Second amendment

[Giacomo cavernosa]

Here’s the second amendment interpretation debate. Let’s not get petty or unnecessarily argumentative. Just give us your full interpretation of the amendment. Obviously there are necessary gun laws and restrictions beyond the amendment, but let’s try to confine this thread to interpretation of the amendment.
I’ll start it off

Here’s the second 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.

Here’s how I rearranged it to get rid of the commas:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

Here’s my interpretation:
Citizens must have the right to bear arms because the security of the free state relies on the ability of citizens to form a well regulated militia.. which would require Arms

 

[Klingsor]

Here’s my interpretation:
Citizens must have the right to bear arms because the security of the free state relies on the ability of citizens to form a well regulated militia.. which would require Arms

Definitely *your* interpretation.

You've taken a well-regulated militia being "necessary to the security of a free State," and turned into something people have the "ability" to "form," maybe sorta kinda, at some unspecified future date. Meanwhile, as unregulated as they are, they still get to have their weapons.

If that's actually what the founders had in mind, they did a damn poor job of expressing it.

 

[Giacomo cavernosa]

Definitely *your* interpretation.

You've taken a well-regulated militia being "necessary to the security of a free State," and turned into something people have the "ability" to "form," maybe sorta kinda, at some unspecified future date. Meanwhile, as unregulated as they are, they still get to have their weapons.

If that's actually what the founders had in mind, they did a damn poor job of expressing it.

Like I said, please don’t make this argumentative. We’re just sharing views. I’m genuinely interested in other interpretations.
However, you didn’t provide your interpretation. I’d like to hear how you interpret it and what you think it means

 

[Fred90]

Here’s the second amendment interpretation debate. Let’s not get petty or unnecessarily argumentative. Just give us your full interpretation of the amendment. Obviously there are necessary gun laws and restrictions beyond the amendment, but let’s try to confine this thread to interpretation of the amendment.
I’ll start it off

Here’s the second 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.

Here’s how I rearranged it to get rid of the commas:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

Here’s my interpretation:
Citizens must have the right to bear arms because the security of the free state relies on the ability of citizens to form a well regulated militia.. which would require Arms

I'm no constitutional scholar, but your interpretation sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Perados]

My 2 cent...

The whole amendment is about militia and militia only.
Because of the war with Britain the idea was that armed forces next to the established military is essential for the security of the nation.

To be able to create a militia fast a large part of the population should always be armed and trained in using a weapon.

To guaranty this the right to own weapons shouldn't be limited.



If you follow just the words, every American has the right to own every kind of weapon. While it didn't sound like a big problem back then, it became one during the decades.
To own biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons has been limited.

If it's possible to limit weapons because if technological development, it should be possible to limit this right out of other reasons as well.
You could ask, how many weapons per person are needed to create a militia... or what kind of weapons?

Another important questions is, if the reason for this right was the ability to create a militia, what kind of persons would join the militia?
I doubt 14 years old girl would fight with their dads against invading Canadians (after they have beaten the US army).





Interesting is that the amendment talks about infringed, you can bend something with infringing it...
Even if everyone has the right to own as much of any weapon as he likes, it doesn't mean they don't have to follow any regulation. This could include registrations or some kind of license.


I would like to add that the ademendm only talks about the right to own a gun, not to sell them. You want to limit weapons? Close the shops and fairs.

 

[Giacomo cavernosa]

My 2 cent...

The whole amendment is about militia and militia only.
Because of the war with Britain the idea was that armed forces next to the established military is essential for the security of the nation.

To be able to create a militia fast a large part of the population should always be armed and trained in using a weapon.

To guaranty this the right to own weapons shouldn't be limited.



If you follow just the words, every American has the right to own every kind of weapon. While it didn't sound like a big problem back then, it became one during the decades.
To own biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons has been limited.

If it's possible to limit weapons because if technological development, it should be possible to limit this right out of other reasons as well.
You could ask, how many weapons per person are needed to create a militia... or what kind of weapons?

