New (to me) reading of the 2A

[DirtyBrad]

I'm worried this may be very old news, but it's the first I've heard of it, so I thought I'd ask what you guys thought.

I just watched that Penn & Teller on Gun Control. In talking about the 2nd Amendment, they offered a reading I hadn't ever considered, but have been thinking about ever since. For those of you without the tattoo:

"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."

If I heard correctly, they suggested that it might well have been, "Since we're forced to put up with a state militia for security, we're going to be sure the people always have a right to arm themselves."

The implication is that the people should always be armed to defend ourselves from the state militia in case it oversteps its bounds.

This seems a reasonable reading to me, especially as Thomas Jefferson and the gang seemed to be continuously suspicious of governmental power. I thought I'd ask and see what you guys knew about this interpretation and what other evidence for or against it you may be aware of.

Thank you.

 

[AJ Dual]

It was both. So that the people could form the militia when need be, since professional standing armies were mistrusted as a potential abuse of power, and so that the people could stand as a check on government power.

(Going from the Hobsoinan definition of "Government": The entitity that posesses the monopoly on the legitamate use of force in a given time and place. Jumping ahead to Lincoln, If the U.S is to be "Government for the people, of the people, and by the people", there can be no monopoly on the legitamate exercise of force, and the people have to be vested with the means to project "force" if need be…)

RKBA for self-defense, hunting etc. was such a given at the time, unfortunately those purposes weren't enumerated in the BoR at all...

 

[quatin]

To reasonably defend against a state militia (National Guard Divisions?), we'd need more than guns. Why not advocate legalization of rocket launchers, mortars, land mines, tanks and etc.?

No seriously, why aren't we?

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Because any war on government forces will not be fought with M4s and shoulder fired rockets. It will be fought with IEDs

 

[Harry Tuttle]

PRIVATEER

the private militia used to sail about the Atlantic in ships armed with cannons

 

[quatin]

Then legalize IEDs. That's no reason to ban everything else. Also, why use an IEDs when you have mines?

 

[DirtyBrad]

I might not have been clear.

It seems to me that the most common argument used by anti-gunners against the 2A is that the "people" mean those in the state militia. Hence, the right of the militia to arm itself should not be infringed.

The counter-argument seems to be that the body of ordinary citizens are what is meant to constitute the militia. As in, you, me, and everyone else on THR, by the fact that we're armed, make up the militia that helps guarantee security.

What I found interesting about this reading is that it's pitting the people against the militia. It's not saying they're part of it, it's saying that, since we have to have a state militia, we have to be sure to arm the people. The idea being, we're keeping ourselves ready to resist that militia should it ever overstep its bounds.

As far as the level of armament we the people should have, I think that's a separate discussion. It seems clear from the other writings of the founding fathers that they were very much concerned with the government growing too large and controlling. And it seems that they supported the right of the citizenry to be able to resist.

I don't want to get this thread off topic. I feel if you think that the newer weapons that the founding fathers couldn't have envisioned should be restricted, we should talk about another amendment enumerating those restrictions.

So, to try to steer this back on topic, is there other evidence of this reading being accurate to the intent? Or evidence against?

 

[Fosbery]

As I've always seen it:

"A militia is needed to defend America, but it must be well regulated by the people. To allow the people to regulate it, their right to own, purchase, sell, trade, transfer, import and reasonably use personal arms shall not be infringed."

If it meant the people were the militia, why would it say 'well regulated' and 'not be infringed' in the same sentence? Those seem to be a little contradictory.

I think the founding fathers would have been much more focussed on defending liberty from tyrannical regimes in the country, than defending it from invading foreign armies.

 

[quatin]

DirtyBrad,

I didn't mean to steer the topic away, I actually meant that BECAUSE we are not allowed to arm ourselves to be a VIABLE force to resist any formal/organized force then that interpretation is not what is being upheld. Unless I misunderstood.

 

[DirtyBrad]

And you feel that the militia is one thing and the people are another? That's in line with what I interpreted Penn and Teller as saying.

I think this is really interesting, as I've only ever heard the argument over whether people meant state militia or just the citizenry before.

One reason it rings true is because of how distrustful the founding fathers were of government, even as they realized it was a necessity. This reading of, "Since we need a militia, lets all be armed so we can protect against them" is very much in line with that famous quote about fire and how it's necessary, but never to be trusted.

 

[DirtyBrad]

quatin,

Sorry, posted on top of you. That was meant to be a response to the comment above yours.

I think that's an interesting point and not off-topic at all. Sorry, I was just trying to be strict since the 2A threads often seem to cover the whole aspect.

I think what you're saying is possible, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the amendment to suggest the disparity of force you're talking about. Also, from what I've read of the writers, it seems very much like they were all about fighting the government.

Again, this may be difficult to frame given the eras. It's certainly easier to believe that the citizenry could fight off muskets and canons with muskets and less cannons than we could fight off Apaches and nukes with ARs.

Which is why I think it may call for a re-visit in the form of another amendment. I don't normally like the idea of new amendments, but the 2A is so important and the times and technology have changed so much that it seems worth doing.

