Your Interpretation/Opinion of the Second Amendment

[Skinia]

Come back to Texas where we are civilized.

September, 2015.

You're stuck in NY for that long? Shit, man. Condolences.

[Dyakovo]

Except I didn't. Which would be why you snipped the quote and link where I showed that not only is viewing the second amendment as not granting an individual right to bear arms reasonable, for almost 70 years it was the "correct" interpretation.

Problem being the Supreme Court in two decisions within the last decade disagrees with that interpretation a and that for the first century or so of the nations history it was interpreted as an individual right.

Okay? And that has what to do with what I actually said?

---

Except it wasn't useful when created. It was a contributing factor (possibly a major one) in the US not accomplishing it's secondary goals in the War of 1812.

How so?

The militia units fared horribly when faced with British regular army troops. They lacked the training and discipline necessary.

---

Except I didn't. Which would be why you snipped the quote and link where I showed that not only is viewing the second amendment as not granting an individual right to bear arms reasonable, for almost 70 years it was the "correct" interpretation.

You did. Now you just whine about it instead of showing this 'right of the militia' you claim, because you couldn't find any such thing (there's a good reason for this: doesn't exist)

Uh-huh.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290).

sauce
Go ahead. Snip it out again and claim that it doesn't exist.

---

Even odder oddities are some Eastern European countries where you have to prove your life is in danger in order to have them issue a self defense gun permit.

New York is like that. A guy I used to fly with applied for one. He was rejected, and told that his life needed to be under a specific, ongoing threat. Someone tried to murder you once? Doesn't count, it was only once. Assaulted, robbed, car-jacked, and raped on a weekly basis, but by different people each time? Doesn't count, that's not a specific threat, just a series of coincidences.

Don't lie.

---

New York is like that. A guy I used to fly with applied for one. He was rejected, and told that his life needed to be under a specific, ongoing threat. Someone tried to murder you once? Doesn't count, it was only once. Assaulted, robbed, car-jacked, and raped on a weekly basis, but by different people each time? Doesn't count, that's not a specific threat, just a series of coincidences.

One of the many reasons New York is a shithole, and I am leaving.

One problem. He's lying.

---

One of the many reasons New York is a shithole, and I am leaving.

Come back to Texas where we are civilized.

Uh-huh. Civilized... Sure...

State	State Population	Gun Murders (total)	Gun Murders (rate)
New York	19,378,102	517	2.7
Texas	25,145,561	805	3.2

[-Shie-]

The right to own guns? No. That's how leaders like me get shot. The masses should not have projectile weapons. Only the police and military should be armed with guns. If there is gang violence or crime in your neighborhood, the police should exterminate it like rats. Criminals should not have a fighting chance.

[Dyakovo]

The right to own guns? No. That's how leaders like me get shot. The masses should not have projectile weapons. Only the police and military should be armed with guns. If there is gang violence or crime in your neighborhood, the police should exterminate it like rats. Criminals should not have a fighting chance.

You're not a leader.

[Big Jim P]

September, 2015.

You're stuck in NY for that long? Shit, man. Condolences.

Thanks. I will survive.

[Big Jim P]

Problem being the Supreme Court in two decisions within the last decade disagrees with that interpretation a and that for the first century or so of the nations history it was interpreted as an individual right.

Okay? And that has what to do with what I actually said?

---

How so?

The militia units fared horribly when faced with British regular army troops. They lacked the training and discipline necessary.

---

You did. Now you just whine about it instead of showing this 'right of the militia' you claim, because you couldn't find any such thing (there's a good reason for this: doesn't exist)

Uh-huh.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290).

sauce
Go ahead. Snip it out again and claim that it doesn't exist.

---

New York is like that. A guy I used to fly with applied for one. He was rejected, and told that his life needed to be under a specific, ongoing threat. Someone tried to murder you once? Doesn't count, it was only once. Assaulted, robbed, car-jacked, and raped on a weekly basis, but by different people each time? Doesn't count, that's not a specific threat, just a series of coincidences.

Don't lie.

---

One of the many reasons New York is a shithole, and I am leaving.

One problem. He's lying.

---

Come back to Texas where we are civilized.

Uh-huh. Civilized... Sure...

State	State Population	Gun Murders (total)	Gun Murders (rate)
New York	19,378,102	517	2.7
Texas	25,145,561	805	3.2

Care to expand that chart to include defensive shootings?

[-Shie-]

The right to own guns? No. That's how leaders like me get shot. The masses should not have projectile weapons. Only the police and military should be armed with guns. If there is gang violence or crime in your neighborhood, the police should exterminate it like rats. Criminals should not have a fighting chance.

You're not a leader.

