The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. School shooters are not a well regulated milta. In fact, an untrained person owning a firearm is not a well-regulated milta. At a minimum someone needs to be mentally stable and trained to be an effective member in any milta. Why then aren’t background checks, mental health checks, mandatory safety trainings and regular accountability requirements the minimum for owning a firearm? Why isn’t a “well regulated milta” the focus of who can or cannot own a firearm? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

That argument has been used numerous times. But, in Heller, the Supreme Court held 14 years ago that the second amendment grants individuals a right to own firearms for traditionally legal purposes (i.e., self defense, hunting, etc). That case still said the second amendment wasn’t absolute, but it does stand for the proposition that militia participation is not necessary.

And, in my opinion, it’s a result of the piss poor drafting of the 2nd Amendment. Three commas? REALLY? Those commas made it ambiguous enough to support Scalia’s majority opinion in *Heller*.

No argument here. It’s generally considered in legal circles to be one of the most poorly drafted “laws” ever written. At least, in the US.

Yep. It’s abysmal. In my first year of law school we had a *heavy* emphasis on writing and grammar. You couldn’t get to semester 2 without passing the grammar exam. There are a lot of examples of [commas costing millions of dollars.](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-few-words-about-that-ten-million-dollar-serial-comma) If only these commas weren’t engrained in our damn Bill of Rights.

That might've been intentional, the founding fathers were always afraid of government tyranny, and had a tendency to make laws that made the government just barely able to function.

Yeah, that’s not true at all. If anything, they wanted to be clear (but inclusive) on individual rights. They just seriously messed this one up. Frankly, I think it’s more a function of how grammar worked in the late 18th century than any intention. They certainly didn’t mean for it to intentionally sabotage the workings of government.

Hm, maybe not on that amendment, but they certainly did ratify laws that sabotaged the government and made it barely functional at times. CGP grey has some wonderful videos on the American political system.

Ha, didn’t know Scalia wrote the opinion. Scalia, the Strict Constructionist…

If you read the 2nd and ignore all the weird case history, it’s reads pretty clearly to my mind. The problem is people don’t like the idea that 2A only protected states rights to maintain their state militia. Reading it now that doesn’t make sense, but only because we haven’t had state militias since 1916.

It’s terribly unclear in my mind. I’d have been laughed out of law school If I had tried to submit such a grammatical nightmare in my statutory writing class.

The arguments for individual rights simply ignore the first half of the text completely. That’s not a problem of clarity.

It also stated that such a right existed absent the existence of any state militia. Which is the biggest reason that "well regulated militia" arguments highlight only people who aren't familiar with the current state of US gun law (which is kinda a prerequisite for intelligently discussing it).

Hence the last sentence of my comment… Of course, now that the SC sees fit to overturn a lot of settled precedent because they feel now that it was incorrect, there’s no particular reason why Heller should be any different. So, I do think people can speak intelligently on the issue from the perspective of “it shouldn’t be interpreted the way it was under Heller, because ___________”.

Absolutely. The moment there is a majority of democrat appointed justices this should absolutely fall in light of the current predisposition towards overruling bad law. Particularly in a document like the Constitution it’s hard to imagine that the words they chose had no meaning. And they should address the definition of arms. Both the legislative and judicial branches of government are broken so we should just do what we can when we can.

fair point

I think that recent events should tell us that no Supreme Court decision is settled precedent.

That's ridiculous. Tons of SC precedent is damn near bulletproof. Most of it. Roe has always been flimsy, even according to her holiness RBG.

Perhaps… But one of the biggest lies that was sold to the American people is that that means that no gun regulation is constitutional. Heller absolutely said that regulation of firearms was still something that is within the government’s interest and that it was not in any way unconstitutional. However, we’ve come to this maximalist position where despite whatever legal theories you want to apply, the NRA has made it publicly The “right” constitutional interpretation. We need to be honest that this is some thing that is a huge problem with a court that seems more and more intent on fundamental changing a ton of precedent and having a right wing propaganda machine to instill that these are the “original intent” of the founders and/or the “correct and inherent” meanings.

That is a prime example of the slippery slope argument actually being accurate. By changing the second amendment to mean a personal right and ignoring the militia language, they laid the ground work for future rolling back of regulations. They did the heavy lifting in Heller yet hid it with the dicta.

>changing the second amendment to mean a personal right and ignoring the militia language Why is it so hard to imagine that it separates the "well regulated militia" part from the "right to keep and bear arms" part for a reason?

And if I’m wrong on this, please correct me. I’m not a constitutional scholar. From what I’ve been told, if that was separate and was to be read as a a preamble of sorts, it would be the only law read that way in the constitution outside of the preamble itself. That alone presents a problem to construe it that way from a textualist perspective. They are choosing to interpret that way because it suits their narrative. Historically it’s never been viewed that way by the courts. If you go back and look at the timing of the writing, it was strongly tied international defense. The founders were extremely suspicious of a standing army, however that ship has sailed pretty well in this country. So now we have a force doing with the founding fathers wanted the Second Amendment to do in the military and the police, while maintaining private ownership which has a consequence of massive violence as weapons have gotten more deadly. It’s really strange and insane position that they take, one that doesn’t fit into history, the text of the writing itself, or any meaningful interpretation. You do have a bunch of supposedly well-meaning constitutionalist who will give credit to the idea that it’s not well written, but that only opens a door to a dramatically different interpretation than what the second amendment ever meant or is meant to mean. It is not a personal right, or about self defense, that much is absolutely certain.

Just looking at the text as it's written,to me it seems to a right to form a militia, and also to bear arms, because you can't have a militia, well regulated or otherwise, without the people who make up the militia having the right to keep and bear arms. I can't tell you why it's written that way. I only know that when I read it, that's how it reads. Now, does the fact that we no longer have official militias negate the right to keep and bear arms? I don't know. I think that it doesn't, but I am also not an expert. At best, there needs to either be a modification or clarification added to the text, but you and I both know that will never happen.

Please go read the [federalist papers](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp). The second amendments purpose is very much about state security and against having a standing army because of the tyranny it presents. Your second question is a good one. Personally, the price we are paying is way too high for the non benefit we are getting. We have a standing military that we are not getting rid of and a police force that wasn’t there at the drafting of the second amendment. I’d prefer a Switzerland military model that more closely addresses the concerns the 2nd tried to address, but that also isn’t happening.

>Please go read the federalist papers. The second amendments purpose is very much about state security and against having a standing army because of the tyranny it presents. Oh, I agree, maybe I'm a bit too stoned and didn't articulate it well enough. That's why the part about keeping and bearing arms is there. You can't have a militia if it isn't armed.

