Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
Mon Jul 14, 2014, 06:24 PM Jul 2014

Gun Laws And What The Second Amendment Intended - Seattle Times [View all]

Gun laws and what the Second Amendment intended
BY MICHAEL WALDMAN - The Seattle Times
July 14, 2014

<snip>

As school shootings erupt with sickening regularity, Americans once again are debating gun laws. Quickly talk turns to the Second Amendment.

But what does it mean? History offers some surprises: It turns out in each era, the meaning is set not by some pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of public debate and political activism. And gun rights have always coexisted with responsibility.

At 27 words long, the provision is the shortest sentence in the U.S. Constitution. It reads: "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."

Modern readers squint at its stray commas and confusing wording. The framers believed in freedom to punctuate.

It turns out that to the framers, the amendment principally focused on those "well regulated militias." These militias were not like anything we know now: Every adult man (eventually, every white man) served through their entire lifetime. They were actually required to own a gun, and bring it from home.

Think of the minutemen at Lexington and Concord, who did battle with the British army. These squads of citizen soldiers were seen as a bulwark against tyranny. When the Constitution was being debated, many Americans feared the new central government could crush the 13 state militias. Hence, the Second Amendment. It protected an individual right - to fulfill the public responsibility of militia service.

What about today's gun-rights debates? Surprisingly, there is not a single word about an individual right to a gun for self-defense in the notes from the Constitutional Convention; nor with scattered exceptions in the transcripts of the ratification debates in the states; nor on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives as it marked up the Second Amendment, where every single speaker talked about the militia. James Madison's original proposal even included a conscientious objector clause: "No person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

To be clear, there were plenty of guns in the founding era. Americans felt they had the right to protect themselves, especially in the home, a right passed down from England through common law. But there were plenty of gun laws, too. Boston made it illegal to keep a loaded gun in a home, due to safety concerns. Laws governed the location of guns and gunpowder storage. New York, Boston and all cities in Pennsylvania prohibited the firing of guns within city limits. States imposed curbs on gun ownership. People deemed dangerous were barred from owning weapons. Pennsylvania disarmed Tory sympathizers.


<snip>

More: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/14/233219/gun-laws-and-what-the-second-amendment.html?sp=/99/337/


