A "well-regulated militia"???

[DemocracyMouse]

Waiting for someone in the mainstream media to say what is CRAZY obvious:

1) The 2nd Amendment clearly states that a "well-regulated militia" is its goal. People, we don't actually have a "well-regulated militia" in the streets!!!

2) Furthermore, we don't have a "well-regulated militia" among the local police. Cell phones have begun to reveal the constant abuse, and tacit repression, of our BEAUTIFUL and long-suffering African American siblings.

3) The Pentagon is growing without restraint.

NONE of those martial domains are well-regulated. Therefore none are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Period. All three are worthy of a challenge in the Supreme Court. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to turn our streets, churches, schools indeed the world at large, into a war zone.

NOTE: That doesn't mean zero guns – although that SHOULD be a planetary goal. As long as human beings come outfitted with a reptile brain with its "fight or flight" impulses, we need to REGULATE the dangerous things. We've done it for automobiles, we can do it for guns.

[maxsolomon]

1. Here's what a DU Gunner is going to tell you:

"Well-regulated" just means that the guns are functioning properly, that they HAVE guns. It doesn't mean the PEOPLE should be regulated.

I fundamentally disagree. With power comes responsibility. The Unorganized Militia, AKA gun owners, need to participate in Militia duties actively as a condition of possession.

[DemocracyMouse]

3. But with our Constitution power is regulated by the people

There is certainly a moral truth that with power comes responsibility as you point out. But the US Constitution codifies that truth. The elephant in the room is grammatical: "well-regulated" modifies the social entity referred to as a "militia."

...which leads to a big thumbs up to your suggestion that gun owners must be practicing members of a properly organized, Constitution-regulated militia. No duty, no drills, no gun. Random crazies are on the outs. Intelligence, hard intelkectual work is in... now if we can only get all those adjuncts teaching our kids a living wage.

[VMA131Marine]

2. The well-regulated militia means part-time citizen soldiers

who kept and maintained their own equipment and would be available when needed rather than a government run standing army. The theory being that armies get bored when they don't have anything to do. Obviously, we now have a standing army so the well-regulated militia part of the 2A is obsolete, which I would argue invalidates the last part of the 2A. The USSC has ruled that there are limitations that the government, State and Federal, can impose on weapons ownership so the issue all comes down to whether a regulation is an undue burden on the exercise of the rights conferred under the 2A.

[Turbineguy]

5. That's a bit like the Swiss version of the 2nd Amendment.

We don't want that shit. Those people are happier and more secure. Who want's to live like that?

I like feeling uncomfortable in theaters, malls, concerts and having students in my class who wear NRA tee-shirts and can't pass their course.

[DemocracyMouse]

6. The USSC has also severely regulated guns in the past

Under political pressure from the NRA regulation lapsed.

Those brave high schoolers from Parkland are right to tie Rubio, Trump, et al to their millions of dollars in funding from that corrupted organization. The NRA used to endorse gun control and focus on being a gun club for hunters.

[Sarg]

19. "well-regulated militia"

The militia was regulated by the President, as the Militia Act of 1792 clarified.

The presence of a standing army (the largest and most expensive in the world) actually makes the entire second Amendment obsolete, not just "the last part."

State militias were converted to the National Guard beginning in the Reconstruction period. The Second Amendment truly became obsolete then.

[beachbum bob]

4. NRA and gun nuts refuse to recognize all the words in the 2nd amendment...

while the courts have upheld the ability of authorities to restrict/ban weapon sales, impose background checks and 3 day waiting periods.

we will make the difference come election day and take power back to impose the will of the american people

[hack89]

8. Bernie, Hillary, Obama and the Democratic Party also refused

They all have publicly stated that the 2A protects an individual right not connected to militia service. The Democratic party platform says the same.

It is not as simple as you think.

[beachbum bob]

10. the intent of "militia" was to say that gun ownership is in conjunction with govt oversight and rule

that is how the supreme court has upheld countless lawsuits and such challenging a city or a state to impose "restrictions" to their "freedoms"

an actual reference to real "militia" is not the intent but a clarifier in which weapons can be owned

[hack89]

13. The 2A allows strict gun control.

AWBs, registration, magazine size limits, etc are all perfectly constitutional. The only explicit right you have is to own a handgun in your home. That is it.

The 2A is not the problem.

