<p>That’s a much clearer explanation, thank you. I appreciate the complexity of the context of the militia but I believe there is not a compelling argument that unorganized militias do not exist. There are several in my state that consider themselves “unorganized” (according to their handbook). While they are certainly not as centralized and common as the founders, they have a paramilitary structure, standard uniform recommendations, and a chain of command. </p>
<p>Thank you for fleshing out your exact point though, it really helped me. I am not as experienced as I hope to be one day in terms of understanding the relationships between federal statutes, but I believe a significant legal challenge to a “militia only intepretation” could be mounted due to a lack of a legal definition of a militia outside of Title X. I look forward to reading the decision, whichever side it favors.</p>
<p>Sure, the state militias have changed, but also look at the intent behind the bill. Citizens keeping arms still functions as a check against future tyranny. That argument holds as true now as it did in 1787. The RTKBA has plenty of other benefits, but comes at the price of giving better weapons to BOTH law-abiding citizens and criminals.</p>
<p>The “militia” clause does convey an important reason for the 2nd Amendment, but do you really want to constue a reason for a law as a restriction to it? That just doesn’t make sense to me.</p>
<p>If you want to argue repealing the 2nd Amendment, go ahead. Don’t try to argue that it should be ignored.</p>
<p>The unorganized militia exists because the people are armed; not the people are armed because of the militia.</p>
<p>If you consider the amendment "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.</p>
<p>The independent clause is “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. This can stand on its own. It needs nothing else.</p>
<p>The dependent clause is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” cannot stand on its own. It needs the people to have the right to be armed to function.</p>
<p>The right to weapons is a permanent personal right. It is not subject to the whim of government to take it away when the need is not readily apparent. Let us be very clear - rights are NOT given or permitted by government. People do not exist for governments; governments exist for people. Governments are the slave of the people. They may be destroyed or replaced by the people at any time.</p>
<p>This is the difference between rights and privileges. A drivers license conveys permission (or license) of the government to the holder to drive on public roads. Government may terminate or restrict that privilege at any time. Governments do not have the power to grant rights.</p>
That’s grammatically correct. But in the particular instance we’re talking about it doesn’t “stand on it’s own.” P2N, you may or may not be right about your romantic view of the lone American with his trusty six-gun saving us all from tyranny - but your opinion about the “permanent personal right” independent of any obligation to actually participate in the defense of the country when called to do so is, in my opinion, not justified by my reading of the second amendment - based on what I’ve read about the context in which it was written, etc. JMHO. :)</p>
<p>
This is very romantic and idealistic and theoretical. In a sense it is true. Practically speaking, however - how long do you think those things you view as “rights” would last in a nation with a different government from ours? say, Saudi Arabia? North Korea? If the Supreme Court rules against you (again) are you going to overthrow the government?</p>
<p>All males, citizens and aliens, aged 18-26 have an “obligation to actually participate in the defense of the country when called to do.” I’m signed up for Selective Service. In addition to being a member of the unorganized militia, I have committed myself to serve in the defense of the nation if called upon. Do I get to have a gun now?</p>
<p>The nation was formed as a romantic and idealistic country. That’s what makes it great. If something “should be,” why not work to do it? (I think the romantic view is of a small group of Americans using their Kentucky long rifles to stop tyranny.)</p>
