a well regulated militia

[sleewell]

how do you read the 2nd amendment?

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.


does it read that members of a well regulated militia have the right to keep and bear arms or does it mean that any right is extended to every single person regardless if they are in a well regulated militia? at what point did the first 4 words stop carrying any weight in the discussion?


yesterday there was a mass shooting at the college i attended, a few blocks from where i work. someone's kid was killed in the union building while they were just eating or doing homework. its not really making the news because there was a different mass shooting the day prior somewhere else and there will be another one today or tomorrow.

thoughts and prayers are not working. this is not the best we can do. if mental health is the real issue what are we doing to help people or are we only pointing in that direction while proposing more cuts to mental health assistance and facilities? why is this really only happening in this country?

my kids school was closed today and they didn't know why, i had to explain to them what a mass shooting was and it made me feel really bad about humanity and the world we are leaving for them.

 

[TedEH]

It reads to me like this is yet another thread that can only go good places. :S

It's one old document that was created far outside of the context it's being applied and It'll be interpreted in any way it needs to be for people to make whatever point they want to make rather than trying to look at the real world objectively and make any meaningful decisions in the context of the present moment. We could solve so many problems if we didn't always fall back on "yeah, but this old document says x" or "yeah but x historical figure once said" etc. Who cares what an old document says. If what it says isn't clear or relevant or useful or true, then it should change, or we should pick a new source of truth / law / whatever.

 

[bostjan]

It's the big discussion, ongoing for a hundred and fifty years...

There's a lot of context that gets highlighted and even more that gets brushed under the rug.

Like how people argue that this was meant to arm the public with military style weapons, but they skip the part that, at the time, the USA had vowed not to take part in any foreign invasion and felt it was impossible for a foreign country to invade. So there was no standing military. Yeah, the founders didn't want the USA to have an army or a navy or anything. If we needed to defend ourselves, every farmer could grab a musket and every merchant could hop in their ship that already had cannons to protect against pirates.

That, of course, is complete nonsense in a modern context.

Or does it?

Well, Switzerland has a similar doctrine. That's right, Switzerland, the home of holey cheese and chocolates and four official languages. They have a militia-style defense philosophy. But here in the USA, we honestly do not have such a philosophy at all anymore, not whatsoever. So this argument just doesn't work on any level anymore.

But there is also the other argument that I tend to think is more worthy of debate - is the intention of the 2A to guarantee a person the right to self defense?

Well, this is crazy, but, as you see from the actual text, it is totally unclear about that. It seems that the founders wanted something to represent the guarantee of the right to self defense, but opted not to. So there you have it, I guess.

Do people have the right to self defense? Well, I think that they should, but, like any right, it has to be defined in such a way that your right never extends far enough to eclipse another person's rights. So, owning a gun... IDK. Obviously this cannot be a universal right, and it isn't. No matter how much people will argue that owning a gun is a perfectly universal right in the USA, or at least that it ought to be, it is not and it ought not to be. If you are mentally unfit, you cannot own a gun. And I think pretty much everyone with an opinion that matters agrees on that stipulation. So, right there, it is not a universal right. People don't get to choose their mental state, and people in a potentially violent mental state cannot own a gun.

So this debate cannot possibly go without attention to nuances. But, in 2023, no one debates nuances, and no one wins debates anyway. All political debates nowadays are just who shouts the loudest/longest, and maybe there are points scored by soundbytes, but the points don't matter anyway. It's just a bad episode of Whose Line Is It Anyway, except instead of goofy comedians smashing their noggins open on Drew Carey's desk, it's people's lives and families at stake.

Coming back to your text, did you know that the federal government can't even agree how many commas are in that text? If we can't even agree on the punctuation, how are we ever going to agree on what it means?

So here's what I think it means:

The individual states reserve the right to have armed militias (national guard units) and the federal government should not be able to interfere in the process of arming and training them.

What do you think it means?

 

[Crungy]

It's one old document that was created far outside of the context it's being applied and It'll be interpreted in any way it needs to be for people to make whatever point they want to make rather than trying to look at the real world objectively and make any meaningful decisions in the context of the present moment.

That reminds of some book people interpret as they see fit to their circumstances...

 

[wheresthefbomb]

I inherited gramma's 16ga single shot birdie slayer. I'm a militia now!