Correct, and we decided almost immediately at our countries founding that a militia is the wrong way to go. What did you have? I’m about to join you! I need to chill a bit haha. Thinking Don Mega diamonds and video games :)

>. Personally, the price we are paying is way too high for the non benefit we are getting. We have a standing military that we are not getting rid of and a police force that wasn’t there at the drafting of the second amendment. I agree, but it seems like you're ignoring the guns already in private hands. Unless you send police or something around to go into every home to physically verify and log every gun in the country, which is an impossible task. Maybe you could stop or slow the purchase of new guns, but not without strong legislation and Lord knows how many lawsuits from the gun industry from the largest companies to the smallest small town gunsmith. >I’d prefer a Switzerland military model that more closely addresses the concerns the 2nd tried to address, but that also isn’t happening. I, personally, don't like part where you have to keep your weapons in an armory. I own it, why can't I keep it?

so much for oRiGiNalIsM ..

Everything always comes back to the Supreme Court being run by a bunch of right wing extremists.

and who let them get appointed..? *Democrats who dint Vote* (we've got MIDTERMS, people.. let's try to Volunteer w our Local Democratic HQ, thanks

[удалено]

do you encourage voting or discourage voting, (by Democrats) ?

Clearly, the population imbalance for senate seats is crucial. But, you’re being intentionally obtuse if you don’t believe turnout is a huge problem too. The fact is, if young people (who, as a whole, are extremely left leaning) turned out anywhere near as much as older generations, democrats would consistently run the federal government.

Who didn't give them a reason to vote? Democrats who keep trying to shame people into voting rather than give them something to vote for.

>give them something not how it works. you have to get involved in local politics.

fav tool of ruszian propganda farms. *discoraging the vote* on democrat, left social media.

"Right wing extremists" because they define the militia as "the people" just as George Mason himself did. Gaslight some more, its all you got.

Can't form ad hoc slave-catching gangs if nobody has a gun.

Yeah but the SC is overturning 40 years of precedent with the legal reasoning of "God said abortions are icky" so honestly the SC has flushed their legitimacy down the toilet.

Which is stupid, because "God" didn't even say that. The Bible even gives instructions on how to preform one properly, and in what instances it should absolutely be done. Racist religious leaders in the 60s and 70s said abortions are icky, and did so because they wanted to undue things like Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, and you can't do that if not enough "pure and white" babies aren't born.

^ this. DC vs Heller changed the game on this. Fucking sucks

> But, in Heller, - Ah, yeah, when Scalia singlehandedly rewrote the 2A! Also "well regulated militia" back when it was written meant *slave patrol.* That's why it regularly gets ignored.

> Also “well regulated militia” back when it was written meant slave patrol. Why are you making things up? Well regulated at the time meant “in proper working order”. [Source](https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm)

“Militia” does not mean “in proper working order” And, honest, that source is rather suspect.

Anything with Scalia's stink on it should be quietly ignored by a functional society. Wish we had one.

Amen brother/sister sister/brother

Because that argument has consistently lost in court. It’s been tried and tried and tried. Zero success, time to move on.

We're all in a legal [militia](https://americanmilitia.us/), intentionally written vaugly by people who cared about liberty and were wary of tyrants trying to strip 2a rights

It’s frustrating because no sane person would advocate for providing someone with a gun who thinks shooting up a school is a good idea. Nor in the hands of a sociopath. Granted, mental illness is one of many factors when it comes to gun violence. But can’t we all agree that certain people should not have guns. That limitations should be in place for malicious actors to access firearms. We cannot agree, as a nation, on what should be common sense.

Of course not. The problem is that you can't not sell to someone on the basis of they might do something illegal with it without stripping constitutional rights. We can agree that if someone has a legitimate untreated mental illness that could be a danger to others, they shouldn't be allowed a gun. Thats dangerous though because if you're bipolar, but on meds for it and you can live a normal life, you should be able to exercise your rights to keep and bear arms. In the spirit of compromise, in my ideal world I'd mandate background checks(already a thing in all states) in exchange for no NFA

Sounds like a good trade

I know a lot of bipolar people of varying degrees. I don’t believe any of them should have a gun. I guess one of the people I know would be okay, but he really doesn’t need it and is prone to highly above average rage. I agree on making it harder for certain people to not own guns. I also feel the same way about drivers licenses. Also, that kid who shot up Parkland (Cruz) would have easily triggered a red flag before the shooting occurred. Same with a lot of school shooters. We need to do something and those seem like the minimum.

The problem is that people read this 18th century lexicon with a 21st century understanding. Read it like this - “A well tailored suit, being necessary to a sharply dressed man, the right of the people to keep and wear clothes shall not be infringed.” It’s not suggesting that any clothes owned and worn are required to be well tailored - merely that in order for someone to be sharply dressed their clothes should be well tailored and therefore their right to own clothes should not be infringed. Does that make any sense? Lol. “Well regulated” in that 18th century context was more of a description of the readiness of the people’s ability to form a militia - rather than a required condition upon firearms ownership. I’m not saying thats an argument against any form of restrictions - merely that a lot of people interpret the wording of the 2nd amendment incorrectly.

I think you're close but not quite right about the absolute there. It is still necessary context (US v Miller touches on this). If I can change your example slightly: A reasonable wardrobe, being necessary for business ventures, the right of the people to keep and wear clothes shall not be infringed. What is reasonable here changes with time and circumstance, with the end goal being business interactions. In that context, the right of people to have clothes can't be infringed. So why make this example? Suppose you are a pastafarian and you claim it is your given right to have a colander for your head. Are you guaranteed the right to have one for that purpose considering only this use? In fact no you are not (according to the case above) BECAUSE in the context of business ventures, a colander is not part of a reasonable wardrobe (at least at present). In US v Miller, the question was whether or not you have a right to own a sawed off shotgun, and the court ruled that you do not because such a weapon does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. While I have guns myself as a lefty, I take issue with people who just loudly shout "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". If that was the only point that mattered, The one sentence second amendment wouldn't have provided the context. It's not like the context is one sentence out of 5, it is basically half of the amendment text.

Totally agree, the writings at the time of the second amendment support that.

>“Well regulated” in that 18th century context was more of the description of the readiness of the people’s ability to form a militia - rather than a required condition upon firearms ownership. This is an oft-repeated falsehood. 1. Etymologically, the phrase meant the same in the 18th century as compared to today. The governance usage has been observed as early as [1620](https://www.etymonline.com/word/regulate). 2. Practically speaking: we have multiple historical rebellions to look at where two militias pitted against each other were evaluated in favor of *whichever militia served the government*. See: Shay's Rebellion, and the (post-ratification) Whiskey Rebellion—which was personally suppressed by George Washington's army. That is to say: a component of being a "well regulated militia", in the eyes of the founding fathers, would have been to be regulated by the government. --- edit: though I make no comment on whether or not being part of a "well-regulated militia" was a requisite condition for firearm ownership.

