The 2nd Amendment in modern language

[Ghost in the Machine]

As it is written:

"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."


My interpretation, in modern language:

"Because of the need for a standing army to protect the security of our Country, the right of the People to keep and bear arms to protect themselves against tyranny from an armed Government shall not be infringed upon."

Our Founding Fathers recognized the need for a 'well regulated militia' (standing army) to protect our newly formed country from invasions by the British, Spanish, etc. They also recognized that this very same 'well regulated militia' could be used to oppress an unarmed citizenry so they guaranteed our right to be able to defend ourselves.

Granted, weaponry has gone through a multitude of change since the musket days, but the gist is still the same. Our deer rifles and shotguns wouldn't be a match against helicopters, jets and tanks, but at least we'd stand a (small) chance in a ground war if it ever came down to a full fledged revolution or civil war.

[rwheeler31]

1. Read your history.

[imdjh]

4. What is your point?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. History agrees with him.

[IDFbunny]

8. Federalist Papers 29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29

Find were the 'people' is construed as a federal right to raise and army.

[votingupstart]

21. he apparently did - i cant say the say for you

or did you want to post another seemingly more educated short and cryptic post referring to something that is commonly known to the educated and implying the OP is not so educated?

- its a common response for people who disagree with the subject matter, have no firm intellectual grasp of the subject and have big egos/social acceptance issues - they do this so they cannot be "proven wrong" and so fill a psycho-social need for acceptance by others that they have.

[X_Digger]

2. Well, you're equating two things that were polar opposites..

'standing armies' were the antithesis of 'militia' in their eyes.

'Standing armies' had been used by tyrants to subjugate citizens across the world's history. A paid 'mercenary force' under control and beholden to a central authority (tyrant, oligarch, monarch, theocrat) was 180 degrees apart from the militia drawn from the armed citizenry, under direct state control but whose officers reported to the federal level authority. They figured that militias, drawn from local citizenry would be less likely to perpetrate tyranny.

Since the Dick Act of 1905, we have the organized militia (Natl guards) and the unorganized militia (basically everyone else.) With a few variances by state for age and / or sex, we are the unorganized militia.

If I were to rewrite the original 2nd amendment in modern language, I'd write it as:

"Since the ability to organize armed citizens is important for state and national security, the right of people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed."

Doesn't mean that the only reason for having armed citizenry is national and state security, that's just the most important reason to protect it- after all, the bill of rights doesn't grant rights, it's telling the government what rights it can't infringe on.

[Greyhound]

11. "after all, the bill of rights doesn't grant rights, it's telling the government what

rights it can't infringe on."

Funny how often people ignore this. Bullseye.

[Euromutt]

16. X_digger's got it pretty much spot on

Complicating the terminology is the concept of a "select militia," that is, a militia (i.e. an armed force of people who are not full-time soldiers, but are called to arms when needed) consisting of members who are not representative of the general population, and whose function, consequently, is to act as armed force against the segment of society that they do not represent. For example, in a country whose population is composed of several ethnic groups, the government created a militia of people all of whom were not only members of one ethnic groups, but also members of the ruling nationalist party, that would be a "select militia." Select militias are generally bad things.

As X_digger rightly notes, every U.S. citizen of military age (18-45) is already a member of the "unorganized militia," which is for practical purposes a recruiting pool both for the "organized militia," and any ad hoc formations the government might see fit to throw together in times of crisis. I'd actually formulate the Second Amendment slightly differently myself:

The availability of a pool of citizens skilled in the handling and use of arms, to be recruited into the service of the state or federal government if and when needed, being necessary to the security of a free polity, the right of private citizens to keep, bear, practice with, and instruct other private citizens in the use of firearms shall not be infringed.

The addition of the "practice" and "instruct" clauses explicitly protects the right of citizens both older and younger than "military age" to keep and bear arms, as doing so allows them to learn or teach weapons handling.