[DemocracyMouse]

9. Amen

But in the meantime, why are so few people pointing out that 2nd Amendment phrase "well-regulated"?

Just too technical? Boy do we need nerds more than ever.

[HAB911]

7. How is Meatloaf's 'Id Do Anything for Love' like the 2nd Amendment?

(But I won't do that)

So what is “that”? “It’s the line before every chorus,” explained Loaf. “There’s nine of them, I think.

The problem lies because Jimmy likes to write, so you forget what the line was before you get to ‘I won’t do that.'”

(Some of the things the song says he won’t do: forget the way you feel right now; forgive himself if you don’t go all the way tonight; do it better than he does it with you, so long; and stop dreaming of you every night of his life.)

On the other hand.....................

“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.”

What happened to the first part?!

The 2nd amendment is one of, if not the most, debated Amendments in the United States Constitution. Most noteworthy, until the late 1960s, restrictions on the 2nd Amendment were not questioned. The NRA itself, in the early 20th Century, not only favored restrictions they publicly announced them. The completely changed their tune in the late 1960s.

The Amendment has actually been changed in the past 20 years. Those that fully support the Amendment have erased the first part from the collective memory.

Think about it, when you hear someone (that fully supports this right) quote the Amendment, they only include “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…” Every so often they will throw in the last part about infringed when they are trying to make a point. They rarely, if ever, mention the very first part that includes the very important phrase “A well regulated Militia.” They do this for a very good reason. It completely destroys their argument that every man and woman in the United States has a right to own a gun.

The simple reason for this is because the 2nd Amendment does not actually give citizens a right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment guarantees a citizen the right to bear arms if they serve in a militia. It is right there in the Amendment.

Take a look at the Bill of Rights for a moment. One theme that should pop out to you is that the language in the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments is not vague. To put it another way the wording is not confusing. Every part of the Amendments is laid out in such a way that is easy to understand. Except, somehow, the 2nd Amendment.

This is the main reason why I do not believe that the Amendment is left vague or confusing. It is really simple and straightforward.

Let me re-arrange the wording to help out:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms for a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.

Does it make more sense now? Despite the NRA’s attempts, the two sections of the Amendment are not meant to be separated, 'cause linguistics. If the Founder’s had wanted the two sections to work independently of each other they would have included a very important word. And. Take a look.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, AND, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[needledriver]

12. If the Founders had wanted to limit the right to

keep and bear arms to the militia, the 2nd amendment would say “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms”.

It doesn’t say that. It says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

No matter how much you want it to, and no matter how much you tortuously contrive “clarifications” and “explanations” to the contrary, the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people - the same people who are part of “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union…”

If we are going to be able to finally pass meaningful and effective gun control laws, we need to start with a clear understanding of what the 2nd amendment really means, not what you want it to mean.

[HAB911]

16. Actually, that opinion is not settled by a long shot

[HAB911]

18. The main argument about the amendment

has always been a semantic one: What is meant? What is the intention? I use the present tense, because grammatical deconstruction is done in the here and now. We are not trying to divine intentions from our personal beliefs of what the Founders “stood for” or what they “believed.” The Founders are dead, but their words remain alive in the present, and their words, as well as their meticulous grammatical construction, leave no doubt as to their intentions.

Read these sentences:

“Their project being complete, the team disbanded.”

“Stern discipline being called for, the offending student was expelled.”

In both cases, the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence: it is integral. The team disbanded because the project was complete; the student was expelled because his offense called for stern discipline. This causal relationship cannot be ignored. Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” clearly shows the same causal relationship as the example sentences; in this case, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is essential to maintaining a well-regulated militia.

Opinion that I refer to occasionally

[needledriver]

20. You keep rewriting the 2nd amendment

to say what you want it to mean.

You don’t get to do that.

Referring to opinions from newspaper editorial pages to reinforce your own opinions may feel satisfying, but it does not grant you the right to change the wording. In Heller, the Supreme Court asserts an individual right to keep and bear arms unrelated to militia service.

https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/08-10%20Second%20Amendment.pdf

[HAB911]

21. Very satisfying

[DemocracyMouse]

11. Also "arms" did not refer to AR-15s and tanks.

[yagotme]

15. No, just "assault weapons" of their time. nt

[Marcuse]

14. A Well Regulated Militia

[boston bean]

17. They want one for our schools. Its fucking crazy.