Even if they had meant to be used for that purpose, guns have completely changed since their day. They didn’t have automatic weapons of war that shredded the human body to ribbons.
Assuming you are American, you are a member of the militia as that term is used in Article I and the Second Amendment. You may also qualify as a member of the legislatively defined “Unorganized Militia” if you are male, aged 17 to 45.
As a member of the militia, you are subject to being “well regulated”. What additional regulations do you feel you need imposed upon you in order to feel “well regulated”?
I would like to see training requirements. I want every person I ever meet to understand the legal standards under which force may be used. I think a class in high school on the laws governing the use of force would be extraordinarily valuable. I think such a class is sufficiently related to the militia’s purposes in “Enforcing law, suppressing insurrection, repelling invasion” as to justify a training requirement under that power.
I don’t think the 2A bumper sticker people forget the “well regulated” part. I think the people who focus on the “well regulated” part seem to selectively forget that they, too, are members of the militia.
it is true that the founding fathers could not have foreseen the invention of more modern firearms, let alone the idea of semi and fully automatic firearms. but they did clearly envision that a armed populace was a good thing. they also fairly clearly envisioned it as a equally armed type of thing. what was modern then would be considered antique and primitive just a short century later. but the spirit of the amendment still comes through fairly clearly.
in the case of modern society, fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated and are not, in general, in the hands of the populace. true some can be modified, but to be caught with such a weapon, is going to bar you from legally having any sort of firearm, as it’s a felony.
It’s mentioned separate and apart from “armies” and the “Navy” in Article I Section 8. Some of the gentlemen listed in OP’s image defined it as “the whole body of the people”.
The Second Amendment declares the importance of the militia, and then guarantees a “right of the people”.
What do you think the militia actually is?
The word “people” appears in the 2nd Amendment, as part of the phrase “the right of the people”. Who are “the people” in this context? What “right of the people” does the 2nd amendment refer to?
If I’m not mistaken, a “militia” was understood to be an ad hoc, non-standing armed group, supplied by the resources of its members. The amendment was added so that if a militia were ever needed (again), it could be formed, because the pool of potential militia members had their own firearms. Laws limiting citizen access to firearms would hobble any new militia.
Given that armies at the time were only recently becoming “standing” (permanent) armies, and the U.S. didn’t really have one, their best option for making war was militias. They were acutely aware that the revolution began that way, and only later developed an actual (organized, separately supplied, long-term) army.
But very quickly, the U.S. developed permanent armed forces and never had to rely on militias again. At that point the 2nd amendment really should have been obsolete.
Militias would be raised by each state government, their loyalty and devotion to the new American republic was assured by the fact that they would be defending their families, their neighbors, and their homes. - Source
They originally envisioned a much different military structure.
It doesn’t help that the sentence makes no sense. The second clause requires that the first be the subject of the sentence, but then the third clause starts with a new subject, and lastly there’s that weird “German” comma after “Arms.”
There’s more than one way to interpret the meaning, but strictly speaking the only syntactically accurate rendering comes out roughly as:
[The right to] a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed, as it’s necessary to the security of a free State (security meaning the right of the people to keep and bear arms).
…which is also meaningless.
It’s a stupid amendment for lots of reasons, but the big one is that it’s just shitty English.
It makes more sense in the context of the time - Colonial politics was complex, but some envisioned state militia instead of a central military. I believe the original intent was that Congress could commandeer state militias in times of war - the civil war I think highlights the… unrealisticness of that.
James Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment. And most of the constitution. And the Federalist papers. We have a whole body of work demonstrating his prowess with the pen. Criticism of his writing as “shitty English” says more about the critic than the writing.
The second clause requires that the first be the subject of the sentence, but then the third clause starts with a new subject,
Does the third clause actually have a new subject? Or, does it use a synonym to refer to substantially the same subject as the first clause?
A well-educated populace, being essential to human progress, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
I mean, what they phrased as the second amendment isn’t what we interpret it as.
We basically pulled the “right to carry arms” out of our ass.