 

[Tommygunn]

Then legalize IEDs. That's no reason to ban everything else. Also, why use an IEDs when you have mines?

If we have to fight against a tyrannical government, it won't make any difference whether IEDs are legal or not. In fact, the guns we use will probably have been declared illegal, too.

"Inter arma enim silent leges."~~Cicero

Or, in other words, "during war, the law is silent."

 

[Art Eatman]

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights says the purpose of the BOR is to deny the State--the central government--the ability to abuse power. The BOR wass thus INTENDED as a restraint on the State.

It cannot at the same time be a restraint on the individual citizen; that wouold be contradictory.

Which is why, I guess, that you rarely see the Preamble shown in various reproductions in dictionaries, etc. It IS included in the facsimile reproduction on the wall of the US post office at Thomasville, GA. It reads the same as in my little $1 "Citizens Rule Book" that I got at a gunshow.

As to the 2nd Amendment and militias, remember that at the time of the writing, all militias were made up of local citizens who were expected to provide their own individual arms. They were to be well regulated by virtue of training together--which at the time was what was meant by "well regulated": In the context, "competent".

Art

 

[ilbob]

Because any war on government forces will not be fought with M4s and shoulder fired rockets. It will be fought with IEDs

why not fight the war on government at the ballot box? a lot less messy that way.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

why not fight the war on government at the ballot box? a lot less messy that way.

Thats true, but voting only seems to affect the rate at which the government oversteps its bounds. No matter who wins, Republican or Democrat, government seems to increase in size and invasiveness.

 

[DonP]

WELL REGULATED = WELL TRAINED

The use of the word "regulated" in the 18th and well into the 19th Century was a lot closer in meaning to "prepared" or "trained" than it was to the way we use it today to mean "controlled".

If you read the second, with that contextual meaning in mind, a lot of things seem to fall into place and make more sense. (At least to me they do.)

In short, to have a well trained militia (citizen soldiers) that knew how to handle their weapons, the right of the people (as individuals) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Let the people own weapons and practice to stay well trained, in case we need them.

The idea that "the people" in the other 9 amendments clearly means the individual and only in the second it means the state, is just a sloppy, or outright prejuidicial interpretation.

 

[quatin]

If we have to fight against a tyrannical government, it won't make any difference whether IEDs are legal or not. In fact, the guns we use will probably have been declared illegal, too.

Then why ban them now?

WELL REGULATED = WELL TRAINED

Well trained won't mean much if they're not WELL ARMED as well, this should be added in there. A rifle doesn't do much against a tank or a jet.

Which is why I think it may call for a re-visit in the form of another amendment. I don't normally like the idea of new amendments, but the 2A is so important and the times and technology have changed so much that it seems worth doing.

I agree, either way there needs to be a vote for another amendment to clearly define and settle the issue.

 

[Tommygunn]

Quatin, if you infered I believe any gun should be banned or outlawed then you are wrong. I believe the NFA of 1934 was UnConstitutional,, as well as the Assault Weapon Ban of 94, and probably 99% of the 20,000 gun control laws we have on the books now.
I was really only pointing out that should we have another civil war, most people aren't going to be really all cheesed about carrying or using an "illegal" weapon -- they'd probably be more concerned about surviving the ordeal and winning.

 

[DirtyBrad]

I guess I should give up...

 

[Autolycus]

Guatin Wrote:

Then why ban them now?

Because we are already on our way to tyranny. They are starting it perhaps?


I like this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment a lot. However I think that the interpretation of us being the militia also is a good one.

Would this allow me to buy Nukes?

 

[pictoblu]

"Would this allow me to buy Nukes?"

Last I read, we are allowed to buy 25 lbs. of uranium per year.

 

[Ieyasu]

The implication is that the people should always be armed to defend ourselves from the state militia in case it oversteps its bounds.

That is so bass akwards. I find it extemely hard to believe that P&T implied that. It is completely contradictory to virtually all of the evidence from the founding period.

If there was any kind of usurpation, it was via the militia that the Founders expected tyranny to be resisted. Such was explicitly stated by Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, and others subsequent to the 2A's adoption.

 

[DirtyBrad]

So, you think the founders didn't want the people to be prepared to resist the government if it grew out of hand?

 

[Third_Rail]

pictoblu - didn't know there was a regulation on uranium ore amounts.... 25lbs isn't much, though. Actual refined metallic uranium (not depleted) is very expensive, much more so than anything else I can think of.

 

[Ieyasu]

So, you think the founders didn't want the people to be prepared to resist the government if it grew out of hand?

"Grew out of hand?" LOL. What does that mean? (Rhetorical question). It doesn't mean you have the right to overthrow a constitutionally elected government because you think you're taxes are too high (ever hear of the Whiskey Rebellion?).

It's the right to resist an usurpation, and the Founders thought this resistance had the best chance when organized as a militia. Don't take my word for it, here's James Madison:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

If one reads the precedings from the House ratification debates, the only concerns discussed were with regards to the militia (and its preservation), not a personal right to self-defense.