<p>If thinking the government is here to serve the people is idealistic, I am perfectly willing to be called an idealist!</p>
<p>I am a romantic idealist about the Constitution and the United States. I’m also one of those who are under oath to the Constitution. I suppose, were I to disclose it, also one of the few those who believe in gun control should have guns under a more restrictive government. </p>
<p>Frankly, despite my love of our people and oath to system, I advise everyone to hold government at arm’s length. Never, ever, give up your personal rights. They were paid for with the blood of your relatives. Hold them dear.</p>
Well, let’s see. Are you male? Do you think the second amendment should be interpreted to mean only men between the ages of 18 and 26 have a right to own guns? No women? The Supreme Court held that aliens are not part of “the People” as that term is used in the Constitution, yet aliens have to register. Are you an alien? If you get a call from the National Guard tomorrow telling you to muster up next week - you’re going to Iraq - will you be surprised? Hmmm.</p>
<p>No, I’m going to stick with my original premise: The second amendment was drafted in a particular historical era to serve a specific (and specified) purpose which no longer exists in our nation. Efforts to twist it into something else altogether are an abuse of the intent - and language - of the framers of the Constitution.</p>
<p>Ninja and P2N - you and I are probably not far apart in our views about what’s “right” on this (these?) subject(s) - but I’m not going to claim that what I think is the best policy is justified by the Constitution, because, in my opinion, it isn’t. My issues with the arguments presented by both of you relate to the fact that I think you are seeking to justify your opinions by “reference to authority” - the framers of the Constitution - when I don’t think that that authority is aligned in any significant way with your opinions about what should be considered a fundamental “right” in America today. I also find the claims and assumptions I’ve read here and elsewhere from the pro-gun contingent about the risks vs. benefits of widespread gun ownership are romanticized and inaccurate. (But since the latter is off-topic of the Constitutional question I’d prefer to take that to a different thread at some point.)</p>
<p>I want a gun for numerous reasons. Foremost is so I can become familiar and skilled in their use. I want to become a member of an advanced LE organization and firearms competency is an important skill. Secondly, I want to join a state militia. I would also like to hunt game. Lastly, I want a gun for personal protection and home defense.</p>
<p>Kluge, I don’t believe only males age 18-26 should be able to own firearms because I believe it’s an individual right not tied to militia membership. I simply wanted clarification from you what would be considered a militia in the framers’ eyes, if they thought as you believe they do. From my reading, it looks to me like gun ownership is necessary to have a militia, not the other way around. We have no way of knowing whether what the framers considered to be a fundamental right then would be considered a fundamental right now, except that many of those individuals supported individual gun ownership in their time. I’m really trying to reconcile your view original intent of the document with the existence of several organizations now that fulfill the originial “purpose” of the Constitution. Frankly, I don’t see how interpreting the 2nd Amendment as outdated because militias do not exist (when the states and federal government both have active militia organizations, organized and unorganized) is a feasible view.</p>
<p>The intent of the document was to arm the populace so as to facilitate armed resistance by civilians organized into militias to various threats. If the 2nd Amendment is interpreted as obsolete, the original intent of the framers will never be manifested.</p>
<p>Ninja, I’m not sure what you were trying to say in your most recent post. Are you suggesting that the security of our nation is currently maintained by militias? And that allowing anyone to own a gun will somehow support those state-security defending militias and enable them to better defend our nation?
