<p><a href=“quoted”>quote=allmusic</a>Five people, including a gunman, died in the attacks Sunday at a megachurch in Colorado Springs and at the Youth With a Mission missionary center in the Denver suburb of Arvada. Five others were wounded." - Boston.com</p>
<p>Have we become numb to these seemingly daily occurences of senseless violence?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did you notice that the gunman was shot and killed by a “volunteer” plainclothes “security guard” with a permit to carry a concealed weapon? It’s not what I would call a conclusive demonstration, but both sides of this discussion would do well to realize that there is a good evidence either way.</p>
<p>Since we have a liberal interpretation of the 1st amendment, I don’t see why one would want to restrict gun ownership based on the second. Seems to me that amendments are only viewed more broadly over time, rather than more restrictively. I am not a lawyer or a gun owner/nut, but the only solution that I could accept that is logically consistent would be repeal of the 2nd amendment, if the political will of the country was so moved.</p>
<p>yeah, this is my first point to this thread, so i’m not aware with all that has been said on the past 19 pages. that said, still like to add my opinion to the fray. </p>
<p>the 2nd Amendment, as everyone here knows, holds that “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>from a literal reading of the text, i don’t think there should be any argument amongst people regarding the intent of the act: the act gives state militias the right to bear arms in order to protect themselves from the federal government (at least, that’s my interpretation of it).</p>
<p>that said, what constitutes a state militia today? its certainly not the national guard, whose soldiers can be federalized instantaneously by the president. so, to whom does the right fall to? </p>
<p>i not really sure. but i am somewhat confident (and happy about it) that the Supreme Court isn’t likely to radically change the current system.</p>
<p>You might want to go back and read most of this thread, as this has been touched on many times. But just think about it for a second. If the intent had been to give militias the right to bear arms, why doesn’t the active clause say “the right of the militias to keep and bear arms”??</p>
<p>As for the rest of the thread recently, I haven’t been saying much because P2N has been doing so well without me. But Kluge, your argument/view of the subject is pretty clear from a prima facie reading of your posts. But you can’t just argue that there is no right answer or that there is no context anymore that validates the 2A. If that were true, we’d have to reevaluate every single section of the constitution. But the simple fact is, the right to self-defense and defense of your country (from both foreign and domestic enemies) needs no context or timeframe. This right is not dependant on what the state of national security is, or who is in charge of the government at the time. It is, much like the right to free speech, not to be restricted based on changing times.</p>
<p>But Icarus - the second amendment right you’re claiming has nothing to do with the defense of the country, at least not the kind of defense the framers were talking about with the militia provision (I don’t know about whatever you’re worried about being under your bed.) </p>
<p>
Actually, I can. I’m not sure that I support that view, but I absolutely recognize the possibility that it is the correct one if your purpose is to effectuate the intent of the drafters of the Constitution.
Not at all. That’s an easy and facile claim, but it doesn’t hold water. The context of the first amendment hasn’t changed. Technological advances in communication have changed the way we exchange speech, but the context - political debate, like this one, for a good example - hasn’t. Freedom of speech still involves the same issues and functions today as it did in 1789. The context of the third amendment has changed - soldiers aren’t quartered in private homes much these days - but it’s basically a non-issue because there’s no secondary language contained within it that would give a faction of society a leg up on some unrelated issue to keep it alive, as there is with the second amendment.</p>
<p>Fourth amendment? Still being used for the same purpose as it had back then - as a limit on the authorities right to search your home and person. The basic context is still the same. And so on. What is different about the second amendment is that the basic context for which the provision was expressly included - the militia system of national defense - has withered over time without any law being passed to eliminate it.</p>
<p>“But just think about it for a second. If the intent had been to give militias the right to bear arms, why doesn’t the active clause say “the right of the militias to keep and bear arms”??”</p>
<p>I don’t think it has to. The wording starts out with “A Well regulated militia…”
I think that’s pretty clear in itself. Also, this is coming from a period in which local, private citizens formed the militias of their state. So, for all intensive purposes, a farmer owning a gun could be considered part of the militia. This is no longer the case. No longer is old fat joe’s ownership of a firearm going to constitute his being part of a militia needed for the “security of a free state.”</p>
<p>Well it appears that I misunderstood you - I believed you to be making a different argument about “context” but really its just the same argument about a “membership in militia” requirement with different wording. </p>
<p>How many times must we go in this circle? Either the framers intended the 2A to give people a right to own and bear arms (for whatever purpose, be it national defense, personal defense, or recreation) independant of any membership or even the existence of militias (as you think of them, since the federal .gov disagrees with you as to whether the militia formed by the people still exists) or they didn’t. If our purpose should be to effectuate that goal (and I think it is), then you must look at the writings of those drafters. And those writings support an individual right not dependant on participation in a formal militia.</p>
<p>Interesting point. And while I have said things that could indicate that I do not feel individuals (outside of militias) have the right to bear arms, I personally believe the opposite. I am simply pointing out that, on a literal basis, I feel that the right to bear arms does not apply to “everybody.” But, thankfully the Constitution is flexible, and up to being interpreted in a number of ways. </p>
