Amendment II...... ANYONE HEARD OF THIS!?

Question

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.



If you don't 100% agree. Move to Canada. Really...

Answer 1

If your reading is correct, you say that the 2nd Amendment means that the individual citizen has a individual right to bear arms. If that's what the Framers meant, why, in your opinion, did they include the clause: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"?

The other original 9 Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights do not contain superfluous or unnecessary language (the Preamble to the whole document in 1787 arguably does). Why then does it appear in the 2nd Amendment if they didn't actually mean those words? Couldn't they just have said: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

(BTW, this is answer/question designed to elicit an intellectually honest response, not one designed to show you up, score points, etc.)


RE: Independent/Dependent Clause Answer - Why is this the only Amendment that has this superfluous language? What practical reason would the Framers have used this language and not used it elsewhere in the Bill of rights, if not to limit the right to bear arms?

Answer 2

Crazy amendment, isn't it. You've got this introductory language... "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." and then the "rights" language.

People can parce and parce and parce. But here are a few things to consider;
(1) As another poster noted, the rest of the amendments do not have this introductory language. The drafters of the Bill of Rights knew what they were doing, presumably. A BIG rule of law (even existing at the time of the framers) is that you DON'T construe laws such that language is superfluous. If the legistlative body wrote it that way, you need to give it effect. So you can't just ignore the language, especially since none of the other amendments have this similar introductory language (that's where the "dependent/independent clause" guy gets it wrong, but I don't blame him; he may not be aware of this "cannon" of statutory construction. And I would disagree that "independent clauses are the operative parts" In the sentence "If I were in danger of being shot by an intruder, I would gladly shoot to kill" the "If I were in danger of being shot by an intruder" is a "dependent clause," and "I would gladly shoot to kill" is an independent clause. But the independent clause is not "operative" by itself, as I'm not going to go out and just shoot anyone, unless I was in danger of being shot by an intruder. Thus, we can't just disregard the first part of the amendment simply because it's a dependent clause. Makes sense, yes?).

(2) Note the word "well-regulated" before "militia." This assumes not just willy-nilly gun ownership, but some sort of "regulation," either at a local level or by some government. This indicates that the right is, at a minimum, tempered by the "well-regulated militia." (I'm not, however, pursuaded by the statutory definition of the word "militia." since that statute was written long after the Second Amendment was drafted. That may be what the word means to our government now, but that's not necessarily the right spin to put on the amendment.)

(3) Remember that at the time the Bill of Rights applied ONLY to the Federal Government. It did not say what individual states could or could not do. This adds to the idea that the "well-regulated militia" is a state-sponsored entity, and the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," if it applies at all, applies only to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ability to restrict the STATES from creating militias (not armies, that's govered by Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution) that are "well-regulated" for the security of a free state.

Of course, the question arises why is the word "people" used, when the word "militia" is used in the introductory language? Hard to say. But you cannot rest on our laurels simply on the word "people."

Now, two federal circuit courts (5th and D.C. Circuit) have ruled that the 2d amendment IS an individual right; the Supreme Court has not really ruled on the issue, but at least one justice has entertained the idea of addressing it. And there are good arguments on either side, although my preference, for the three reasons articulated above, is that it is not an individual right. (Of course, even if it is, that doesn't equate to an unlimited constitutional right to own a gun... EVERY individual right in the bill of rights contains exceptions, exemptions, and is balanced against one state interest or another...)

And I take offence at the "if you don't 100% agree..." language. We don't "100%" agree on anything, but that doesn't mean we have to leave the country. That's what's great about american debate; we can disagree but exist together... we can attempt to persuade each other to change our minds; we can work hard and, over time, attitudes will change. I could say "if you don't 100% agree with my constitutional interpretation (and I bet I've got a little more training in this area than you do) than You should move to Canada," but that's not a reasonable position to take.

Let's engage in a spirited, intellectual debate, not poo-poo anyone else who might think differently.

Answer 3

Sorry for all you people that think otherwise, but the 2d Amendment's "militia clause" is irrelevant. If you parse the sentence, you have two basic phrases, to wit:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

and

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The first one is a "dependent clause", because it is not a complete sentence on its own.

The second is an "independent clause" because it can stand alone.

Independent clauses are the operative parts.

You also notice that the people that say "the militia is the National Guard" overlook the assumption that the militia (whatever it is) is necessary to the security of a free state. The National Guard is not indespensible to our security. If the first clause refers to the National Guard, it's demonstrably false and therefore unimportant.

Also unexplained by the Left is, if the National Guard is the Militia, why is the right reserved to the People, and not to the Mililtia? It makes no difference what the "militia" is, the right belongs to the People.

Answer 4

saying that we should have a citizen militia doesnt mean you should be able to waltz into a corner store and buy an AK47.

I love my guns too, but i sure as hell dont want people with a history of violence or mental disorders that cause them to be a danger to themselves or others to have easy access to one.

false dichotomies are SO 2002. get with the times man.

Answer 5

So the question is, does the the second clause relating solely to the militia or the to the average citizen.

Answer 6

I wouldn't be so quick to advise them to move to Canada. Canada has a higher gun-ownership per person ratio than the United States. If you want to get away from guns altogether, I suggest moving to the Pacific Ocean.

Answer 7

without the 2d we do not have any more something else. all of them ought to of been legislated away via now. the in straightforward words reason the second one isn't thoroughly lengthy previous is because human beings "proper wing extremists", If the authorities has the balls to call each gun proprietor in this united states a "extremist" and "terrorist" what does that say about the persons we've in workplace. on condition that even as did worrying about the republic and the route she is on make us constitutionalists enemies of the state. It replaced into stated the first "attack guns" ban replaced into meant to desensitize us to the inevitable Nazi style gun grab. the position tens of millions must be publicly carried out and such. very corresponding to in china. All it did replaced into piss of a great deal of human beings and 5 million guns were offered from election day to inauguration. So the first ban had the precisely opposite wanted effect. by looming danger extra human beings are determining to purchase guns than ever formerly. So truly, did the first ban "desensitize" us? i'm a member of the unorganized protection force. that's been infringed upon on condition that 1934 with the completed vehicle "ban". 1960's replaced into even as they honestly ****** us. without exception gun registration ends up in confiscation. Bans carry about genocide or entire lack of freedoms. seem at the position police state uk is at. Self protection is against the law and possessing a revolver is 5 years in detention center. those human beings ought to **** their pants in the adventure that they stated what I keep.

Answer 8

A well regulated "militia"= the national guard!!! wake up people drrrr good job dude!!! come and try to take my guns lefty!! from my cold dead hands!!! Or in this case your cold dead hands!!!
Anything my government can have so can I isnt it for the people by the people?? NRA baby!!!

Answer 9

Back when the Constitution was drafted
our Founding Fathers had no friggin idea of the weapons of mass destruction that we have today. I mean, let's face it, they had no semi-automatic weapons then, no AK-47's..nothing like the arsenals we have today and how easy it is to get our hands on one. Get a grip, this is not what they had in mind.

Answer 10

I agree with you.