Originalism is a travesty and I’m not sure how much time should be devoted to fighting its adherents on their own terms… I just don’t give a shit what the people who wrote the bill of rights intended in every detail and I’m pretty sure they didn’t want us to anyway.
7 Likes
At the time, it included military arms, and artillery. Well-off militia members would have their own cannons. A militia, by definition, is armed like a military.
5 Likes
At the time, the law said that all free men from 18to 45 were members of the militia, and could be called up if needed.
3 Likes
In the 1700’s, if something was well-regulated, it was functioning correctly.
3 Likes
The Militia was the thing that the words “well-regulated” were referring to, not the firearms.
It’s pretty dang silly that so many people try to make the argument that the amendment was intended to keep the guns themselves in good mechanical order. That’s like pretending the First Amendment is about printing press maintenance.
7 Likes
Beyond the right to self-defense, they often argue it’s to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, which directly contradicts that the 2nd Amendment was written in the context of Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion which were uprisings against the state and the state had to form militias to subdue the illegal uprisings that threatened the security of the free state.
Bonus points for when right wing gun owners talk about tyrannical governments, they’re not talking about foreign children in concentration camps, but things like leftist governments passing gun control laws.
8 Likes
There is something to this. “State’s rights” has taken on a very specific and despicable connotation these days, of course.
At the time the Constitution was being drafted, it was unusual for a nation to have a standing army, as the new USA did. One interpretation of the 2nd Amendment I’ve read is that it was added to mollify the representatives of the states that they could maintain their respective militias as a counterbalance to the national army.
The argument that the right to bear arms is a counterbalance against a government gone out of control has been given the lie by the fact that these militias were used to put down popular rebellions though.
3 Likes
This.
The framers of the constitution couldn’t anticipate everything the future would hold, AND they aren’t here to live with those issues, WE are. It’s OUR world, not theirs. We can’t possibly know what they would have intended unless we go back in time and show them automatic weapons (and atomic weapons.)
What we need is another amendment to clarify what the 2nd amendment really means. But I’m not holding my breath on that either.
7 Likes
Might today’s US military be ‘improved’ if recruits had to bring their own arms before being admitted? (Other definitions of ‘improve’ are available.)
2 Likes
You’re right. The “well regulated” militia is one that is well equipped and drilled, etc. A “well functioning militia” might be a more modern phrase.
As a side note, I have noticed lately that a lot of your quotes you seem to be quoting yourself, but it is obviously quoting another user. Is it you? Is it me? I dunno?
How does that make it a lie? What government would look at a rebellion and go, “Oh no, they’re using the Militia against us! There is nothing we can do! I guess we failed and should let them take over.” No, they just raised their own to combat it. I mean in the Revolutionary War the British also had Loyalist Colonials within the ranks of the army. It wasn’t all Colonial Militias and the Continental Army vs the British. There were Loyalist factions who fought the rebellion as well. The Rebellion just managed to win that time.
And this ignores the greatest rebellion in our history - the Civil War. A bunch of states broke off and used their Militias against a government they felt had “gone out of control”. It didn’t work out, but it shows the concept can be put into action. The fact that the government resisted such actions doesn’t mean anything. Of course they did.
3 Likes
I think there was some change in the way the BBS displays quotes so if you quote a post that was in response to another post it shows the quote as a response to the original user.
3 Likes
I’ve never thought it was the guns that should be well-regulated / functional, but the militias themselves.
In modern language, this is what I think the writer intended:
“The security of a free State requires effective Miliitas and a Militia requires armed citizens. Therefore, the right of the people to have guns shall not be infringed.”
Is that way different than your interpretation?
4 Likes
I imagine you are speaking of the Whiskey Rebellion; which was not an example of a government gone out of control- because not enough people felt that way. The people in the Militias decided to shoot the rebels instead of the government. The consent for putting down the rebellions came from the people in the militias themselves.