As for how I interpret the 2nd amendment, I don't. It's immaterial to me personally what some old dead white slave owners wrote on a magic piece of paper.

+1 this thread is going places

 

[tedtan]

That reminds of some book people interpret as they see fit to their circumstances...

Only one?

 

[sleewell]

i honestly have no idea what it means. if i had to take my best guess it sounds like they were talking about a well regulated militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms. to me it seems like the gun industry over the years has paid a lot of money to lobby to lessen the first bit about the well regulated militia and to focus on the last bit about the right of the people to keep and bear arms so they can sell more and more guns.

we are probably past the point of being able to do anything about it and should just accept that we copy and paste the same canned thoughts and prayers response and sometimes don't even remember to change the location every few of days. that's probably the best we can do.

 

[Drew]

i honestly have no idea what it means. if i had to take my best guess it sounds like they were talking about a well regulated militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms. to me it seems like the gun industry over the years has paid a lot of money to lobby to lessen the first bit about the well regulated militia and to focus on the last bit about the right of the people to keep and bear arms so they can sell more and more guns.

we are probably past the point of being able to do anything about it and should just accept that we copy and paste the same canned thoughts and prayers response and sometimes don't even remember to change the location every few of days. that's probably the best we can do.

Interestingly, if you walk into the NRA's headquarters in Virginia, the lobby has the 2nd amendment engraved in giant metal letters into one wall.... but, it omits the first part about a well-regulated militia entirely, and begins "...the right of the people."

Basically, the 2nd amendment gives states the right to create the National Guard. It would be funny if it hadn't been bent so far from its original intent.

 

[devastone]

It's worded very poorly, I wonder if that was intentional? It's either missing an "and" or the words are not in the proper order depending on the intended meaning.

 

[Drew]

It's worded very poorly, I wonder if that was intentional? It's either missing an "and" or the words are not in the proper order depending on the intended meaning.

I mean, something that gets lost in these conversations is the fact that language itself evolves with time, and the Bill of Rights is now closing on written closer to The Canterbury Tales than they are to today. I can barely make sense of the former; the latter is, well, grammar has changed a lot in the last 250 years.

The United States Bill of Rights: First 10 Amendments to the Constitution | American Civil Liberties Union

Worth a re-read, and while doing so considering how much of what we know about these is simply what they're told they mean and how they've been interpreted for the last 250 years.

Fifth Amendment​

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Compare that to the common practice of "pleading the 5th." Happy accident, too, I suppose, since it actually references "Militia" very formally, and suggests maybe there's a little more to the use of "Militia" in the 2nd than the NRA would have you believe.

 

[bostjan]

I mean, something that gets lost in these conversations is the fact that language itself evolves with time, and the Bill of Rights is now closing on written closer to The Canterbury Tales than they are to today. I can barely make sense of the former; the latter is, well, grammar has changed a lot in the last 250 years.

I know it's a nitpick, but The Canterbury Tales was written in the late 1300's, so that won't be true for another 150 years.

Compare that to the common practice of "pleading the 5th." Happy accident, too, I suppose, since it actually references "Militia" very formally, and suggests maybe there's a little more to the use of "Militia" in the 2nd than the NRA would have you believe.

This recently (probably >10 years ago now) evolved to another level, though. A man from Michigan was apprehended by police as a suspect in a fatal shooting. The man evoked the fifth amendment by remaining silent for several hours of interrogation. Then, when asked a series of "yes/no" questions, he answered those. The questions were really kind of like the sort of trick questions 8th graders try to ask each other as a game, but, in that case, it was enough for the police to submit his statements as a confession to the prosecutor, who then used it to convict the man (there were also other elements of evidence against him, but the "confession" was one piece of pivotal evidence). This man appealed, saying that he had evoked the 5th amendment protection not to witness in a criminal investigation against himself, with the Miranda interpretation that this allowed him to remain silent and not have the police continue to question him. It made it all the way to the Supreme Court, who decided 5-4 that you cannot simply evoke 5A and end the conversation with police - if you say anything, no matter how vague, that will be used against you, and, furthermore, in the majority opinion, the SCotUS opined that even evoking 5A in response to a police investigator's question could be presented to the court as an argument that you had something to hide. So, maybe, the modern interpretation of "the right to remain silent" is closer to the original wording than what we like to think after watching reruns of Dragnet.