I am a leader. I'm going to be President of the United States of America, and when I am nobody will get away with saying that I'm not a leader because I will be one forever.

[Skinia]

You're not a leader.

I am a leader. I'm going to be President of the United States of America, and when I am nobody will get away with saying that I'm not a leader because I will be one forever.

What a lovely power fantasy. Also a pipe dream.

[Dyakovo]

You're not a leader.

I am a leader. I'm going to be President of the United States of America, and when I am nobody will get away with saying that I'm not a leader because I will be one forever.

[Dyakovo]

Uh-huh. Civilized... Sure...

State	State Population	Gun Murders (total)	Gun Murders (rate)
New York	19,378,102	517	2.7
Texas	25,145,561	805	3.2

Care to expand that chart to include defensive shootings?

You do understand the legal meaning of murder, yes?

Murder
Murder: an Overview

Definition

Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being. See Homicide. The precise legal definition of murder varies by jurisdiction. Most states distinguish between different degrees of murder. Some other states base their murder laws on the Model Penal Code.


Background: Common Law Murder

At common law, murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a legal term of art, that encompasses the following types of murder:

"Intent-to-kill murder"
"Grievous-bodily-harm murder" - Killing someone in an attack intended to cause them grievous bodiliy harm. For example, if a person fatally stabbed someone, even if she only intended to wound her victim, she could still be executed.
"Felony-murder" - Killing someone while in the process of committing a felony. Note that at common law, there were few felonies, and all carried the death penalty. For example, at common law, robbery was a felony. So if a robber accidentally killed someone during a robbery, the robber could be executed.
"Depraved heart murder" - Killing someone in a way that demonstrates a callous disregard for the value of human life. For example, if a person intentionally fires a gun into a crowded room, and someone dies, the person could be convicted of depraved heart murder.
These definitions are valuable because they inform subsequent reforms of American murder law.

The Pennsylvania Method

The Pennsylvania Method is a catch-all term for systems of classifying murder by degree. Certain, specified types of murder were first-degree murder, and carried the death penalty. All other types of murder were second-degree murder, which did not carry the death penalty.

First-Degree Murder includes:

Willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder.
Particularly heinous types of murder. For example, in the original Pennsylvania statute, this included poisoning and lying in wait to kill someone by ambush.
Felony-murder, but only for certain listed felonies. For example, in the original Pennsylvania statute, the only eligible felonies were arson, rape, robbery, and burglary.
At present, most states either use the Pennsylvania Method or a similar method to categorize murder.

The Model Penal Code

The Model Penal Code moved away from the traditional common law approach to murder. Under the Model Penal Code, the following constitute murder:

Purposefully or knowingly killing another human being. This functions much the same as the common law rule against intentional murder.
Killing another human being in circumstances showing extreme recklessness. This functions much the same as the common law's depraved heart murder rule.
Felony-murder. The Model Penal Code disfavors but does not eliminate applying the death penalty for killings that occur during the commission of a felony. Instead of framing the rule as a felony-murder rule, it creates a rebuttable presumption that killings that occur during the commisison of listed dangerous felonies show extreme recklessness for purposes of the code's other murder provisions.
Sauce

[New Frenco Empire]

There was a Washington quote I don't know off my head but it had to do with having enough firepower to push back any invader including your own government. The 2nd amendment can help the people free themselves from the oppression of our lying government(I assume this is mostly Americans due to well second amendment)

If you want to revolt, go right ahead. I'm sure Washington would seize up and die if he knew the kinds of "firepower" a 21st century government had access to.

[New Stinkonia]

The truth is that the distinction between small arms and shoulder mounted missile launchers is not specified in the constitution. The gun fans choose to ignore that to propel their ideology of gun proliferation.

[Alien Space Bats]

Seeing as now "A well regulated militia being Unnecessary to the security of a free state" then there is no need for the second amendment as the purpose for which the right exists is no longer necessary.

Nor was it necessary at the time it was written, as shown by the poor performance of the militias against regular army troops in the war of 1812...

You're missing the point of why American political elites of the day believed a militia to be "necessary to the security of a free state": It wasn't because they believed that a militia (and a militia alone) was sufficient to defend the country from foreign invasion (indeed, the history of the recent Revolution proved otherwise, in so far as the war with Britain could have never been won without the help of the Continental Army; it was not until America was finally able to field regulars of its own with the ability to stand up to their British counterparts in open field battle [eg. at Monmouth] that victory in the overall war against the British finally became possible); it was because they believed that maintaining a permanent standing army of any significant size posed an unacceptable risk to their continued liberty — because a permanent standing army would always present a cancerous threat to the very government that commissioned it, one that could only effectively be countered by keeping it too small to be able to impose its will on the country by force.

