You're viewing a single thread.
Its a good thing the second amendment doesn't just include a clause for hunting! People often forget it says
"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."
Indeed it doesn't protect hunting or self defence at all. Only the collective defense.
Which arguably makes the AR-15 one of the most protected guns, if we're using the wording of the second amendment as the only justification for firearms rights.
You can do a lot of damage with medium caliber rifles running internal clips. Such a limit would be more than enough for a militia unless everyone is practicing their tactical magazine changes and fireteam movement drills.
What? No it wouldn't? They hand grunts 30 round magazines for a reason. They used to give them 20 round magazines for the same rifle. Minimizing administrative tasks is good for your soldier.
Soldiers are also trained in several different firing modalities that depend on teamwork. Those 30 rounds aren't there just because "it's easier". I would sooner hand a militiaman a bolt action than a 30 round semi/burst capable weapon. They'd be less likely to blow through significant portions of their ammo load just because the wind made a tree creak. And before you say no, remember the cop that unloaded on his own car because of an acorn. We don't arm units for their best person, we give them the gun that's good enough for the lowest common denominator. The 2nd amendment doesn't make everyone a line Infantryman.
The US military would one million percent prefer the population be trained and familiar on the standard issue rifle than on any other platform. (Arguments of the quality training put aside)
Then we better start giving everyone burst fire weapons.
No?
The military is just fine with its irregulars using something else. We worked alongside locals running AK platforms for 20 years.
Nobody actually uses burst fire. Does the Spear have burst fire? I haven't looked too closely because I seriously doubt they're ever actually going to make it the standard issue rifle.
We absolutely used burst fire in Iraq. The M7 is also capable of burst or auto depending on what they put in the trigger group.
Aight, I've been told different from other folks who have deployed.
Anyway, this conversation is way off the rails. The point being that, if you consider the original intent of the 2nd amendment to be the only thing protecting a citizen's access to firearms, it would be much more correct to say the standard issue rifle would be the most protected firearm than any other.
Intent isn't started. It says the state gets guns (a militia) so the people get guns too.
Not saying you need to agree with the sentiment, but grammatically that is what it says.
That's absolutely the opposite of what it says.
It says the states, specifically, must have armed citizens to prevent a tyrannical federal government:
. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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.''
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
By keeping the army, or 'militia' under the sole control of the states, it guaranteed the states were never disarmed and could effectively resist or even attempt secession if they saw fit. Which, in fact, was later tried.
Until the 14th amendment incorporated the bill of rights, the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government, and in fact strict gun laws and bans were common throughout the 18th century.
I'm not going to debate an amateur (as an amateur to be fair) about something that already has a ruling. In 2008, DC v. Heller ruled that the ownership of firearms included the purpose of self defense independent of anything to do with a militia. Link
That said, the federalist paper you linked made a great case for a militia but did not talk about the People's right to bear arms. It was also written 4 whole years before the 2nd amendment was ratified so using as an interpretation tool is not adequate. Similarly, it would make sense to me that if firearm bans were common throughout the 1700s, that in 1792 they would pass an amendment to counter that if they didn't like it...
I don't have in-depth knowledge about the 14th amendment and I don't have time to look right now so I'll ask.. what/how does the 14th amendment have/do that implies an amendment which specifically states "The People" (a protected term, such as in "We The People), did not apply to The People? Federal or not, the meaning is the same. Unless I'm missing something.
Too many people don't understand that "militia" and "people" are synonymous as used in 2A.
According to the court 175 years later.
And also the founders. Some of them loved the idea of a militia instead of a standing army. There was even an attempt at a militia navy. Which is insane. "Got my musket and rowboat. Off to defend the homeland!" rows towards French 90-gun ship.
The whole idea behind a militia was barely practical back then, and isn't at all with industrialized warfare. If that's the argument for the 2nd A, then it might as well be tossed on the same pile as the 3rd A of "anachronistic stuff that made sense to somebody at the time".
Some of the founders. And they were referring to town and state militias, not one big unorganized one. The idea that "the people" comprise "the militia" in a one to one manner tracks to a World War 2 era Supreme Court decision.