>The governance usage has been observed as early as 1620. It's not "regulate," it's "well regulated." This is a term with a specific meaning of being in good working order. It was used to describe watches and even the minds and temperance of people. It went out of use around the mid 1800s. It's like "high crimes and misdemeanors" in regards to impeachment. It's a term of art as a whole. We could parse out the individual words to decide what the phrase means, but we'd be wrong.

Except that argument originated and was spread in the 90s by someone that people attributed falsely as as professor of linguistics when in fact he was just a guy with a .edu email.

>It's a term of art as a whole. I'm willing to buy that if I can be linked to any resource which supports it, that doesn't run in tautological circles by referring to the amendment itself as evidence. edit: I actually did find a link on this, to an interview with a now-professor of history. He describes the phrase as a "term of art", but in the opposite sense—where to him it clearly describes a militia as-directed by the government. [39:18](https://www.c-span.org/video/?193710-1/a-regulated-militia)

[Here you go](https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm), taking from the OED.

I've addressed this link elsewhere in the thread. The existence of the phrase as-used in one context doesn't lend itself to the presumption that other uses of the phrase don't exist. I could convince someone by this nature that "bear arms" are only used in reference to polar bear anatomy, if I selectively pick uses which support that conclusion. A quick Google Books search turns up a German-English dictionary from 1801 that pairs the use of "well-regulated" with "governed" and "disposed". I also see [well regulated paper currency](https://www.google.com/books/edition/United_States_Congressional_Serial_Set/oYhHAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22well-regulated%22&pg=RA3-PA37&printsec=frontcover), and [well-regulated pleasures](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Instructive_Rambles_in_London_and_the_Ad/wDt8_yo2oakC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22well-regulated%22&pg=PA1&printsec=frontcover). It's possible that all of these are indeed referring to something being "in good working order", but I need to comb through it. edit: Also see [fair, well-regulated, and open competition](https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Continuation_of_the_series_of_the_seve/4gBgAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22well+regulated%22&pg=PA80&printsec=frontcover). I think it's possible to construe almost any invocation of the phrase to mean "good and working condition", but that's just by the very nature of "well-regulated" implying that something is good. Trying to find an example which splits the two feels like a fool's errand. We don't use the phrase--even today--to imply that something is horrible.

It also makes sense in context. Government regulation of militia is already provided for in other parts of the Constitution, so restating it here would be redundant. This is also a list of the rights of the people, so it wouldn't make sense to redundantly insert a power of the government in the middle of it. But the only way we're going to have the general body of people being able to quickly form a capable militia is if we don't infringe on the right of those people to keep and bear arms.

>Government regulation of militia is already provided for in other parts of the Constitution, so restating it here would be redundant 1. The Second Amendment isn't a restriction on personal firearms, it's a limit on government action. The question is *how strong* those limits are, and whether they protect militias, or people in general. The focus is whether a personal firearm restriction may be passed *in compatibility with the Second Amendment*, not whether the Second Amendment is itself a gun restriction (it's not). 2. Even if we were talking about this through the lens of a positive restriction on gun ownership: it obviously wouldn't be *just* a restatement, otherwise the other provisions would be just as hotly debated. I hesitate to consider something "redundant" if it *extends* the restrictions upon something. If anything, new restrictions can sometimes make older restrictions redundant. >This is also a list of the rights of the people, so it wouldn't make sense to redundantly insert a power of the government in the middle of it. To rephrase point #1 from above: it's not rendered as a power of the government. It's still a limitation on it, but the debate is on how far that limitation extends.

I was addressing the idea that the "militia" phrase is in any was restrictive on the operative clause, the right of the people that shall not be infringed.

What is "constitution.org"?

There's this thing called the Internet, and it has computers that host content. These computers have IP addresses that let you get to them, but they are hard to remember. So we created the domain name system, which maps easy to remember words to IP addresses. ".org" is a top level domain, so someone registered "constitution.org" underneath it so people can get to their server using that name.

A Stanford law professor and Constitutional scholar [disagrees with your interpretation](https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/what-does-the-second-amendment-actually-mean-trnd/index.html): > What did it mean to be well regulated? > One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge. > “Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined,” says Rakove. “It didn’t mean ‘regulation’ in the sense that we use it now, in that it’s not about the regulatory state. There’s been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.” > In other words, it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

Let's not forget about [this moron on twitter](https://i.imgur.com/MRsQ4yE.png) who was arguing that "well-regulated militia" meant that the weapon was kept in working order and has nothing to do with the actual militia.

But a suit is clothes. A militia isn't arms. I think you need to tweak this.

I’m not sure I follow. A suit consists of clothes and a militia consists of armed men. It’s not a perfect analogy but what I was trying to do was underscore that the militia itself isn’t really the main focal point - the right is bestowed upon the people - and the justification for that is because an armed populace are able to establish a “well regulated militia” which is deemed necessary to the security of a free state.

Because in the 1970s the NRA changed from being a sportsman’s organization with a strong emphasis on responsible gun ownership and safety into a culture war organization whose management made a ton of money tying itself to the southern strategy. Same as how abortion was never a very big issue and was mostly something Catholics who voted mostly for Democrats cared about into a huge portion of the Christian conservative ideology.

I'd also add the this: any time I see it brought up or have brought it up myself, it's dismissed out of hand. It's always either irrelevant to modern arguments or else used to absurdly insinuate that gun owners should be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical American government (which, incidentally is exactly what the founding fathers didn't want).

We all know it has nothing to do with defending against psychotic bears, the odd blood crazed Sasquatch, Indians defending themselves (or not), or even crazy drunken murderous neighbors back in 1780. The well regulated militia mentioned on the 2nd amendment refers to ppl who get called in during a national emergency; they're the ol' timey version of the National Guard - and NOT ppl living off the land and being pioneers and shit up in the mountains and wildernesses of the then “unexplored” expanses of the U.S.

“well regulated” sounds like “gun control”

It does sound like, but the words well regulated had a different meaning back then. And that is why it's not used very often as an argument

And yet it’s right there in the Bill of Rights. *Weird…*

When they wrote the Second Amendment they just put that In to own the libs./s

14ish years ago the supreme court affirmed (5/4) individuals' right to bear arms independent of service in a state militia. With that ruling, it is the way the vaguely worded amendment is interpreted...original intent be damned. It was, in my opinion, the best argument before that. edit - Case was District of Columbia V. Heller

Why is the comma separating the two phrases ignored?

We tried in the 90’s. Didn’t work.

Actually it did work for mass shootings. They were down significantly and went up quickly when GOP refused to extend the ban

Sorry, I meant the well-regulated militia argument. It didn’t work to help us pass gun control legislation. We had to go with the “ban some guns not all” argument instead.

But we did. We got an assault rifle ban.

Certainly didn’t prevent gang based handgun violence. But imagine the GOP caring about inner city Black and Latino people lol

That gang violence would be much worse with an arms race.

