Indeed. It’s not as if the 2nd Amendment is confusing in that regard. Yet somehow, that key phrase gets entirely ignored.
[quote=“rodeo”]Why the clamoring about gun laws after some nutjob shoots up a public place is my question.
Take all the people who have been killed in Chicago this year so far and you could FILL a movie theater. And that’s just Chicago. 
[/quote]
It’s true, to a degree. But this was a mass murder. Without his AR-15 and all the ammo, it wouldn’t have been as bad. That that’s allowed is really nuts.
Certainly something besides gun availability must be contributing to the increases in such cases:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ra … :_Americas
That interpretation has always seemed off to me. The text is as follows:
The main clause here seems to be “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Everything before that explains the reason for this provision, but does not seem to limit the right to that purpose.
Has any official judgement or executive policy ever said otherwise? As far as I know locally restrictive gun control laws, like NY’s Sullivan laws, are not enacted on this basis.
[quote=“Tempo Gain”]
That interpretation has always seemed off to me. The text is as follows:
The main clause here seems to be “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Everything before that explains the reason for this provision, but does not seem to limit the right to that purpose.[/quote]
Surely it does. The very definition of a militia is citizens backing up the armed forces in times of need. The right of the people to bear arms is predicated on this notion. The fact that militias have been done away with in recent times by no means indicates that the people have a right to bear arms.
Why would a militia less society need a right for people to bear arms?
To protect themselves from others that do bear arms?
Such a nefarious right would surely extend to would be criminals and sociopaths, thus creating a wide loop ad infinitum.
[quote=“TheGingerMan”]
Surely it does. The very definition of a militia is citizens backing up the armed forces in times of need. The right of the people to bear arms is predicated on this notion. The fact that militias have been done away with in recent times by no means indicates that the people have a right to bear arms.
Why would a militia less society need a right for people to bear arms?
To protect themselves from others that do bear arms?
Such a nefarious right would surely extend to would be criminals and sociopaths, thus creating a wide loop ad infinitum.[/quote]
I agree with you to an extent–for one thing I’m not sure the theoretical need for a militia is any different now than it ever was.
More to the point, regardless of whatever questions I have about the issue personally (and I think we’re in broad agreement there,) that is what the language used by the framers suggests to me. It seems explicit, though I understand not everyone agrees.
Constitutions can and do change with the times. They are not documents set in stone.
[quote=“TheGingerMan”]
Surely it does. The very definition of a militia is citizens backing up the armed forces in times of need. The right of the people to bear arms is predicated on this notion. The fact that militias have been done away with in recent times by no means indicates that the people have a right to bear arms.
Why would a militia less society need a right for people to bear arms?
To protect themselves from others that do bear arms?
Such a nefarious right would surely extend to would be criminals and sociopaths, thus creating a wide loop ad infinitum.[/quote]
Actually (most) of the Founding Fathers opposed the existence of a standing Army (but supported a Navy); the militia was supposed to both protect the country and, equally importantly, protect the people from the government.
In those days, at least in North American conditions, there wasn’t that much difference in effectiveness between the weapons available to an army and the weapons available to the populace.
And another crucial bit of info is that this citizen’s militia is to be well regulated.
Quotes from the Founding Fathers:
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.
“…arms…discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. …Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them.”
-Thomas Paine.
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
-Patrick Henry.
“To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”
-Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788).
“The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
-Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.
“Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion…in private self defense…”
-John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
“…the people have a right to keep and bear arms.”
-Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
-George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
-Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.
“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
-Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
-Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989 at col. 1.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States…Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America.”
-Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
-Thomas Jefferson.
“They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785).
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).
“(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
-James Madison.
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
-Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).
“The right of crazed gunmen to blow away innocent moviegoers and students with machine guns by the dozens shall not be infringed” - the NRA
So what happens when weapons evolve? What happens when societies and the world evolves? That is what is happening now. What about carrying tasers? What about drones and robots?
Looking back to pre-industrial times for answers is not going to help much. The problems need to be fixed by people of the here and now using rationality and common sense, just as the people who wrote the original constitution of the US based it very much on the issues they faced at that time.
Harking back to founding fathers from 100s of years ago for answers would have been heartily laughed at by Benjamin Franklin, the most modern of men.
Tigerman, great quotes!
Yet, surely those chaps were surely talking about bygones, when there were still threats to your Union, albeit from bands of Natives, Mexicans, or Loyalists.
Again, it comes down to the basic fact:
Against whom doth the modern right to bear arms for an ill-regulated individual apply?
Surely there is no-one else but other ill-regulated individuals?
All those chaps you cited must surely be rolling in their graves at the complete lack of order in this jurisdiction.
Which perhaps may be the key to this whole biscuit: the realm of State’s rights. Not easily understood by us non-Yanks, given the paramount factor of U.S. federal military spending.
[quote=“TheGingerMan”]Tigerman, great quotes!
Yet, surely those chaps were surely talking about bygones, when there were still threats to your Union, albeit from bands of Natives, Mexicans, or Loyalists.
Again, it comes down to the basic fact:
Against whom doth the modern right to bear arms for an ill-regulated individual apply?
Surely there is no-one else but other ill-regulated individuals?
All those chaps you cited must surely be rolling in their graves at the complete lack of order in this jurisdiction.
Which perhaps may be the key to this whole biscuit: the realm of State’s rights. Not easily understood by us non-Yanks, given the paramount factor of U.S. federal military spending.[/quote]
I don’t think the FFs were talking about bygones. They, like most Americans at the time, and many still today, were profoundly concerned and suspicious of any government. The US Constitution, as written, serves two primary purposes, which are actually one and the same: Asserting and protecting the rights of individuals while severely limiting the power of the federal government. That’s a fact that cannot be correctly denied, although many have decided that the role of the federal government should be increased (and it has been, over the years).
The right to legitimate self protection is basic and core to the right of the individual.
I don’t know the first thing about grammar, but, this site and this site both argue that according to the literal meaning of the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms is independent of the existence of any militia.
While I’ve never owned a gun, I do strongly support the second amendment, for both political and practical reasons. I also support reasonable regulations/restrictions wrt the right to bear arms.
Don’t feel bad about not understanding the concept of States’ rights! Many US citizens are ignorant, as well. The States are/were meant to be sovereign. The US was founded as a federalist system. But, too many, IMO, want to make the US another Europe. No disrespect to Europe intended… but, the US was not meant to be what Europe is today.
I doubt that.
You read his autobiography then? I have, he was always at the forefront of trends and organization, a man of his times, a scientific inquirer of the modern era. He would have no time for referring to documents created by politicians from a bygone era to deal with a modern crisis. At least I highly doubt he would have given it much credence, hard to know because they are all dead.
If America’s founders were alive today they would be dismissed by right-wingers as “paleoconservative isolationists” and by left-wingers as “rugged individualist” cranks. It’s a wonder modern American society still pretends to honor their legacy.
Franklin’s 2nd Amendment concerns would most likely center on the dangers of a professional army increasing devoid of individuals beholden to the Republic rather than to generals and politicians.
If America’s founders were alive today they would say, “How did that slave get elected president?”
(To paraphrase Stephen Colbert.)
I’ve read pretty much every recent book on Franklin, including in the past year, books on Franklin authored by Walter Isaacson and Gordon S. Wood (the latter of which won the Pulitzer Prize). Franklin organized militias a number of times in his life and disliked the dilletante-style of pacifism that the ruling Quakers of Philadelphia often espoused.
In fact, I’d go as far to say that Franklin, as a self-made man, would have voted for Reagan and his trickle-down economics that modern liberals foam at the mouth over! 
He was also against raising the minimum wage. These opinions are reinforced in Isaacson’s book in my quotes below (and he is no conservative–used to lead CNN).
Sorry, Franklin would look at present day gun control in a similar way that he looked disdainfully at the ruling Quakers of Philadelphia. He would say it was social engineering from the top and he had little time for such elitism. In fact, so much of his writings lampooned such pretensions.
Try lecturing to people that don’t know US history! 
(hope you haven’t put me on ignore yet :roflmao: :roflmao: --some people really hate to learn).
[quote=“Benjamin Franklin in Walter Isaacson’s book on Pages 267 and 268”]
The rich spend their money is ways that enrich the labouring poor…A law might be made to raise their wages,but if our manufactures are too dear, they might not vend abroad." [/quote]
[quote=“Dr. McCoy”]If America’s founders were alive today they would say, “How did that slave get elected president?”
(To paraphrase Stephen Colbert.)[/quote]
Ben Franklin was president of Pennsylvania’s Antislavery Society.
That’s hard to say. Franklin thought pretty well of the constitution, as evidenced by his written speech (delivered by someone else as he was too sick) on the last day of the Constitutional Convention:
[quote]
I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.
On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.[/quote]
usconstitution.net/franklin.html
I think his first reaction would be satisfaction and pride that the aims he had worked for had been fulfilled for over two hundred years into the future. I also think he would be astounded and terrified by the vastly increased power of modern firearms. I highly doubt he’d be ready to scrap the constitution over it. I think he might work for increased gun control however. There are legal avenues for that. Maybe he’d start a Society.
[quote=“Winston Smith”][quote=“Dr. McCoy”]If America’s founders were alive today they would say, “How did that slave get elected president?”
(To paraphrase Stephen Colbert.)[/quote]
Ben Franklin was president of Pennsylvania’s Antislavery Society.[/quote]
I always liked Ben.