[beevul]

17. Spot on, X_Digger.

translated into into modern language:

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The preamble to the bill of rights contains verification for anyone with any doubts of the context in which 2A should be read:

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 insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/


Of course that doesn't stop those in opposition from polluting the discussion with incorrect collective rights misinterpretations.

[Statistical]

22. +1 n/t

[tularetom]

3. What's your point?

I agree whole heartedly with your interpretation of the current reading of the 2nd amendment, but at the same time I do not harbor any romantic notions of dying in a rain of bullets while defending my little plot of land against the evil intentions of the feds. That's just fucking stupid.

I'm pretty sure the government doesn't want or need my guns. Most of them are antiques, more than 50 years old, and they would not do them much good. A lot of them are muzzleloaders or cap and ball revolvers and they take at least 20 to 30 seconds to clean reload and fire. So I'm not gonna spend a lot of time fantasizing about things that have almost no chance of happening.

As far as I'm concerned the second amendment says I can keep and bear arms. Period. They don't need to know why I want to do that, it's none of their business.

Unfortunately we would stand absolutely NO chance in a ground war against the government. They have planes, missiles, drones and smart bombs. If they wanted to get rid of us they could do it without us ever knowing it had happened.

But they DON"T WANT TO DO THIS! If they did, they'd have done it already. They aren't worried about us.

[Statistical]

23. "Unfortunately we would stand absolutely NO chance in a ground war against the government."

What robot army does the govt have?

How many soldiers will simply desert and go home to protect their families (and take their automatic weapons with them)?
How many enlisted will blow the brains out of an officer who tells them to kill American women & children?
When the gubermint blows up a city block with an weapon ill suited for urban warfare how many people side against the govt?
How many people upset at the govt will not directly fight but will hide, feed, shelter the fighters (like in Iraq & Afghanistan)?
How many state governors (TX?) will not transfer control of their national guard units (which include tanks, artillery, and gunships) & armories to a tyrannical fed govt?

When I was in Iraq the intel suggested their were about 200 snipers of moderate skill and that radically reduced our ability to move and changed our tactics.

The US has 20 million hunters some of amazing skill. Not much difference between shooting a deer at 200m and shooting a human at 200m. The heavier hunting calibers will simply go right though the Interceptor Body armor used by US troops. How much chaos do you think even 300,000 hunters turned snipers would cause?

The point isn't that the 2nd is a "automatic win button" against federal tyranny.
The 2nd gives the people a chance. Maybe not the best chance but a chance. Who would have thought a bunch of colonists would defeat the worlds superpower in the 1700s?

[DissedByBush]

32. 200,000,000

That is the low estimate of the number of guns in private hands.

They are owned by approximately 60,000,000 people.

Oppression would be difficult.

Unless the government takes away the guns or ammunition first, and I see progress towards that.

[rug]

6. Re your last sentence, it was to assure the people's right to revolt.

[JDPriestly]

7. Well regulated militia absolutely did not mean standing army.

The leaders among the founding fathers were vocal and pretty much in agreement in opposing a standing army. They wanted to prohibit the U.S. from every having a standing army. How far we have strayed from their dreams.

A well regulated militia needs no translation. It meant civilian volunteers who were armed.

[Statistical]

24. Sadly your right.

The founders were VERY clear on this.
They believed a standing army was the first step on a road to tyranny.

They also believed in a govt that looks nothing like what we have today.
Their "vision" was more like the EU. With our fed govt being the EU and each country in EU being a state in the union.
Independent states working together for common good.

Many would likely puke if they saw the level of bureaucracy, control, and scope of the federal govt today.

[patriotvoice]

9. Males out number the Federal forces by more than 100 to 1.

Better than small chance, considering the Brother Factor.

Notwithstanding, "well regulated Militia" did not refer to standing armies; it referred to the body public, able-bodied men who were well-trained (well-regulated) in the use of conventional arms.

