militia - Regardless of what anyone says, the National Guard is NOT "the militia". In fact the National Guard was not created until 1916, over 125 year after the Constitution was ratified. The Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to call up the militia for various purposes. Merriam Webster defines it as: a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
The militia was called to quell the riot.
b : a body of citizens organized for military service 2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
The Militia Act of 1792 defines it as: each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside....
It was revised and replace in 1903 which expanded the definition by leaving out the "white male" requirement and dividing the militia into two groups, the organized militia comprised of the National Guard and the naval Militia, and the unorganized militia, which means virtually everyone else.
being necessary to the security of a free State - Not the individual states, but the country as a whole DEPENDS on the armed population to defend it against tyranny and oppression. Note: it says nothing about hunting or shooting clays.
the right - A right is RECOGNIZED by the Constitution as being granted by God. It is not subject to vote by the majority and even if the 2nd Amendment were repealed, THE RIGHT WOULD STILL EXIST!
of the people - Every time "the people" is mentioned in the Constitution, it means "the individual". The writers of the Constitution weren't just being sloppy and accidentally used "the people" when they really meant "the state".
to keep - To possess firearms that are suitable for service in the militia. In US vs, Miller 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that arms suitable for use in the militia were specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment and that Miller's sawed off single shot shotgun was unsuitable for militia duty. In 1939 they didn't have the AR15, but machine guns and semi automatic firearms had been around for over 40 years. This right included ammunition as the militia was expected to show up with ammunition for their firearm.
and bear Arms - To carry in public without fear of harassment.
shall not be infringed - The encroachment, breach, or violation of a right, law, regulation, or contract. Does telling people they have to jump through hoops and ask permission from the government and restrict when and where and what type of gun you can have encroach on the 2nd Amendment? If you think it doesn't, how ridiculous would you sound if you claimed that EVERY publicly posted memo or sentence or news story had to be approved by a government official?
Finally, if you think that the AR-15 isn't covered by the 2nd Amendment, close your computer, get out a quill and ink and write me a letter explaining your position. Then give the letter to a man on a horse and have him deliver it to me. THEN we'll have a nice discussion about why you are wrong.
The founders thought it was very important to protect the shooting sports such as skeet, trap. Also they wanted to protect the right to hunt.
The bowling and fishing and ice skating amendments were narrowly defeated. So today the only sports amendment left to us is the second.
Good post! I read the 2nd Amendment Primer, it basically gives the history of Constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms!!
There was a time in our history when a citizen
could own a cannon. Now if he shot it at his neighbor
or the blast from it broke his neighbor’s window then
he was subject to civil recourse in the judicial system.
From his neighbor or if he killed his neighbor then
the local authorities, his peers.
“A right is RECOGNIZED by the Constitution as being granted by God. “
Kindly quote the part of the Constitution that recognizes “a right” as being granted by God.
Samuel Johnson’s dictionaries of the latter 1700’s and Noah Webster’s dictionary of 1828 pertinently define a right as a just claim. (”Just claim” could probably use further definition but I’m not going to do that now.) Webster goes on to write “Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.”
I cite these dictionaries as they are from the time of the Founders and I believe they most likely convey the understanding of the Founders.
What does the Second Amendment mean? It codifies American’s God given right to protect themselves from anything and everything but especially from unjust government. It is directly related to fundamental freedom for without the consent of the governed despots are not likely to voluntarily cede power necessitating forceful removal.
Well regulated also meant well equipped.
Simply stated, the first part recognizes the need for and desirability of a citizen militia; the second part recognizes the God-given right to self defense and forbids infringing upon it. This apparently is beyond progressive/ liberal understanding.
When the Framers said "necessary to the security of a free State," they meant to protect the states' sovereignty from federal encroachment.
In The Federalist #8, Alexander Hamilton states the fear of having a standing army.
quote:
The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World. This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard.
quote:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert; an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."
Hamilton then argues that the formation of the militia by itself should be enough to prevent a standing army from forming.
quote:
Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.
quote:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
quote:
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
quote:James Madison adds to this in Federalist #46, saying that an armed militia would prevent despotism and tyranny:
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?
If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence... 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, and by which the militia officers are appointed, 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.
It is clear that the "militia" was meant to be the civilian population-at-large, armed with their own weapons equal to those of a standing army, and trusted to bear them in their own common defense.
The second amendment is effective simply by its existence.
One doesn't need to use a weapon to say they exercised their second amendment rughts; one doesn't even have to own a weapon to exercise their second amendment rights.
The fact that it exists, by itself, is necessary to the security of a free state. In other words, just having an armed population has served its purpose for over 200 years.
Today, the second amendment is a mutually assured destruction compact between We the People and the government of the United States. An armed revolution against a tyrannical federal government would be a shooting war with a modern military, not a "brother versus brother" war with single-shot carbines like the last time. There would be no coming back from that.
The answer is NOT to disarm the population, it is to respect that the population is armed, and behave appropriately.
-PJ
I copied that for my notes. Thanks for posting it.
well written
You are wrong on this point. It IS about the security of the individual states.
The Bill of Rights was the set of amendments calling out individual and state protections against the newly created federal government. Since the second amendment is a part, it is intended to secure rights to the states. The right of the states to be armed and led by state-appointed officers was meant to offset the power of a federal standing army intent on taking over states.
See my post #23 above, where I call out the relevant passages from The Federalist where this is debated.
-PJ
Thanks for a detailed explanation. Your explanation explains precisely that the second amendment means exactly what is says, “shall not be infringed!”
When the second amendment was written the use of firearms was a given as it was used for hunting as an integral part of survival. This was about food and nothing to do with the second amendment.
We had just fought a war with the tyranny of England. This is the reason for the second amendment. Our brilliant forefathers knew a central tyrannical government be it England or internal was a threat to free men. Thus they gave us the second amendment.
A disarmed populace are nothing but sheep. An armed populace are sheep dogs with an attitude. The second amendment is about the ability to oppose and defeat tyranny and had not one damn thing to do with hunting for food. The second amendment is about freedom!
Ask Condi Rice...
For Blood of Tyrants (Since some of us are quoting quotes):
“Well, this is another fine mess you’ve gotten us into.” (An anonymous Redcoat to his commanding officer on the way back to Boston from Lexington and Concord, 19 Apr 1775)
Most of the Constitution tells the Fed Gov what it will do. The Bill of Rights is the opposite... these are areas it either may not touch or under what conditions, it may.
2nd Amendment bump for later....