

If expecting at least some degree of safety awareness is "gun control" then I guess I am in favor of it. To me, it isn't "gun control", it's just sanity.

I know this post has gone somewhat off topic, and I appologize. But it seemed an appropriate place to express these thoughts.

Peace,
D.

[Mike G]

Delija, I appear to upset you when talking about 'natural' rights, so I will stay away from that point of view while in this thread. Also, I would like for you to know that I don't believe you should be denied a right to feel safe around others that are carrying and shooting guns.

I think that gun control and gun safety are two different issues, but ultimately when anyone argues against gun control, gun safety will become part of that argument.

I agree that gun safety should be a larger focus in gun ownership. It is, to me, an important component of the argument against gun control. I also agree that some states don't go far enough in insuring the safety of the public by requiring some type of training before handing out CCW permits. But, I do think it would be a massive undertaking to try and limit someones right to gun ownership by requiring some type of test or qualifier before allowing someone to buy a weapon.

But, before saying we must test you to grant you your rights, I would be more inclined to say go ahead and exercise your rights, but for the greater good of the public you must participate in some type of training to insure that you are able to responsibly own a weapon. Then you must demonstrate an inability to be denied a right. Maybe require more training to get someone up to speed on responsible gun ownership.

Thoughts?

[bd]

Originally Posted by sjp2452

"They" is the government of the people, by the people and for the people. We are "They." If "They" du jour take it away, "We" (being the real "They") get rid of "They" du jour. This was the intent of the framers, and that is not a political statement--it's just the simple truth, as stated in the Declaration of Independence:

When the government starts using secret programs to spy on citizens - they become they and we become we.

I don't think the original framers would have ever thought the government they envisioned would ever do that to the citizens.

When do we start taking action against them?

bd

[beardman2]

Originally Posted by bd

When the government starts using secret programs to spy on citizens - they become they and we become we.

I don't think the original framers would have ever thought the government they envisioned would ever do that to the citizens.

When do we start taking action against them?

bd

they envisioned it alright. Thats why we have the constitution we do.

[beardman2]

Originally Posted by gsh341

matter in place of arms.

Original:

"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."


Altered:

"A well fed Work Force, being necessary to the productivity of a prosperous state, the right of the people to keep and use Refrigerators shall not be infringed."

I've never seen it argued that way before. Very interesting!

Delija: The only problem I have with that is tacking on the ability to deny someone the sale. No I don't want someone to own firearms thats a few cards short of the deck but there isn't an IQ requirement for the rest of the rights. I would live in a happy world if they got rid of the NFA except to keep the extensive check, keep the tax stamp, instant background checks everywhere, as well as a manditory intro of some kind. I'm not sure I like the word test. If its a right then there isn't any requirements to get except the very few limitation in the constitution. If you want to make it a manditory explination of how the firearm functions as well as a safety video/paper that has to be read I'd be all for it. I wouldn't mind some kind of card dated when you do it and then only have to do it if you can't produce the card that is within a certain time frame. Say 2 years. Again no central record keeping on any of this.

Also that could be the best argument I've heard for driving being a "right".

[KP Ling]

gsh341,

I understand what you are saying. The National Guard (ARNG) traces its heritage and conceptual founding back 366 years. Much like the Democratic Party traces its heritage back to Jefferson. However, I still say that the ARNG is only 103 years old because it was not until the Militia Act of 1903 that formed it and made what had always been a rather loose, and differing state to state, organization into what we now know as the National Guard.

I also do not want to dissuade you from actually believing this; if you believe that the ARNG is truly 366 years old that is fine. But holding this idea has the effect of giving support to those who believe that when the 2A says "militia" it does mean the ARNG and not private citizens. Therefore giving stregth to the argument that guns should only be in the possession of those appointed, approved, and employed by the govt. to do so. Also, when I posted Title 10 USC 311, I did not post the whole thing. It seems a law divided against itself. Here is the full citation and I will bold those sections which I feel contradict themselves:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

It seems that the document means that only people in the ARNG are the militia but then in the same breath it says that all others are also in the militia. I can see confusion and problems, as far as 2A rights go, down the road. Saying that we are an unorganized militia gives the govt., at least in my opinion, down the road to require some type of registration of firearms and training for competence as well as agreement to be part of the militia when called upon as prerequisites for gun ownership. If all people are part of the militia, which the government through this law has given itslef the right to establish, recognize, and form it also follows that it can prevent or curtail who in this militia does what including carrying of or possession of arms. So the government could very easily one day say, "You are no longer part of the militia so hand over your guns." Or, "You are part of the militia but the part that does not carry guns so hand them over." There are also implications for compulsory military service (draft) that this law creates. This is in addition to the other problems. why can 17 year olds not own/carry guns if they are part of the "militia"? Could the government require people over 45 to turn in their guns since they are no longer part of the militia? People may say that the government will never take our guns or never institute another draft, but the fact that the government has given itself the power to do so should be disturbing enough regardless of what actions they take with regards to these powers.


However, I am one of those who believes that the Constitution does not grant a single right. It only recognizes those we are born with. To debate whether or not the 2A means this or that is irrelevent, and I think in the future will prove counterproductive since it will lend credence to anti-gun lobbies that the Constitution grants rights rather than guarantees them, because in the end our rights are given not by a piece of paper or the government it creates but by something else far more powerful.

The fact that we debate what the 2A means shows that there is a large portion of the population that believes rights are something a government was kind enough to let us have and it, the government, is the source of our rights. I am not saying this debate (over what exactly "militia" means in the 2A) is bad but when you enter into it then you are conceding, not necessarily your rights, but what your source of rights is. This means we have no rights except what is socially/politically acceptable with society and subject to the changing whims of society. Gun legislation has gotten stricter over the years (using our country's entire history rather than just the last few decades) because society has changed and so has its views on gun ownership.

Slavery, which has always been evil (I am not debating that), was legal and became illegal because society's views slowly changed on the topic. However, using terms like "legal" and "illegal" also give credence that the government is the arbiter of right and wrong and the mortgage holder on our rights such as in the case of slavery. Was slavery always bad (as I believe) or was it not bad until the government said it was? This means that rights (all of them), including those of slaves, later freed men as well as citizens in general are subject to grant by the government and not an essential quality of their being human and equal. The government by allowing such things and then disallowing them has set up a precedent that rights are determined and given by the government, even if it says differently (that is govt. is not the source of rights but their protector) in the Constitution the government does not operate this way anymore. So I can see down the road us gun owners (maybe our children or theirs and not us) being denied the right to own guns because the government with the Militia Act as well as many others and the issue of slavery, has set itself up as the giver of rights rather than their defender.