[proteus_lives]

10. Good post.

I've had people tell me that guns wouldn't protect me or anyone against the government. They're right in the sense that the government is better armed and more organized. But here's the rub. The armed forces can't be everywhere. It's a big country. And if Vietnam and Iraq and our history (Minutemen, Green Mountain Boys, Jayhawkers, Bushwackers, outlaws, militias, street gangs, mafias) has taught us anything, it's that lightly armed irregulars can cause a lot of havoc if they want to.

I have a right to keep and bear weapons. To protect my person, my family, my home and my liberty. Just as our Founding Fathers intended.

[Nailzberg]

12. Very True. The Soviets couldn't take Afghanastan. The US couldn't take VietNam.

The Brits couldn't take the Colonies.

And the Russian backed Cuban forces could not take a small Colorado town from a pickup full of high school kids.

WOLVERINES!!!!!

[proteus_lives]

13. Red Dawn......

Is totally silly, totally jingoistic, totally 80s and IT WILL NEVER STOP BEING AWESOME!

Did you hear they're doing a remake? (Made me so mad I could spit, how do you improve on perfection?)

[Euromutt]

14. Of course, in all three historical examples...

... the rebelling forces had a considerable amount of outside help from the rival superpower. The French provided support to the rebelling Colonies, the Vietnamese had a steady supply of Soviet and Chinese-made hardware and POL, and the Afghan mujehaddin got scads of Chinese-made weapons and ammo from the CIA (via the Pakistani ISI).

But in all cases, the anti-insurgent forces really had no way to win, because the regimes they were trying to impose were too unpopular. The US actually came very close to fighting the Vietnamese communists to a standstill in 1970 militarily, but by then too many South Vietnamese wanted the RVN government tossed out for the military advantage to have a lasting effect. And there was no way the Sovs were ever going to win in Afghanistan without killing everyone who wanted the DRA government gone (i.e. almost everyone outside Kabul, and a fair number of people in Kabul).

[proteus_lives]

19. Good points.

I think if the US were to collapse into civil conflict, there would be plenty of foreign players interested in being involved in the smuggling of weapons, money and aid. If for nothing else to limit the US's impact on the world stage. Russia, China, various Middle Eastern groups, drug cartels, European arms dealers, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. History has shown that rebel groups are often not picky about where the money comes from.

On the Vietnam example, my dad is a Vietnam Vet who was over there in 69 and 1970. While he hated the fact he was there in the first place, he is also bitter being successful militarily but being held back by confusing orders and politics. He still says, "If they let the army off the leash, we could have won." I don't know how accurate that is but it's how he feels.

[Statistical]

25. Not only that the "guns won't protect you from govt group" fails to realize...

soldiers are Americans.

Soldiers take an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION not Washington, not tyrants.
Many will desert. Some will even spy/sabotage/disrupt federal forces.

National Guard units are under the authority of the state governor.
Even when they go to federal orders (like deployment to Iraq) the governor has to sign over authority to the President.

Many states would refuse to deploy their national guard units. Some might even deploy them against the federal govt (tell me the gov in TX isn't crazy enough to do something like that).

[JonQ]

26. Also I think the prospect of facing armed insurrection

or even frequent assassination attempts from a well armed public is enough to dissuade many who would otherwise be tempted to try such a gamble.

No one ever said that if it came to that (government tyranny being opposed by armed civilians) that the good guys are guaranteed an easy victory, or even a victory at all. Merely that an armed and vigilant society is a much better deterrent to tyranny than an unarmed one.

Kind of a like a seat belt isn't guaranteed to save your life, and sometimes it can be implicated in death or injury that would not have occured without one, but in general it's a good idea.

[Will E Orwontee]

15. Here's what I came up with years ago . . .

This re-wording continues and solidifies the principles of the original in language that those educated in modern government schools can understand even if they have no affection for, or understanding of, those fundamental principles on which the Constitution rests.

The existence and viability of a properly functioning citizen militia (the body of citizens that are capable of bearing arms and capable of acting in concert) is necessary to the security of any Nation established as a Constitutional Republic and founded on the principle of securing individual liberty from both foreign and domestic threats.

