Modern interpretation of the 2A

[TheArchDuke]

There's a lot of debate over what the second amendment actually means. I personally think the debate is artificial. Everyone knows EXACTLY what it means...they just don't like it.

Anyway, since the wording is supposedly so confusing, how would you put it in today's English (not that English is all that different than when the 2A was written..)?

Personally, I've always read it as "Since a well regulated militia is neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The second amendment not only clears up who is allowed to keep and bear arms, but really, it defines what the militia is. Why would it mention the need for a militia and the people's right to bear arms in the same breath if they weren't somehow related?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

"Since a well regulated militia is neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


That is a modern, casual language, way of saying exactly what the original says. The exemplary form is "X being necessary for Y, therefore Z." It has precisely the same meaning as "Since X is necessary for Y, therefore Z."

 

[El Tejon]

They are related the militia spring from the people. Halbrook does a great job illustrating this in his book "That Every Man Be Armed."

BTW, there's no debate. The academic debate was over 15 years or so when it was decisively shown that the Second is an individual right just as every other right. However, as you say, the elite loathe what it says.

 

[Outlaws]

double post

 

[Outlaws]

What I don't get is why people don't use logic to quell this debate.

Q: Is the Bill of Rights designed to protect the government from the people, or the people from government?
A:

Q: Then how will the militia obtain their arms if they the people do not possess them?
A:

 

[QuestionEverything]

Well, in the parlance of the 18th century, "well regulated" means well trained, competent, etc. "Since a competent militia is necessary for the well-being of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[Outlaws]

Well, in the parlance of the 18th century, "well regulated" means well trained, competent, etc. "Since a competent militia is necessary for the well-being of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So maybe the NRA should start a militia. Offer a class to take to become part of the militia. If even half of NRA members joined it, that would be a hell military force....and legally our right to bear arms shall not be infriged. Can get an MP5 now? You all can thank me in a year or so after this hits the courts.

I even have a name for it:
Americans for the Preservation of our Free Nation. -or something along those lines.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I even have a name for it:
Americans for the Preservation of our Free Nation. -or something along those lines.

There used to be a very strong militia movement in the US. Most of them were patriotic Americans believing that they were doing a service for liberty. They were shut down by the US government, though. The media labeled them as kooks, and that was that. Try starting one now and you will have the FBI Special Forces storming your meeting halls with black Ninja suits and M16s in no time flat.

 

[Outlaws]

There used to be a very strong militia movement in the US. Most of them were patriotic Americans believing that they were doing a service for liberty. They were shut down by the US government, though. The media labeled them as kooks, and that was that. Try starting one now and you will have the FBI Special Forces storming your meeting halls with black Ninja suits and M16s in no time flat.

Exactly why I want the NRA to start it. I might be a "kook", but I ain't stupid.

 

[longeyes]

I guess they want American individualism to prevail, huh?

 

[hugh damright]

Offhand I think of something like ...

"Military rule by the US, being a threat to the free government and sovereignty of the States, the US militia power, nor any other delegated US power, shall be construed so as to include gun control powers."

 

[SoCalShooter]

I believe that we should reread some of the quotes from the drafters and signers of the constitution...


No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334


"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188



"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
-- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.


Personally I believe that the 2a is very clear, others dont but I do believe that we cannot take the document by itself we must look at what else the founding fathers intended and wrote before and after. Clearly they believed that firearm ownership is necessary to the protection of a free state.

I would like to add some quotes from other well known historical figures.


"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
-- John F. Kennedy

Obviously this belief did not translate to his drunk incompitent brother.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court

"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
-- (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD),

No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.
-- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

 

[hugh damright]

If Jefferson said "take a gun with you when you go for a walk", does that mean that the Second Amendment empowers the US Government to federally protect my right to take a gun with me when I go for a walk? I don't see the connection. Do any of those quotes regard the Second Amendment, or don't they just regard the RKBA?

I believe that the Second Amendment is better explained by seeing what the States requested, what their existing amendments looked like, why they had them ... I attempted to show the Virginia history of the Second Amendment at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=211675

 

[SoCalShooter]

More along the RKBA, but my belief is that the 2a should be interpreted not only through what it actually has written but by looking at the men who wrote it and studying what else they put forth in other documents. If you read the other documents its very clear that the founding fathers had no intention for us to be disarmed ever and that yes we should have the right to carry a weapon on a walk.

 

[thexrayboy]

The antis know exactly what the Second Amendment means and what intent the founding fathers had. However to them it's irrelevant. Their goal is total civilian disarmament with the exception of the elite and powerful. Even one of their own, the quite liberal Harvard law expert Alan Dershowitz has stated on more than one occasion that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says. He has gone on record as saying he would love to ban guns but laws that do that are violations of the Second Amendment.

The socialist anti 2A fanatics do not care one whit about the constitutionality of anything. All they care about is what they want and what it will take for them to get what they want.