Or are you saying that it doesn’t matter if whatever you choose to define as “militias” have any bearing on national defense or not?</p>
<p>Because I don’t think that any of those statements is true. </p>
<p>Since ensuring the viability of militias as a defense force for the nation is what I see as the purpose of the second amendment (and a valid one in its time) in my opinion grabbing the literal language of the second part of the amendment and treating the first part as meaningless surplusage is taking liberties with the text - distorting and altering its meaning so as to serve an entirely different purpose than that which was expressly stated to be that which the amendment served. We don’t rely on militias for the defense of our nation anymore, for reasons which have nothing to do with the Constitution. All of the magic wand solutions you try to pull out of your hat - the statutory definition of “unorganized militia”, etc. don’t change that fact. And since that context has disappeared, in my opinion you guys are abusing the language of the document to serve a purpose of your own, which is not the reason that language exists in the first place.</p>
<p>What I was saying is that militias do exist and any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that denies individual firearms ownership will effectively destroy the small, decentralized militias that do exist. The destruction of the militia as a confederation of citizens is NOT what the founders had in mind. The security of our nation is maintained by a standing army and not militias, which is what the founders were wary of.</p>
<p>If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is as you say it is, how will preventing individual gun ownership encourage people to join militias? Will remvoing the 2nd Amendment strengthen the citizen’s ability to join in the common defense (theoretically, of course, no imminent Canadian invasion)? Or are you saying we should just scrap the entire concept of the citizen militia and individual gun ownership and leave it all to the standing army?</p>
<p>One thing I don’t quite get is how your intepretation of the 2nd Amendment would be enacted. Would the courts say, “We’re in a new era, with different contexts, so the Amendment is effectively void?” I don’t think it’s likely that your interpretation will become the dominant one, for several reasons, but if SCOTUS goes that route, what would the decision look like?</p>
<p>Regardless of if you think A2 applies now or is romanticized beyond reason it has helped shape the government and society into a durable and workable system of responsive government. Note that when we have hard fought elections there is no physical conflict, only resolve to do better next cycle. </p>
<p>You appear to have a belief that Constitutional principles should evolve with advancing technology, the “living Constitution” as it were. I assert that those very principles that established the Constitution do not change because they were tailored to fit human behavior, which unfortunately tends to regress to evil unless carefully watched. </p>
<p>The difference is that you seem to believe society improves and is somehow more trustworthy now than in earlier periods. I disagree. I believe the old human tendency to cut corners and establish regimes of domination when possible are ever present. Technology improves, but humans have the unfortunate tendency to repeat past behaviors.</p>
<p>Weapons are mere tools for either good or evil. They are neither romantic nor glamorous. Saving the day with a flashing six-gun is stuff only for Saturday morning Westerns. Weapons are merely efficient tools of violence, which I believe should not be reserved only for the military and police or, to be concise, government. I think I’ve said this before in this thread.</p>
<p>P2N, maybe you should spend less time developing theories about what I “appear to believe” - an understandably difficult task, since you can’t refer to anything I wrote as a basis for your theory about my “apparent belief” - and devote a couple of minutes to reading what I actually have written. I never wrote anything about “principles evolving” or asserting that society “is somehow more trustworthy” than it used to be - because neither even remotely reflects my actual opinion. I actually believe that people, now and then, are pretty much the same. I also think that “principles” don’t change. What I do believe is that if you take a sentence out of its original context and place it into a context which has changed in a significant way relevant to the central purpose of that statement, and insist that the proper way to honor the “principle” that sentence was written to embody is by taking what appears to be the literal meaning of a portion of its words and separate them from the part which expressly addresses the “principle” in question you aren’t honoring that principle - you’re distorting, degrading, and dishonoring that principle.</p>
<p>As I see it, the second amendment was written to assure the “security of the free state” by providing for the maintenance of militias - which were, at that time, actually involved in the defense of the nation. Militias don’t serve that purpose anymore. Separating the second part of the amendment from that purpose to serve a goal you think is worthy is not honoring the principles of the bill of rights - it is cynically distorting them for personal purposes.</p>
<p>The Collective View, in other words, tweaked by a bit of the “Living Constitution” perspective. The people and personal rights, which were given to the people by their creator, have nothing to do with it except to serve as fodder for the government defense which, in this case, is manifested as a militia.</p>