82 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why is it so hard to understand what "in a well regulated militia" means? It is the very weakest Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #1
Because the English language evolves pipoman Jul 2014 #3
Did the meaning of "militia" change, because it seems the same....just no reason for them now. Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #4
"just no reason for them now" is your extreme minority opinion... pipoman Jul 2014 #16
And everyone else in the reality-based community would laugh... Oakenshield Jul 2014 #35
We have well regulated militias in USA right now Sam1 Jul 2014 #81
Because gun fanciers want/need their gunz. They don't care what it means or Hoyt Jul 2014 #12
Lol.. you are too much... pipoman Jul 2014 #17
The gun enthusiasts do not care for historical context, they care only for their guns. Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #18
Your historical context is settled law... pipoman Jul 2014 #24
Bravo, a proposition of questionable merit followed by an inanity. Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #25
There is another extreme fringe who believes there is a chance pipoman Jul 2014 #27
i absolutely agree with you samsingh Jul 2014 #82
It is telling that every example in this of restrictions pipoman Jul 2014 #2
there is no such thing as big gun control samsingh Jul 2014 #6
Almost every dollar can be tracked back to one billionaire's pocketbook. .. pipoman Jul 2014 #8
what about the nra and their purchase of elections? samsingh Jul 2014 #33
what about them? pipoman Jul 2014 #38
i think the nra's bullying of politicians to get their way is moe pertinent than goa and turkeys samsingh Jul 2014 #40
They couldn't "bully" (lobby) politicians pipoman Jul 2014 #45
Ahem. Steaming mountain of bullshit. gcomeau Jul 2014 #51
The man is a stinky high mountain of NRA propaganda, all laughably wrong on fact, long on yelling. Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #52
Yet, to this point you haven't offered a single answer or citation pipoman Jul 2014 #53
he provided evidence that the nra bullied congress to go against public support samsingh Jul 2014 #56
see post 58 below pipoman Jul 2014 #59
Why do you suppose a Democratic congress can't get a pipoman Jul 2014 #54
I repeat my previous post title. -eom gcomeau Jul 2014 #57
Gottcha pipoman Jul 2014 #58
For fuck's sake... gcomeau Jul 2014 #60
lol...ffs indeed... pipoman Jul 2014 #61
And, again, you're wrong. IronGate Jul 2014 #63
And... gcomeau Jul 2014 #64
probably happens, it's illegal, beyond enforcement what do you wish to do about it? pipoman Jul 2014 #65
The point is that you were posting inaccurate information. IronGate Jul 2014 #66
simple explanations samsingh Jul 2014 #75
Keep denying facts as has been done for the last 20 years by gun control pipoman Jul 2014 #76
from CNN samsingh Jul 2014 #77
And what has big gun control done while the NRA pipoman Jul 2014 #78
Dems killed UBCs by bundling them with an AWB hack89 Jul 2014 #79
Also Telling... WillyT Jul 2014 #7
Hmmm....do you suppose the founding fathers pipoman Jul 2014 #9
Yeah... And As The Article States... They Were REQUIRED To Have Arms, Unless They Objected... WillyT Jul 2014 #10
No, only the militia was required to supply their own arms, pipoman Jul 2014 #14
But state constitutions from that era recognize an individual right hack89 Jul 2014 #80
Because it's poor grammar to use the same word twice in the same sentence. Hoyt Jul 2014 #13
The rules of grammar in legal writings are nothing like pipoman Jul 2014 #15
I can assure you, there is no ambiguity in the 2nd Amendment. Gunners know what it means, Hoyt Jul 2014 #21
lol...I'm not the one pretending "the people" doesn't mean "the people".. pipoman Jul 2014 #22
It is not acceptable to put the reason for the amendment in historical context, it would be obvious Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #20
Once again facts get in the way of the propaganda, same reason they reject science, too many facts. Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #19
You guys. .. pipoman Jul 2014 #23
We have given the answers, the OP you have obviously not read has answers, you refuse to listen. Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #26
well then, humor me...what is MICHAEL WALDMAN'S answer to pipoman Jul 2014 #29
Probably answered my own question.... pipoman Jul 2014 #31
this makes a lot of sense - individual gun lovers are the pawns of the gun makers who samsingh Jul 2014 #5
Individual gun owners are exercising their rights pipoman Jul 2014 #11
these are the rights that gun makers insist individuals have samsingh Jul 2014 #32
And the SCOTUS, and the vast majority of the public, and the pipoman Jul 2014 #37
frankly i think the President and the Democratic party platform on guns is vastly more sane than samsingh Jul 2014 #41
it needs to be rewritten so stupid people can understand Skittles Jul 2014 #28
Which stupid people? Those who believe pipoman Jul 2014 #30
that's not what the poster said samsingh Jul 2014 #42
Have you any answers? pipoman Jul 2014 #46
its first grade, there is a compound sentence - the meaning is clear samsingh Jul 2014 #55
This question is off the table forever...at least as far as either of us are concerned. .. pipoman Jul 2014 #62
its fundamental samsingh Jul 2014 #67
Yeah, fundamental lack of understanding of the document pipoman Jul 2014 #68
i don't think so - the nra, people who love guns, people who enjoy the gun lifestyle, samsingh Jul 2014 #69
As I've said before. .. pipoman Jul 2014 #70
as i keep saying, its the gun lobby that is selling fiction samsingh Jul 2014 #71
Some people require a boogie man to help them understand tragedy. ..real or imagined... pipoman Jul 2014 #72
no, some people are looking for ways to stop these gun massacres samsingh Jul 2014 #73
I don't know or care about the NRA pipoman Jul 2014 #74
ZOINK--You just broke the internet BrotherIvan Jul 2014 #36
This sentence is grammatically identical to the Second Amendment: needledriver Jul 2014 #48
The argument is not so much about the militia, JayhawkSD Jul 2014 #34
I suspect that there isn't pipoman Jul 2014 #39
the supreme court that stole the election from gore essentially voted that way samsingh Jul 2014 #43
Neither happy or not happy. JayhawkSD Jul 2014 #49
it's the same supreme court that ruled that corporations are people samsingh Jul 2014 #44
A much earlier court made that first decision. JayhawkSD Jul 2014 #50
The individual Right is implicit in the text FBaggins Jul 2014 #47
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Gun Laws And What The Sec...»Reply #0