Why didn't the Founders write the 2nd this way...

Status
Not open for further replies.
StrikeFire83

StrikeFire83

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
1,183
Location
Texas
The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I'm no legal scholar, by any means, but I read the court transcript and, as a student of history, I could follow a great deal of the reasoning outlined. My point is that well over half of the oral argument consisted of the knocking about of what a militia is, how the Founders saw a militia in regards to "arms" ownership by normal citizens, etc.

My point is, if the Founders believed as strongly in the right of the individual to own firearms as many of their personal writings and quotations would suggest, why the F would they include that garbage about militias in the first place?

Is is because, as suggested, a "militia-only" amendment failed to gain unanimous support so it was tacked onto an uncontroversial (at the time) RTKBA protection?
 
in the context of current arguments, that very well might be an improvement -- however (you can call me a cynic) i think if it were simplified as such, then we'd still be debating what "the people" meant even without any mention of the term "militia". it'd be pretty hard to frame the concept to be completely free from warping interpretation, but that being said it's pretty hard to misinterpret the spirit of what is written in the 2nd if you have any amount of understanding for the historical context in which it was framed.
 
well, as hard as they tried, our Framers were not mind readers, or able to see into the future.
In the language of the day, militia meant every able bodied man. In order for the militia to be effective against tyranny, the right to keep and bear arms was to not be abridged.
Don't be so hard on the guys.
 
My point is, if the Founders believed as strongly in the right of the individual to own firearms as many of their personal writings and quotations would suggest, why the F would they include that garbage about militias in the first place?
Click to expand...

Because one of the strongest arguments the antifedarlists had was the control the feds were given over the militia. They had the power to arm and organize the militia. It was suggested that they power to arm the militia necessarilly implied the power to disarm the militia, or fail to adequately arm the militia.

From an historical standpoint, the method choisen to destroy the militia was to disarm the general populace so that the general populace could not form a militia. This was accomplished by virtue of English Game Laws which made it illegal for 99% of the people to own guns... supposedly to prevent illegal hunting. Its real purpose was to to diffuse a potential threat to the power of the King.

Thus, protecting the rights of individuals to own arms did serve to protect the militia, as weapons from the general population would fill any void caused by the government to properly arm the militia...
 
The interesting thing about the current state of affairs, regardless of how the Constitution's framers brought us here, is that we are now concerned about the very entity that is supposed to guarantee our various freedoms. I don't worry for a minute about the Russians or Chinese or Iranians or North Koreans or anyone else storming our borders and taking away our guns and our liberty. Never have, in fact. But I sure as shootin' worry about the feds doing it, and it's quite disconcerting to think about how we've all ended up in that spot.
 
The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I'm no legal scholar, by any means, but I read the court transcript and, as a student of history, I could follow a great deal of the reasoning outlined. My point is that well over half of the oral argument consisted of the knocking about of what a militia is, how the Founders saw a militia in regards to "arms" ownership by normal citizens, etc.

My point is, if the Founders believed as strongly in the right of the individual to own firearms as many of their personal writings and quotations would suggest, why the F would they include that garbage about militias in the first place?

Is is because, as suggested, a "militia-only" amendment failed to gain unanimous support so it was tacked onto an uncontroversial (at the time) RTKBA protection?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have made much difference.

Article 1 Section 22 of the RI State Constitution is written exactly as you have it above.

RI has waiting periods, a ban on machineguns, is a "may issue" carry state, etc. It is almost as restrictive as nearby MA.

This year they are considering a microstamping bill. In other years AWB's have been proposed. Usually these bills get defeated by narrow margins.

Before moving to TX I was a gun rights activist in RI for many years. Every year we would go to the legislature and give testimony on the various bills on the calendar. The term "shovelling against the tide" comes to mind.

I am so glad to be out of there.
 
Why didn't the Founders write the 2nd this way...
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the movie Airplane; "Oh Stewardess, I understand Jive..."

It's the way it was I guess. :D
 
Because at that time People and Militia did not mean government or monarchy ect. I'm pretty sure that if they wrote it as specifically as they could, we would be arguing about owning Brown Bess rifles and gathering at town halls for THR threads.
 