As opposed to Brown’s Rebellion or the Coal Wars.
John Brown’s raid failed in the most spectacular and successful fashion; it did show that the government was compromising too much to accept slavery from a northern perspective. It did lead directly to the Civil War; and it did significantly alter the Federal government and frankly did reduce state’s rights in order to create a more perfect union. (Why is it that State’s Rights is almost always a term meaning a State’s Right to violate civil rights or enslave people?)
The Coal Wars were against a corrupt government - in this case, the state government; but the Federal government backed the state. It’s notable because it was the first time the US Government bombed it’s own citizens from an airplane. There was enough popular support for the cause that it did significantly alter the role of private armies in the USA (down with the pinks!), it reformed the WV state government, and the Federal government adopted a lot of labor protection laws - laws which are slowly being torn down by big businesses, just like the mountain that the battle was fought on.
5 Likes
Any sane modern interpretation would acknowledge that today’s professional standing US Army (and other military branches) is a true equivalent of what was then defined as a well regulated militia because standing armies were not yet a thing back then.
For centuries Kings, governments and whoever was in charge raised armies as and when needed from the general populace and they typically brought their own kit with them or went without.
It should be mandatory for any arms-owner to attend an annual US military training camp where their proficiency is tested and they are also drilled and trained in taking and executing military orders. Can’t/won’t attend? Not a problem, just surrender your arms.
2 Likes
I always thought it was pretty clear that the 2nd Amendment was about militias, not guns. Making sure the state cannot keep “the people” from bearing arms (as “bear arms” was historically intended) is not the same as making sure “a person” has a right to own guns, at least how I read it. Then again, I’m a gutless snowflake libtard who hates guns and gun culture, so…
I like the rephrasing to more modern sensibilities.
The only thing I would add would be some recognition that a “militia” that exists only on paper is no militia at all.
Do you want to own a gun? No problem. We just need you to complete this two-week safety and maneuver course that will take place at the muster location for your particular militia unit.
Then, at least once a year, without more than a few days notice, we’re going to ask you to show up at the muster location for a few hours.
Bring your weapon and ammo, of course, because we’ll have a safety and marksmanship refresher course. But also bring enough food and water for three days and whatever arrangement you care to make for sleeping somewhere there isn’t a bed prepared for you.
Oh, did you miss a call-up? So, you were out of state? No? Laying in a hospital bed? No? Couldn’t be arsed to come in? I see…
You’re not a member of a militia if you don’t show up when called, and it’s not a militia without periodic call-ups.
4 Likes
This is roughly half of what’s changed since then. The language around guns has evolved… just as the guns have evolved. What was available in the 19th century, doesn’t effectively resemble what’s available today. So strictly enforcing a 19th century view of 21st century weaponry is morally bankrupt on the face of it.
1 Like
My interpretation is that if you’re a gun owner who has no intention of joining a militia then you shouldn’t pretend the Founders wrote the Second Amendment with your private gun rights in mind.
3 Likes
This is one of those things that the logical conclusion (that all gun owners or prospective gun owners should join or form a militia that agrees with their political stance) seems to be worse than just accepting that the militia can be hypothetical.
I mean, I can’t imagine the Bernie Bro Militia squaring off against the Trump Militia to decide who gets to “guard” the polling place would be a really good idea… that doesn’t sound like something that would be decided with a dance-off…
1 Like
Today’s military might be greatly improved by going back to a pre-ww2 conception of a standing army. Until WW2, the standing army was a small cadre of professionals, at ~2-5% of its wartime manpower, during peacetime. This includes the time between the world wars.
When the president wanted to declare a war, before he could raise an army, he had to get funds for it from the house, and get permission from the senate.
Our post war policy has been to have a permanent wartime army, so the house lost their veto, and the senate gave up their veto 20 years ago with the AUMF.
This was partly predicated on being able to call up a militia (more like national guard than army) immediately.
3 Likes