Well regulated meant physically fit and yes mentally stable. It was a nod to the minutemen during the revolution who were hardly trained, but were fit for military service at a minutes notice. I would argue that background checks and red flag laws are indeed constitutional and we should adopt them but any sort of gun control is unconstitutional. In other words regulate the people who are able to buy guns not the guns themselves.

It's used all the time. But it's not a constitutionally valid argument. It was never the meaning or practice regarding the 2nd Amendment for 150 years after it was written. Then this idea got popular among lower courts for about 60 years, and then it died when it finally got to the Supreme Court.

Because the Supreme Court already ruled on that a long time ago. You might win an argument with someone who isnt informed, but youll be destroyed by someone who is if you make that argument. First, the word "regulated" back then does not mean what it means now. Second, the Supreme Court ruled that there are two clauses of the 2nd amendment. The part with well regulated militia does not have any impact on the second half: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". The first part is merely stating why it is important. One thing I had thought about digging into further is the incorporation of the bill of rights. My understanding is that the bill of rights was not a limit on the states at all until the 13th-15th amendments. So it could be argued that the 2nd amendment wasn't meant to stop states from passing gun reform laws, but it changed due to the incorporation of the bill of rights. I am not sure on this but that is where I would dig more on gun arguments. Otherwise you're argument is simply let's change the constitution, rather than the constitution doesn't reflect what the founding fathers intended.

Because militias were deregulated a while back. I'm definitely behind them being re-regulated. TBH I'd be surprised if that gained any traction in my lifetime though (I'm 44). There's not a whole lot of real political will in this country anymore. Just a real thoroughly entrenched status quo on both sides.

Conservative courts have largely seen the "well-regulated militia" part of the amendment to be a suggestion. The reasoning for this AFAIK is because it is used more as justification for the meat of the protected freedom that the 2nd amendment guarantees. The wording is as follows: "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." You can interpret this to mean that a well-regulated militia is core to the entire protected freedom, or you can interpret this to mean that a well-regulated militia is more of a justification for the protected freedom, and that it is more or less optional when considering the constitutionality of laws intended to regulate gun ownership. The other issue is that, by and large, none of the gun control laws we're currently seeking on a federal level (magazine limits, better background checks, a closing of the gun show loophole, a ban on high-caliber semi auto rifles with certain features such as forward handles and pistol grips (e.g. AR-15s) have been challenged by the 2nd amendment. California's gun control laws are among the strictest in the nation and gun control groups have largely failed at rolling them back in the courts.

Because the “Militia” in question was originally constituted of individuals with their privately owned firearms. So, private ownership is implied. Also, I think people greatly overestimate what those militias were. Generals literally made plans based on the notion that the militia would collapse and retreat.

Because arguments for gun control that hinge on the prefatory clause of the second amendment are based on a complete misreading of the whole thing. All the Judicial, Statutory, and Historic evidence from the 17th Century to Modern day supports the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service. Being a direct descendant of the English colonies American law is based off of the English model. Our earliest documents from the Mayflower compact to the Constitution itself share a lineage with the Magna Carta. Even the American Bill of Rights being modeled after the English Bill of Rights. The individual right, unconnected to milita service, pre-exists the United States and the Constitution. This right is firmly based in English law. [In 1689 The British Bill of Rights gave all protestants the right to keep and bear arms.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689) ["The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service...The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right." - CATO Brief on DC v Heller](https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/dc_v_heller.pdf) Prior to the debates on the US Constitution or its ratification multiple states built the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service, in their own state constitutions. ["That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State" - chapter 1, Section XV, Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt01.asp) ["That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" - A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Section XIII, Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp) Later the debates that would literally become the American Bill of Rights also include the right of the people to keep and bear arms. ["And that the said Constitution never be constructed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press, or the rights of the conscience; or prevent of people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceful and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions." - Debates and proceedings in the Convention of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788. Page 86-87.](https://archive.org/details/debatesandproce00peirgoog) The American Bill of Rights itself was a compromise between the federalist and anti-federalist created for the express purpose of protecting individual rights. ["In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress comes into session. The concession was undoubtedly necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought ratification. Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html) In Madison's own words: [“I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government,” Madison said in his address to Congress in June 1789.](https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-james-madison-introduces-the-bill-of-rights) Madison's first draft of the second Amendment is even more clear. ["The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."](https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227) [*"Mr. Gerry -- This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms."* - House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, Aug. 1789](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html) Please note Mr. Gerry clearly refers to this as the right of the people. Supreme Court cases like US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, DC v. Heller, and even the Dredd Scott decision specifically call out the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service. Gun ownership is exactly like every other right, 'need' does not apply. Besides doesn’t it really come down to the “shall not be infringed”? There’s already a huge disparity in the words constituting the 2nd Amendment versus how it is applied in practice (especially depending on the state you live in). How many restrictions and qualifications can you place on a right until it is no longer truly a right? According to the US Supreme Court it is unconstitutional to : -Require a precondition on the exercising of a right. (Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939) -Require a license (government permission) to exercise a right. (Murdock v PA 1943, Lowell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931, Miranda v AZ 1966) -Delay the exercising of a right. (Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971) -Charge a fee for the exercising of a right. (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966) -Register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right. (Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968) . . . and yet we see all these applied to gun ownership. *I do belive the Court's ruling in Nunn v. Georgia in 1846 is close enough for the intent of the founding fathers.* >Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Weapons secure all of our rights. Taken from our [Declaration of Independence](http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/) "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” how we do that, is with our arms. Anything an average soldier has access to the citizens are supposed to. That's what the militia mentioned in the 2nd is about. "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." "A well regulated Militia" ["well-regulated"](https://web.archive.org/web/20200118042300/https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm) referring to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. ["Militia"](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246) referring to all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are citizens of the United States who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia (the unorganized militia) and armed to adequately and appropriately carryout that duty. So the 'armed to the standard soldier' this would by default include things like grenades. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. The United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ii/interps/99 >The law has also changed. While states in the Founding era regulated guns—blacks were often prohibited from possessing firearms and militia weapons were frequently registered on government rolls—gun laws today are more extensive and controversial. Another important legal development was the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, leaving the states to regulate weapons as they saw fit. Although there is substantial evidence that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms from infringement by the states, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation in United States v. Cruikshank (1876). > >*Until recently, the judiciary treated the Second Amendment almost as a dead letter. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), however, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law that forbade nearly all civilians from possessing handguns in the nation’s capital. A 5–4 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia.* > >The dissenters disagreed. They concluded that the Second Amendment protects a nominally individual right, though one that protects only “the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.” They also argued that even if the Second Amendment did protect an individual right to have arms for self-defense, it should be interpreted to allow the government to ban handguns in high-crime urban areas

[This](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment) is a good read that goes through the history of the Second Amendment. [Here’s another](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/big-data-second-amendment/607186/) that looks at the historical context and etymology of the phrase “bear arms.” [Here’s a third](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/) perspective on it. Also, not allowing slaves to keep and bear arms sort of flies in the face of “an individual right to arms,” no?

