We need a reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment, with focus on the "well-regulated" part

[Hugabear]

Even if the SCOTUS has already made previous rulings on the 2nd Amendment, there's nothing to say that a future SCOTUS couldn't revisit the issue. This is why it's important that we have Presidents who can appoint progressive justices, those who understand that today's society is much different than it was 200+ years ago. The 2nd Amendment clearly includes a "well-regulated" clause. We might not be able to do away with gun ownership completely - but we sure as hell should be able to regulate it tightly. There is something seriously wrong with a country where it's easier to obtain firearms than it is health coverage.

[RegieRocker]

1. The well regulated part pertains to the militia

not the right for people to bear arms.

[edhopper]

2. WTF?

"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.

So the first part of the sentence is completely independent of the second part of the same damn sentence in the Constitution. And the writers did not mean one had ANYTHING to do with the other?

[RegieRocker]

5. yes it is

I own a red camaro, a black truck and they are both parked in my garage.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (the red camaro)

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (the black truck)

Yes the camaro and the truck are not one in the same.

They are separate distinct vehicles

[edhopper]

8. That is one of the silliest

things I have heard.
Completely illogical and makes the Founders completely incompetent in the use of the English language, which I don't think they were.
Sounds like NRA bull shit to me.

[RegieRocker]

9. No everything you say

about this topic is extremest, ridiculous, illogical, and non understanding of language that I always see from this type. Then it's fallback time "You're the NRA" whaaa

[edhopper]

10. Because I believe

that there should be some gun regulation and that two parts of the same sentence in the Constitution have some bearing on each other, I am an extremist.
But you think their should be absolutely no gun control, even in the case of automatic assault weapons are moderate.
Sure.

[RegieRocker]

12. More extreme crap

"But you think their should be absolutely no gun control" I didn't say that and you have to resort to making things up. Can I go and buy a gun today and take it home? Come on answer that.

[edhopper]

16. Yes,

you can buy any rifle and you can go to a gun show and buy a gun and bring it home.

[RegieRocker]

18. Nope shows what you know

only when buying from a private seller are there no requirements.

[edhopper]

21. Which is 40% of all purchases

and is dominated by gun shows.

[RegieRocker]

33. Most of the gun dealers at gun shows

have a FFL liscense and are required to do background checks. Back up the 40%.
Also 62% of murders are by guns 38% (same as 40%) are not by guns. So is the 40% relative here for your purposes but not others? If you could ban all guns and that won't happen the murders without guns would go up that is all.

[edhopper]

34. I talked about banning assault weapons

and more gun regulation. NOT banning all guns.
But to an NRA-type, any gun law is too many I guess.

[Lizzie Poppet]

3. That would require re-writing, not reinterpretation.

The language of the amendment is such that it does NOT stipulate membership in a "well regulated militia" as a precondition for keeping and bearing arms. It does not establish a situation in which "the people" (or those with the RKBA, even) is a wholly contained subset of the "militia." That would require a different sentence structure.

I should also point out that a re-writing of the amendment would probably also be necessary for a differently-oriented (politically) SCOTUS to overturn a precedent that was based on the existing language. That happens...but it's very rare indeed.

A terrible idea, IMO, though...

[Hugabear]

6. So the Founders just threw that phrase in there for no reason at all?

Back in the early days of the country, there was no National Guard, Army Reserve, etc. Every able-bodied male was considered part of the "militia". One could very easily make the argument today that the term "militia" refers to the overall US populace, in which case it could certainly be subject to regulation.

[elleng]

11. 'It is often asserted

that a “well-regulated militia” means nothing more than that the entire body of the people, as a militia, should be armed as a means to check tyrannical government. Such an interpretation ignores, arguably, the most significant phrase in understanding the Second Amendment’s constitutional purpose and protective scope. Not to mention, such an interpretation utterly negates what could be the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court majority did just this when it determined that a “well-regulated militia” implied nothing more “than the imposition of proper discipline and training.” The Heller majority went on to state that the Second Amendment’s use of the phrase “well-regulated militia” was not “the only reason Americans valued the ancient right” because the Founding Fathers “undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.” In making this determination, the Heller majority dismissed the argument that an “organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee[.]” They felt that this argument was futile given that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” and therefore could undermine the very protection that the Second Amendment affords.'