Even if they had meant to be used for that purpose, guns have completely changed since their day. They didn’t have automatic weapons of war that shredded the human body to ribbons.
they also ratified it in 1791
People with second amendment bumper stickers on their trucks seem to selectively forget the “well regulated” part.
Assuming you are American, you are a member of the militia as that term is used in Article I and the Second Amendment. You may also qualify as a member of the legislatively defined “Unorganized Militia” if you are male, aged 17 to 45.
As a member of the militia, you are subject to being “well regulated”. What additional regulations do you feel you need imposed upon you in order to feel “well regulated”?
I would like to see training requirements. I want every person I ever meet to understand the legal standards under which force may be used. I think a class in high school on the laws governing the use of force would be extraordinarily valuable. I think such a class is sufficiently related to the militia’s purposes in “Enforcing law, suppressing insurrection, repelling invasion” as to justify a training requirement under that power.
I don’t think the 2A bumper sticker people forget the “well regulated” part. I think the people who focus on the “well regulated” part seem to selectively forget that they, too, are members of the militia.
You provide an excellent example regarding training requirements. As part of those, I would also like to include safe use and home storage.
Yes, I’m American.
it is true that the founding fathers could not have foreseen the invention of more modern firearms, let alone the idea of semi and fully automatic firearms. but they did clearly envision that a armed populace was a good thing. they also fairly clearly envisioned it as a equally armed type of thing. what was modern then would be considered antique and primitive just a short century later. but the spirit of the amendment still comes through fairly clearly.
in the case of modern society, fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated and are not, in general, in the hands of the populace. true some can be modified, but to be caught with such a weapon, is going to bar you from legally having any sort of firearm, as it’s a felony.
They also didn’t want a standing army
Or free Black people.
They weren’t quite the sharpest tacks in the box.
I think most of these guys would’ve considered that a bargain.
Constitutionally speaking, what is the militia?
It’s mentioned separate and apart from “armies” and the “Navy” in Article I Section 8. Some of the gentlemen listed in OP’s image defined it as “the whole body of the people”.
The Second Amendment declares the importance of the militia, and then guarantees a “right of the people”.
What do you think the militia actually is?
The word “people” appears in the 2nd Amendment, as part of the phrase “the right of the people”. Who are “the people” in this context? What “right of the people” does the 2nd amendment refer to?
If I’m not mistaken, a “militia” was understood to be an ad hoc, non-standing armed group, supplied by the resources of its members. The amendment was added so that if a militia were ever needed (again), it could be formed, because the pool of potential militia members had their own firearms. Laws limiting citizen access to firearms would hobble any new militia.
Given that armies at the time were only recently becoming “standing” (permanent) armies, and the U.S. didn’t really have one, their best option for making war was militias. They were acutely aware that the revolution began that way, and only later developed an actual (organized, separately supplied, long-term) army.
But very quickly, the U.S. developed permanent armed forces and never had to rely on militias again. At that point the 2nd amendment really should have been obsolete.
Milita at the time would refer to state milita.
They originally envisioned a much different military structure.
It doesn’t help that the sentence makes no sense. The second clause requires that the first be the subject of the sentence, but then the third clause starts with a new subject, and lastly there’s that weird “German” comma after “Arms.”
There’s more than one way to interpret the meaning, but strictly speaking the only syntactically accurate rendering comes out roughly as:
[The right to] a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed, as it’s necessary to the security of a free State (security meaning the right of the people to keep and bear arms).
…which is also meaningless.
It’s a stupid amendment for lots of reasons, but the big one is that it’s just shitty English.
It makes more sense in the context of the time - Colonial politics was complex, but some envisioned state militia instead of a central military. I believe the original intent was that Congress could commandeer state militias in times of war - the civil war I think highlights the… unrealisticness of that.
James Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment. And most of the constitution. And the Federalist papers. We have a whole body of work demonstrating his prowess with the pen. Criticism of his writing as “shitty English” says more about the critic than the writing.
Does the third clause actually have a new subject? Or, does it use a synonym to refer to substantially the same subject as the first clause?