Second Amendment Revisited

[Airbrush]

"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."

Justice Ginsburg:  "When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function ... If the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new; it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only – and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation."

“The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Anyone have any ideas about the modern relevance of the 2nd amendment?

It says that the right to "keep and bear arms" is for the purpose of membership in a "well-regulated militia".  Are gun owners supposed to defend the “state” from whom?  The amendment has been twisted around to mean an 18-year-old has the right to own a rapid-fire AR-15 ON A WHIM.  Or is he supposed to carry around a single-shot musket when his state calls him to militia service at a moment's notice?

Of course if you live isolated in the country and need a gun as protection from animals, you can prove you need a gun, like the new law in Australia, you can apply for one and after a month, and after a thorough background check, you can own one.

 

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Seems like a fair summary.
It's also important to remember that the constitution isn't holy scripture- you are allowed to change it.

The 2nd amendment is, after all, an amendment.
On the other hand, my research on this was based on watching the Simpsons.

 

[Ten oz]

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

 

 

[Strange]

It sounds from both the second amendment and the section quoted by Ten oz as if the country did not have a significant standing army and so needed an armed populace to call on in case of war. (This was a very common model historically; the idea of established armies is, I believe, quite a modern idea.)

I gather a lot of NRA supporters claim that the population need to be armed to protect them from a repressive government(*). But the section quoted specifically says "to suppress insurrection" so if the "militia" tried to rise up against the government, this would just lead to civil war (as in any other country). So their argument appears to be completely unsupported by either the 2nd Amendment or Section 8.

(*) I thought that was what democracy was for

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

It sounds from both the second amendment and the section quoted by Ten oz as if the country did not have a significant standing army and so needed an armed populace to call on in case of war. (This was a very common model historically; the idea of established armies is, I believe, quite a modern idea.)

Yep! Militia literally meant militia and was not merely place holding word for anybody and everybody for whatever reason.  

[John Cuthber]

I'm also intrigued by another question (or two- they are related).

When your country spends more on the military than the next half dozen or so countries put together;

(1) from whom are you defending yourselves with your handful of assault rifles and

(2) how well do you think you would defend yourself against a 

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

repressive government

with what amount to pea-shooters against tanks?

 

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

(*) I thought that was what democracy was for

I thought so too, but have you seen who got elected last time?

[dimreepr]

The USA does seem a strange model of democracy; ones vote only really counts if one has enough money to multiply by more than one. Yet one is chastised for considering (no vote) zero to be equivalent.

[Ten oz]

22 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

(1) from whom are you defending yourselves with your handful of assault rifles and

(2) how well do you think you would defend yourself against a 

1 - bad guys (as defined by individual bias)

2 - John Rambo style

[swansont]

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

It sounds from both the second amendment and the section quoted by Ten oz as if the country did not have a significant standing army and so needed an armed populace to call on in case of war. (This was a very common model historically; the idea of established armies is, I believe, quite a modern idea.)

I gather a lot of NRA supporters claim that the population need to be armed to protect them from a repressive government(*). But the section quoted specifically says "to suppress insurrection" so if the "militia" tried to rise up against the government, this would just lead to civil war (as in any other country). So their argument appears to be completely unsupported by either the 2nd Amendment or Section 8.

(*) I thought that was what democracy was for

The regulation of militia is codified in law, and state militias are under the authority of the governor of that state. Much of the 2nd amendment crowd conveniently ignores this.

There's a federalist papers where it is argued that overthrow of the federal government would be at the behest of the governments of the states, using militia. Not by some "popular" uprising.

[John Cuthber]

14 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

1 - bad guys (as defined by individual bias)

2 - John Rambo style

(1)- fine- as far as it goes^*, but nothing to do with the 2nd amendment

(2) That's a made up story. He gets caught. He learned those skills in the military- the military officers in the film tell the police not to get into a fight they may not win. It's not a story of a "plucky independent individual winning against the military".

 

* "As far as it goes- i.e. ignoring the reality where a gun in the home is a lot more likely to kill a family member than a "bad guy".

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

The regulation of militia is codified in law, and state militias are under the authority of the governor of that state. Much of the 2nd amendment crowd conveniently ignores this.

I suppose it might be useful for us outsiders to understand a bit more about the relationship between the various national armed forces, it looks very complicated! These look like a good intro:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

There's a federalist papers where it is argued that overthrow of the federal government would be at the behest of the governments of the states, using militia. Not by some "popular" uprising.

So, even in that context, it is a (local) government militia.

I assume (hope) that the extreme anti-government types are in a distinct minority in the US. 

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

I assume (hope) that the extreme anti-government types are in a distinct minority in the US. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/04/the-oregon-standoff-and-the-recent-history-of-anti-government-groups-in-the-u-s/

Quote

anti-government groups in the United States, which experts say have surged in number.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reported Monday that the number of anti-government militia groups nationwide increased by more than a third last year, rising from 202 groups  in 2014 to 276 such groups in 2015.

All told, the SPLC said that the number of “extreme anti-government groups” — which includes the militia groups as well as Patriot groups and others — has spiked since President Obama’s election in 2008. There were 149 of these groups in 2008, but within four years there were more than 1,300. That number had fallen to 874 in 2014, the most recent year for which the SPLC had data before Monday, but that easily eclipsed the average of 147 such groups the organization said it tracked each year during the presidency of George W. Bush.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/antigovernment