society - communication.

Where we find ourselves is that it no longer works - on one hand, we do everything to call life sacred. But clearly, it is more important to be able to blow people away than to value life.

Here's another:

One size does not fit all. I respect my lefty friends' rights to own guns because they have to kill critters. I respect that people have different hobbies - and if they want to collect guns, fine. I respect that some people find a thrill in hitting a target with a gun. Myself - no interest whatsoever. I grew up where no one needed or wanted them. we've never and will never own one - our choice.

But the high powered types of guns, the overwhelming collections, the reactions to shootings where deaths of young people are secondary to people's rights to own these killing machines - that's where the one size fits all doesn't work. That's where the world today is much different than that 200 or more years ago.

So guns with never, ever, ever make sense to me. And these massacres will never, never make sense to me. And that they keep happening is simply insane.

But that's the world we live in - and with the gobs of money spent to make sure that these things are still in people's hands - well, at 60, I think we are all screwed anyway, be it the climate, guns, politics - you name it. We have countless faults as humans, and they all - greed, corruption, hubris, violence, power - all seem to be coming home to roost.

Hence my love of nature, gardening, writing, music. To escape it all.

I also think Michael Moore is on to something (in his Bowling for Columbine) - fear. It drives behavior. and we are one shit the pants, scared country of people, in general. I refuse to let fear rule me or my life, though.

Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom. - A. Einstein

Anything else?

Specifically when would arms not be guns nor guns arms? Note that I had enough of the Army's idiocy in saying a gun was only artillery. Apparently they didn't know what a dictionary was (of course if they had one, they could look it up).

Arms could include knives, swords, guns, spears, bows and arrows, morning stars, pikes, bayonets...

Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word arms as “anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.

So these would all be arms: clubs, chains, lassos, bolas and of course cats (I recommend wearing one on your shoulder and throwing it on the enemies head or face).

Abrams tanks and other heavy weapons

So what?

I left out the YAL-1 on purpose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1
It was cancelled.

Defines the word arms as “anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon." So if you don't carry or wear it, it ain't arms. I'd say Minuteman missiles, Abrams tanks and other heavy weapons do not qualify.

The idea was to protect man-portable arms, weapons that a typical infantry soldier would carry. That would exclude things like battleships and crew served weapons like heavy machine guns and cannon.

And I thought they were about nuclear arms. Oh and I guess Black does not allow for women to be armed.

...the words "right to keep and bear" the term arms would exclude heavy, crew-served weapons, artillery, gun ships, etc.

IIRC the SALT agreements included definitions and qualifications for the terminology used therein.

and totally unnecessary for centuries.

...you've considered answering #9.

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

enabling states to summon a reasonably-equipped militia when necessary, and enabling private persons to conduct all the other typical activities small arms are suited for (self-defense, hunting, sport, etc)...

I suspect it was a compromise among the framers and it's interpretations purposely vague. I know we like to look back and assume the founders had it all figured out, and therefore the fault must be on ourselves in not always understanding what was meant. I suspect that the cases where we are left with multiple explanations were instances where they came to an intentional compromise. Hence, the "militia" clause to this day causes endless debate and confusion.

That is to say that I feel that the individual right to self protection including ownership of the tools to self-protect was a given, and the framers felt compelled to include the potential need for militia to be summoned as an additional justification to specifically delineate this particular individual right along with the potential application toward a militia.

I know this is in direct conflict with particular interpretation that considers a militia prerequisite to the individual right.

I cannot fathom America being founded any other way, or intending that her citizens not have an individual right to self-defense; that interpretation is repugnant to my sensibilities.

With rights, however, come responsibilities and, unlike the first amendment, the second is conditional and revokable.

explanatory rather than conditional...


Edit to add:

I posted a somewhat goofy analogy a few months ago, which didn't get a lot of traction (probably because I mucked it up by including a nonsensical poll as a joke), but here was my thought-prompt:

Of course, as we now have GMOs and multinational global food production....

There is no need for Amendment XYZ.

Welcome to DU.

What it clearly states is most often denied.

The right to keep and bear arms is protected from infringement in order that militia participation not be impeded.

A well regulated militia was the paramount purpose of the amendment. Any one interested in the this issue would begin with a reading, which I do not have time to search for the links, of the discussions that took place when this amendment was adopted.

Self-defence, target shooting, hunting, etc. Clearly, an individual right, and like the other rights, not conditioned or limited by a specific government need.

The phrase "well regulated militia" simply means a well trained militia (there is plenty of literature on this fact). In other words, ONE of the reasons the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms is so there can be a well-trained militia, versed in the use of firearms. That is not the only reason, and the prefatory clause doesn't impose any limit on the right to keep and bear arms. I recommend The Commonplace Second Amendment as a good starting point on this issue.

...the area that would become the USA saw lots of conflicts. The worst of those was the Revolution. It became accepted that a best solution was a militia. At that time, one of the meanings of "well regulated" was effective and working properly.

The Militia Act of 1903 listed as the reserve or unorganized militia as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

left over from the day the colonists tried to self govern under the Articles of Confederation and thought that local militias would repel any foreign invasion just as they'd managed to defeat the British, not realizing that without professional soldiers leading the whole thing, they'd still be singing "God Save the King."

It should have been scrapped when it became clear that at least a small standing professional army was necessary to defend the new Republic, that badly trained farmers were not up to doing the job had one of the imperial powers in Europe decided to start picking off some of the richer former colonies.

Gun laws are best decided locally. What works in a big east coast city is not going to work out here in bear and cougar country, and vice versa.

Having every lunatic, curious child, and felon able to access guns is not working. Period.

...the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution which came after the Articles.

Why restrict rifle practice to males, only?

And why not stress safety? And how about liability insurance on those things?

I think everyone should practice with a rifle.

Safety? I've never been to a range where safety wasn't stressed before any hand ever touched a rifle.

I believe insurance is available that covers accidents. I doubt insurance will ever cover criminal activity.

His quote is outmoded. He'd likely have quite a different opinion of the country today.

as evidenced by these words: Being necessary to the security of a free state. The role of the militia was and is to secure a state of freedom within the US. The right to keep and bear arms was therefore given to the militia to ensure a perpetual state of freedom.

Large standing armies were recognized as a necessary evil in times of war. They were, however, never intended to be indefinitely quartered within our borders during times of peace nor were they ever intended to replace the role of the civilian militia in any way.

This is, first and foremost, codified in the second amendment itself. What's more, language to this effect is further codified in numerous state constitutions. For example, in Ohio, my state, our constitution states: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

and in Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it

And in Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power

and In North Carolina: 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

South Carolina: 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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


What ought to be taken away from this is that large standing armies ought not be maintained in times of peace and ought not be justification for nullifying the right to keep and bear arms (as if there is any chance of that happening anyways).

Is one of the protections against an overreaching government. Would you feel secure in your person if Bobby Jindal is elected president, or Ted Cruz?

the final guarantors of their freedom and safety without regard to the origin of any threat.

The RKBA expressed a natural human right and the 2A protected that right in the context of the Constitution and the country's need for a militia from which an army could be raised. A disarmed and unpracticed populace is basically the opposite of the Founder's plan.

this will probably be flamed to heck, so i'll preface with 'gun owner', former 'military'

2nd "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."

keywords now: "RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS"

keywords that could be more important in the future: "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"

Merriam webster

Regulate:
: to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)
: to bring (something) under the control of authority
: to make rules or laws that control (something)

Militia:
a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers

how many gun owners today match 'trained like soldiers who are organized and under the authority of someone(chain of command and responsibility)'??

were minute men just running around unorganized? no!


How about
militia license (at same time you get the gun you sign up to a 'preferred list' so when the armed forces needs recruits, they can call you and you can't decline) AND/OR mandatory TRAINING and QUALIFICATIONS (regular)...see...that'd be a "REGULATED MILITIA"

let the flames and hiding this post commence

I think you greatly underestimate just how often your post is presented by others.

But I disagree with your interpretation of the language of the amendment. The militia clause does indeed imply two categories within "the people," and those would be militia members and non-militia . However, that phrase isn't incorporated into the complete sentence in a way that excludes the non-militia group from protection. That is, the RKBA is ascribed to the entire set ("the People&quot and not to the militia subset. The militia clause instead describes a rationale to protect this right of the people as a whole, in order that a well-regulated militia can be called up. Eliminating that rationale would not effect that right of the people, it would only remove one possible justification for protecting it.

The structure of the sentence is such that the RKBA is antecedent to both the prohibition of infringement and to the militia. This is the case with any sentence structured in that manner: "in order to have thus-and-so, you have to make sure such-and-such exists." The "such-and-such" is recognized as preexisting. Claiming that because the militia is no longer necessary, the RKBA isn't, either, is a "denial of the antecedent" fallacy. It's not valid to infer the inverse...

I don't see any flames in your future.

As I said in #45 above:
It became accepted (in the late 1700s) that the best solution (for events of insurrection or needs of national defense) was a militia. At that time, one of the meanings of "well regulated" was effective and working properly.

The Militia Act of 1903 listed as the reserve or unorganized militia as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

Both Nuclear Unicorn and Lizzie Poppet often have wise and insightful words to offer.
Please feel free to discuss, debate and/or disagree as you see fit without fear of flames from at least the pro-gun side.
Many on the pro-control side are reasonable as well.

As i said, i do own a (few) guns and did military service

am i for weapons only for LEO and military..nope
all for weapons for people, also all for mental checks (not just checking if I've got a duck on my head)
all for criminal checks
all for mandatory regular (every other year?) qualifications (then again I'm for that on drivers licenses too)


but the question was about 2nd...
*G*

actually in quite a few states (Florida being one)
Drivers License registers you for 'selective service (draft board)'

btw like the name..once i bought a few vowels :-p

i agree with you to some extent, but what stops an anti-gun Dr. labeling all his gun owning patients as incompetent?

from flunking all applicants

in the end it looks strange

just like
what stops a pro-gun doc allowing people that are completely mentally unstable ?

if shoe fits left, then shoe fits right

that being said, notice i want training/organization
ooh well

agree

The federal government in the "militia clause" is stating one of the reasons why this broad individual right should not be infringed; it depends on the right to exercise its militia powers described in Article 1. Could the framers left out the clause? Yes, but it was put in due to apparent political compromise with those fearing a standing army. These people wanted the militia powers up front in the Second, but not a conditioner of the individual RKBA. Most constitutional experts believe the Second is a guarantor of the individual RKBA.

If the clause was somehow construed to mean only a right attendant to formation of a militia, it would be completely at odds with the whole premise of the Bill of Rights. Then you would have a "right" which is hugely infringed, and a "right" occuring to an agency or community.

Its a restriction on governmental power, which protects rights, generally, from governmental interference.

for my 45 years at least the 2A has meant having the tools necessary to do that job. For the past 20 (at least) we've witnessed an expansion of that to where somehow the PTB have finally realized our lives are worth protecting outside our homes. That's a good first step...

Now isn't the time to give up on our progressive fight to make a safer America for our children.