<p>We fundamentally differ on the notion of the personal rights of the people. Clarity, in your view, would have been for A2 to say “The states will form armed militias and Congress cannot stop them”. </p>
<p>That’s an amusing statement for a Bill of Rights.</p>
<p>P2N: I give up. You’re going to try to force the square peg of my thinking into one of your preconceived round holes regardless of how carefully and precisely I state them, aren’t you? I make a living trying to interpret written language and figure out how to apply those words to a situation which clearly differs from what was in the contemplation of its authors - and have been doing this for decades. One thing I can say with certainty is that’s it’s rarely simple or easy -and anyone who says that the answer is “obvious” almost certainly is ignoring a lot of stuff he simply doesn’t want to have to deal with - right, P2N?</p>
<p>Oh, and once again - you are absolutely wrong about what “my view” is. Not even in the ballpark this time. But I’m happy that you’re able to amuse yourself by creating a straw man and then laughing at it.</p>
<p>The problem, kluge, is that the Standard View of A2 does not seem to comport with what you’d like it to mean, which in this case is an immutable, through arguably inconvenient personal right of uncertain scope.</p>
<p>Attorneys sometimes take fundamental principles and simply twist the essence out of them thus enabling a conclusion they want, which fits their view of things. This has happened with A2, which is likely to be corrected.</p>
<p>Your attitude of this issue was clearly communicated that anyone who differed from your view of A2 was a whole list of derogatory references. You made virtually no effort to discuss the issue objectively, despite your saying you are schooled in the law. Most disappointing.</p>
<p>I don’t need to dissect your text to glean your meaning or repeat it. It is clear from a first reading where you intend to carry the discussion.</p>
<p>Motions to dismiss denied. This issue is scheduled for trial. ;)</p>
<p>Not me, AM…I think it is terrible. Another tragedy. :(</p>
<p>P2N: again, you couldn’t be more wrong. But your bias: “Attorneys sometimes take fundamental principles and simply twist the essence out of them thus enabling a conclusion they want, which fits their view of things” - is obvious. The problem is: I don’t have an agenda. I don’t have any place where I “intend to carry the discussion.” But you do. You are the one who is trying to “twist the essence out of” the second amendment.</p>
<p>I don’t have a dog in this fight. I don’t have a client; I don’t have any strong feelings about what the outcome might mean. I’m not sure what the Supreme Court will rule; I’m not sure what I think it should rule. But I think the addressing the questions presented by the case - specifically, the questions of interpreting a written statement 200+ years later and determining (a) what it meant when written, and (b) how to apply that meaning to todays world – are interesting.</p>
<p>But it’s hard to address those question objectively when you enter the discussion with a huge chip on your shoulder, and a $1000 bet on one side to win – as you have, P2N. That lack of objectivity is a part of why I call gun nuts “gun nuts.” It’s not because of which side might win the Supreme Court case, it’s because the arguments and comments of the gun crown are inevitably and obviously colored by a need for one answer to be “right.” Gun nuts will still be gun nuts regardless of how the Supreme Court rules.</p>
<p>… and to make clear what my “agenda” is, this is how I would translate the second amendment into modern, understandable language – question (a) – based on my limited research this past week: </p>
<p>“It is necessary for the security of our nation that local and state militias composed of individuals armed with their own weapons of war be maintained along with, or in lieu of, a national army, to serve as the military defense force of our nation. Therefore no law may prohibit any individual from owning military armaments needed to serve in such a militia, or from participating in such militias military activities.”</p>
<p>Of course, those who haven’t already bet the house on one answer or another will note that answering question (a) doesn’t actually answer question (b). That’s because words aren’t “magic”, they’re just a means of communicating ideas. And we still have an idea that’s out of context, because, framer’s intent to the contrary notwithstanding, we don’t defend the nation with militias anymore. </p>
<p>So the question becomes: do we construe that language to guarantee individuals the right to own modern weapons of war, as would be necessary if they actually were involved in the defense of the nation, as envisioned by the framers of the constitution (quite reasonably in the context of their day) even though in this era they won’t be doing so for the purpose the framers expressly stated, as we actually no longer rely on militias for the national defense? Do we construe it to bestow an individual right to own non-military weapons which would be of little or no use in actual national defense, knowing that that right will not serve the expressed purpose of the framers? Or is there some other more appropriate way to apply the concept expressed by the framers to the actual world we live in? Or, is there no way to make the statement make sense in the real world of 2007?</p>
<p>It’s an interesting question, but not one which is answered by the text of the amendment. Words aren’t magic.</p>