For over 150 years, America stuck to this model: It kept only a small peacetime army, to be augmented in time of emergency by State forces. It has only been recently (quite specifically, within the last 70 years or so) that we have moved away from the citizen-soldier model in favor of keeping a large standing army in peacetime — and for nearly half that time we relied on a draft to fill out the lower ranks, guaranteeing that there would be little reason for men who were likely to serve but a handful of years to give their political loyalty to their careerist officers.

So now we are engaged in a great socio-political experiment: For nearly 40 years we have kept a volunteer-only army led by career officers. To date, this army has not yet decided to turn its guns on the government that raised it and place one of its own in power as a dictators, as has happened in so many other countries down through the years; indeed, for now such a course of action seems so unthinkable as to appear fantastically absurd to even contemplate.

But if standing armies are cancerous to Republics, that cancer takes time to develop. It took nearly 50 years for the Marian reforms to produce a Julius Caesar; thus, if history is any guide, it's way too soon to see if the American experiment in military professionalism will ultimately go the way of the Roman one.

That said, it was precisely the state of affairs we have today that those who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were seeking to avoid. And no, I'm not talking about "Big Government" or Barack Obama; I'm talking about that first-rate fighting force we Americans are all so proud of, and the "military-industrial complex" that feeds it, keeping it in perpetual existence against whatever threat might scare us at any particular moment in time. For the moment, our freedom depends on that military machine's willingness to continue serving its civilian masters without question, a willingness that the men who met first in Philadelphia (i.e., the Constitutional Convention), and later New York City (i.e. the 1st United States Congress, meeting at Federal Hall) had so fervently hoped not to have to test.

Congratulations. You've managed to highlight two of the things I've been pointing out for a while now...
1: The second amendment was never intended to grant the right to bear arms to everyone.
2: That the second amendment is a failed experiment. Namely to replace a large standing army with militia.

Your second point is irrelevant to this conversation; it would only be relevant were this a discussion of whether or not the Second Amendment should be repealed. I will therefore spend no further time addressing it, and instead focus (for the moment) solely on the question of what the authors of the Second Amendment intended in writing it the way they did.

Your first point is based on pure sophistry: You're trying to say that since the amendment sought to ensure that there was a large reserve of armed manpower available for service in the militia, that therefore only the militia were ever meant to be ensured the right to bear arms. Circularity aside, you're missing the broader point that at no time did the authors of the Second Amendment ever imagine a world in which militia membership would ever be limited to just those people that Congress considered politically trustworthy enough to be allowed to own and carry a gun.

The proof of this can be found in the debate over Madison's religious exception clause. So that people don't have to jump back to the page where I first discussed the changing form of the Second Amendment, let me quickly repeat what I said in my earlier post.

Here is the text of what would eventually become the Second Amendment as offered to the House of Representatives of June 8th, 1789:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Here is the text of what the House finally adopted and sent to the Senate for approval on August 24th, 1789:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

And here is the text of what the Senate finally adopted and sent to the States for ratification:

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.

To this I can add the form the proposed Amendment took when reported back to the floor of the House following consideration by an 11-member select committee on July 18th, 1789:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service.

Note that this version of the proposed amendment differed only from the final version enacted by the House in so far as it lacked the final two words (i.e., "in person"). The debate that led to the inclusion of these two words (which were originally a part of Madison's proposed "articles of amendment", only to be removed by the select committee) took place on August 20th, 1789, and helps clarify the overall thinking of Congress with regards to the question of whether or not the general public was, in fact, to be allowed to own arms:

Mr. SCOTT objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

— Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session, August 20th, 1789

The specific concern here was that the religious conscience exception would be generally abused in order to REDUCE the number of people who could bear arms and thus be available for militia service; if this happened, the militia would become "unreliable" as a means of defending the United States (in the sense that nobody would be certain how many would turn out), thus forcing the government to turn to a standing army for its defense instead.

Argue if you wish that this still means that people were being given the right to bear arms in order that they be able to serve in the militia, and that this therefore ties said right to militia membership; in the end, you're still left in a logically ridiculous position. You can't argue that now that we no longer NEED a militia, no general right to bear arms exists, because that's neither what the letter of the amendment says, nor does it correctly capture the spirit of what the amendment's authors intended. The intention of those who passed this amendment into law was that the general populace would be universally armed, as this was considered both necessary and practical for the maintenance of a militia. If we no longer need a militia, that doesn't change the historical fact that — at the time the amendment was written — it was believed that having one would allow for Congress to minimize (if not utterly do without) a standing professional army; nor does it change the fact that — at the time the amendment was written — the universal armament of the population was believed to be the only practical way to ensure that there WAS a militia, and thus the right to bear arms was a necessary part of making that scheme a reality.