If said people are a part of a well-regulated militia, sure. I don’t know of many who are…oh wait, I know of none because militias in the terms the founders would define don’t exist anymore. The closest thing is the National Guard.
But yeah, whatever the courts say is always right and never wrong. So militias are all people, corporations are people, and a collection of cells are people. But veterans coming home from war? Nope, get a job slackers. Can’t afford a home? Live on the streets, slackers. Oh homelessness is illegal now? Time for prison, slackers.
If said people are a part of a well-regulated militia, sure
This is the exact misconception I was talking about.
The militia consists of the "whole body of the people". We know this from various contemporary writings, including descriptions in the Federalist Papers. We know how the term was used in the constitution, and we know it was used to refer to "We The People".
In the constitution, it is always referred to as a singular entity. It is never referred to in the plural: there are no such thing as "militias"; there is only one "militia".
You mentioned the National Guard. In constitutional terms, the National Guard would be a "[provision] for calling forth the militia" (Article I, Section 8, part 15). The members of the national guard haven't been called forth to the militia. They have been called forth from the militia. This becomes obvious when we look at the other major provision for calling forth the militia: Selective Service. The Draft.
Congress's authority to institute a draft, compelling "We The People" to report for military training and service against our individual will comes from their power to "call forth" the militia. We are members of the militia, and we are called forth. We are called forth from the militia, not to it. Congress would have no power to draft us if we were not members of the militia, and subject to their provisions established under the militia clauses. Which means that We The People are, in fact, the militia described in Article I and the Second Amendment.
If you don't feel you and your fellow militiamen are adequately "well regulated", you should petition Congress to impose more requirements than what they currently deem necessary and proper regulation of the militia, and I'll see you at the next muster.
What you describe is an interpretation that the courts have laid out, nothing more. And the point I make is that the courts are many times wrong. And in this case, it is wrong. One aspect is that women were not called
to(sorry) FROM militia. Yet women are afforded this right today, yes? So a single woman prior to the courts' various opinions over the centuries would not have such a right, since they would not be a part of the militia -- thus, the founders did not intend on it being every person. In fact, women were not even considered full citizens then since they did not possess the right to vote. Then there's the subject of slaves which I have no interest in diving into since that's an even bigger can of worms.The point is that interpretations is what has won, not original intent. You can hand-wave this as a misconception all you want, but there is logic in it. And that logic is that the Constitution was designed to change over time solely because the founders could not envision the future state of existence, only lay the groundwork for such. Therefore as the second amendment is written, women at minimum should not have this right because, even today, they cannot be drafted -- by your own statements: "the militia: Selective Service. The Draft."
In fact, women were not even considered full citizens then since they did not possess the right to vote.
Like most things, this was up to the individual states. Like anything up to the individual states, it was all over the place depending on exactly where you were. For example, at the founding women in New Jersey could vote, presuming they owned 50 British pounds worth of wealth because the wealth requirement was the only requirement New Jersey had for who could vote. Ironically, the spread of Jacksonian democracy (aka universal male suffrage) actually cost women in New Jersey the right to vote in the 19th century.
I meant federally protected right to vote, since that’s apples to apples comparison with the second amendment being a federal right. Thus, from a federal point of view, women were not full citizens in many various terms.
The Constitution didn't establish a right to vote for men in general or any men in particular. It left the question of which citizens were allowed to vote fully up to the states.
Or to go deeper: The Declaration of Independence limited voting to landowners. The Constitution set no regulations whatsoever for which citizens could vote, leaving it wholly up to the states. There are various trends in state laws over time but nothing federal regarding who can vote (other than various immigration laws about who can be naturalized). Until the 15th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Technically, men did not have a federally protected right to vote until women did, the 19th amendment. Though state laws had expanded to give essentially all free white men the vote in every state shortly before the Civil War, but that's not from that federal point of view you're so worried about.
Seems like you’re making my point for me despite my point being specifically about women’s citizenship and 2A supposedly applying to everyone (you know, “militia”) when it actually doesn’t.
Thanks!
You raise a very, very good point.
So a single woman prior to the courts' various opinions over the centuries would not have such a right, since they would not be a part of the militia
What you are describing are the provisions Congress has made under their authority in Article I. They have created a legislative definition of "militia" (10 USC 246) that is restricted to male citizens. Female national guardsmen are the only women that fit within this legislative definition.