 

[Glades]

Read the DC vs Heller majority opinion. Scalia explains it quite well, and the argument presented in the document is very sound and logical. That is a good starting point to understanding the 2nd Amendment. The historical explanation, and the mindset of anti-Federalism in the late 18th century is also very helpful in understanding the fear of Tyranny and the purpose of the Bill of Rights in general.

Scalia makes a good linguistic distinction between the prefatory clause (militia service) and the operative clause (right to own and use weapons).

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2788 – 2816.

The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2788 – 2799.

 

[bostjan]

Read the DC vs Heller majority opinion. Scalia explains it quite well, and the argument presented in the document is very sound and logical. That is a good starting point to understanding the 2nd Amendment. The historical explanation, and the mindset of anti-Federalism in the late 18th century is also very helpful in understanding the fear of Tyranny and the purpose of the Bill of Rights in general.

Scalia makes a good linguistic distinction between the prefatory clause (militia service) and the operative clause (right to own and use weapons).

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2788 – 2816.

The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2788 – 2799.

That is what was decided.

I think that the evidence is extremely clear, though, that the actual text of the second amendment mentions nothing about firearms specifically, not does it mention anything about defending one's home, so I think Scalia is full of shit, and, furthermore, I think that anyone who can read should be immediately aware that he's full of shit.

That said, the entire idea of democracy is hinged on a person's right to express their ideas and defend themselves and their ideas with no more and no less than the appropriate amount of force that allows every person the same protection. The trouble is that there are multiple ways to interpret that idea into a code of law, some very restrictive, and some very nonrestrictive, and some in between. The USA took one of the less restrictive approaches in the early 19th century, but then took a sharp turn after the Civil War, and then again after prohibition.

The current de facto approach to firearms in the USA is extremely inconsistent, both geographically, and from a logical standpoint.

I guess if we were to rewrite the second amendment to clearly state the de facto policy today it'd read something more like:

The right to possess weapons shall not be infringed, but the state reserves the right to define what constitutes a weapon and when this right can be infringed, except in specific cases where the federal government can pull a "double whammy" and recall the right of the state to define anything, but in order for the "double whammy" to be effective, the state and federal governments must each roll a six-sided die - if the federal government rolls a larger number, the double whammy takes effect; however, if the state and the federal governments both roll a six, they shall roll again, and, if they roll doubles two more consecutive times, the first one to yell shenanigans and place both hands down on the table gets will be allowed to rewrite this rule however they choose, unless "bullshit" is called by the other party, in which case all districts shall be redrawn and the process should start again.

 

[sleewell]

that's kinda exactly the problem. someone on the extreme right will read it one way and someone else could easily read entirely differently and they both would be taking their best guess as to what they were thinking when they wrote it. however you want to slice it the wording is vague and can easily be interpreted a few different ways.

the nra and gun manufactures would tell you that people with past history of mental issues and gun related convictions should still be able to buy guns because at some point the govt is going to need to be overthrown and its their constitution right to own them and any attempt to make sensible gun reform is just proof that the govt has descending in tyranny ripe for the citizens to take up their arms in self defense.

the nra gives money to politicians and then you get opinions from people like scalia and then the nra explains how you should read that opinion as the end all be all so its kinda just like a repeating feedback loop for people who only want more and more guns in the hands of everyone.


there was a kid on the msu campus who also survived sandy hook. we are now at a point where kids are surviving multiple mass shootings before they can even legally drink. that is not ok.

 

[bostjan]

that's kinda exactly the problem. someone on the extreme right will read it one way and someone else could easily read entirely differently and they both would be taking their best guess as to what they were thinking when they wrote it. however you want to slice it the wording is vague and can easily be interpreted a few different ways.

the nra and gun manufactures would tell you that people with past history of mental issues and gun related convictions should still be able to buy guns because at some point the govt is going to need to be overthrown and its their constitution right to own them and any attempt to make sensible gun reform is just proof that the govt has descending in tyranny ripe for the citizens to take up their arms in self defense.

the nra gives money to politicians and then you get opinions from people like scalia and then the nra explains how you should read that opinion as the end all be all so its kinda just like a repeating feedback loop for people who only want more and more guns in the hands of everyone.


there was a kid on the msu campus who also survived sandy hook. we are now at a point where kids are surviving multiple mass shootings before they can even legally drink. that is not ok.