---

Of course — as any student of the Constitution knows — original intent has absolutely no value in determining how any part of the U.S. Constitution should be understood. Original MEANING does, and here the meaning is unambiguous. Because a militia was needed, the Federal government was not to infringe on the right to bear arms.

But that's not the whole of the story. As several of us have pointed out, whatever the original meaning or intent of the Second Amendment might be, Congress later came along and extended the scope and effect of the Second Amendment (along with several others) when it passed the Fourteenth Amendment into law. I argue over the original intent of the 1st United States Congress only for the sake of historical accuracy; when it comes to LEGAL INTERPRETATION, the story really begins in 1868, and it's THERE that we find a universal individual right to keep and bear arms, not just for free white citizens of military age, but for the whole of the adult population, regardless of race, faith, income, age, sex, or a plethora of other possible objections to the contary.

[Spirit of Hope]

Problem being the Supreme Court in two decisions within the last decade disagrees with that interpretation a and that for the first century or so of the nations history it was interpreted as an individual right.

Okay? And that has what to do with what I actually said?

Well what makes you an expert on Constitutional Law? The Supreme Court is the final word on Constitutional Law, and is made up of 9 very nice people with lot of experience interpreting Constitutional Law.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290).

sauce
Go ahead. Snip it out again and claim that it doesn't exist.

I note you bring up the Supreme Courts opinion when it favors your argument.
Also note that the article explicitly points out that that view only really began to hold sway after 1939, and did not really exist before that time.

[Anglo-California]

Okay? And that has what to do with what I actually said?

Well what makes you an expert on Constitutional Law? The Supreme Court is the final word on Constitutional Law, and is made up of 9 very nice people with lot of experience interpreting Constitutional Law.

Everything about Sonia Sotomayor makes me nauseous. She's a threat.

[Dyakovo]

Okay? And that has what to do with what I actually said?

Well what makes you an expert on Constitutional Law? The Supreme Court is the final word on Constitutional Law, and is made up of 9 very nice people with lot of experience interpreting Constitutional Law.

Who have been known to make mistakes. See the Dred Scott decision.

sauce
Go ahead. Snip it out again and claim that it doesn't exist.

I note you bring up the Supreme Courts opinion when it favors your argument.
Also note that the article explicitly points out that that view only really began to hold sway after 1939, and did not really exist before that time.

Which does not alter the point I was making, i.e. that a reasonable argument can be made for the second amendment granting a collective right, not an individual can be made. This would be a counter to WRM's claim.

---

Well what makes you an expert on Constitutional Law? The Supreme Court is the final word on Constitutional Law, and is made up of 9 very nice people with lot of experience interpreting Constitutional Law.

Everything about Sonia Sotomayor makes me nauseous. She's a threat.

Especially the facts that she's, well, a she and that she's latino...

[Alien Space Bats]

The argument that the Second Amendment was for the militia was rejected by the Supreme Court in both Heller vs. DC and McDonald vs. Chicago.

SCotUS isn't infallible.

If you're going to take the position that SCOTUS blundered in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), then are you also going to assert that they also blundered in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), Pierce, Governor of Oregon, et al. v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and a host of other cases? Because it's hard to assert that substantive due process applies to unenumerated rights, such as the right to educate one's children in the language of one's choice (Meyer), the right to send one's children to a parochial school instead of a public school (Pierce), the right to use birth control (Griswold), the right to an abortion in the first two trimesters of pregnancy (Roe), or the right to engage in non-violent consensual sex with the partner of one's choice without state interference (Lawrence) without asserting that it also applies to asserted or implied specifically within the Bill of Rights itself.

[Big Jim P]

Care to expand that chart to include defensive shootings?

You do understand the legal meaning of murder, yes?

Murder
Murder: an Overview

Definition

Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being. See Homicide. The precise legal definition of murder varies by jurisdiction. Most states distinguish between different degrees of murder. Some other states base their murder laws on the Model Penal Code.




Background: Common Law Murder

At common law, murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a legal term of art, that encompasses the following types of murder:

"Intent-to-kill murder"
"Grievous-bodily-harm murder" - Killing someone in an attack intended to cause them grievous bodiliy harm. For example, if a person fatally stabbed someone, even if she only intended to wound her victim, she could still be executed.
"Felony-murder" - Killing someone while in the process of committing a felony. Note that at common law, there were few felonies, and all carried the death penalty. For example, at common law, robbery was a felony. So if a robber accidentally killed someone during a robbery, the robber could be executed.
"Depraved heart murder" - Killing someone in a way that demonstrates a callous disregard for the value of human life. For example, if a person intentionally fires a gun into a crowded room, and someone dies, the person could be convicted of depraved heart murder.
These definitions are valuable because they inform subsequent reforms of American murder law.