I think we can agree that Congress is fully empowered to change its legislative definition. We would probably agree that the current definition is unconstitutionally sexist and ageist. Congress could change their age limit from 45 to 60, and remove their "male" limitation. They could expand their definition to include a very, very broad range of people, if they wanted to. They probably couldn't expand it to include 8-year-old kids or quadriplegics; the court would probably rule that sending kids and severely handicapped people to war is unconstitutional, but they can certainly include far more people in that legislative definition than they actually did.
Constitutional rights do not originate from legislature, and cannot be revoked by the legislature. Congress can, indeed, change the legislative definition of "militia", but they cannot change the constitutional meaning except through an amendment.
So, if Congress could rewrite its definition and compel women to register for the draft tomorrow, then women were members of the "Well Regulated Militia" yesterday, and 200 years ago. Congress's failure to provide for calling forth female members of the "well-regulated militia" has zero impact on the rights guaranteed by 2A.
Then why does the amendment refer to a Well Regulated Militia? If "People" were synonymous, the amendment doesn't make sense. "Well regulated people"?
Go back to Article I, Section 8, and perform that same substitution. Replacing "Militia" with "People" does not change the meaning of Article I in the slightest.
The term "militia" was used in the second amendment specifically to reference the militia clauses in Article I. If Article I had referred to "Yeomanry" or "Snorglubben", the Second Amendment would have used those terms instead.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
MilitiaPeople, 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 theMilitiaPeople according to the discipline prescribed by CongressCan't say I agree with your conclusion there, that's a pretty significant change of meaning. The Militia is explicitly described as something that is organized, armed, disciplined, and trained by Officers.
Are you not a person?
Does Congress not have the authority to organize you, arm you, govern you, employ you? Do the states not have the authority to appoint officers over you, or train you according to the discipline prescribed by Congress?
Can you not be called forth to enforce law, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion?
You certainly can make some distinctions between "person" and "militiaman". A 4-year-old child is a person and not a militiaman. The courts would certainly rule against the idea that Congress can organize a Children's Brigade under the militia clauses. They would rule on constitutional grounds against paraplegics, or the mentally disabled being drafted. But we aren't talking about these exceptional cases. We are talking about the general case, and the general case is that it is your status as a person that makes you a member of the militia.
Indeed, I think that Congress should establish a requirement that every American be trained on safe handling procedures, as well as on the laws governing the use of force in self defense and defense of others. They have that authority under the Militia clauses; I think they should exercise it.
Squares and rectangles, you can't generalize a subset as synonymous with its superset.
Congress should establish a requirement that every American be trained on safe handling procedures, as well as on the laws governing the use of force in self defense and defense of others.
You won't hear any argument from me on this point, I do believe the states should organize and train adults with some degree of competency, although this was written when Militias were the primary national defense in lieu of the standing Army we now maintain.
But the rest of your interpretation reads more like you're working backwards from the conclusion you want to prove.
Do the states not have the authority to appoint officers over you, or train you according to the discipline prescribed by Congress?
Can you not be called forth to enforce law, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion?
Broadly speaking, no I would not say that's the case .
The founders did not make a habit of codifying lazy verbage, if they meant People in general they would have written People in general. They chose the words they did to convey specific and distinct meanings. Militia refers particularly to that portion of a community trained for "martial exercise". If you're not trained, I'd argue specifically trained by the state, you're not part of the Militia. A candidate for it perhaps, but not a member until you've been trained by the state for the purpose.
You won't hear any argument from me on this point, I do believe the states should organize and train adults with some degree of competency
As you used it in that statement, the term "adults" is synonymous with "well regulated militia" as used in the constitution, and "people" as I have used the term.
It is because we are militia/people/adults that we can be compelled to attend the training you describe, or be otherwise drafted into service.
Squares and rectangles, you can't generalize a subset as synonymous with its superset.
This is true, there is not a complete overlap, but I accounted for the non-squares in my last comment. My point is not that militia contains absolutely all members of "we the people". My point is made when "equilateral rectangles" are the general rule, and "non square" is an exceptional case.