Another important questions is, if the reason for this right was the ability to create a militia, what kind of persons would join the militia?
I doubt 14 years old girl would fight with their dads against invading Canadians (after they have beaten the US army).





Interesting is that the amendment talks about infringed, you can bend something with infringing it...
Even if everyone has the right to own as much of any weapon as he likes, it doesn't mean they don't have to follow any regulation. This could include registrations or some kind of license.


I would like to add that the ademendm only talks about the right to own a gun, not to sell them. You want to limit weapons? Close the shops and fairs.

Of course there are necessary laws and restrictions beyond the amendment, but it sounds like you agree with me on its interpretation. It guarantees the right to arms for all Americans so that they can form a militia in the event of some impending threat

 

[Perados]

Of course there are necessary laws and restrictions beyond the amendment, but it sounds like you agree with me on its interpretation. It guarantees the right to arms for all Americans so that they can form a militia in the event of some impending threat

Yes, that was the reason...

But like I said it raises the question who is able to form a militia - I would exclude children. I doubt those who added the amendment thought about children (or even woman) as they wrote it.

It also is questionable if a militia still is needed. It's not only unlikely that the USA will get invaded, but if the USA would get invaded I doubt any militia could defend anything.

The third question is, what kind of weapon is needed to form a militia. Back then you could choose between a rifle, gun, and knife. Nothing to worry about... Now you have different options - would they still have wrote the law in a similar way if they would have known about the technological development?

 

[pred]

Yes, that was the reason...

But like I said it raises the question who is able to form a militia - I would exclude children. I doubt those who added the amendment thought about children (or even woman) as they wrote it.

It also is questionable if a militia still is needed. It's not only unlikely that the USA will get invaded, but if the USA would get invaded I doubt any militia could defend anything.

The third question is, what kind of weapon is needed to form a militia. Back then you could choose between a rifle, gun, and knife. Nothing to worry about... Now you have different options - would they still have wrote the law in a similar way if they would have known about the technological development?

I would say the age part has been addressed with needing to be 18 to purchase a long gun, 21 for a handgun.

 

[twoton]

The amendment reads, to me, as being directed at situations where the U.S. was actually facing attack by hostile foreign governments. I'm not 100% up on my U.S. history for that time period, but IIRC the Founding Fathers hadn't a strong intent to maintain a standing national army.

I don't think the Founders intended that the amendment be interpreted as the population's means of protecting itself from its own government. A lot of people disagree with me, believing that the 2nd is the Border Wall that separates the Bill of Rights from an oppressive federal government .

 

[Perados]

I would say the age part has been addressed with needing to be 18 to purchase a long gun, 21 for a handgun.

Ok then the society should change its behaviour... at least in Germany media you see how little girls und boys get their first gun for their birthday. Even more often you see them shooting at a shooting range. - it might be that they don't own the gun legally, but at least as a birthday present it gives the children the impression they would own it.

I know these are extreme cases, but it shows that something is wrong with the way the US society handles weapons.

 

[pred]

Ok then the society should change its behaviour... at least in Germany media you see how little girls und boys get their first gun for their birthday. Even more often you see them shooting at a shooting range. - it might be that they don't own the gun legally, but at least as a birthday present it gives the children the impression they would own it.

I know these are extreme cases, but it shows that something is wrong with the way the US society handles weapons.

Well kids in the US get the same thing. I had received multiple guns by the time I was 16. Hell for my birthday my Dad would always take me to a gun show and buy me a gun I liked(usually it was older mil surp stuff. He taught me to use them, clean them, and respect them.

That said I think we as a society DO have a big problem. The values that were taught to kids in the 50s and 60s gave way to something else. And it’s carried over to kids today. Not all kids, and not all of their parents. But respect, responsibility, they don’t exist in the same way they did 70 years ago.

 

[Giacomo cavernosa]

The amendment reads, to me, as being directed at situations where the U.S. was actually facing attack by hostile foreign governments. I'm not 100% up on my U.S. history for that time period, but IIRC the Founding Fathers hadn't a strong intent to maintain a standing national army.