The Pennsylvania Method

The Pennsylvania Method is a catch-all term for systems of classifying murder by degree. Certain, specified types of murder were first-degree murder, and carried the death penalty. All other types of murder were second-degree murder, which did not carry the death penalty.

First-Degree Murder includes:

Willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder.
Particularly heinous types of murder. For example, in the original Pennsylvania statute, this included poisoning and lying in wait to kill someone by ambush.
Felony-murder, but only for certain listed felonies. For example, in the original Pennsylvania statute, the only eligible felonies were arson, rape, robbery, and burglary.
At present, most states either use the Pennsylvania Method or a similar method to categorize murder.

The Model Penal Code

The Model Penal Code moved away from the traditional common law approach to murder. Under the Model Penal Code, the following constitute murder:

Purposefully or knowingly killing another human being. This functions much the same as the common law rule against intentional murder.
Killing another human being in circumstances showing extreme recklessness. This functions much the same as the common law's depraved heart murder rule.
Felony-murder. The Model Penal Code disfavors but does not eliminate applying the death penalty for killings that occur during the commission of a felony. Instead of framing the rule as a felony-murder rule, it creates a rebuttable presumption that killings that occur during the commisison of listed dangerous felonies show extreme recklessness for purposes of the code's other murder provisions.
Sauce

And you of course understand that the defensive use of guns outweighs the criminal use of guns don't you? Of course you do.

Edit: Fucked up the quote. Fixed.

[Dyakovo]

Nor was it necessary at the time it was written, as shown by the poor performance of the militias against regular army troops in the war of 1812...

You're missing the point of why American political elites of the day believed a militia to be "necessary to the security of a free state": It wasn't because they believed that a militia (and a militia alone) was sufficient to defend the country from foreign invasion (indeed, the history of the recent Revolution proved otherwise, in so far as the war with Britain could have never been won without the help of the Continental Army; it was not until America was finally able to field regulars of its own with the ability to stand up to their British counterparts in open field battle [eg. at Monmouth] that victory in the overall war against the British finally became possible); it was because they believed that maintaining a permanent standing army of any significant size posed an unacceptable risk to their continued liberty — because a permanent standing army would always present a cancerous threat to the very government that commissioned it, one that could only effectively be countered by keeping it too small to be able to impose its will on the country by force.

For over 150 years, America stuck to this model: It kept only a small peacetime army, to be augmented in time of emergency by State forces. It has only been recently (quite specifically, within the last 70 years or so) that we have moved away from the citizen-soldier model in favor of keeping a large standing army in peacetime — and for nearly half that time we relied on a draft to fill out the lower ranks, guaranteeing that there would be little reason for men who were likely to serve but a handful of years to give their political loyalty to their careerist officers.

So now we are engaged in a great socio-political experiment: For nearly 40 years we have kept a volunteer-only army led by career officers. To date, this army has not yet decided to turn its guns on the government that raised it and place one of its own in power as a dictators, as has happened in so many other countries down through the years; indeed, for now such a course of action seems so unthinkable as to appear fantastically absurd to even contemplate.

But if standing armies are cancerous to Republics, that cancer takes time to develop. It took nearly 50 years for the Marian reforms to produce a Julius Caesar; thus, if history is any guide, it's way too soon to see if the American experiment in military professionalism will ultimately go the way of the Roman one.

That said, it was precisely the state of affairs we have today that those who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were seeking to avoid. And no, I'm not talking about "Big Government" or Barack Obama; I'm talking about that first-rate fighting force we Americans are all so proud of, and the "military-industrial complex" that feeds it, keeping it in perpetual existence against whatever threat might scare us at any particular moment in time. For the moment, our freedom depends on that military machine's willingness to continue serving its civilian masters without question, a willingness that the men who met first in Philadelphia (i.e., the Constitutional Convention), and later New York City (i.e. the 1st United States Congress, meeting at Federal Hall) had so fervently hoped not to have to test.

Congratulations. You've managed to highlight two of the things I've been pointing out for a while now...
1: The second amendment was never intended to grant the right to bear arms to everyone.
2: That the second amendment is a failed experiment. Namely to replace a large standing army with militia.

Your second point is irrelevant to this conversation; it would only be relevant were this a discussion of whether or not the Second Amendment should be repealed. I will therefore spend no further time addressing it, and instead focus (for the moment) solely on the question of what the authors of the Second Amendment intended in writing it the way they did.