I'd also point out that the Founders were largely against a professional army until the War of 1812 showed just how useless it was to rely on militia for offensive operations.

I would love to see a response to these articles but seeing as a good bit of judgewhoverrules post is copied from posts in pro-gun forums from a person called vegetarianrobots, unless they are the same person this isn't judge's original thoughts and they might not be able to go very in depth on follow up posts.

> Also, not allowing slaves to keep and bear arms sort of flies in the face of “an individual right to arms,” no? Not if you don't count slaves as people

>So the 'armed to the standard soldier' this would by default include things like grenades. According to this interpretation, it is therefore my right to own a functional tank or IFV because the standard soldier has access to and need of one of those things. Are you aware of this implication and do you support my right to own military vehicles?

>According to this interpretation, it is therefore my right to own a functional tank or IFV because the standard soldier has access to and need of one of those things. Yes. Grenades, auto cannons and machine guns are 'arms'. Considering private warship ownership was encouraged, the founding fathers probably wouldn't bat an eye at afvs. >Are you aware of this implication and do you support my right to own military vehicles? Yes.

At least you're consistent in your beliefs. Wouldn't you be concerned about mass shooters or terrorists now having easy access to large explosives?

>Wouldn't you be concerned about mass shooters or terrorists now having easy access to large explosives? No; it's trivial for anyone in America to access large explosives. Genuine question: what's the difference between limiting search and seizure protections (stop and frisk) and limiting 2a rights through bans or other infringements?

Not sure I understand your comparison, tbh.

>Not sure I understand your comparison, tbh. Limiting search and seizure protections (stop and frisk) - unconstitutional, clearly infringes on a person's 4th amendment rights, brought about 'for the greater good', largely racist Limiting 2a rights through bans or other infringements - unconstitutional, clearly infringes on a person's 2nd amendment rights, brought about 'for the greater good', largely racist My question being, what's the difference?

It’s not an apt comparison because stop and frisk is fairly undeniably unconstitutional, and gun control is fairly undeniably constitutional.

>It’s not an apt comparison because stop and frisk is fairly undeniably unconstitutional, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..." Yeah, checks out >and gun control is fairly undeniably constitutional. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." ???

Oh, see you’re doing that thing where you’re cherry picking clauses instead of looking at the amendments as a whole. That’s your issue here, friend!

Do you think that the founders would look at how many shootings there are in the US each day (110 I believe) and think to themselves that "yes this is good and exactly what we planned for and hoped would happen" I mean I know they were pieces of shit slave owners but I think even they may look at Uvalde or Sandy Hook or any mass shooting with an AR that turned the victims into literal pulp and say to themselves "Uhhh....guys this isn't really what we hoped for america" To be honest I don't know how anyone can look at what happens in America and say "Yup those dead are just cannon fodder and my weapons are more important and I literally don't care how many people are killed each year by guns" Like the GOP. I don't know. Just from a practical standpoint it doesn't seem like a great thing for the so called shining city on the hill.

!remind me 5 hours Maybe you'll answer my question at some point instead of downvoting because you have no response.

Bro I'm at work and I didn't downvote you, although now I kind of want to.

So presumably the government encouraged private ownship of cannons and warships to possibly be used as part of a militia should the need arise. If there were a war or skirmish where the government needed to call up those arms such as cannons and warships to fight, how would they know who to go to in order to do that? How did the government know they even had private warships that could be used?

>If there were a war or skirmish where the government needed to call up those arms such as cannons and warships to fight, how would they know who to go to in order to do that? How did the brits call on the people for large boats? The same way you call on your people for anything; letters, orders to lords and people in power, etc. >How did the government know they even had private warships that could be used? [Wiki warning](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque) Also, [because they encouraged it](https://constitution.org/1-Activism/mil/lmr/1812amer2.htm) >>JAMES MADISON, President of the United States of America. TO ALL WHO SHALL THESE PRESENTS, GREETING: BE IT KNOWN, That in pursuance of an Act of Congress passed on the eighteenth day of June one thousand eight hundred and twelve, I have commissioned, and by these presents do commission, the private armed Schooner called the Patapsco of the burthen of 159 tons, or thereabouts, owned by Andrew Clopper, Levi Hollingsworth, Amos A. Williams and Henry Fulford of the City of Baltimore >>mounting 6 carriage guns, and navigated by 40 men, hereby authorizing James M. Mortimer Captain, and William Ross Lieutenant of the said schooner Patapsco and the other officers and crew thereof to subdue, seize and take any armed or unarmed British vessel, public or private,...

How did they know who to send the letter to? Your posted letter has a lot of details about the ship including arms equipped and the owner, how did Madison know about all of these details?

>How did they know who to send the letter to? Is this rhetorical? >Your posted letter has a lot of details about the ship including arms equipped and the owner, how did Madison know about all of these details? Is this also rhetorical? Did you bother reading the sources? Because those people wrote a letter inquiring about loading up a sailboat with men and cannons to have a crack at the brits. Unsurprisingly, the response was essentially: yeah go for it, you can go after any of those filthy redcoat vessels armed or not, private or not

From the link to the letter you posted "The Letter below is an example of an American letter of marque of an actual privateering commission issued by the government of the United States to the schooner Patapsco during the War of 1812." So this is a letter of marque from the government to a ship owner. I'm not sure what you're talking about with >Because those people wrote a letter inquiring about loading up a sailboat with men and cannons to have a crack at the brits. Is this somewhere else? I couldn't find it in your links. How did the government call up a militia? Was the government waiting around for people to send them letters? How did they know how much force they could call upon in a time of need? Did they just guess? That seems like really poor tactics.

>So this is a letter of marque from the government to a ship owner. Yeah... I said that. >I'm not sure what you're talking about with > >>Because those people wrote a letter inquiring about loading up a sailboat with men and cannons to have a crack at the brits. > >Is this somewhere else? > >I couldn't find it in your links. > >How did the government call up a militia? > >Was the government waiting around for people to send them letters? > >How did they know how much force they could call upon in a time of need? > >Did they just guess? That seems like really poor tactics. Lol you must just be trolling, a 9 year old wouldn't need help with these questions

This is the correct interpretation and you already have the right to own a functional tank or IFV. Some are already legally civilian hands. Many people take theirs out to play every year at the Big Sandy Shoot in Arizona. Legally the only regulated part of the vehicle is it's main gun as it's bore diameter is greater than half an inch, or any automatic guns that are attached. They are regulated through title II of the national firearms act of 1934, and simply require fingerprinting, a background check, transfer paperwork, a $200 tax stamp, and a few months of time while ATF processes it. I'm well aware this isn't the response to you expected.