I don't think the Founders intended that the amendment be interpreted as the population's means of protecting itself from its own government. A lot of people disagree with me, believing that the 2nd is the Border Wall that separates the Bill of Rights from an oppressive federal government .

America was founded through a revolution in which citizens fought their own government. So I would think they considered the possibiltity of govenment tyranny in the future which could require another such revolution.
However, to me, this doesn’t appear to have much bearing on the amendment itself

 

[twoton]

America was founded through a revolution in which citizens fought their own government. So I would think they considered the possibiltity of govenment tyranny in the future which could require another such revolution.
However, to me, this doesn’t appear to have much bearing on the amendment itself

But the idea behind the new govt was that tyranny and oppression would be prevented by the democratic processes rather than thru force of arms. But I’m at the edge of getting out of my depth here because I never really read “The Federalist Papers,” when it had been assigned.

 

[twoton]

Well kids in the US get the same thing. I had received multiple guns by the time I was 16. Hell for my birthday my Dad would always take me to a gun show and buy me a gun I liked(usually it was older mil surp stuff. He taught me to use them, clean them, and respect them.

That said I think we as a society DO have a big problem. The values that were taught to kids in the 50s and 60s gave way to something else. And it’s carried over to kids today. Not all kids, and not all of their parents. But respect, responsibility, they don’t exist in the same way they did 70 years ago.

I’m not entirely sure it’s a matter of respect and responsibility. I don’t know what it is, but. It seems to run deeper than a lack of respect & responsibility.

 

[pred]

I’m not entirely sure it’s a matter of respect and responsibility. I don’t know what it is, but. It seems to run deeper than a lack of respect & responsibility.

It’s at best part of it. But people today are not the same as they were a few decades ago. I know what you’re saying though, it’s hard to explain.

 

[twoton]

It’s at best part of it. But people today are not the same as they were a few decades ago. I know what you’re saying though, it’s hard to explain.

Insofar as respect goes, I think people (in the U.S.) have an exponentially stronger impulse to express themselves without regard for consequences. The respected response is the scorched earth response. Used to be we respected wisdom, discretion, and a regard for the higher virtues. Most important, we respected each other. Few people do, anymore.

 

[Perados]

Well kids in the US get the same thing.

sorry my fault I wasn't clear enough. I was talking about German media reporting about US children.

I had received multiple guns by the time I was 16. Hell for my birthday my Dad would always take me to a gun show and buy me a gun I liked(usually it was older mil surp stuff. He taught me to use them, clean them, and respect them.

it sounds like a problem...

That said I think we as a society DO have a big problem. The values that were taught to kids in the 50s and 60s gave way to something else. And it’s carried over to kids today. Not all kids, and not all of their parents. But respect, responsibility, they don’t exist in the same way they did 70 years ago.

It's one problem, but I don't know it's the problem we should discuss when it's about gun law.

 

[pred]

sorry my fault I wasn't clear enough. I was talking about German media reporting about US children. it sounds like a problem...
It's one problem, but I don't know it's the problem we should discuss when it's about gun law.

How is it a problem for a father to share a hobby with his son and teach him respect and to respect firearms along the way? Teach him to hunt, and valuable life skills?

 

[pred]

Insofar as respect goes, I think people (in the U.S.) have an exponentially stronger impulse to express themselves without regard for consequences. The respected response is the scorched earth response. Used to be we respected wisdom, discretion, and a regard for the higher virtues. Most important, we respected each other. Few people do, anymore.

I agree.

 

[JulieInNaplesFL]

My Father taught me to shoot when I was 11 and spent the first 2 times at the range just teaching me the safety of firearms first. Then he let me fire his 22 then his 32 then his 38 and then his 357, that dam near tore my hand off. Being a big girl, lol I insisted on firing his Winchester Model 12 12ga that proceeded to set me back 10 feet and bruise my shoulder because I did listen to him on how to hold it correctly. I can be cerebral at times.
Me and hubby shoot monthly and I love my Glock 29 10mm but a little big for the skimpy clothes I wear most times so it's in my purse.

Want to take my guns lefties? Come and get THEM. (Plural)