Why does the Second Amendement of the US Constituion seem to contradict itself?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Michael Goff, Dec 31, 2015.

  1. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #1
    "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."

    Do you see it?

    Well regulated militia is needed.

    No infringement on carrying arms.

    Technically, those two statements conflict. Is there regulation or is there no infringement? Which one?

    /sits and watches
     
  2. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #2
    You're reading regulated militia as "being controlled by" vs. a militia that is in a state of preparedness or well trained. In other words citizens familiar with their weapons and ready for action as well as a military that is the same and well organized.
     
  3. Michael Goff thread starter macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #3
    I've never known the word regulated to mean what you're saying it means. I'd like a source please.
     
  4. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #4
    Remember the times.

    A well regulated militia - meaning trained and armed free men - is a right, guaranteed under the Constitution, in CASE the government gets out of control. The colonists just defeated THEIR government in the War of Independence.

    The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE infringed by the government. With these arms, it would be impossible to create a well regulated militia.
     
  5. Michael Goff thread starter macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #5
    Another person saying they meant trained and armed. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying this is the first time I've ever known the word to be used like that. Please help me out here.
     
  6. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #6
    Please, did you study US History? Do you understand the context of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

    It's not about word smithing.

    The well regulated militia, an army of trained free men independent from the control of the government, is exactly what the amendment supports. The right to bear arms is fundamental to the ability of the people to create such a militia.

    Can you see any reason why the Constitution would be amended to say the government has the right to create and regulate a militia?
     
  7. pdqgp, Dec 31, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2015

    pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #7
    As thwitt notes in his reply, you have to remember the times. The phrase "well-regulated" was common used through the late 1800's. Something that is well regulated means that it's calibrated correctly, working as expected, etc.

    Militias were the citizens who were called to to defend their own residences, neighbors, and towns. Regulated also references that they were expected to be well trained, familiar and ready for call to duty while understanding an established order of rank. Not be mass of disorganized gun owners unable or willing to follow direction.

    It's still very applicable today. Back when it was written it's intent was to insure that the militia forces were skilled with arms of contemporary military use and so to, relevant military tactics. So back in the day muzzle loaded firearms were common and many also carried a blade of some type. Today we carry long guns, pistols, knives, grenades and are trained in hand to hand combat too. In other words, the 2A stays the same but the items related to it evolve around it.
     
  8. Michael Goff thread starter macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #8
    You're just repeating the same thing.

    Help me out here with something, anything.

    A historical document would help, where they use it like you're saying they used it. Anything. I'm not trying to come across as an arse, I just never heard the phrase to mean what you're repeating it means,
     
  9. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #9
    And I, for one, support the notion that people should be required to go through a decent amount of training before, at least, being allowed to carry concealed.

    ...because it's not the gun I fear, it's shaky-handed cross-eyed Steve trying to defend himself, and missing.
     
  10. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #10

    It's new years, I'm tired and my dog and I are going to join the wife and the other dog on cloud 9. I'm not trying to be an arse either but If you have a strong interest, I'm sure there are local groups of people you could meet with who are into studying the constitution and that era. I know there are several in just my area of the world. Very interesting groups.
     
  11. thewap macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #11
    Well in old speak I wish all a *well regulated* New Years party ! (as in well supplied and maintained).
     
  12. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    Probably it's a compromise between slave and non slave states.
     
  13. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #14
    There has been extensive commentary written on the meaning and purpose of the 2nd amendment for quarter a millenia now. It doesn't contradict itself. At all.

    It's 2016. The internet. Use it.
     
  14. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #15
    Thirty thousand annual gun deaths, the price of liberty and Freedom. :rolleyes:

    I bet if the Founding Fathers saw where the Secind Amendment has taken us in the last 50 years they would have not been so eager to include it in the Constitution. I'm against carry permits unless your profession requires it. As a rule most people are very uncomfortable seeing other citizens openly carrying weapons and arguably open carry complicates the job of law enforcement.

    My own point of view is that making it convienent to kill someone with readily assessable weapons, is a big negative. It's driven by negativity, not positive attitudes, an indication of the sickness and mistrust many of us hold about our society, our government, and not just government, but any authority.

    Some of us would like to see all citizens carrying for selfish reasons, not because it's good for society, but because psychologically it ensure their ability to carry, and they feel their own gun makes them safer. But if you use just a little logic, you'd figure out if everyone is armed, how much safer are you really?

    I understand the argument, take away the guns from the bad guys and I'll put down my gun. But the end result, this is an argument, pushed by the gun lobby, ensures they will always have a business manufacturing guns. No matter how you cut it, less guns in our society is a positive. The gun problem faced by the U.S. is unique among the major stabile countries in the World, based on our attitudes and gun policies. But I'm a realist and as long as guns have been elevated to diety status, we can just live with our violent society who frequently turns to our guns to resolve our differences.

    Happy New Year!
     
  15. b0fh666 macrumors 6502a

    b0fh666

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Location:
    south
    #16
    you anti-gun activists should come live the dream down here (yeah, I know, I'm repeating myself). Thats because I know better, I live the dream. daily.

    edit: thirty-thousand? a year? that's a weak month around here :p
     
  16. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #17
    And where is "down here" with over 360,000 gun deaths per year?
     
  17. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #18
    At some point, the scales will fall from your eyes.

    Some actual history here:

    http://www.carltbogus.com/edmund-a-blog/72-the-hidden-history-of-the-second-amendment-redux

    One thing that has changed is that these historical materials are freely available online now. A trip to the university library is not needed.
     
  18. MacAndMic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    #19
    We'll never know but I would wager they recognized that each generation is just a blip in time in this nation, hence the need for a starting basis. For our current generation to curb the rights of future generations when we have no idea of their future needs, is selfish.
     
  19. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #20
    You missed the point. Why does the (misinterpreted) Second Amendment trump all the other rights in the rest of the Constitution?
     
  20. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #21
    Which rights are impeded by individual freedom to own a firearm?
     
  21. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #22
  22. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #23
    Declaration of Independence is not Constitution.

    Further (and bringing back to topic), looking at the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which guided the drafting of both documents, we see that well regulated militia is defined as "composed of the body of the people, trained to arms" and that a standing army during peacetime should be avoided.
     
  23. nightcap965 macrumors 6502a

    nightcap965

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Location:
    Cape Cod
    #24
    Justice Scalia, writing for the 5-4 majority in District of Columbia v. Heller, said that the first part is a prefatory clause that neither limits nor expands the right expressed in the second part.

    If you don't like that, the options are: Overrule DC v. Heller. (Bowers v. Hardwick, the odious decision affirming the state's right to regulate private sexual conduct, was overruled in my lifetime with Lawrence v. Texas). Or amend the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise, this battle is lost. The slaughter of 20 elementary school children three years ago didn't change anything, so it's hard to imagine anything that would.

    Understand that gun owners see themselves as defenders of themselves and their families, and naturally resist any attempt to restrict that function. The random mass shootings, accidental deaths, suicides, and murder-suicides where a despondent (usually male) family member kills everyone else in the house and finally himself are just the price we pay for freedom.

    Open carry started in Texas today. What could possibly go wrong?

    "The blood-dimmed tide is loosed..." (W.B. Yeats)
     
  24. Michael Goff thread starter macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #25
    Thank you for your helpful addition to the discussion. If you would like to not have any further additions, the door is that way.
     

Share This Page