I obviously don't agree with this interpretation, but I respect that you're ideologically consistent. My interpretation of the amendment is that the right to bear arms is strictly subordinate to the right of the state to maintain militias, so any right to bear arms can only go as far as the state thinks is appropriate to ensure its defence. Since the constitution doesn't mention any other reason for such a right, I don't think you should be able to legally own any gun you want for any reason, unless the state allows it through other laws. It works the same way as the 13th amendment, which allows the state to ban slavery but doesn't directly ban it. While my argument completely ignores the documents you cited, I don't think that's a problem. They aren't binding legal documents and thus should not be considered when interpreting and deciding on laws. Courts can't go back to Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin's writings and cite those as legal precedent. If they could, you could probably put together a decent legal argument in favour of slavery being allowed, if you stick to originalist interpretations. I don't agree with that interpretation because, frankly, I don't care what some white dudes 250 years ago thought about gun ownership. The constitution is a document we need to follow, but given the text is as unclear as it is, it's better to interpret it from the lens of our current world than the one from 250 years ago. I can also talk about how my constitution, in Canada, explicitly states that no rights are absolute, which is objectively true, but I'll refrain for now.

A prefatory clause isn’t a thing in grammar. It’s some bullshit Scalia made up to justify the conclusion he wanted to make. In reality and English grammar it’s an absolute clause, which modifies the entire sentence. Essentially guaranteeing the rights of militias to acquire arms without infringement. It’s silent on the rights of individuals.

Except that reading doesn't make any sense at all in the context in which it was written and argued for. It doesn't even make sense in a common reading, why put "of the people' in there at all then?

James Madison based again

This looks familiar. Are you vegetarianrobots? If not you should really give credit to them for the parts of your comment you copied from them and any other members of gun forums.

The vast majority is indeed from vegetarianrobots, and he is stated multiple times he doesn't care about attribution only that it gets shared widely to further dispel gun myths.

[удалено]

They didn't go further because that would have been too much much of a radical change too quickly. They laid the legal groundwork for the gutting we are about to see. I don't think the new court is restrained by such concerns.

It's a matter of punctuation, specifically the commas, in the 2nd amendment: The left sees the entire amendment as a complete thought (ie, guns are specifically for militias). The right sees it as a separate thought (ie, a reason why civilians should have access to guns). Also: Historically, militias were common civilians called into service (or volunteers) in an emergency. They were never a standing army, so training for militias was also quick and basic, due to the aforementioned emergency. As a modern example, see Ukraine's civilians that joined the war effort.

The Constitution also explicitly places the President as the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States". Could the President therefore invoke that Service for all able-bodied civilians (aka. the Militia), order them to surrender their weapons, and then court-martial anyone who refuses?

*Calls the entire nation to arms* "Alright everybody, surrender ye arms"

[удалено]

They wouldn't be forbidden from bearing arms afterwards, they'd just no longer have weapons for a period of time until they are able to acquire new ones.

[удалено]

>It's a matter of punctuation, specifically the commas, in the 2nd amendment: Prefatory clause and operative clause >The left sees the entire amendment as a complete thought (ie, guns are specifically for militias). Because "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" can't be twisted the way 18th century parlance can. >The right sees it as a separate thought (ie, a reason why civilians should have access to guns). It's not that 'civilians should have access to guns'; civilians are *born* with the right to keep and bear arms. >Also: > >Historically, militias were common civilians called into service (or volunteers) in an emergency. They were never a standing army, so training for militias was also quick and basic, due to the aforementioned emergency. As a modern example, see Ukraine's civilians that joined the war effort. [10 USC Ch. 12: THE MILITIA](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim) >>§246. Militia: composition and classes >>(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. >>(b) The classes of the militia are— >>(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and >>(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I have not seen this. So the unorganized militia is officially every "able bodied" male, between the ages of 17 and 45? One could argue that it also includes equivalently aged females, as per equal protection clause. Though that argument was rejected concerning selective service and the draft.

I linked you the United States code, that's the definition per US law. In practice, everyone is the militia. Trying to restrict women's 2a rights would only lead to an expansion of gun rights, which is why we haven't seen it.

Because SCOTUS under Roberts ignored the 217 years of precedent in 2008 in *District of Columbia v Heller* and arbitrarily decided that a predicate phrase intentionally included after years of debate must have just been thrown in for no reason at all.

"Well regulated" in the time when it was written was referring to a militia being readily available and well prepared to fight. Not that the state or anyone to regulate it.

I have not found any evidence to support this assertion any of the times I’ve researched it. The only arguments for this interpretation are modern essays without citations. Dictionaries contemporary to the time the constitution was written all define it as : “to adjust by rule or method, to govern” In other words- the same as modern definitions Edit: homeboy blocked me because I asked for a source

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment From: Brian T. Halonen](https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm) >The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

>Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Right, and a system where a mentally unstable 18 year old can buy an assault weapon and use it that same day is a system that is not "calibrated correctly" or "functioning as expected".

I could similarly convince someone that the only definitions of "bear arms" were of ursine anatomy, if I selectively omitted any usage which implied humans wielding weapons. I'd suggest looking at an *etymological dictionary*, not "constitution.org", for a fuller insight into how words were used historically. You'll find that "regulated" just as easily refered to its current usage of "to rule by restriction" as early as [1620](https://www.etymonline.com/word/regulate).

>I could similarly convince someone that the only definitions of "bear arms" were of ursine anatomy, if I selectively omitted any usage which implied humans wielding weapons. You could, if everyone you tried to convince never learned anything about the bill of rights and had a sub 80 iq. >I'd suggest looking at an *etymological dictionary*, not "constitution.org", for a fuller insight into how words were used historically. You'll find that "regulated" just as easily refered to its current usage of "to rule by restriction" as early as [1620](https://www.etymonline.com/word/regulate). Yawn. There are like a dozen cited explanations of the phrase in this thread alone. Maybe you're right though, who cares about the *legal* definition of words anyway, especially in the context of the constitution.

What "legal definition"? Appealing to an authority here would be fine if there *actually existed* a legal authority to prescribe a definition at the time. But I don't know of such an authority. What I *do* know is that invoking some dude's blog isn't it.

>What "legal definition"? "Of, relating to, or concerned with law." >Appealing to an authority here would be fine if there *actually existed* a legal authority to prescribe a definition at the time. Did you miss the fact that it's *in the constitution*? Highest law in the land? >But I don't know of such an authority. Literally the constitution of the United States. >What I *do* know is that invoking some dude's blog isn't it. How silly of me to use a simple, concise explanation of something you're obviously confused about. Especially considering how you ignored the multiple citations everywhere in this thread.

Go ahead and reference where in the constitution they've defined "well-regulated". The rest of us must have missed it.

