THE 2nd AMENDMENT - WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO MEAN

[Into the Night]

I discovered that the answer to question of how the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted is set out very clearly by Alexander Hamilton (the Founder) in Federalist #29 (1789).




The 2nd Amendment 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."




To understand what Alexander Hamilton and other crucial Founders like George Washington were talking about in the 2nd Amendment, you will need to imagine that you are back in the America of 1789 - and try to get yourself inside a Founder's head !




Firstly the Revolutionary War is a very fresh memory, and the memory of this war would include a very distinct suspicion of standing armies as a tool of tyranny. In the 'Declaration of Independenc' (1776), there are over half a dozen examples that warned of the threat to liberty of a standing army.





So, the Founders, worried that a standing army could become a tool of some future tyrant, created a system of "checks and balances" to thwart a Federal army from ever threatening the liberties of American citizens.




Their solution was a "WELL - REGULATED MILITIA."




In 1789, the term "MILITIA" did NOT refer to a self-appointed force of citizens in camo running around in the woods with rifles. "Blow-Hole" Joe Biden - if I can diverge for a second - however, thinks that this is, indeed, the case in America today; namely, that there are White Supremacists in control of "ULTRA-MAGA" militia networks organised throughout "fly-over country," whose members are busy running about 24/7 training with AR-15 rifles so they can mount an insurrection to re-install Donald Trump as POTUS !! To continue. What Hamilton and the other key Founders - like Thomas Madison and George Washington, for example, meant by the term "a well-regulated militia" is that militias would be raised by each state government in the republic Hamilton explains in Federalist #29 (1789), that their loyalty and devotion to the new American republic was assured by the fact they would be defending their families, their neighbours and their homes. (And) because they might someday have to operate as a combined force, the militias were to be "WELL-REGULATED" - that meant trained to standards set by the federal government.





I'll give you an example of a modern-day militia of the kind that Hamilton was referring to taken from Australia. In Australia we have a standing army, that is a professional, regular army comprised of full-time. There is also a civilian militia called the Australian Army Reserves. The Army Reserves are everyday citizens who are not full-time, professional soldiers, they could be:electricians, teachers, businessmen, truck-drivers, doctors,, gardeners, architects - just about any occupation you could name. Provided they meet the age and health criteria set, they can sign on to be a Reservist. A Reservist might sign-on for one or two (sometimes more) days a week of duty. A lot of guy devote Saturday and/or Sunday to being in the Australian Army Reserve. When they join the Army reserve, they are given military training by member of the regular Australian standing/professional army. They are taught how to use the different firearms the Australian Army uses, how to set mines, use rocket-propelled grenades, fire SAM missiles, as well as military communication and surveillance techniques and so on and on and on. These Reservist are pretty much what the Founder had in mind when they were referring to a millitia. For instance I could join my local Australian Army Reserve, if I did I would be joining my local "well-regulated militia" in the state of Australia in which I live (which is Queensland).




The idea of the Army Reserves is for the Federal Government to train civilians up to the stands set by the Australian standing (professional) Army, so that if ever the shit hits the fan and Australia is suddenly invaded by an army of bellicose hairy-assed Islamists (running amok through Sydney waving their swords and shouting: " [B] Allah u Akbar{/B] - kill the Whitey" !!) , or some other species of blood-thirsty Darkies, the Reserves (militiamen) are ready to swing into action and support the regular Australian Army in the fight.





OK, so, getting back to America and the 2nd Amendment. I've explained what a militia is. In the case of the Second Amendment each state was to have its own militia or citizens army who were trained according to uniform military stands set by the Federal government. The Federal government was envisaged as having a relatively small standing army, because, as I mentioned, the Founders didn't trust governments with large standing armies (for a number of reasons) Again, put yourself in the mind of an American Founder in 1789...You are directly invested in a great experiment in liberal democracy and republican government. As a 'republic" everything the state did was a public thing - including defence, and liberal democracies rely on FREE INSTITUTIONS to protect rights. So you will have to see that the potential power of the federal government - including a standing army - is offset by the power of a militia under the authority of the states that made up the union.





It wasn't that ONE MAN with a gun would stop tyranny, it was that the free association of citizens organized in state government militias would act as a bulwark against the power of central government. In this context, the 2nd Amendment WAS NOT ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO POSSESS ARD BEAR ARMS, IT WAS ABOUT PREVENTING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM INTERFERING IN THE ABILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES TO ESTABLISH "WELL-ORGANISED MILITIA" and in so doing protect liberty. It seems the Founders believed the states' militia could meet the needs of national defence, while also balancing the potential tyrannical power of a LARGE standing army.





