Will the Second Amendment survive?

[icileparadise]

The people. who were not an army. But crushingly defeated the Brits. That people became an Army. The militia which became the state army. The people do not have to bear arms because the 2nd Amendment is the Armed Forces, but if you need to want to have a mini arsernal of arms in your possession - so be it.

[lookout123]

the people had weapons and were thus able to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical power. these same people in forming a new government were just as afraid of a homegrown tyrant. do you really think with that mindset that they would have any desire for all weapons to be held by a force that is an arm of the government?

[BrianR]

And doesn't the Constitution forbid a standing army?

The amendment specifies The People, not The Government or The Army.

Militia refers to ordinary, untrained citizens.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by BrianR

Militia refers to ordinary, untrained citizens.

"Well regulated militia" refers to trained, organized citizens.

[icileparadise]

Happy Monkey, I see where your'e going, are you law schooled by any chance?

[icileparadise]

Let's do another analogy: the Army in Iraq was disbanded before the Allies got there, Are we therefore now fighting their militia?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by icileparadise

Happy Monkey, I see where your'e going, are you law schooled by any chance?

No. But, legally speaking, if they intended the only enforceable part of the second amendment to be the second half, they should have left the first half off and put their justifications into a separate document. None of the other amendments have introductions.

At the very least, the unique structure of the second amendment complicates an absolutist interpretation. Why have an explicit justification? Why, in that justification, further specify "well regulated" militias? The word "regulated" may have changed meanings slightly over he centuries, but I'd posit that whatever the meaning, it is there to differentiate between "a well regulated militia" and "a mob".

[jinx]

The Bill of Rights was a compromise between federalists and antifederalists... those who wanted no constitution, no strong central government. The federalists believed that in the constitution, the people "surrender nothing, and retain everything" (Hamilton), rendering a bill of rights unnecessary. The antifeds didn't believe that shit for one second, and because of them, many states refused the ratify the constitution as is, instead stipulating that certain natural individual rights be enumerated - the important 9th amendment covering those natural rights not enumerated.

The feds and antifeds also disagreed about whether there should be a well regulated militia, "under the regulation and at the disposal of" the federal government. Patrick Henry et al didn't like the idea... at all (fearing the president would use his powers like a king and turn his army against the citizens)- the compromise on this issue is the second amendment.

If you're (in general) arguing that the 2nd amendment somehow limits the right of an individual to bear arms, I'd love to see some citations. Specifically, which of our founders were making that argument?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

No. But, legally speaking, if they intended the only enforceable part of the second amendment to be the second half, they should have left the first half off and put their justifications into a separate document. None of the other amendments have introductions.

At the very least, the unique structure of the second amendment complicates an absolutist interpretation. Why have an explicit justification? Why, in that justification, further specify "well regulated" militias? The word "regulated" may have changed meanings slightly over he centuries, but I'd posit that whatever the meaning, it is there to differentiate between "a well regulated militia" and "a mob".

It says well-regulated militias are necessary for a free state to exist, and this is why THE PEOPLE (individuals) retain the right to keep and bear arms. This right isn't granted by government, it's a right we're born with that the Constitution protects. There is nothing "enforceable" about a militia. There is no requirement that those who keep and bear arms be members of a militia. The only enforceable part of that amendment is the part that says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE (note: It doesn't say "the people who are members of militias" or "the militias") SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

No. But, legally speaking, if they intended the only enforceable part of the second amendment to be the second half, they should have left the first half off and put their justifications into a separate document. None of the other amendments have introductions.

Though there is no reason to actually expect that idea to carry water, in the Constitution or out of it. The Constitution is not entirely nor purely a legalistic document; it is in the nature of setting up the provisions of the social compact as well as the lineaments of the government.

At the very least, the unique structure of the second amendment complicates an absolutist interpretation. Why have an explicit justification? Why, in that justification, further specify "well regulated" militias? The word "regulated" may have changed meanings slightly over he centuries, but I'd posit that whatever the meaning, it is there to differentiate between "a well regulated militia" and "a mob".

I would not read the clause as defying or complicating an "absolutist" interpretation at all. It is the consensus of Constitutional scholarship that the first clause of the sentence does not modify nor restrict the second clause. The sense of "well regulated" has been proven to have changed, also -- nowadays they would be termed "well trained," that is, skillful enough to be effective against an enemy force. Further, the explicit intent of the Militia Acts passed pursuant to this Amendment was to mandate the militia being every bit as well armed as the best national infantry and cavalry of the day. From this point of view, it is disturbing how comparatively less equipped we citizens, we Unorganized Militia as defined in USC Title 10, are in recent times. The Swiss show us that civilizations do not decay from exposure to selective-fire assault rifles with 200 rounds of ready ammunition in about every basement. Are the Swiss really so very different from us?

Your last point is your best; they weren't any happier about mobs then than they are now, as the developments of Shays' and the Whiskey Rebellions serve to illustrate. Put down with a bare minimum of casualties, too; maybe an officer's horse threw a shoe and some infantryman got a blistered heel. It was about like that.

[regular.joe]

A militia is not the Army. Although the Army Reserve is a militia, it is a part of the Army. There are militias in the States that are not part of the Army.

June 14th, 1774 the Continental Army of the United States was formed. There were also militias separate from the Army at that time.

The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1789. There was a well founded Army, Navy, and Marine Corp. The writers of the Bill of Rights new the difference between the Army and a militia.

[icileparadise]

Yes all that is true but where did the Army eventually come from. The peoples militia became the army despite the Constistution, the Bill of rights the ammendments etc. I firmly believe that the 2nd Ammendment written in it's day was to lay the foundations for the army today. Politics.

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by icileparadise

Yes all that is true but where did the Army eventually come from. The peoples militia became the army despite the Constistution, the Bill of rights the ammendments etc. I firmly believe that the 2nd Ammendment written in it's day was to lay the foundations for the army today. Politics.

Resolved, that a General be appointed to command all the continental forces, raised, or to be raised, for the defense of American liberty.

The above resolution of the 2nd Continental Congress, on 14 June 1775 established the beginnings of the United States Army.

The Army had been well established for 14 years, it didn't eventually come from anywhere. It was there. The writers new the difference between the militias of several states and the then Continental Army.

[Radar]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/cri...cle2710596.ece

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=21902

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti61.pdf

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...pes-per-capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...mes-per-capita

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/world...n_impulse.html

http://www.saga.org.za/wfsa_reports.htm

[regular.joe]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165229,00.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...raq_06-17.html

I'm begging to think that you are not aware of what you are saying, or that you are mis representing on purpose.