<p>As for the writings of the drafters of the Amendment: they may very well support the notion that the right for individuals to bear arms is “not dependent on participation in a formal militia.” But the fact remains that the wording in the Amendment holds “A well regulated militia…”</p>
<p>Actually, Icarus, my point is that it’s actually not that simple. I know people like simple answers (and therefore, frame simple questions) but sometimes “simple” is just “simplistic.” When I read about the process of drafting the amendment, and note that one version contained an express conscientious objector provision, it seems to me that the intent was not to provide a right to own guns which was distinct from the right (and obligation) to participate in the national defense in a “well regulated militia.” Further, reflection on the (I believe correct) observation that to “bear arms” in 1789 English doesn’t translate in modern English to “have a gun” but rather means something akin to “wage war” I have to question whether the Amendment was intended to give you and P2N a “creator granted” (per P2N) right to own a .22 or whatever with no intent or likelihood of ever using that weapon to defend the nation. When you use your gun to shoot tin cans or hunt rabbits you’re not “bearing arms.” So where does a right to “bear arms” come into play for you and your gun?</p>
<p>It’s an interesting question, and in my opinion, a lot more complex than you give it credit.</p>
<p>“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;” - English Bill of Rights</p>
<p>Does this 1689 English translate into own a gun? I think it does. I really don’t see the difference between “have” and “bear” except to me bear means use the arms you have kept. I don’t understand how you can give the power to “keep” the ability to wage war to the people without giving the people firearms. Does “keep arms” mean the same thing now as it did then?</p>
So it looks like you can “have” arms - which means possess military weaponry; to “bear arms” is to engage in military conduct. “Take arms” - do battle. “Keep” arms - not sure. But “arms” always refers to military armament, and not necessarily specifically to guns. I’m pretty sure Hamlet wasn’t talking about picking up a matched set of pearl handled revolvers to shoot his troubles with…
</code></pre>
<p>It’s an interesting question. Language is frequently imprecise, and meanings change over time. Hamlet was speaking in allegorical terms - he wasn’t speaking of a literal “sea” for example. But i don’t think he was referring to any specific weapon - he was speaking, generally, of “doing battle” with his troubles. People are rarely punctilious about their use of words, as long as the general meaning is conveyed. Consider this: a baseball team manager might speak about the number of “arms” he has on his team. He’s not talking about guns - he’s talking about pitchers. (Although if his shortstop has strong arm, he might well say “He’s got a gun!”)</p>
<p>But “arms” - circa 1789 - seems to have referred to military weaponry. Same Latin root as “army.” A person might have spoken or written - with an intent to be witty or artistic, or whatever, about some similar or allegorical context of “bearing arms.” But the common sense of “arms” meaning “firearms” or “guns”, whether in a military or other context, seems to be more of a modern usage. That’s part of the reason that it’s a mistake to casually assume that the meaning of a 200 year old sentence is “clear” just because its meaning seems obvious to a modern ear. “Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?” has been assumed to be a question as to the boy’s whereabouts to generations of modern Americans - the usage of “wherefore” to mean “why” is not common current usage, so people jump to the translation that sounds “right”. There’s little question in my mind that the term “bear arms” could have been similarly misunderstood by most Americans - regardless of what outcome the Supreme Court case does or should have.</p>
<p>Military arms of the late 1700s were not very different from their civilian counterparts. The main differences were that military muskets were generally shorter, less accurate, a little sturdier, and had a bayonet lug. Civilian arms (Kentucky long rifle for example) were very advanced rifles, but did not stand up to close combat as well as a British “Brown Bess” because of the lack of bayonet and thinner stock. That is a small division to all but historians and firearms enthusiasts.</p>
<p>I disagree that the actual meaning of the sentence has changed very much. The context of security against foreign invasion has, of course. I do not believe that was the sole purpose of the amendment, especially when considering some of the surrounding discussions of the time.</p>
<p>In the specific use of arms you used, the Assize of Arms, the weapons are of the current standard for military battle. I can’t help but notice that you believe that the 1789 use of arms refers to military weaponry. In 1789, arms meant weapons of war. In 2007, those weapons of war include assault rifles, night vision goggles, bulletproof vests, combat knives, and high capacity pistol magazines. We aren’t equipping our troops with chain mail anymore. Fundamentally, almost anything can be used as a weapon so the courts need to decide what reasonable bounds are necessary. Arms means weapons of war, bear means use them in a war, and keep means…? I believe keep means “to have in one’s possession.” I have not yet heard a compelling argument saying that because of historical context “keep and bears arms” does NOT mean have and use weapons of war.</p>
<p>Of the items I mentioned above, the vast majority of firearm murders are committed with handguns. While there have been a couple sensationalized mass-murders with assault rifles, pistols are the typical weapon used in homicides and have been given to soldiers and sailors for at least the last 200 years.</p>
<p>Before the idea of military weaponry touches off the “what about tanks, what about nukes, what about grenade launches” series, let me say this. Legislatures make laws and are checked by the courts, so the definition of “arms” can be left up to them. I seriously doubt that the Courts will overturn U.S.C. Section 2332a, which prohibits nukes, RPGs, grenades, chemical weapons, etc on 2nd Amendment grounds. Certainly the “well-regulated militia” portion allows for the prohibition of such weapons. To my knowledge, there have been no legal challenges to this law since it was passed.</p>
By the way, I haven’t told a single attorney joke…yet. ;)</p>