Why quoting the 2nd Amendment does not often work

[vito]

It is amazing to me that the misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment is as widespread as it is. Maybe the forty or fifty years preceding the Heller decision was very successful in convincing folks that the 2A "really" means that the states can have a national guard organization, and has no relevance to the individual. This is the argument that I have heard over and over when bringing up the 2A. It is astonishing to me that the average person has so little historical awareness both of the intentions of the Founding Fathers that are clearly stated in the Federalist papers and related contemporaneous writings, or in the reality that for most of our nation's history the right to own and bear arms was unquestionably accepted. I have tried pointing out to people that the Bill of Rights all refer to individual rights and restrictions on the government and how illogical to think that in the midst of this Bill of Rights the founders inserted the 2A to give a right to the states. Usually this argument is responded to with acknowledgement that the other early amendments refer to individual rights, but not the 2A due to the phrase "well regulated militia". School children are apparently no longer taught to have a sense of reverence and respect for the Constitution at all. Most people seem to think that Congress can pass any law and that the Constitution is just some old-fashioned document that no longer has real standing let alone relevance to today's world. What is more disturbing is when I hear people say that the President should just ban all guns, or confiscate all guns, etc. as if the President has that unilateral authority. When I was younger I was amazed at how the German people had given up the little democracy they had and allowed a dictator to have unlimited power over them. My guess is that there are a sizable number of Americans who would casually give President Obama the same authority that the Germans gave Hitler because they believe that Obama would further their personal interests, and the Constitution be damned. So when it comes to an emotional issue (to most folks) about the rights of gun owners, I should not be surprised at the ignorance and illogic of their positions.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

Well put. I certainly couldn't add to that.

 

[ricebasher302]

The OP is absolutely correct. Few people today have even a remote grasp of our nation's history, let alone any respect for its significance to our current situation.

 

[Hacker15E]

Most average Americans don't care beyond a superficial level, to be completely honest. They're perfectly happy to read it and apply their own personal understanding to the words as they read them. They're not really interested in trying to get into the mentality of the folks who wrote the words in order to understand how and why they're written that way.

I don't know what is being taught in high school these days, but even my civics and social studies classes 25 years ago didn't cover much beyond the three branches of government and the concept of "checks and balances". My AP US history class didn't cover the many arguments and discussions that went into drafting the Constitution, or the intents behind those words.

 

[Trent]

My younger boy just took the constitution exam in Jr. High.

They had a sheet that had the text of all the amendments, mixed up in order, and had to write the appropriate number of each down next to it.

To our schools, and children, the constitution has become just a rote learning experience, a series of numbers to be assigned to a set of words. There was little to no discussion about what the individual amendments actually meant...

 

[Zeke/PA]

Our Forefathers drafted The Second Amendment after YEARS of trying to be nice to the Redcoats.
Another thing:
"Taxation without representation is Tyranny "!
Seems to me that is EXACTLY what's happening in Our Nation's Capitol lately.

 

[DavidMS]

Its a framing issue

I don't think our constitution is a prix fixe menu. If you want to change it, you need a near national consensus. What I like doing to frame issues around guns and gun ownership, I relate it to republicanism (please not the little r) and self governance. "If our elites do not trust us with guns, how can they trust us with the vote?" It seems to work fairly well when fully explained.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Most people today do not understand that the Constitution was a document drawn from the failures of prior attempts at self-governance in the known history of mankind, therefore it is a limit on government rather than a limit on the citizens. There was a tremdous argument over the inclusion of the Bill of Rights because most at the convention understood that the government's boundries were defined by the Articles which had already been agreed upon and they thought that by delineating only certain rights future generations might be led to believe those were the only rights they had. I am sure those at the constitutional convention would not even recognise the country we have devolved into, but back to the original thought: Why would anyone smart enough to write the rest of that document ever believe that the need to arm the military would ever be written into law???

 

[jdh]

Since I just happen to have this one the clipboard:

10 USC sec. 311

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(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.


Pay close attention to the last one below.

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

 

[gc70]

It is much easier for people to pluck a few words to fit their prejudices than to understand the background, environment, and concept of the entire Constitution.

 

[tomrkba]

I refer to The Federalist Papers. It explains the meaning of the Second Amendment. It is about waging war against governments; self-defense, hunting and sport shooting are nice side benefits.

If they cannot understand that, then the person supports the Marxist agenda that is so prevalent in this country. They are against liberty.