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)Gun Laws And What The Second Amendment Intended - Seattle Times [View all]
Gun laws and what the Second Amendment intendedBY 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/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
82 replies, 13752 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (17)
ReplyReply to this post
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
Did the meaning of "militia" change, because it seems the same....just no reason for them now.
Fred Sanders
Jul 2014
#4
The gun enthusiasts do not care for historical context, they care only for their guns.
Fred Sanders
Jul 2014
#18
i think the nra's bullying of politicians to get their way is moe pertinent than goa and turkeys
samsingh
Jul 2014
#40
The man is a stinky high mountain of NRA propaganda, all laughably wrong on fact, long on yelling.
Fred Sanders
Jul 2014
#52
he provided evidence that the nra bullied congress to go against public support
samsingh
Jul 2014
#56
probably happens, it's illegal, beyond enforcement what do you wish to do about it?
pipoman
Jul 2014
#65
Yeah... And As The Article States... They Were REQUIRED To Have Arms, Unless They Objected...
WillyT
Jul 2014
#10
I can assure you, there is no ambiguity in the 2nd Amendment. Gunners know what it means,
Hoyt
Jul 2014
#21
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
We have given the answers, the OP you have obviously not read has answers, you refuse to listen.
Fred Sanders
Jul 2014
#26
this makes a lot of sense - individual gun lovers are the pawns of the gun makers who
samsingh
Jul 2014
#5
frankly i think the President and the Democratic party platform on guns is vastly more sane than
samsingh
Jul 2014
#41
This question is off the table forever...at least as far as either of us are concerned. ..
pipoman
Jul 2014
#62
i don't think so - the nra, people who love guns, people who enjoy the gun lifestyle,
samsingh
Jul 2014
#69
Some people require a boogie man to help them understand tragedy. ..real or imagined...
pipoman
Jul 2014
#72
the supreme court that stole the election from gore essentially voted that way
samsingh
Jul 2014
#43