Your first point is based on pure sophistry: You're trying to say that since the amendment sought to ensure that there was a large reserve of armed manpower available for service in the militia, that therefore only the militia were ever meant to be ensured the right to bear arms. Circularity aside, you're missing the broader point that at no time did the authors of the Second Amendment ever imagine a world in which militia membership would ever be limited to just those people that Congress considered politically trustworthy enough to be allowed to own and carry a gun.

The proof of this can be found in the debate over Madison's religious exception clause. So that people don't have to jump back to the page where I first discussed the changing form of the Second Amendment, let me quickly repeat what I said in my earlier post.

Here is the text of what would eventually become the Second Amendment as offered to the House of Representatives of June 8th, 1789:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Here is the text of what the House finally adopted and sent to the Senate for approval on August 24th, 1789:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

And here is the text of what the Senate finally adopted and sent to the States for ratification:

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.

To this I can add the form the proposed Amendment took when reported back to the floor of the House following consideration by an 11-member select committee on July 18th, 1789:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service.

Note that this version of the proposed amendment differed only from the final version enacted by the House in so far as it lacked the final two words (i.e., "in person"). The debate that led to the inclusion of these two words (which were originally a part of Madison's proposed "articles of amendment", only to be removed by the select committee) took place on August 20th, 1789, and helps clarify the overall thinking of Congress with regards to the question of whether or not the general public was, in fact, to be allowed to own arms:

Mr. SCOTT objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

— Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session, August 20th, 1789

The specific concern here was that the religious conscience exception would be generally abused in order to REDUCE the number of people who could bear arms and thus be available for militia service; if this happened, the militia would become "unreliable" as a means of defending the United States (in the sense that nobody would be certain how many would turn out), thus forcing the government to turn to a standing army for its defense instead.

Argue if you wish that this still means that people were being given the right to bear arms in order that they be able to serve in the militia, and that this therefore ties said right to militia membership; in the end, you're still left in a logically ridiculous position. You can't argue that now that we no longer NEED a militia, no general right to bear arms exists, because that's neither what the letter of the amendment says, nor does it correctly capture the spirit of what the amendment's authors intended. The intention of those who passed this amendment into law was that the general populace would be universally armed, as this was considered both necessary and practical for the maintenance of a militia. If we no longer need a militia, that doesn't change the historical fact that — at the time the amendment was written — it was believed that having one would allow for Congress to minimize (if not utterly do without) a standing professional army; nor does it change the fact that — at the time the amendment was written — the universal armament of the population was believed to be the only practical way to ensure that there WAS a militia, and thus the right to bear arms was a necessary part of making that scheme a reality.

---

Of course — as any student of the Constitution knows — original intent has absolutely no value in determining how any part of the U.S. Constitution should be understood. Original MEANING does, and here the meaning is unambiguous. Because a militia was needed, the Federal government was not to infringe on the right to bear arms.

But that's not the whole of the story. As several of us have pointed out, whatever the original meaning or intent of the Second Amendment might be, Congress later came along and extended the scope and effect of the Second Amendment (along with several others) when it passed the Fourteenth Amendment into law. I argue over the original intent of the 1st United States Congress only for the sake of historical accuracy; when it comes to LEGAL INTERPRETATION, the story really begins in 1868, and it's THERE that we find a universal individual right to keep and bear arms, not just for free white citizens of military age, but for the whole of the adult population, regardless of race, faith, income, age, sex, or a plethora of other possible objections to the contary.

And that is exactly what I am arguing.
A quick excerpt:

The Second Amendment reads:

“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.”

When the subject of firearms and the Second Amendment is mentioned, the last half of the amendment is the main focus. Very seldom is the first half, the language of the amendment which states the right to keep and bear arms is an intrinsic necessity to ensure the free state can protect itself, brought up.

Throughout most of U.S. history, the Second Amendment was not viewed as protecting an individual right. It wasn’t until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment addresses an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices on the high court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. by dividing the amendment into separate, but equal clauses.

“The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause,” Justice Scalia wrote in the court’s opinion. “The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.”

To simplify what he said:

“The Amendment could be rephrased, ‘Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.’”
The majority opinion stated that not only is the right to bear arms an individual right, separate from military service or service in a collective body, but the phrase “keep and bear” means individuals have a right to possess and carry in the event of confrontation.

However, if the Second Amendment was meant only to protect an individual’s right to possess and carry arms, why was the prefatory clause included to begin with?

Individual Rights vs. Collective Rights

When the phrase ‘the people’ is used in the U.S. Constitution, it generally is meant to describe a collective body. For instance, “We the People of the United States,” speaks of the people as a whole. The majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller argues that the constitution distinguishes the use of ‘the people’ when it talks about powers versus rights.

