Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[Pilot1]

The PEOPLE were always intended to be the Militia, not the State. Also the People were always to purchase, and maintain their arms, and skills on their own, as individuals. Thus the specific right of the People to keep, and bear arms.

 

[Flopper]

I like guns overall, I do. But WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?

No, I don't live in fear. Until someone breaks into my house, and tries to harm me, and my family, until then no, my survival does not hinge on firearms. When that happens it does. So, when I can predict when that will happen with enough marging to call the police, and guarantee their arrival, then I will give up my firearms.

Also, when governments demonstrate, they can be 100% non corrupt, and benevolent.

There're certainly exceptions, but if you're like most people who buy a gun for protection, you would be far better off without it. Despite the huge effort to publicize successful defenses of life and property with firearms, the statistics tell a far different story of people shooting their kids, neighbors, police, and themselves. Using firearms at night against a moving person is nothing like shooting cans on a camping trip 5 years ago. If you point a gun at a potentially armed person you better be prepared to use it effectively. You have to make decisions within a fraction of a second that can effect the rest of your life. Is your line fire going to send bullets into your neighbors or your kids bedroom? Does the intruder have a gun in his hand or a cell phone? Is this really an intruder or is he your drunken neighbor who entering the wrong house or your wayward son returning home?

Faced with an intruder in the home, most people would be better off following the 911 operator's advice when reporting an intruder. GET OUT! Go out the back door, crawl through a window or hide but do not engage the intruder. In other words, being faced with fight or flight, flight is probably your best option.

There're certainly exceptions, but if you're like most people who buy a gun for protection, you would be far better off without it. Despite the huge effort to publicize successful defenses of life and property with firearms, the statistics tell a far different story of people shooting their kids, neighbors, police, and themselves.

Of course, what you say may be true, in some incidents, in others, no, it's not true

What you reference in this all falls under accidental shootings. Those make up an average of 1.55 per day in a total population of 327,000,000. Certainly not enough to be addressed as a public health problem. That begs the question though of how many times has the possession of a gun stopped a murder or a murder/rape? Would it be unreasonable to speculate that to be equal to, or greater than 1.55 per day? It certainly seems a reasonable number on a daily basis considering that it falls within a population of 327,000,000.

Since there is no real data, one can certainly speculate.

 

[Flopper]

The PEOPLE were always intended to be the Militia, not the State. Also the People were always to purchase, and maintain their arms, and skills on their own, as individuals. Thus the specific right of the People to keep, and bear arms.

Most colonist were opposed to a standing army. However, it is not clear as to what degree they supported militias. We do know that not many colonies own guns (muskets). According to a survey conducted by the militia in North Carolina, only 1 in 5 households owned a musket and half were inoperable. The public did not become really interested in owning guns till the 1800's when great advancements were made in firearms.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The PEOPLE were always intended to be the Militia, not the State. Also the People were always to purchase, and maintain their arms, and skills on their own, as individuals. Thus the specific right of the People to keep, and bear arms.

Most colonist were opposed to a standing army. However, it is not clear as to what degree they supported militias. We do know that not many colonies own guns (muskets). According to a survey conducted by the militia in North Carolina, only 1 in 5 households owned a musket and half were inoperable. The public did not become really interested in owning guns till the 1800's when great advancements were made in firearms.

Bullshit. Quit selling Bellesiles. He was discounted and shamed 18 years ago.

I responded to your reference. See #483.

 

[Flopper]

Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.

Context my good man, context.

"Why it exists" is indeed the question. The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run. That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments. It has no need at all to "explain why".

When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations. Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident. Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed. Therefore it's intentional. But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function? No one knows. It seems to set a qualification for the point it eventually gets to. What is its status in the event that qualification is not met? We do not know, for we are not told.

Enigma.

If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:

Examples being:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.

None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?

Why indeed. That's the question, isn't it. The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is. On the other hand if the intent is to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.

The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.