How about this:

"Because governments have a tendency to become tyrannical and need to be kept in check periodically through threat of or use of violence on behalf of the citizens, it shall be completely forbidden for any government entity to enact or enforce any law that impedes a citizen from keeping or bearing any weapons. The life of any politician or public servant who attempts to enact or enforce such a law is forfeit."
 
In 1790 the concept of militia was very important.
In 1790 being armed was very important.

Both were important, so the amendment rightfully included both.

They never, ever, ever dreamed that we would be debating the issue publicly before the Supreme Court in the year 2008. So they couldn't possibly have known that they should have written it differently.
 
Gettin' closer, CNYcacher, but the last line has to go :)

I believe that, at the time and as your quote implies, a militia of the people was essentially what allowed the overthrow the tyrannical government. Presuming the following link is correct: http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm everything translates in my mind to:

"The need for a functional availability of an army of the people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Essentially well regulated indicating that it be in proper working order, and militia meaning the people, such as the people who just overthrew their non-free State.
 
No matter how simply a statement is written, someone will always find a way to twist it into something else. If the 2nd Amendment was written the way you say, DC would still respond with, "The people can keep and bear arms. Just not handguns. And not any guns that are loaded or unlocked. And whatever else we feel like." It probably wouldn't take them long to ban all guns, but justify it by saying that the slingshot is still allowed.

This gets easier the older the statement is. Look at how much disagreement there is with just the word "bear" and what it meant in the context of the 1700s.
 
My wording would have been:

The right of the INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN to keep and bear arms shall not neither be infringed, nor regulated, or taxed, or licensed.
 
They couldn't imagine a time where people would be so intentionally ignorant as to misunderstand what they were saying....
 
My wording would have been:

The right of the INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN to keep and bear arms shall not neither be infringed, nor regulated, or taxed, or licensed.
Click to expand...

Then some city would pass a law against groups of citizens being armed. No more rifle clubs.

Perhaps a law taxing ammunition.

Maybe we would still be arguing over the meaning of the word "bear" or "arms"

What do you mean by "individual citizen?"

See how that goes? After 200+ years, it would be an even muddier issue.
 
Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.

Keep in mind this should influence the court in a big way.

http://www.billofrights.org/

December 15, 1791

Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
 
The reason they didn't write it that way is that "Arms" would have been construed as "everything less dangerous than a baseball bat", and firearms would be right out.

The militia clause means that MILITARY arms are protected.
 
I would think that the Militia Clause in the Second Amendment adds weight to the protection of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. When viewed in the light of the main reasons we should be armed - in defense of the Union from invasion, insurrection or revolution; the states from public disorder; to enforce the laws of the Union; ourselves from tyranny as well as for self defense - shows the multi-edged sword that our being armed truly is.

One must look at the entire picture when viewing such matters. Concentrating on only one aspect can cost you the efficacy of the rest.

Woody

That's why I say:

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
 
Last edited:
Ask any kid today what DOS stands for. Most of them will look at you like you're an idiot.

In the late 80s just about everyone who knew anything about computers knew that DOS is a Disk Operating System, and that's only 20 years ago.

Common knowledge doesn't always stay common knowledge.
 
Having done some dictionary work, I stand with it's present wording. (definitions in parenthesis)

A (indefinite article, single but unspecified person or thing) well regulated (one that is competent through practice) militia (army consisting of citizens), being necessary to the security (continued existence) of a free state (a body politic), the (definite article, this is the only one) right of the people (right given by nature and nature's law, not given by government) to keep (maintain for use and service) and bear (transport, possibly with intent to use) arms (weapons and munitions) shall not be infringed (invalidated, encroached, violated)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
2nd: The founders meant what they wrote about arms
Replies
11
Views
648
Sam Adams
S
C
  • Locked
The 2nd's fragment
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
shield20
S
S
  • Locked
Too many misinterpretations - despite anti myths, the 2nd Amendment IS simple!
Replies
3
Views
519
shield20
S
B
  • Locked
Professor Interprets the 2nd Amendment...
Replies
8
Views
891
Sleeping Dog
S
2
  • Locked
The Forgotten Militia Amendment
Replies
7
Views
836
jimpeel
J
Back
Top