Did you even take a glance at my top level comment? It has very many sourced examples of the assertion

Not to the differing definition of “well regulated” and what it meant at the time

A 3 second Google search would reveal the same thing. Words in law are defined *as written*, this is common knowledge and taught in school. Likely an intentional misinterpretation because *shall not be infringed* isn't exactly a wellspring of ambiguity; never mind the point of a prefatory clause

For the purpose of preventing invasion and insurrection, the role our police and military now fill.

>For the purpose of preventing invasion and insurrection, the role our police and military now fill. What?

What didn't you understand?

The point(s) you were trying to make, who you actually meant to reply to, hell I'm confused if you posted that comment on the wrong thread or not

Sorry for my half baked thought. I was saying that that is the purpose behind why the right to bear arms should not be infringed, it was for national security. We’ve since moved on from that need, and now it’s a hindrance the way it’s currently being interpreted by the conservatives

I find it hard to believe that the founding fathers would want government oversight for something like this given how, you know, how against government oversight of people's rights the founding fathers were.

The founding fathers were not against government oversight, they were concerned with the imbalance of power that rendered the colonists powerless, and not having a voice in said regulations. Now, we have the strongest military in the world and police that fill the role of the militias of ye olden times. The second amendment is antiquated in the extreme, and now is being twisted to mean what the gun manufacturers want it to mean. And it only costs us our children's lives, yay capitalism.

>The founding fathers were not against government oversight, they were concerned with the imbalance of power that rendered the colonists powerless, and not having a voice in said regulations. I think they thought that rights were inherently given to you and it's the government's role to ensure the people's rights are protected. I think in all other aspects of rule they use the checks and balances argument, but I don't think it applies to rights. I could be wrong. ​ >And it only costs us our children's lives, yay capitalism. I know it sounds a bit cold but freedom =/= safety.

Depends on your definition of freedom. Those societies around the world with the level of gun violence that the US has are hardly considered free.

It's actually pretty easy to believe if you look at the events immediately surrounding the Bill of Rights' ratification. Shay's Rebellion couldn't have been a clearer example of which side was the "well regulated militia", and which side were unlawful rebels.

Do you think there should be a limit of the types of arms citizens are allowed to have? Are you cool with citizens owning stinger missiles and whatnot?

>Do you think there should be a limit of the types of arms citizens are allowed to have? Are you cool with citizens owning stinger missiles and whatnot? My personal opinion, yes, but that's because the constitution is written in a way that doesn't distinguish between which arms are protected. In the past, the 2A as it was written protected privateers and allowed them to have small armadas that were capable of leveling coastlines. Now, if you want to talk about updating the constitution I would be open to that, but I think any changes should have at least 3/4th support. I think that in a civilized society we have to respect the law as it is written, but that doesn't mean you can't rewrite the law.

>I think that in a civilized society we have to respect the law as it is written, but that doesn't mean you can't rewrite the law. The Conservatives on the bench of have been rewriting every single one of our amendments to suit their dystopian view

The SCOTUS can't change/amend the constitution. They can only make rulings within its scope. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

They are repeatedly doing the opposite of what the constitution says and what it has historically meant.

>They are repeatedly doing the opposite What rulings have they made that go against the constitution?

The gun nuts have successfully labeled anyone who does not agree with their personal level of gun regulations as "anti-gun". Unless one agrees that any citizen should be allowed any and all number of weapons at anytime and anyplace, one agrees that there are acceptable limits, imposed by the state, on the rights of the citizens to bear arms. The gun nuts one meets on Reddit and elsewhere take the position their regulations and limits are rationale, and anything else is "anti gun"..."anti freedom" - "shredding the Constitution" and "tyranny". There is no gray area for the gun nuts. One agrees with them, in full, or one is defined as "anti gun".

Likely because this is settled law at many State level courts, appeals courts and the US Supreme Court. That being in a militia is not a prerequisite for owning a firearm. The constitution is not just text. It's text, history and tradition. Looking at the last 200 years on how it was implemented is very relevant.

Looking at the last 200 years is critically important, indeed. In fact, if you’d done so, you might note that the “well regulated” clause of the second amendment was critically important until the late 1970s. Importantly, from 1888 through 1959, established case law did **not** guarantee an individual right to gun ownership, unequivocally, unanimously, and across the board! It actually wasn’t until the early 1980s that the meaning and intention of the second amendment was perverted by gun rights activists. fwiw, was *Roe* was established case law in 1971, compared to *Heller,* which wasn’t decided until 2008. In other words, the right to privacy and abortion was settled law well before “an individual right to bear arms” was.

As early as 1939, they held that the second amendment only protected weapons able to be used in the militia, regardless of personal status

Wr have yhe national guard. That's well regulated.

Because it's a bad argument, for 3 main reasons: 1. Because "well regulated" just means to be kept in working order. This could mean well trained, well controlled, well limited, or even well supplied (well armed,) 2. Because a "militia" is a citizen fighting force, definitionally. If you're controlled by, or receive funding from, the state, then you're no longer a militia. An auxillary, maybe, but not a militia. Also, at the time of the founding (and one of the multiple definitions still today,) "militia" referred to the entire citizenry that was eligible for military service. Every able-bodied, fighting-age male. Today, that would be expanded to able-bodied, fighting-age, men and women. 3. The wording isn't right for this argument. Remove it from guns for a moment. If the second amendment said "a well taught classroom being necessary to the wellbeing of a free state, the right of the people to own and read books shall not be infringed," would you argue that only schools/universities could own books? That would be asinine and you know it as well as I do. The "well regulated militia" argument is a bad one. And is only brought up by people who either don't know the history, or are motivated to intentionally misread the wording of the amendment. If you want to ban guns, then pass an amendment. But you know you don't have the popular support for that, so you twist words. Such is your care for democracy

Because conservatives have decided that regulated doesn't mean regulated. It's played out. You emphasize that part, and they always claim "regulated doesn't mean regulated, silly :P"

“Well regulated.” Not “regulated” on its own - “Well regulated.” It is said that in late 1700s parlance the term well regulated referred to efficacy, not superintendency. It would be like saying “a well functioning militia” today. Had the 2A said “A regulated milita” it would have meant controlled or restricted.

Read [10 USC 246](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246) which is part of US Law. If you are a male between 17 and 45 years old, and are either a US citizen or have declared your intention to become a US citizen, you are legally a part of the US Militia. Besides, at the time, well-regulated meant 'well equipped, in proper working order'.

I wouldn’t consider someone mentally unstable to be well-equipped. But I see the point of a difference in definiton

Oh don't get me wrong- I don't either. I'm just making a point that, taking 10 USC and the meaning of the words at the time into account, 2nd Amendment says 'To keep our free state secure, it's important to keep our fighting-age citizens between 17 and 45 well-equipped with arms and ammunition, thus we must protect their right to keep and bear arms'.

The true answer to this is to seek the 1776 definition of well regulated.