The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly. About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias. The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.

Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."

These were not how the document written.

Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS

Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

 

[Pop23]

"Why it exists" is indeed the question. The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run. That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments. It has no need at all to "explain why".

When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations. Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident. Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed. Therefore it's intentional. But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function? No one knows. It seems to set a qualification for the point it eventually gets to. What is its status in the event that qualification is not met? We do not know, for we are not told.

Enigma.

If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:

Examples being:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.

None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?

Why indeed. That's the question, isn't it. The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is. On the other hand if the intent is to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.

The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.

The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly. About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias. The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.

Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."

These were not how the document written.

Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS

Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

You still do not answer the question. The way to have approached the writing could, and if it supports your point of view, would have been done far differently (see my examples above), and would NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

 

[danielpalos]

This is a case of what philosopher Tim McCarver calls Paralysis through Analysis. If the intention was to make such a distinction, they would have done it with something juuuuust a little bit clearer than a comma -- they would have spelled it out as such. They had no 140 character limitation.

Distinctions and exceptions are articulated thusly:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; ... "​

--- there's an exception, with an exception to the exception, spelled out with words, not commas. Trying to hang a selective interpretation on whether there's a comma here or not a comma there, is just reaching and venturing into fabrication.

And yet, if what you originally stated were true, and they took great time and effort to write it out so that there would be no misunderstanding (and that was your argument), I've shown how, men of great ability could have easily done that.

The problem in the theory is that they did not do so, so they intentionally did not give the right to either:

A. The Militia
B. Soldiers in service of this Militia
c. The People within the Militia

They gave it to "the People"

The People are the militia. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of this term.

If so, it is not in the 2nd. Kind of strange omission of which you have no reasoning as to why it would have been omitted in the first place, seeing that, spelling that point out would have been so simple (delete people, insert Militia). And if you are correct, the 2nd is horribly misplace as well, being that it is within "the Bill of Rights"

So your argument is, that the Founding Fathers were Idiots? Is that it?

But continue please, you do provide comic relief.

Yes, it is. Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, is what our Second Amendment is about.

Nice to hear your opinion again, even though it is not what is stated in the Second Amendment and would make it's placement within the "Bill of Rights" ridiculous.

But keep up the fight, I'm sure you have 6 or 7 supporters in a country of 327,000.000.

Not a great start, but a start non the less.

Projecting much? all the right wing does best, is appeal to ignorance of the law.

The people are the militia. You are, either; well regulated or unorganized. there are no Individual rights, in our Second Article of Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

The PEOPLE were always intended to be the Militia, not the State. Also the People were always to purchase, and maintain their arms, and skills on their own, as individuals. Thus the specific right of the People to keep, and bear arms.

where does the right wing come up with this, propaganda?

 

[Pilot1]

where does the right wing come up with this, propaganda?

The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and many other sources. Where does the right come up with every lie to take away people's rights?

 

[danielpalos]

where does the right wing come up with this, propaganda?

The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and many other sources. Where does the right come up with every lie to take away people's rights?

Should anyone on the left, confide in the sincerity of anyone on the right, regarding politics, and the law?

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;

 

[Pilot1]

Projecting much? all the right wing does best, is appeal to ignorance of the law.

The people are the militia. You are, either; well regulated or unorganized. there are no Individual rights, in our Second Article of Amendment.

Not true at all. Yes, the People make up the Militia, however, the arms are privately owned by Natural Right by the People individually. The Constitution only guarantees Government will not infringe upon that Right. Government does NOT grant us these rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

where does the right wing come up with this, propaganda?

The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and many other sources. Where does the right come up with every lie to take away people's rights?

But only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

And rights cannot be ‘taken away’ – restrictions placed on rights consistent with Constitutional case law do not ‘take away’ rights; our rights are inalienable, not unlimited.

 

[Pilot1]

[QUOTE="C_Clayton_Jones, post: 19877362, member: 29614
But only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

And rights cannot be ‘taken away’ – restrictions placed on rights consistent with Constitutional case law do not ‘take away’ rights; our rights are inalienable, not unlimited.[/QUOTE]

The Supreme Court has ruled the RKBA guaranteed by the Second Amendment is an Individual Right. There are already 22,000 laws restricting that right.

 

[Flopper]

If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:

Examples being:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.

None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?

Why indeed. That's the question, isn't it. The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is. On the other hand if the intent is to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.

The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.

The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly. About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias. The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.

Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."

These were not how the document written.

Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS

Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

You still do not answer the question. The way to have approached the writing could, and if it supports your point of view, would have been done far differently (see my examples above), and would NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

To answer your question more specifically, the amendment could not read, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" simple because the purpose of the amendment was to guarantee citizens the right to bear arms so they could serve in a Militia. Put another way, the volunteer militia could not survive it people were denied the right to purchase guns.

Several states such as North Carolina wanted the militias to defend the nation. They did not want the goverment funding the militias; that is, buying guns, training volunteers and running the organization. They believed the defense of freedom lay with the individual, not the government. This turned out to be bat shit crazy but that's what they believed.

As too why, they put this in Bill Rights, you'll have ask the founders.

 

[danielpalos]

Projecting much? all the right wing does best, is appeal to ignorance of the law.

The people are the militia. You are, either; well regulated or unorganized. there are no Individual rights, in our Second Article of Amendment.

Not true at all. Yes, the People make up the Militia, however, the arms are privately owned by Natural Right by the People individually. The Constitution only guarantees Government will not infringe upon that Right. Government does NOT grant us these rights.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.

 

[WinterBorn]

Projecting much? all the right wing does best, is appeal to ignorance of the law.

The people are the militia. You are, either; well regulated or unorganized. there are no Individual rights, in our Second Article of Amendment.

Not true at all. Yes, the People make up the Militia, however, the arms are privately owned by Natural Right by the People individually. The Constitution only guarantees Government will not infringe upon that Right. Government does NOT grant us these rights.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.

Still spouting this nonsense? The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution do not comne from state constitutions. And state constitutions cannot override the US Constitutions. But any state constitution that violates the US Constitution loses.

 

[danielpalos]

Projecting much? all the right wing does best, is appeal to ignorance of the law.

The people are the militia. You are, either; well regulated or unorganized. there are no Individual rights, in our Second Article of Amendment.

Not true at all. Yes, the People make up the Militia, however, the arms are privately owned by Natural Right by the People individually. The Constitution only guarantees Government will not infringe upon that Right. Government does NOT grant us these rights.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.

Still spouting this nonsense? The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution do not comne from state constitutions. And state constitutions cannot override the US Constitutions. But any state constitution that violates the US Constitution loses.

Can you cite where our natural rights are, in our federal Constitution? I can cite where they are in State Constitutions.

That is why, it is practically federal doctrine, to question everything about the right wing. Nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional, or otherwise.

Natural rights are available via Due Process, not our Second Article of Amendment. Article Six, applies.

 

[Pilot1]

Government does not grant us rights. Did humans have rights prior to the existence of government? Just because a government may take a right away by force doesn't mean will still don't possess them.

 

[danielpalos]

Government does not grant us rights. Did humans have rights prior to the existence of government? Just because a government may take a right away by force doesn't mean will still don't possess them.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[Pop23]

"Why it exists" is indeed the question. The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run. That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments. It has no need at all to "explain why".

When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations. Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident. Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed. Therefore it's intentional. But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function? No one knows. It seems to set a qualification for the point it eventually gets to. What is its status in the event that qualification is not met? We do not know, for we are not told.

Enigma.

If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:

Examples being:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.

None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?

Why indeed. That's the question, isn't it. The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is. On the other hand if the intent is to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.

The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.

The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly. About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias. The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.

Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."

These were not how the document written.

Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS

Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

Huh?

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.