That’s a factually incorrect example, as speech and press freedoms are specifically separated in the 1A.
Bullshit. The word “regulate” is used 12 times in The Constitution, and the other 11 occurrences refer to the interpretation and enforcement of laws, not to drill practice. Please don’t retcon the English language to favor your hobby. Thanks.
Finally, please consider the hypocrisy of taking advantage of ignoring the first phrase of the 2A (especially since there are no other examples of the writers of The Constitution maundering about irrelevant examples elsewhere in the document) while denying the same right to the convicted felon next door.
Don’t stop with that one peculiarly useful 18th century argot. Embrace the entire intellectual paradigm that casts humans and their institutions as clockwork automatons,. completely subservient to God and his anointed representatives on earth.
That’s not quite how it was supposed to work. Cause not everyone did, or was allowed to own a firearm. Some of the earliest firearms regulations here involved requirements that these militia arms be stored in public armories and only accessable for drilling or duty.
A major part of the idea was not that individuals could get guns to be in a militia. But that the states could get guns to supply to a militia.
Part and parcel of that “well regulated” bit. Not raising a militia from an armed populace. But establishing a regulated militia system and arming it.
Any individual or collective right to firearms at the time for general use was originally a seperate idea.
It isn’t a retcon. “Regulated” was used in that manner when talking about armies and militias and you can find examples of it in period dictionaries. (It also relates to why we call it the “Regular” army. A Regular was the uniformly equipped, and trained standing army. Not the “bring what you have” militia.")
But let’s just assume I am wrong, “regulated” means controlled by laws (the same laws that say one needs to be well armed and meet for drills), it says " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not the rights of the militia.
It is pretty plain as day - we need a militia to secure a free state, thus we need well armed people to make up that militia. I am not sure how one can read this text and assume it ONLY applies to militias.
Oh boy, if you think I don’t support a path for former felons to have their right re-instated, you’re wrong. There is nothing it the Constitution saying that felons should lose their voting right either. Yet here we are. I believe non-violent felons should have a path to have their rights re-instated for firearms. All felons should have a path to have voting rights re-instated.
I honestly don’t get the point you’re trying to make. The British were dicks in their military discipline? I agree.
I don’t disagree with your point. Different states and regions had different ways they organized the earlier militias. It all got more organized as time went on until it morphed into the National Guard.
I guess that begs the question: is/are “people” a collective or an individual? Isn’t a collective just a group of individuals? IIRC the earlier courts leaned towards collective, while the more recent courts leaned towards individual.
Modern sense of “well regulated”: unsafe conditions policed by regular inspections. Rules must be followed,. Criminal penalties are harsh. Licensing schemes abound.
Revisionist sense of “well regulated”: individuals should be able to shoot straight.
Clockwork universe idea of “well regulated”: a militia is a machine for suppressing rebellion and defending against foreign attack. The individual components of such a machine must be carefully machined until they act precisely as ordered. Defective parts should be ruthlessly discarded.
Half a century ago when I was reading a lot of trash paperbacks, that renowned philosopher John D McDonald made a point about gun ownership that stuck with me. His macho-man adventurer posits that if you carry a gun, sooner or later you will use it. You’ll take that stupid chance you otherwise wouldn’t have taken, or escalate that conflict you otherwise would have defused, or butt in where you had no business being, because your gun assures you that you can get away with it.
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 two clauses are not separate, the two ideas aren’t distinct.
Even to the extent that you are correct in how “regulated” applies to “militia” there. A “well regulated militia” is not one drawn in situ from the general population using whatever arms they already have to hand.
It’s a trained militia with standardized, military use arms and equipment.
You can’t really interpret the original intent here without getting into the issues the colonies had with early militia groups without standard equipment or training. We had very little success in the war until we started to put together centralized military with training and standardized equipment.
The sort of arms people had around for general use were of limited use in a military context, and military weapons were of minimal use in civilian contexts. What was meant by “arms” here probably wasn’t limited to guns either. Artillery, swords, bayonets.
All of this is pretty well documented, the myriad arguments either way. The specific intent. There’s little reason to wonder what was meant at the time, since the guys who wrote that also wrote a hell of a lot about why they wrote it. Along with a hell of a lot of laws limiting personal rights to firearms, and a bunch of shit dictating those 2nd amendment arms were to be standardize muskets with bayonet lugs.