So there you go. The 2nd Amendment does give you the right to possess and bear armsBUT NOT FOR INDIVIDUAL SELF DEFENCE, NOR FOR TARGET-SHOOTING, NOR FOR HUNTING, NOR BECAUSE YOU THINK OWNING AN AR-15 COOL AND WILL IMPRESS YOUR FRIENDS, NOR FOR VIGILANTISM and so on. The Founder were focussed on a much bigger picture, and arguably they should have put a bit more effort into making their intentions in the 2nd Amendment much clearer. Nonetheless if you cross-reference the thoughts of the various Founders who addressed this issue it's crystal clear that the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with anything but the establishment of "well-regulated" state militia - citizen armies for which citizens would need ready access to a firearm. THAT'S WHY the 2nd Amendment gave individual citizens "the right to keep and bear arms."





It amazes me hoe clever the Founders were. But like any human beings they could not see into the future. I think they kind of took it for granted that America would always remain a White (European) Protestant nation, and if it had everything would have been sweet. They never imaginged an ass-hole like Lyndon Baines Johnson would fill America with coloured Third World peasant, or that communists would seize power in 2021 and open the nations's borders to literally any undesirables/criminals/perverts/terrorists who wanted to walk into America NO QUESTIONS ASKED. They would never have imagined something like a "President" "Blow-Hole" Joe Biden in their wildest nightmares. Maybe if they could see America's Blue State cities today, the Founders would say: "Yes, every individual American citizen has the right to own and bear arms because there are so many dangerous screwballs and crazy f**k - wits at large (meth-heads, psychopaths, violent psychotics, low IQ/low impulse-control Blacks, etc; you absolutely need a firearm for defending yourself.."



?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????





Dachshund - the Wonder Hound




DLM ....Dachshund Lives Matter !!

It is not required to be in a militia to be a people. The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed, just as the right of a free State to form militias shall not be infringed.
It is not required to be in a militia to own and carry a gun or any other weapon.

[Dachshund]

The idea behind the Second Amendment is this... each of the American states is to form its own militia ("civilian army"). But it is not just some harum-scarum, hairy-assed militia that the Founders wanted the states to establish. Rather, as it says in the 2nd Amendment, they wanted to ensure that the states established tight, well-organised WELL-REGULATED and fighting-fit militia.


Now, to REGULATE a function is to make sure that that function conforms strictly to certain, set STANDARDS.


The Founders wanted a SMALL (FEDERAL), PROFESSIONAL, CENTRAL, STANDING ARMY to provide each of the state militia with UNIFORM, HIGH standards of military training. That was George Washington's plan. While each of the state militia received top-class professional military traing, the Federal standing army remained relatively small. Because the Founder were extremely suspicious about an American federal government putting together a large, professional n, standing army. They didn't trust that in the future a rogue American federal government would not use a large standing army it hd built up as a tool to tyrannise the people Having state militia that were well-traing in combat/battle skills/tactic/strategies was a check against the possibility of future government endeavouring to establish a large standing army for the purpose of oppressing the people. If this did happen the state militias would band together as unified fighty force to defend the liberty of the people. Remember the state militias were CITIZEN armies not professional.("paid-by-the federal government") regular, standing armies.


The way I interpret it, the Founders were thinking, if, at some point in the there was a rogue Federal government - like, say, the Biden administration, which has totally "lost the plot" and is, indeed, tyrannising the people, Biden's Federal standing army could be opposed by a unified force of the state militia, if he threatened/endeavoured to use it as a tool to suppress the liberty (and/or other natural rights) of of the people. That is ,DON'T TREAD ON US, BIDEN, IF YOU DO, WE'RE ARMED AND READY. That was Hamilton, Washington,Madison and Co.s thinking in the late 18th-century - that's why the 2nd Amendment was ratified. It was all about American citizens have firearm FOR USE IN STATE MILITIAS, NOT for any other purpose, like self-defence. If the Founders had wanted American citizens to have the right to "own and bear firearms for self-defence or any other reason than use in "well-regulated militia I think they would have said so (?) In any case, they DID NOT.


Dachshund - the Wonder Hound


DLM...Dachshund Lives Matter

[Into the Night]

biased opinion is wrong.

The 2nd Amendment was ratified to deny the federal government ANY power or authority over the arms of the private citizens. end of story.

Not quite true, since the federal government was never granted any authority over them in the first place!

The 2nd amendment further clarifies this limitation on the federal government, but also acts and agreement between the States. No State shall infringe on the right of self defense, the formation of a militia by any State to defend themselves, or the right of the people to own and carry a weapon, including any type of gun. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to apply to the States as well as the federal government.