When you see a random person on the street and have no special information about them, It is unreasonable to presume they are not a member of the militia.
No I heard what you said, I don't agree with that interpretation. No training, no Militia. A raw egg isn't an omelet . Again, you started with your conclusion and are interpreting the words to justify it.
Alright, how about this: fail to register with selective service, and young men cannot get or renew a driver's license or financial aid for college. They can even be charged with a crime, all for failing to follow one of the very few regulations imposed upon the militia.
How can they be punished for not fulfilling their militia duty if they are not militia?
I started by asking "who is the militia?", nothing more. The legislature told me who they thought was the militia (every able bodied male citizen aged 17 to 45) and I asked why women weren't included. Then I realized the definition the legislature used was not the definition used in the Constitution, and I allowed it to expand to as broad a concept as Congress would have access to: everyone.
Your interpretation of "no training, no militia" is not unreasonable as a practical matter, but we are talking about constitutional law, constitutional rights. If there are any rights attached to the concept of "militia", liberty demands we assume the broadest reasonable interpretation; if there are any infringements attached to the militia, the narrowest definition possible.
"Well regulated militia" is not the "gotcha" that hoplophobes think it is.
young men cannot get or renew a driver's license or financial aid for college. They can even be charged with a crime, all for failing to follow one of the very few regulations imposed upon the militia.
This interpretation is inconsistent for a couple reasons. First, selective service is for the Army, a federal institution; Militias are directed at the state level, so it's not really appropriate to conflate selective service with a Militia. This might be a rational argument if selective service was for the National Guard.
Further, if Militia and People are synonymous as you suggest, you're implying that everyone who isn't registered (women, children, men over the age of 25) aren't People.
How can they be punished for not fulfilling their militia duty if they are not militia?
Again, Army ≠ Militia. The Selective Service Act is for conscription into the standing Army, which is a constitutionally distinct entity. Additionally, selective service didn't exist until 1917.
I started by asking "who is the militia?", nothing more. The legislature told me who they thought was the militia (every able bodied male citizen aged 17 to 45) and I asked why women weren't included. Then I realized the definition the legislature used was not the definition used in the Constitution, and I allowed it to expand to as broad a concept as Congress would have access to: everyone.
Yes, once again I repeat that you are deciding what conclusion you want to reach, and then selecting definitions and justifications that support your conclusions, because the established definitions don't. This is extremely poor logical form.
Your interpretation of "no training, no militia" is not unreasonable as a practical matter, but we are talking about constitutional law, constitutional rights. If there are any rights attached to the concept of "militia", liberty demands we assume the broadest reasonable interpretation; if there are any infringements attached to the militia, the narrowest definition possible.
This doesn't make rational sense. The definition is what it is, and the rights and infringements thereon lay where they lay. Picking and choosing to minimize responsibilities and maximize benefits to suit your personal disposition is an abomination to legal consistency.
I defer to Johnson's Dictionary when nitpicking definitions of words used by the founders, as it was literally the definitive authority at the time. Militia is defined as "The trainbands; the standing force of a nation", and since 'trainbands' is an archaic term, I'll include that it is defined as "The militia; the part of a community trained to martial exercise". Eliminating that little loop, we arrive at the accepted definition of Militia at the ratification of the Constitution: the standing force of a nation; the part of a community trained to martial exercise.
'People' is simply defined as "A nation; these who compose a community". The Militia is a part of that community, specifically the part which is trained to martial exercise. The Constitution underwent many revisions, poring over every word. When they meant People, they wrote People; if they wrote Militia, they damn well meant exactly "Militia", as literally defined. Any other interpretation is willfully disingenuous.
"Well regulated militia" is not the "gotcha" that hoplophobes think it is.
It's a prefatory clause, intended to communicate vital information. If the information included in that clause was not important to the interpretation of the text, it would have been excised during revision. No other amendment justifies itself that way, despite the fact that they all have justifications. The only honest conclusion is that the founders intended that clause to be Included for a material purpose.
Claiming that this one clause in the entire document was included for no real reason and can be safely disregarded is, again, willfully disingenuous and an abomination against our most sacred foundations.