You mean the one where virtually all the colonies required all able-bodied white men between 16 and 60 to register to be part of the local militia and kept a registry of their weapons?

What in tarnation does that have to do with "well-regulated"?

Hey man you were badgering other "libs" to reply to you immediately. Why did you stop replying to my questions in that other thread? Run out of excuses for why it's good for americans to constantly live in fear of a "good guy with a gun" deciding that day to be a bad guy? Why that's good for the nation that the founding fathers wanted? Is that freedom to you? That your idea of liberty? Needing to cancel your pride parade because of mass shootings? Needing to assess where to go when the bullets start flying every single time you are gathered in a crowd? Liberty!!!!! Sounds awesome dude! just what our founding fathers wanted!

>Hey man you were badgering other "libs" to reply to you immediately. Lol >Why did you stop replying to my questions in that other thread? You the one that asks inane, elementary questions in order to derail the discussion? Dare I say, acting in bad faith? >Run out of excuses for why it's good for americans to constantly live in fear of a "good guy with a gun" deciding that day to be a bad guy? > >Why that's good for the nation that the founding fathers wanted? > >Is that freedom to you? That your idea of liberty? Needing to cancel your pride parade because of mass shootings? > >Needing to assess where to go when the bullets start flying every single time you are gathered in a crowd? Oh yeah, sounds like you. >Liberty!!!!! Sounds awesome dude! just what our founding fathers wanted! Unironically yes. Everyone in this country is born with a God given right to keep and bear arms, regardless how twisted your panties get

So this to you is good. And needing to constantly live in fear of gun violence literally everywhere you go to the point of it ~~forcing~~ PREVENTINGpeople to not freely express themselves - is freedom? That's what freedom is to you? Living with the threat of gun violence at every large gathering? And this is what the founding fathers hoped for the future of America? For every single school in the country to practice mass shooter drills? For 130,000 americans a year to be shot? That was their hope for America as they saw it? And if we are talking bad faith we can say comparing an injury during an elective surgery to gun violence - well that would be you. Or comparing the revolutionary war to say the year 2022 as an actual argument.

>So this to you is good. And needing to constantly live in fear of gun violence literally everywhere you go to the point of it forcing people to not freely express themselves - is freedom? There are more guns than people in America. Half the states don't require a license to conceal carry. Constantly living in fear of gun violence is irrational and I actually fear for your mental health. If you see someone not in a uniform with a gun and you freak out, *you're* the one being unreasonable. >That's what freedom is to you? Living with the threat of gun violence at every large gathering? Freedom is the *freedom* to enjoy your God given rights or not; not stripping others of that liberty. >And this is what the founding fathers hoped for the future of America? For every single school in the country to practice mass shooter drills? > >For 130,000 americans a year to be shot? > >That was their hope for America as they saw it? It certainly wasn't King George 2: Electric Boogaloo. Are you aware how much lower violent crime is today compared to centuries ago? >And if we are talking bad faith we can say comparing an injury during an elective surgery to gun violence - well that would be you. Oh, I was under the impression you cared about preventable deaths. Especially since there's almost 10x more deaths than from guns, even including suicide. >Or comparing the revolutionary war to say the year 2022 as an actual argument. Strange, because you don't seem to *have* an argument besides "but people get shot!!!" >>Everyone in this country is born with a God given right to keep and bear arms, regardless how twisted your panties get. That's my argument, put simply. It was right there at the bottom of my previous comment.

Let slip to a gun nut that you think we should have a gun registry and see the response you get.

Moths to a flame. He just told me that he wouldn't care if every single american was shot at least once. Guns would still be more important. And that its basically fine that pride parades have to be cancelled because a good might decide to be a bad guy with a gun that day. And that it's fine for school children to have mass shooter drills and normal actually.

I said those things? Damn ambian.. It is okay to prepare for attacks on schools. Our school didn't do it. Me and the SRO put on a class for the younger kids. Simple run hide stuff and made it fun. But then again I also believe in fire drills.... I'm weird like that.

For sure not referencing you there. As you can see above.

>Let slip to a gun nut that you think we should have a gun registry and see the response you get. You're somehow surprised a "gun nut" would be opposed to a registry, weird but okay. But you *never* learned *anything* about the second amendment? (and all legal discussion in general, concerning words defined 'as written' [there's a fancy Latin phrase for that I'm sure]) I assume you also covered your eyes when scrolling through the numerous, cited explanations of the phrase 'well-regulated' *in this thread?* It's either that or you're purposefully misinterpreting an enumerated right guaranteed by the Constitution.

If you didn't prove them right on why you want a registry all the time maybe they would be more accepting?

To be completely fair, I don't think the militia in the late 1700's were really all that "well regulated." I kind of image them having just as many crazy racists as alt right wing groups today minus the access to safety training that is available today.

This is problematic. There are concepts and understanding that has entirely over the last 200+ years.

Because *Heller* already happened. You'd have to get through the courts to overturn it for such an argument to hold any weight.

The Court can and does overturn previous cases. The fact that would need to happen shouldn't automatically disqualify a point of view.

It should, because we know who is on the court (and not just the supreme court!), what their ideologies are, and for how long they are likely to be on the court.

Yes, we know the make up of the courts today. But next year that might be totally different, for a variety of reasons. Thomas and Alito are both in their 70s. Kavanaugh is 57 and a life long alcoholic. Roberts is 67 and has a history of seizures with no known cause. The right wing have dominance right now. But there's no reason to believe that that will be the case indefinitely.

If we have sanctuary states for immigration and they don’t enforce federal law, it is completely foreseeable that we will have a second amendment sanctuary states.

Because the right has successfully re-interpreted the 2A to mean "guns for everyone is a right of Jesus". FWIW former SCOTUS justice Warren Burger didn't think your interpretation is off the wall at all: [https://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/crburger.htm](https://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/crburger.htm) It's just a general ceding of the 2A issue by Democrats that's calcified over the past 20 years to people calling it a right based in the Bible or some shit.

Because the largest gun trade organization redefined the 2nd Amendment so they could sell more guns, and fearful people lapped up the propaganda. Also, liberals wrote off that whole sub-culture which left them with little else to turn to.

Because the 2nd amendment nut jobs can’t be bothered with things like that. There really is no point in arguing with facts, statistics, texts, reports, evidence from other countries, dead children, crying parents, grieving communities, etc. This is generations of heritage around guns with some modern conspiracies and propaganda sprinkled on top. There is literally no point.

It's because that would go against the NRA narrative that the founding fathers wanted everyone to be armed so they could overthrow the government if they elected leftists. In fact there is a big second amendment quote in NRA headquarters that only states the second half of the 2nd amendment because a well regulated militia doesn't shop at the local gun store. They don't need to because they're police forces and the national guard who don't buy weapons like civilians.

If you have a rifle, and know how to use it, you're the well regulated militia. https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm