“Necessary to the security of a free state” strikes me to specifically mean the weapons are intended to be used to keep the government in check, not just to roll around and intimidate random people from messing with you.
“A well-regulated militia”…. this also suggests it to provide for an organized group, not just individuals for individual self-defense. This is maybe the most confusing part, because who makes the regulations? You’d figure that’s the government, no? So right there, it’s kind of broken, because in 1787 America the government could say “ok, so…. we have 400 soldiers and 500 muskets for the National Army. Alright, so, the rules for the militia are: you may not retain more than 200 men and not possess more than 250 muskets.”, and there’s a built-in advantage that would likely render the militia ineffective for the stated purpose.
The whole thing needs revisiting, because the world today is so wildly different and absolutely incomparable to life in the 18th century, it’s just no longer relevant. I guess I’d be ok with the basic principle of the people being able to fight back against a tyrannical government, but A) who decides what’s “tyrannical” in the first place, and B) if you want to fight a COUNTRY, particularly the United States Of America, you’d better have missiles and drones and shit. Your shiny AR-15 will look super badass in your cold, dead hands, if you aren’t just blown to smithereens. You can’t do a fucking thing against a government with guns.
So, bottom line, I don’t view the 2nd Amendment as having even one iota to do with individual self-defense. This is specifically for organized militias, and as I said, they’ll have fun at their weekend war games, but when the shit hits the fan, they have absolutely zero chance. Look at Ukraine right now. Shit just getting blown the fuck up. You think a rifle is going to help you survive some missile sent from a thousand miles away? Just lmfao. You’ll live an extra day or two, maybe, and survive a shootout with ground troops, but a rocket is coming directly up your asshole, so pucker up. Also, unfortunately, people are way too fucking crazy these days to just entrust them to have their own little militia, holy shit. We aren’t a country of good people like we allegedly used to be, modern Americans are pieces of shit, by and large, so I’m not wicked enthused about these hypothetical militia folks being on the up and up and operating off of the correct values. I don’t have enough trust in the average American to do the right things.
Regardless, they need to revise it because it’s cause for way too much conflict. Get rid of the guns, keep the guns, lessen the guns…. I don’t know the answer and I don’t care, but figure it the fuck out so it stops being the stupid culture war that it is.
Sounds to me more like they wanted to protect their free, democratic, state from foreign governments, to me. They set up a system that included a mechanism for the government to be changed by the will of the people. They're called elections. There's no need to go to war against any government that will hand over power peacefully.
Only once in the US's history has that not happened. Guess when, and by whom.
It means absolutely fuck all, as the spirit and context that statement was written in, is no longer relevant today.
The USA has a local, national, and federal police force and a military - hence a terrorist militia is defunct. The "arms" were pitchforks, cudgels and muskets, in the most part, back then.
You never get guns nuts screaming about their "right" to trail a fucking 12 pound napoleon cannon like they did when the constitution was written, do you? They just pick and choose how they want the constitution to be profitably cherry picked.
It says nothing because it doesn't define it's terms. What exactly qualifies as "well regulated" who regulates them. Which arms can you carry, a sword, battlexaxe, machine gun, a bomb.. Even "to bear" is vague, to bear can mean to suffer or tolerate something unpleasant.
Neither does it take into account the sanity of people, there's no mention that people had to be sane, were they really for the village idiot having guns?
Necessary to the security of a FREE state. . . means the people must be armed as well as the government, so as to prevent the gocernment from running roughshod over the citizenry.
I didn't address it. "Well regulated," in 18th century usage, means calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The terminology does NOT mean that the government should regulate arms (if it did mean to regulate the arms, the "shall not be infriged" part wouldn't make any sense, as government regulations would also be infringements).
The part inside the commas is NOT fluff. That's at the very core of the 2nd amendment.
If you want to interpret it simply by the words, that can't be done. Like anything else, it needs context. In this case it needs the background.
The original US did not have a central government. It did not have a legislature. It did not have a president. But due to certain events, especially Shay's Rebellion, some of the founders wanted a stronger central government. Not everyone agreed. Others agreed but were very cautious about it.
In order for get the new Constitution passed, and change the US from a confederacy to a federation, some of the founders needed to be placated. Some of their concerns needed to be addressed.
The Bill of Rights, all of it, were added to placate those concerns.
People like Jefferson didn't like the idea of a big central government, and didn't trust them. He was not an anarchist. He understood the importance of laws, and that those laws needed to be enforced. So when Shay's rebellion happened ( and almost succeeded to overthrow the government ), he understood that something needed to be done.
BUT, the important thing is that Jefferson thought that the government must always be under threat of such rebellions. He believed that without that threat, it was a road to the loss of freedom and liberty. He did not believe that the rebels should be punished so severely that nobody ever tried it again. He believed that the people needed both the means and the willingness to rebel. To take away the means ( weapons or otherwise ) or the willingness ( overly severe punishment ) led to tyranny, loss of freedom, and loss of liberty.
He made this argument to other founders, like Madison. Many agreed with him. Hence the 2nd amendment.
The right to self defense was understood. That view had been around for centuries, even millennium. That idea was so well understood and agreed upon that there was no need to mention it. The 2nd amendment was to help placate the founders who were concerned about a strong central government.
A well regulated militia
( the people )
Being necessary to the security of a free state
( constant threat to the government against tyranny, loss of freedom and liberty )
The right of the people to keep and bear arms
( the means )
Shall not be infringed
( both the means and the willingness )
"We, the People" = "the Militia"
∴ We must be armed accordingly.