The court’s opinion found that when the constitution refers to the powers of ‘the people,’ it uses the phrase to mean collectively.

For instance, the tenth amendment says powers not delegated to the federal government are given to the states or the people. In this case, the court argues ‘the people’ means Americans as a whole

However, the court ruled that when the constitution uses ‘the people’ in the first, second, fourth, and ninth amendments, it speaks of people in the United States on an individual basis. Yet, it seems like the majority opinion had to make quite a leap to come to this conclusion.

There is a difference between an “individual right” and a “collective right,” and it is the debate over what separates the two that is at the heart of the discussion over the Second Amendment.

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The use of ‘the people’ isn’t used in the First Amendment until it talks about collective rights. Collectively, the people of the United States have a right to assemble. Collectively, people have a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The phrase ‘the people’ is not used to refer to individual rights — to exercise religion, speech, and press.

The United States was founded by individuals who sought to escape tyranny and oppression, and wanted to ensure that the new Republic remained a free state. It is not difficult to imagine that the amendments laid out in the Bill of Rights were ordered the way they are intentionally, especially the Second Amendment.

The court’s opinion was right about the grammatical structure of the amendment. It could very easily be reworded, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

This doesn’t change the fact, however, that the Second Amendment is a guarantee to the people that each state can form a trained and disciplined (well regulated) militia as a contingency measure in the event the federal government threatened the sovereignty of each state and that of the people of the United States.

The constitutionally protected right to bear arms was established as a safeguard for the people, collectively, against tyranny and oppression.

Touching the Second Amendment is considered political suicide for any politician because the pro-gun lobby is big, resourceful, and pushes the idea that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. The government, even on the state and local levels, cannot pass even the most responsible regulations on firearm possession and use.

While there is a fundamental difference between individual rights and collective rights, it is important to remember that both apply to everyone and serve a very important purpose. However, there is still a difference and the language of the Second Amendment indicates that it protects a collective right, not an individual right.

Additionally:

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people to maintain a well regulated militia. It was a response to the concern that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to state sovereignty. Neither the text of the Second Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidence the slightest interest by the Framers in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.

There is no indication that the Framers intended to enshrine the common law right of self-defense in the Constitution. The view in Miller that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons, is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption. The majority fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons.

[Dyakovo]

You do understand the legal meaning of murder, yes?

Murder
Murder: an Overview

Definition

Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being. See Homicide. The precise legal definition of murder varies by jurisdiction. Most states distinguish between different degrees of murder. Some other states base their murder laws on the Model Penal Code.




Background: Common Law Murder

At common law, murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a legal term of art, that encompasses the following types of murder:

"Intent-to-kill murder"
"Grievous-bodily-harm murder" - Killing someone in an attack intended to cause them grievous bodiliy harm. For example, if a person fatally stabbed someone, even if she only intended to wound her victim, she could still be executed.
"Felony-murder" - Killing someone while in the process of committing a felony. Note that at common law, there were few felonies, and all carried the death penalty. For example, at common law, robbery was a felony. So if a robber accidentally killed someone during a robbery, the robber could be executed.
"Depraved heart murder" - Killing someone in a way that demonstrates a callous disregard for the value of human life. For example, if a person intentionally fires a gun into a crowded room, and someone dies, the person could be convicted of depraved heart murder.
These definitions are valuable because they inform subsequent reforms of American murder law.

The Pennsylvania Method

The Pennsylvania Method is a catch-all term for systems of classifying murder by degree. Certain, specified types of murder were first-degree murder, and carried the death penalty. All other types of murder were second-degree murder, which did not carry the death penalty.

First-Degree Murder includes:

Willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder.
Particularly heinous types of murder. For example, in the original Pennsylvania statute, this included poisoning and lying in wait to kill someone by ambush.
Felony-murder, but only for certain listed felonies. For example, in the original Pennsylvania statute, the only eligible felonies were arson, rape, robbery, and burglary.
At present, most states either use the Pennsylvania Method or a similar method to categorize murder.

The Model Penal Code

The Model Penal Code moved away from the traditional common law approach to murder. Under the Model Penal Code, the following constitute murder:

Purposefully or knowingly killing another human being. This functions much the same as the common law rule against intentional murder.
Killing another human being in circumstances showing extreme recklessness. This functions much the same as the common law's depraved heart murder rule.
Felony-murder. The Model Penal Code disfavors but does not eliminate applying the death penalty for killings that occur during the commission of a felony. Instead of framing the rule as a felony-murder rule, it creates a rebuttable presumption that killings that occur during the commisison of listed dangerous felonies show extreme recklessness for purposes of the code's other murder provisions.
Sauce

And you of course understand that the defensive use of guns outweighs the criminal use of guns don't you? Of course you do.

