One thing I never understood about the 2nd amendment

A

Austforbeer

Veteran XX
"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."

Why would the government try to take guns away from it's "militia"?

I mean is it because the government said, "omg our weapons own so we should give the enemy a handicap" or what?

Plus "the right of the people" means government right? Because people are the government.

Now in my wacky mind I always thought that when this government was created that the founders didn't want a popular revolution to be undone by gun control by it's government seeing as England has tried to enforce gun control during the revolutionary war. But I'm crazy like that. Set me right please!
 
Technically the national guard is the state militia.
But they were absorbed by the army long ago.
Hence the debate - does it refer to individuals that, at the time of the revolution, were the militia, or does it mean the "states army", the national guard?

Is the constitution a living document?
Does it change to reflect the times?
So do we view this through the glasses of 230 years ago or todays?
 
Stilgar said:
Technically the national guard is the state militia.
But they were absorbed by the army long ago.
Hence the debate - does it refer to individuals that, at the time of the revolution, were the militia, or does it mean the "states army", the national guard?

Is the constitution a living document?
Does it change to reflect the times?
So do we view this through the glasses of 230 years ago or todays?
Click to expand...

It's sad that it can even be considered when you look at the history of how this nation was formed and why they would make it the number 2 amendment. Do you really think Jefferson was like, "Well we better make sure that when this country goes to shit like I have many times said all countries do that the people don't have the ability to revolt!"

Now here I was thinking that the amendments were for making the constitution a living document.
 
Austforbeer said:
It's sad that it can even be considered when you look at the history of how this nation was formed and why they would make it the number 2 amendment. Do you really think Jefferson was like, "Well we better make sure that when this country goes to shit like I have many times said all countries do that the people don't have the ability to revolt!"

Now here I was thinking that the amendments were for making the constitution a living document.
Click to expand...

I didn't say which way I thought.
I just gave you both sides of the debate.
;)


In strict terms, if I were being nominated to the Supreme Court and were answering to some congressional questioning - here goes.

There are some parts which indeed are meant to endure, preserved intact. The 2nd, being one of them.
I see it as a safeguard against a government that no longer will serve the people.

However there are other portions - the bill of rights - where the definition of human, chattle, et cetera has evolved by an order of magnitude.
 
Last edited:
Stilgar is just dumb, by living document he means can he disregard it when it doesn't please him.

And oh yeah, protect the right of the army to have guns - hate for the government to take guns away from the army.
 
Teratos said:
Stilgar is just dumb, by living document he means can he disregard it when it doesn't please him.

And oh yeah, protect the right of the army to have guns - hate for the government to take guns away from the army.
Click to expand...

Quoted for inability to make a cohesive thought.
Try again?
 
Austforbeer said:
"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."

Why would the government try to take guns away from it's "militia"?

I mean is it because the government said, "omg our weapons own so we should give the enemy a handicap" or what?

Plus "the right of the people" means government right? Because people are the government.

Now in my wacky mind I always thought that when this government was created that the founders didn't want a popular revolution to be undone by gun control by it's government seeing as England has tried to enforce gun control during the revolutionary war. But I'm crazy like that. Set me right please!
Click to expand...

The 2nd amendment reflects tensions of the time between having local state militias and having a central, national standing army (that could potentially be abused and corrupted).

Imagine that!

The 2nd amendment is about allowing STATE and local militias... aka "guard" or proto-police forces to maintain arms so that they could rise up against tyranny again. This "right" was articulated as a means to calm many in the colonies who feared another tyranny or losing the ability to rise up again.

They didnt trust the idea of a national government or a national standing army.

"Well regulated" means not just passing out fucking ak-47s to every redneck or gangster who wants one, obviously, although the idea of being able to own guns was a no brainer for our founders. It just wasnt an idea which was explicitly protected in the constitution... in spite of the people pretending it does.

Indeed, "the people" and the government are the same thing for our founders, unlike for today's far-right loonies who think of THEIR government as some alien force upon them.
 
Last edited:
All US citizen are the Militia A.K.A. citizen soldiers, it’s the soul purpose as to why the Militia Act of 1792, Militia Act of 1862 and Militia Act of 1903 where drawn up established and still in effect to this very day just under different terms and conditions. The Militia Acts also serve as a supporting role for the 2nd amendment. Without them still in effect and on the books one might argue we don’t need the 2nd amendment seeing how we have no militia act to call citizen soldiers to pick up arms.
 
Austforbeer said:
"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."

Why would the government try to take guns away from it's "militia"?

Because the militia might not be willing to enforce the governments orders, or might even be willing to fight to prevent their enforcement

I mean is it because the government said, "omg our weapons own so we should give the enemy a handicap" or what?

No, that's not it

Plus "the right of the people" means government right? Because people are the government.

No, the people are the people, any citizen. The government can be one of the people but can also be some Federal Agent from 2000 miles away with absolutely no idea how life really works where you are, or even someone from the UN who "your" government can authorize to legally enforce UN mandates in your neighborhood

Now in my wacky mind I always thought that when this government was created that the founders didn't want a popular revolution to be undone by gun control by it's government seeing as England has tried to enforce gun control during the revolutionary war. But I'm crazy like that. Set me right please!

The founders wanted the people to have the power to choose how to govern themselves. The founders also realized the people's power to rule themselves was best protected by military weaponry accountable to the localized level with the most localized level being the individual.
Click to expand...
 
Reggs said:
Most "militias" these days are anti-gov, McVeigh sympathising types.
Click to expand...

Today's militia have nothing to do with what the founders meant...

They had in mind something more akin to state-based National Guard mixed with state police. The local guys who gathered arms to protect and fight enemy... not a bunch of redneck fucktards out in the woods.
 
There is some crazy stuff in this thread, really wild interpretations.

The way oral argument went at SCOTUS pretty much means that the Court will find some type of individual right, but I'm sure they will leave unclear how far that right extends (and what weapons it covers).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top