To call these people traitors and treasonous would be a very accurate and appropriate use of the terms. What they seek and attempt is nothing less than the subversion and destruction of the Bill of Rights. A document that many of them have sworn to defend and uphold under oath. Any officeholder that introduces or votes for any legislation that directly violates a portion of the Constitution is guilty of treason in my estimation. In a simpler more just time these lawmakers would be tarred, feathered and run out of town tied to a rail.

Our forefathers from 2 centuries ago would not have tolerated even a tenth of the abuse we routinely endure from Washington DC on a daily basis. They
would look at modern America as a nation of soft cowards who are too ignorant and lazy to try and save the legacy that was handed down.

When I hear someone telling me that their interpretation of the Second Amendment is ( insert nonsense)
I just show them a specific finger and ask if they need help interpreting what it means since they are so good
at ascribing unfounded meaning to things.

 

[thorn726]

What I don't get is why people don't use logic to quell this debate.

Q: Is the Bill of Rights designed to protect the government from the people, or the people from government?
A:

Q: Then how will the militia obtain their arms if they the people do not possess them?
A:

freaking awesome, im gonna use that one thanks.
also the Jefferson quote, great!

 

[GRIZ22]

I've said this before but the 2A is three distinct thoughts separated by commas.

The well regulated militia.....security of a free state.....the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

While they are related they are each independent statements. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is just that, not dependent on the security of the state or the militia. The right to keep and bear arms for whatever you want to.

 

[bouis]

It is difficult to separate the 2nd amendment from the context in which it was written -- if you keep the context, you could keep it short; but if you have to include the context at the founding in the modern statement of the amendment, it'd have to be much longer.

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.

My compromise version:

A citizenry prepared to organize and fight as an effective and modern military force is necessary to the security and freedom of the United States, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And a longer version:

A citizenry prepared to organize and fight as an effective and modern military force is preferable to a standing army and is necessary to the security and freedom of the United States; and the right of United States citizens, individually and collectively, to keep and bear all arms, shall not be infringed, in whole or part, directly or consequently, by any power surrendered by the several states to the United States.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

While they are related they are each independent statements. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is just that, not dependent on the security of the state or the militia. The right to keep and bear arms for whatever you want to.

Actually, the division goes like this: 1) Well regulated militias are necessary for the security of free States, 2) The people possess, as their birthright (i.e., regardless of government), the right to keep and bear arms, and 3) The government instituted by the ratification of this constitution shall be prohibited from infringing on that preexisting right of the people.

 

[MattB]

Here is my interpretation of the second ammendment in modern terms:

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.

Lets break it down:

Well regulated---controlled or governed according to rule or principle or law. All citizens are controlled or governed by law. (This does not have anything to do with gun control laws.)

Militia---definition of militia- the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia"--United States Constitution

What that essentially means is that all adults ( who are governed to rule, principle or law =i.e. law abiding) who are fit enough for law enforcement or military service.

Being necessary---self explanitory

Security--defnition--the state of being free from danger or injury.

Free State---a state that did not allow slavery---Not applicable to our current time. So it would apply to any state.


The right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Infringed definition---To encroach or trespass; to affect (a person's rights, freedom, etc) in such a way as to limit or reduce them.

Easy one---the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be limited or reduced.

Modern interpretation of the second ammendment---

All adults (who are governed to rule, principle or law =i.e. law abiding) who are fit enough for law enforcement or military service, being necessary to the security of the states, shall not have their right to keep and bear arms limited or reduced in any way.

In simple terms, Law abiding adults shall not have their right to keep and bears arms reduced or limited to in any way.

Matt

 

[Refirignis]

Anyway, since the wording is supposedly so confusing, how would you put it in today's English (not that English is all that different than when the 2A was written..)?

"In order to secure the right of self-defense and guarantee the true security and freedom of the people, no law or act of force shall infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

 

[TX1911fan]

I gave a presentation on the Bill of Rights to a group of 11 year old boy scouts for one of their merit badges. We discussed most of the first 10 Amendments, and I explained that they were all intended to protect individual rights. One boy asked about gun laws then, since I had explained that the 2A was intended to protect peoples rights to own and carry guns. I told him that some people believe that the 2A only protects the State's right to have the National Guard or some other type of military force. He said "that doesn't make sense. Why would all the other Amendments in the BoR be individual, but not the 2A?" I told him he is smarter than alot of people.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Out of the mouths of babes.

 

[hugh damright]

Free State---a state that did not allow slavery---Not applicable to our current time. So it would apply to any state.

Oh for crying out loud. Do you think the Second Amendment wasn't intended to apply to the Southern States? The term "free State" doesn't mean a State without slavery. A "free State" is, in simple terms, a State where the majority rules.

 

[hugh damright]

We discussed most of the first 10 Amendments, and I explained that they were all intended to protect individual rights.

The intent was to limit the US and thus preserve the reserved rights of the people and of the States.