The idea that the 2nd amendment is fundementally about an armed populace defending itself from tyranny, or an armed populace providing the arms to do so is very modern. And had very little purchase in court decisions historically.
If memory serves it first became a thing around the Civil War, intimately connected to ideas about succession and insurrection. Then really didn’t gain much following until after WWII.
That’s not an invitation for philosophizin’ or semantics.
Those are two technical terms for two different interpretations of the second amendment. And two different types of rights that exist concurrently.
Collective refers to a general societal right to potentially own or access fire arms. The right exists somewhere, and an individual might access that right. And that’s enough.
Individual refers to a personal, individual right to specifically own a gun.
Compare to freedom of speech. You have a specific, individual right to free speech. It is not enough that free speech is possible. You are due free speech unless you have specifically lost that right for justifiable reasons.
Historically the militia interpretation was the original asserted meaning, and the primary one validated by courts. From the 19th century it was common to acknowledge the collective right position, either as intimately connected to the militia root or as a seperate thing that also existed. The individual right interpretation is basically a creation of the last century and didn’t have much if any validity in court until the last couple of decades.
So true.The possessions you own end up owning you. No matter how often you tell yourself that it’s you pulling the trigger, it may be just a matter of time and circumstances before the trigger ends up pulling you.
You can’t have the above and restrict anyone from bearing arms at any time or any place. Violent felons, nonviolent felons, people in the act of committing a crime. The language does not permit any restrictions whatsoever.
The only way you get around that is when the word “regulated” opens the door to legal restrictions. Period.
The magical thinking around gun ownership is real. I’ve heard a gun owner state catagorically that because he was carrying heat, his car 2 blocks away was much less likely to get robbed of its firearms.
Conservatives seem to enjoy the effect their attitudes have on liberals. But it’s not their beliefs that freak me out, its the sloppy thinking!
His point was that long guns are utterly useless for home defense (see the AR15 comment earlier) and that handguns, while they can be used for that purpose (purportedly) they are REALLY just a means to kill people. IF you had to defend your home (and yes, even in rural Kansas ‘home invasions’ are a thing), the ONLY firearm that is really useful is the shotgun. But note, the PRIMARY use of shotguns is hunting … and even then, the implied and unstated portion of the entire statement is “to feed your family”. NOT for trophy purposes…he very much was against such wasteful activities, as am I.
PS. Locked doors (something less common in rural Kansas), a good dog, exterior lights, et al are the best defense. Firearms of any type are a last resort.
My point is largely that should “if” happen fire arms of any kind are mostly useless for defending your home. Mostly just dangerous to you and your family.
Implicit in this conversation is what are you defending your home from.
In the rare instance than some one is in your home, without your permission. They’re usually after your stuff. Assuming you are also there, let them have your stuff.
Cause your life is less important than your stuff.
Even in much more fucked up situations like mass shootings and home invasions, if survival is your goal. Anyone with any experience or training will tell you whipping out a fire arm and piling in is just about the worst thing you can do.
When pressed the “what” here usually boils down to gubmint or a seething mass of others. It’s just not a discussion of real risks, or practical solutions to them.
Discussing the hypothetical in these terms just cedes that personal defense is a valid justification. A necessity in regular people’s lives that must be accounted for. With guns.
Rather than a rarity that can almost always be covered by a deadbolt.
I find it preferable to stress that the gun itself is a danger. That if “if” happens a gun of any sort is more of a risk than a lack of gun.
Responsibility mitigating that risk when you own guns for other reasons involves steps that pretty much exclude defense use. Locking firearms and ammunition up seperately (or my preference not keeping any ammo in the house to begin with), storing the gun in non-firable configuration. That sort of thing. Rendering the gun inaccessible and un-usable even to your self.
Well there are hard core 2nd Amendment supporters who would 100% agree with that. “Shall not be infringed, period.” I am obviously pretty pro rights, but am not so far that I don’t agree there should be NO restrictions.
But again, if I were to concede your point “regulated” means “laws and rules” or “restricted”, vs “organized” or “well equipped and trained”, that still doesn’t change that there are two parts - the militia which is to be regulated, and the peoples’ right that should not be infringed. And yet we clearly have many, many, many laws that limit that right.
The First Amendment has “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech”, and yet we also have laws abridging that freedom. And the same arguments - see the Freeze Peach thread - that no speech should be limited. There is no mention of any regulation in the 1st Amendment - specifically saying you can’t make any laws abridging those things. yet we have many, many laws that do, even if they are for specific types and cases of speech.