The proof:
* “Militia Act of 1792” Ⅰ (United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/2nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 28) & Ⅱ (United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/2nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 33)
「Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That 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, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.」(emphasis added)
https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources-2/article/militia-act-of-1792/
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/militia-act-establishes-conscription-under-federal-law
The last/latest edition:
“Militia Act of 1903” (Pub. L. 57−33/32 Stat. 775)
「Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes-the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.」(emphasis added)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/496/334
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/334/
The relevant State law in my jurisdiction:
“Militia” (North Carolina General Statutes 127A)
「§ 127A-1. Composition of militia.
The militia of the State shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of the State and of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, subject to the qualifications prescribed in this Chapter, who shall be drafted into the militia or shall voluntarily accept commission, appointment, or assignment to duty therein. (1917, c. 200, s. 1; C. S., s. 6791; 1949, c. 1130, s. 1; 1957, c. 1043, s. 1; 1963, c. 1016, s. 2; 1967, c. 563, s. 1; 1975, c. 604, s. 2; 2011-195, s. 1(a).)
§ 127A-2. Classification of militia.
The militia shall be divided into the organized and unorganized militia. The organized militia shall consist of four classes: the North Carolina National Guard, the naval militia, the State defense militia and historic military commands. (1975, c. 604, s. 2; 2009-281, s. 1.)
…
§ 127A-7. Composition of unorganized militia.
The unorganized militia shall consist of all other able-bodied citizens of the State and of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be at least 17 years of age, except those who have been convicted of a felony or discharged from any component of the military under other than honorable conditions. (1917, c. 200, s. 4; C. S., s. 6794; 1949, c. 1130, s. 1; 1963, c. 1016, s. 2; 1975, c. 604, s. 2; 1983, c. 314, s. 1; 2011-195, s. 1(a).)」
https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_127A.html
https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/militias-in-north-carolina/ (commentary from state-university University of N. C. at Chapel Hill)
This link has some info.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-1/ALDE_00000408/
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.
The link above raises a nice point about well regulated Militia…
Quote “Further, the Court found that the phrase well regulated Militia referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of able-bodied men who were available for conscription.”
This means that only those able to pass the military fitness test should really be allowed to bear arms.
As if you are not “able bodied “ you have no ability to serve in a militia and thus a reason to bear arms.
Also a pool of able bodied MEN…
semi devils advocate, is there any reference to women being militia, I doubt it, so why are they allowed to bear arms?
surely it’s only men that are able bodied enough to be part of a militia, such as passing military fitness test.
allows people to keep weapons to protect the state from other states and governments, being well regulated so as to have discipline, regards for order, and safety so people can live peacibly and free.
the specifics are not said and up to us to figure out.
It's obvious I cannot defend against a russian invasion without an Abrams Tank or 155mm howitzer. I would like to have one, Amazon selling? I would not blow up my neighbors house, but some might. we have to regulate such distribution and manage it. People not responsible, disciplined or trained don't get Abrams tanks... they'd tear up the roads. Damn that be fun to run a tank through my woods... I'd be chasing some coyotes...
It means guns are important for the continuation of the American society and tradition. A well regulate militia meant that you have the same guns as the government and you go out and practice with the fire arms and then take and weapon that you personally own back to your house like you would in 1787. And yes the founders would have depended that the citizens have fully automatic weapons if the government is allowed to have fully automatic weapons. Same with F15 nuclear bombs the citizens would be allowed to have these weapons under the 2nd amendment if the government is allowed to have them. If you want the American citizen to go back to only being allowed to have muskets then the federal government is only allowed to have muskets the people are suppose to be just as well armed as the government. So the government doesn’t become tyrannical
That is the worst reading I have ever heard and not at all how the law works. There are two rights 1) the militia 2) individual right to keep and bear (carry) arms - both of which cannot be infringed upon by the government. Period. My guns won't hurt you unless you try to hurt me or someone else I am close to.
I sung this rap song in grade school:
1st Amendment freedom
2nd Bear arms
3rd Not in my house causing me harm
4th No searching
5th Don’t speak
6th I need a lawyer cause I’m leaving next week
📜
Those commas are crucial for interpretation. The comma keeps a "well regulated malitia" separate from "the right of the people".
Odd, there is lots of case law on its meaning. Why aren’t you looking at that? It’s the job of courts to interpret constitutional amendments.
Im not surprised that was your major.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I believe in gun control but I can see where this paragraph could be construed as prohibiting a complete ban on guns.
A well regulated.. yes we need more regulations per the second amendment.
Not having proper regulations is clearly unconstitutional.
The 2nd Amendment has always meant that we the people can protect ourselves from the government and keep government in check, but big money has had its voice in that
You’re an English major who disregards an independent clause?
Hoo-kay.
"Militia" means people in overall. This amendment was implemented, because the will of legislators was so the people could rebel against tyranny.
It declares a militia is necessary and then also declares the right of people to keep and bear arms without infringement.
Well the last two sentences are in stronger language. Our militia exists (national guard) and is well regulated. They are not "the people" unless we wanna consider the entire citizenry part of the militia.
The founding fathers didn't want a standing army at first so it makes this further muddled. Definitely a short but not well written amendment in my opinion.
Bottom line. After the Founding Fathers wrote the 1A, they knew it would piss government off, so they wrote the 2A to protect it. This is as simple and direct admit gets.
Simply, if it is a weapon the government can't prevent you from owning it.
Shall not be infringed is pretty clear. And militia means of the people. Well regulated in 1700, s English ment high in numbers.
Historical context, though. They didn't know how to use commas properly back then.
An armed society is a polite society.
Most Helpful Guys