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2010/04/charles-on-a-wellregulated-militia.html

[edhopper]

14. Really

You want to use the Scalia majority to justify this?

[elleng]

19. I am not using anything to justify anything,

I provided one piece of a legal theory for peoples' info.

I think Heller was wrongly decided. I raised my family in DC, 'home' of the decision, fwiw.

[edhopper]

20. Sorry for

inferring.

[elleng]

23. Thanks

[Lizzie Poppet]

26. Probably not.

But that changes nothing about my assertions...

[Tejas]

4. Your avatar exists thanks to a lack of gun-control.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

7. When the 2nd Amendment was written...

The most sophisticated gun in existence could only fire 2-3 rounds a minute.

[ramikin]

13. You can't pick and choose.

Using that logic the first amendment would not apply to modern forms on communication either.

[permatex]

15. The 1st Amendment was written when there were no computers in existence.

so go back to the quill and ink if your going to use that ridiculous argument.

[Egalitarian Thug]

28. And virtually all of the Continental Army's field pieces were privately owned at the beginning of

the war. The problem with trying to divine intent is that there are so many competing intents and the amendment was a compromise to most of them.

The bottom line to this is that the United States of America is the world's largest arms dealer, larger than the next four combined. We are global merchants of death, that's our bread & butter.

Oh, and the seven largest arms dealers on earth are the UN Security Counsel.

Like so many other problems, if we really want change, it is us that must do the changing.

[belcffub]

35. thats actually not true

Last edited Fri Jul 20, 2012, 08:21 PM - Edit history (2)

the Girandoni Air Rifle existed about 10 years before the 2nd Amendment was written. One was used by Lewis & Clark. They had a tube magazine containing 20 rounds, the ballistics of a .45 acp and an effective range out to 150 yards...

[hughee99]

17. Obtaining guns is no easier than obtaining health coverage.

If you have the money, you can get either. Health coverage is just more expensive.

[Hugabear]

24. You just proved my point.

"If you have the money, you can get either. Health coverage is just more expensive."

If something is more expensive, then it is more difficult to obtain.

[hughee99]

27. Your point was that guns should be more expensive?

I didn't see that anywhere. I saw some stuff about reinterpreting the constitution, specifically the bill of rights, to prohibit things that are currently allowed.

[Hugabear]

29. My point is about regulation

One possible way - not the only way, mind you - to regulate firearms is through taxation...making it much more expensive to purchase them.

[hughee99]

32. You don't think passing huge taxes on firearms

for the purpose of making them unavailable to most people would be considered "infringing" on one's rights? Sure, you could make all guns cost a billion dollars, but that law would only last as long as it took to get it into court. In the end, all you'd really be doing is preventing someone from buying them legally, and only temporarily. This is not an issue that's going to be fixed by a "sin-tax". I do now see how it relates to your OP though.

[Igel]

31. I checked a box when I was hired.

I have health coverage.

There wasn't a "would you like a shotgun or rifle in your office?" box to check. I may live in Texas, but still ... There are limits.

For some people, obtaining a gun is easier. For others, obtaining health coverage is easier. For some they're about the same--equally easy or equally hard.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. You mean, the original interpretation?

I know...

[Hugabear]

25. +1

Exactly...somehow the NRA has twisted the 2nd Amendment into a "right" to unregulated access to firearms.

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. re "original intent":

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."

--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29, 1788.

http://constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm

Add to this that most of the arguments in favour of militias current at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment were framed in such wise as to highlight the importance of a citizen militia as a check against the power of a standing army. This seems relatively irrelevant in the modern world when the US maintains one of the world's largest standing armies, with 2.8 million active duty and reserve military personnel (and 1.1 million in the Army alone), along with many millions of paramilitary police armed with everything from submachine guns and assault rifles to urban assault tanks and Apache helicopters. Bearing all of this in mind one has to sincerely question the relevance of the Second Amendment to the modern world. One also has to question the thought processes of the Second Amendment's staunchest defenders who are more often than not the same people who think a large standing army and over-armed police are excellent things.