Same with the right to assemble. Try that with out permits and not in the right areas and see how fast your rights get infringed.
So inconsistencies on how the Constitution is applied and enforced are abundant.
What is the original sense of well regulated? Is organized a better synonym? Because the clockwork universe one doesn’t seem a good fit either. I mean it has some truth I would agree with, but also a bit of hyperbole.
While that certainly describes some people, that isn’t the case with the vast majority of people who care about self defense. In fact they go out of their way to avoid conflict. Similar to martial arts practitioners, you will find people who want to get into bar fights and bust heads, but the vast majority cross the street if they see conflict coming.
That wasn’t the case early on. Not with all militias. You can do a search for early militia laws and see that for yourself. They had a list of arms and supplies they had to have. But there was no standardization. Heck when the government was formed, guns were hand made one at a time and you couldn’t even swap parts for repair with out custom fitting them. But yes, there were some who were more organized than others and bought munitions and arms from the same maker so that everyone had the same basic gear, and actual uniforms. As I said above with another poster - that is the “regulated” part where they were aiming for a better equipped and trained militia. The rag tag militia, while a thorn in the side of the British, wasn’t as effective.
You’re right, and the War of 1812 also showed how the theory of a very small standing army, and an active militia that could be called up didn’t work that well in practice because you had such a mixed bag of competency and readiness of those militias. Also very mixed bag on how competent the leadership of those militias were. Status and wealth often dictated rank over who was actually a good military leader.
I agree with your assessment of how the rights have been viewed over the years in the courts. It has not be consistent. Obviously even with it being either a collective or individual right - there are many limitations by both the federal government and state, county, and city governments. As an anti-authoritarian I prefer to have strong individual rights. Again, the militia clause is an enumeration for the right, but not a requirement of it. “Service Guarantees Citizenship (Rights)” isn’t my idea of a free nation.
Granted there are A LOT of freedoms we didn’t have at the founding of the nation that we do now. So citing how courts had decided differently on past cases compared to more recent decisions, might not be the best way of deciding which is the more valid decision/interpretation.
Right. Originalism lacks utility. To the extent that we bring it up it is mostly useful for context when determining practical applications.
Which is why it makes little sense to insist that “well regulated” can’t mean a modern regulatory frame work. Because we find it useful, and that it fits with the general framework of how we handle these things.
In terms of individual vs collective rights. Sure it sounds nice to say you support more individual rights when it comes to this subject.
But you have to look at how individual rights work, and why the collective right isn’t good enough for the NRA and the right.
There are lot more restrictions on how you can regulate an individual right. You can’t require a license for freedom of speech. We can’t restrict freedom of the press to specific kinds of press, based on need or social impact. You can’t require a test or tax to access the right to vote.
A lot of the better regulation that we’re talking about is specifically precluded. And the effort to push the individual interpretation is largely one to turn any right to fire arm ownership into that sort of right.
The reason we don’t already have that is because Heller was a bit of a half measure in that regard. While the court validated an individual right, they specifically stated that this individual right did not preclude regulation. Or specific existing regulations like licensing and registration.
And because DC is not a State the case didn’t deal with State specific rights and obligations that also impact the ability to regulate. Like interstate commerce.
You’re making that comma do a lot of work, unsupported by the context. You’re asserting that the drafters of the document put a non-sequiter about an unrelated topic into a stand-alone point in the Bill of Rights. Bullshit.
Then there’s the application. If you agree that the drafters intent was that there should be restrictions, and they did not intend for babies to have muskets, or for prisoners to be allowed as many blunderbusses as might fit in their cell, how can you rationalize that said restrictions were mysteriously implied rather than written directly into the text!
As for comparison to 1A restrictions, as I pointed out earlier, the language in the 2A is even stronger (assuming the reader summarily ignores the first clause). So I don’t see how bad interpretation of the 1A excuses worse interpretation of the 2A.
Finally, even if it is only for your own wellbeing, please ask yourself why your right to bear arms is inherent, absolute, and unquestionable when there is anyone else whose right is restricted? Because what it comes down to is that you are reserving a right for yourself that you are unwilling to allow to others. And if that is so, where do we really draw the line?
The problem we quickly run into is that we either accept the very dangerous chaos of absolutely no restrictions at all, or we have to accept that restrictions can and should exist in a civil society. At that point, it’s just a negotiation about where to draw the line.
When you assert that your right be unrestricted, you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.