[Into the Night]

Military spending is multitudes more enormous than the tiny amount of spending related to so called "entitlements".

The current spending on the military is about $775 billion.
The current spending on Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security is $2.7 TRILLION...over THREE TIMES what is spend on the military.

Source: OMB

Oh...and interest on the national debt is currently about $535 billion...almost as much as the entire military budget.

Source: US Treasury.

[Dachshund]

You didn’t discover anything, the NRA publishes a whole collection of Founding Fathers quotes with zero contest to reframed to justify guns, this is nothing new

As I said before, the Founding Fathers were prolific authors, often even contradicting themselves, search long enough and you can find a quote to rationalize just about anything you want

Amazing how for over two hundred plus years no SCOTUS could ever define the purpose nor prefatory clause of the Second Amendment, not even Thomas’s sophomoric attempt. Yet all the time we see these gun lovers tell us “what it was intended to mean,” and the biggest irony is that the “right,” just like all Constitutional rights, is not absolute, it can be regulated

I am only referring to ONE document the Founders wrote/ published, i.e; THE US CONSTITUTION, which is (STILL) America's SUPREME LAW. (And), in particular, I am drawing your attention to one part of the US Constitution,; namely THE 2nd AMENDMENT. I know the Founders were prolific authors, but in this post, I repeat, am only concerned with what they wrote in the 2nd Amendment..



Dachshund - the Wonder Hound


DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !!

[Jarod]

The current spending on the military is about $775 billion.
The current spending on Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security is $2.7 TRILLION...over THREE TIMES what is spend on the military.

Source: OMB

Oh...and interest on the national debt is currently about $535 billion...almost as much as the entire military budget.

Source: US Treasury.

Medicare and Social Security are not entitlements, we pay for them.

[Into the Night]

Medicare and Social Security are not entitlements, we pay for them.

TANSTAAFL. Yes they are!

[Nordberg]

So there you go, cut military spending dramatically and the Debt problem if fixed. Also the taxation problem will be largely corrected.

You're absolutely correct. We could cut it in half and still spend more than any other country. We could make America live up to its promises if we did that. We agree. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...-is-made-quote

[Nordberg]

The current spending on the military is about $775 billion.
The current spending on Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security is $2.7 TRILLION...over THREE TIMES what is spend on the military.

Source: OMB

Oh...and interest on the national debt is currently about $535 billion...almost as much as the entire military budget.

Source: US Treasury.

Social Security is spending what the workers paid into it. Can you understand the difference? It has a 3 trillion dollar fund built up for baby boomers. If we had trillions put aside for the military budget, we would not bitch about it so much.

[Geeko Sportivo]

The Republican Party has been very successful in convincing people that the Second Amendment guarantees unfettered access to any type of weapon without any common sense rules. The phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” has been lifted from the text of the Second Amendment ignoring the purpose, which was to establish a well ordered Militia that no longer is necessary because the country now has a robust national defense. Just as automobiles, which can be deadly, are subjected to registration, traffic laws, and operator rules concerning alcohol, so, too, use of firearms should also have limitations.

Before you dismiss this comparison, please note it did not come from some liberal or liberal think-tank, but is the expressed opinion of none other than conservative Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger. The pledge of the GOP to defend the Second Amendment is meant to stoke fear in the population that Democrats will take away their guns. Traffic lights, stop signs, yellow lines are meant to keep our roads safe and reasonable, common-sense rules for the use of firearms will stem the epidemic of mass killings in our schools, churches, synagogues, and elsewhere.

[Geeko Sportivo]

Perhaps the Constitution’s greatest quality lies in its ability to mean different things to different people. Whether the framers intended the document to be ambiguous or not, the vague wording of the Constitution ensured it would remain relevant for centuries after its creation.

Surely no framer envisioned the invention of the automobile– let alone that his document provided the proper legal mechanisms to ensure automobile safety, to construct a system of national highways for its use, or to regulate its emissions. Yet, the ability of the Constitution to mean different things to different people comes at great cost. Disagreements regarding the meaning of a passage, phrase, or general spirit of the Constitution have and continue to create political and social discord.

The current political controversy surrounding the gun culture in the United States involves the Second Amendment. Gun rights advocates largely ignore the clause before
the comma. They simply emphasize the remainder of the sentence, that people – and, in their mind, private citizens – have the right to bear arms. Supporters of gun
control disagree. They argue that the first portion of the sentence is the purpose of the amendment; the framers sought to protect the collective right of the people to form a
militia. There is no individual right to bear arms, they allege; so, the government can regulate and even prohibit gun ownership. The individual and collective rights
interpretations of the Constitution divide the nation, resulting in numerous Supreme Court cases, political action committees, lobbies, and a host of scholarship concerning
what the founding fathers intended.