To ensure that condition forever exists in the United States of America, the pre-existing, individual right of the people to keep and bear arms is hereby forever secured from all governmental infringement. If the federal government or state governments are remiss in establishing a code of discipline for the militia this in no way effects the right to arms of the people.

Federal, State and all lower political subdivisions of government are rendered powerless to impair the people's access and ownership to those types of weaponry usually employed in civilized warfare and that constitute the ordinary military equipment, or any small arm with military usefulness. All governmental divisions are prohibited to disarm any individual without just cause and due process for actual crimes committed.

Except for the "incorporation" of lower governments, this interpretation conforms with all Supreme Court rulings on the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment. Of course, the framers of the 14th Amendment were clear though that they intended the 2nd to fall under the scope of the 14th. Much of the impetus of the 14th Amendment came from the states' brutal enforcement of Black Codes and the states using their militias to disarm freed blacks.

The 2nd Amendment and the other provisions in the Bill of Rights grant nothing. They are only a partial list of the rights that a citizen must possess to ensure that government is their servant, not their master. Those enumerated rights mark a territory where the government established by the Constitution can not step. If the government does trespass, it is no longer the government established by the Constitution and is from then on, illegitimate. It is then subject to the citizen's original right to rescind their consent to be governed, using the various means guaranteed by the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment (as a last resort).

It has been validated by SCOTUS that since the right secured by the 2nd Amendment predates and thus can not possibly be granted by the Constitution, it is in no way dependent on the Constitution (or the Bill of Rights) for its existence.

[spin]

18. If the 2nd Amendment was rewritten today it would be 50 pages long...

The time when the constitution was written was similar to the early days of computing when memory was expensive so computer code had to be very concise and effective.

Back when the Constitution was written in longhand the authors said what they meant and meant what they said.

Today instead of computer software, we have fatware.

Today instead of simple, easy to understand laws, we have enormous documents that are so large that few if any politicians have time to read let alone understand the bill before they vote on it.

[Deadric Damodred]

20. You need to get very exact in order to shut the grabbers up.

You can't just use modern language, you'd have to be very specific in order to shut the gun-grabbers up. It would have to say something like:

Individual people have the right to keep, own, and bear firearms. The definition of firearms includes: Outdated Firearms, Present Day Firearms, and Future Firearms; as well as ammunition and magazines to hold the ammunition. Whether a firearm has a military use, self-defense use, hunting use, or sporting use, an individual has the right to own the firearm. No firearm, or it's ammunition, may be banned from individual people or taxed out of the price range of individual people. Magazines for firearms may not be limited in the amount of ammunition they can hold. Individuals have the right to carry these firearms both openly or concealed in the public domain.

There, I think that covers it. I think that would be specific enough to shut the grabbers up forever.

[JonQ]

27. Funny thing about gun-grabbers

they will argue up and down that with technology changes that right now longer applies. That the guns they were talking about back then are so much different than the guns we have now that the founders couldn't have anticipated that technology would change and they would get more effective.

They will make this argument and also express outrage at any attempt by the government to suppress their first amendment rights by interfering with what is on TV, the radio, or the internet.

And they honestly don't see the irony.

[Deadric Damodred]

28. They see the irony,

they just don't like anyone who isn't wearing a uniform to have a gun; or at least not a gun that looks scary.

[JonQ]

29. I don't like anyone who isn't working for the government

being able to express their views publicly. Many of them express opinions that don't agree with mine. It scares me. A lot of trouble has been started by our reckless interpretation of the first amendment, allowing anyone to say what they want. Surely the founders never intended we have twitter.

I think we'd all be much safer if the government were to take over all means of mass communication (never referenced in the constitution) only allow licensed government employees to use them, and register anyone who owns a private computer, or radio, or TV.

Not because we want to take them away at some point in the future certainly, just because it's good to keep tabs on those people.

[jeepnstein]

30. "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

[aikoaiko]

31. the right of the People to keep and bear arms to protect themselves against tyranny shall not be ...

...infringed.

That's how I understand the essence of the 2nd.