Edit: Fucked up the quote. Fixed.

[citation needed]

[Themiclesia]

Let's examine this passage grammatically:

The first part, from "A well-regulated" to "a free State", composes of what grammarians of the English language sometimes like to call the nominative absolute; the absolute phrase, i.e. the subject of the entire construction, is so called because it is "absolute", or free from links to the other portion of the statement that includes the finite verb. This construction is analogous to the Latin ablative absolute, the Greek genitive absolute, and the Sanskrit genitive absolute. The key to understand this construction is that the absolute phrase, especially the subject thereof, must not be understood to be equal to any noun connected to the finite verb. Another entirely equivalent, in grammatical terms, way of writing this Amendment would be, "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State; the right of the people to keep and bear arms [...]".

This is a participle usage that has been thoroughly explored in grammatical terms. Of the known usages of this construction, one can enumerate four from the Greek language: temporal, causal, concessive, and purpose. There therefore are four possible interpretations of the relationship between the phrase containing "A well-regulated" to "a free State":

temporal -- when/after a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the Security of a free State, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms...
causal -- because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the Security of a free State, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms...
concessive -- although a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the Security of a free State, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms...
purpose -- in order that a well-regulated Militia be necessary to the Security of a free State, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms...

Depending on the choice elected, an entirely different meaning emerges. One may be tempted to ask about the relevance of Greek grammar to that of English, and it is an entirely justified question; while there can be no satisfactory answer to this question, one can say that the nominative absolute is a construction imitative of the ablative/genitive absolutes of the Classical languages, so the best clue as to its meaning and implication would like therewith.

[The United Lands of Ash]

The amendment was ratified back when the US feared large and powerful central governments. You have to understand they just out threw of being ruled by a monarch with all the power. The Articles of Confederation were too weak so they thew it out and now they were ratifying the current US government, one with a stronger central government. The US people feared that a government that was powerful and oppressive might come to be in the US so they wanted a means to rise up if needed. Thus the need for a militia and an armed population.

The militia part has come to be the National Guard as the right to raise a militia is a state power and can only be controlled by the state and the right to arm yourself is as it is.

You also need to get that at the time the US was wilderness. Everyone not in a city owned a gun because they had to to live. Want food? Need a gun. Defense from natives? Guns. Want to petition a new government? More guns.

The Founding Fathers could have never seen the average US citizen to own a weapon that can kill with such accuracy and power back then. They had muskets. You could fire three shots a minute if you were skilled and even then you would probably miss.

My opinion? Keep it as it is. We don't NEED assault rifles but if that gets taken away it's one step to taking away another thing... And another and another and another.

[Big Jim P]

And you of course understand that the defensive use of guns outweighs the criminal use of guns don't you? Of course you do.

Edit: Fucked up the quote. Fixed.

[citation needed]

Two links in my sig for start.

Low end estimates for DGUs are in the 55,000 -80,000 range (far outweighing their use in homicides. Hell even adding accidents and suicides only brings the total to some 32,000). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

[Dyakovo]

[citation needed]

Two links in my sig for start.

Low end estimates for DGUs are in the 55,000 -80,000 range (far outweighing their use in homicides. Hell even adding accidents and suicides only brings the total to some 32,000). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

Except for the detail that the number you're touting is for defensive gun uses and you're comparing them to gun homicides... This is comparing apples to oranges. Instead the number that "DGUs" should be compared to is its counter part, which isn't gun homicides it is "offensive" gun use, i.e. crimes committed with a gun. As an example, lets use 2011 where " a total of 478,400 fatal and nonfatal violent crimes were committed with a firearm"...

Last I checked 478,000 is considerably more than 80,000.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Two links in my sig for start.

Low end estimates for DGUs are in the 55,000 -80,000 range (far outweighing their use in homicides. Hell even adding accidents and suicides only brings the total to some 32,000). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

Except for the detail that the number you're touting is for defensive gun uses and you're comparing them to gun homicides... This is comparing apples to oranges. Instead the number that "DGUs" should be compared to is its counter part, which isn't gun homicides it is "offensive" gun use, i.e. crimes committed with a gun. As an example, lets use 2011 where " a total of 478,400 fatal and nonfatal violent crimes were committed with a firearm"...

Last I checked 478,000 is considerably more than 80,000.

It's also considerably less than 1,000,000 or 2,000,000.
Which is the middle-end and high-end estimates, respectively, Jim didn't mention.