Unfortunately for gun rights activists, historical evidence provides no basis for an individual right to firearms. A plain reading of the Second Amendment itself, along with
an examination of the debates during the drafting of the Constitution and the amendment’s ratification show little concern for private firearm rights. Instead, what routinely surfaces in arguments between Federalists and Anti-Federalists is a concern over standing armies, the role of the militia, and determining how the federal government should exercise military power. James Madison introduced the Second Amendment to placate various fears regarding the military, the balance of power between the federal and state governments, and the use of standing armies.

Anti-Federalists were not clamoring for an individual right to gun ownership. Proponents of an individual right to bear arms routinely use Anti-Federalist writings to buttress their argument, which leaves the impression that Anti-Federalists advocated an individual right to firearm possession. The debates regarding the Constitution demonstrated that the role of militias and the creation of standing armies concerned both Anti-Federalists and Federalists.

When conservatives swept into power with the Ronald Reagan presidency, it became popular for many of them to advocate a “return” to the Constitution that the founding fathers intended. Part of this included a pro-gun agenda that rewarded the National Rifle Association – strong backers of the Republican Party. In this interpretation, the Second Amendment served as proof that the founding fathers intended for private citizens to have access to firearms free from government interference. The reasoning used by many conservatives relied upon originalist arguments. The founding fathers, conservatives alleged, intended for the Second Amendment to provide the right of gun ownership to private citizens. Indeed, it is impossible to discuss the Second Amendment without engaging in some sort of originalism. In its simplest form, originalism is the process of determining what the framers meant in drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This is an incredibly difficult process, one that many historians struggle with. Due to the reverence many Americans have for the founding fathers, it is a powerful tool in any argument to claim that the founders intended for guns to be available without government interference.

[Geeko Sportivo]

It doesn't even make any logical sense that the Constitution provides a clause for armed revolution, but that remains a myth espoused by gun-rights’ advocates. It is foolish to think the founding fathers would establish a government only to provide for its undoing by violent armed mobs. In fact, the militia is responsible for suppressing riots and insurrections in the Constitution.

[Into the Night]

You're absolutely correct. We could cut it in half and still spend more than any other country. We could make America live up to its promises if we did that. We agree. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...-is-made-quote

Better to cut the unconstitutional programs of Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.

[Into the Night]

Medicare and Social Security are not entitlements, we pay for them.

They are entitlements. Yes. You pay for them...through the nose.
Communism doesn't work, dude.

[Into the Night]

The Republican Party has been very successful in convincing people that the Second Amendment guarantees unfettered access to any type of weapon without any common sense rules.

No government has the authority to pass any of your 'common sense rules', which is banning and limiting guns.

The phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” has been lifted from the text of the Second Amendment

It IS the text of the 2nd amendment, dumbass.

ignoring the purpose, which was to establish a well ordered Militia

WRONG. It is not necessary to be in a militia to be a people. The States have the right to defend themselves by forming militias, and the people have the right to defend themselves (whether they are in a militia or not!) by owning and carrying any weapon, including any gun.

that no longer is necessary because the country now has a robust national defense.

A national militia. You don't get to cancel the Constitution because you don't think it's necessary anymore.

Just as automobiles, which can be deadly, are subjected to registration, traffic laws, and operator rules

False equivalence fallacy. A gun is not an automobile.

concerning alcohol, so, too,
use of firearms should also have limitations.

False equivalence fallacy. A gun is not a bottle of booze. Unconstitutional.

Before you dismiss this comparison, please note it did not come from some liberal or liberal think-tank, but is the expressed opinion of none other than conservative Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger.

He doesn't have authority to change the Constitution. False authority fallacy.

The pledge of the GOP to defend the Second Amendment is meant to stoke fear in the population that Democrats will take away their guns.

Democrats ARE trying to take away guns. Are you seriously going to try to deny your own argument, or the statements made by other Democrats and Biden???????!?

Traffic lights, stop signs, yellow lines are meant to keep our roads safe and reasonable,

No traffic light, stop sign, or yellow line has anything to do with a gun.

common-sense rules for the use of firearms will stem the epidemic of mass killings in our schools, churches, synagogues, and elsewhere.

It's called murder, dumbass.
You want to stop a murderer? Shoot back.

Gun free zones don't work. They only invite the very mass shootings you are complaining about.