Yeah, well, a big part of the problem is that the left and the right agree on so much, like:

A) The 2A doesn't actually say what it should actually say
B) The number of mass shootings in the USA is not okay
C) The government is terrible at agreeing on anything actionable, so nothing will ever fix this
and
D) The other side of the argument is 100% wrong

But the left says they will take the guns away from the crazy people, and they honestly don't have a realistic strategy to do that. Meanwhile, the right wants to arm more people, thinking that armed civilians means fewer shootings in public, which just doesn't work. The right will cite how Chicago has strict gun control laws and yet is a total bullet hell to navigate through. But they don't understand that nearby Detroit has some of the most lenient concealed carry laws and it's somehow even worse than Chicago.

The reps, even most of the really crazy ones, don't even want the emotionally unbalanced people to have guns. Like I said, it can't be a guaranteed human right if we define a certain way someone was born as a disqualification. But you have some states, Vermont being one, where the state constitution does grant gun ownership as a basic right. There are people here, and not just a handful of them, who hunt to survive. You take their guns, you take away their life, literally. Yet, Vermont is one of a handful of states in the US that doesn't have a mass shooting problem. So... maybe... the 2A isn't really the problem anyway - it's just a McGuffin used by both sides of the argument to push their agenda. Think about it:

A) The 2A doesn't even say the thing the people arguing say it says
B) The thing people say it says doesn't even seem to have a correlation to the effect being debated
C) Most of what is proposed in the debates (at least at the government level) have no connection to the 2A

So... what even does the 2A have to do with any of this discussion? I say that it doesn't have anything to do with the discussion. Scalia seems to think it does, but I am literate enough to read what it says and read what he says it say and know he's either full of shit or cannot read. I think we can agree that the discussion needs to happen, but maybe it can't as long as we are being dishonest about the premise.

 

[Glades]

Yeah, well, a big part of the problem is that the left and the right agree on so much, like:

A) The 2A doesn't actually say what it should actually say
B) The number of mass shootings in the USA is not okay
C) The government is terrible at agreeing on anything actionable, so nothing will ever fix this
and
D) The other side of the argument is 100% wrong

But the left says they will take the guns away from the crazy people, and they honestly don't have a realistic strategy to do that. Meanwhile, the right wants to arm more people, thinking that armed civilians means fewer shootings in public, which just doesn't work. The right will cite how Chicago has strict gun control laws and yet is a total bullet hell to navigate through. But they don't understand that nearby Detroit has some of the most lenient concealed carry laws and it's somehow even worse than Chicago.

The reps, even most of the really crazy ones, don't even want the emotionally unbalanced people to have guns. Like I said, it can't be a guaranteed human right if we define a certain way someone was born as a disqualification. But you have some states, Vermont being one, where the state constitution does grant gun ownership as a basic right. There are people here, and not just a handful of them, who hunt to survive. You take their guns, you take away their life, literally. Yet, Vermont is one of a handful of states in the US that doesn't have a mass shooting problem. So... maybe... the 2A isn't really the problem anyway - it's just a McGuffin used by both sides of the argument to push their agenda. Think about it:

A) The 2A doesn't even say the thing the people arguing say it says
B) The thing people say it says doesn't even seem to have a correlation to the effect being debated
C) Most of what is proposed in the debates (at least at the government level) have no connection to the 2A

So... what even does the 2A have to do with any of this discussion? I say that it doesn't have anything to do with the discussion. Scalia seems to think it does, but I am literate enough to read what it says and read what he says it say and know he's either full of shit or cannot read. I think we can agree that the discussion needs to happen, but maybe it can't as long as we are being dishonest about the premise.

You can disagree with Scalia, but saying he "cannot read" is an idiotic statement.

The man is widely considered one of the greatest constitutional scholars of all time. He was a respected constitutional law professor, and very successful attorney prior to his appointment. He was so revered that he was confirmed unanimously 98-0. Yes, confirmed unanimously by the Senate!

Saying Scalia "cannot read" is like saying Usain Bolt is slow, Hafthor Bjornson is weak or Sir Isaac Newton was dumb.

 

[bostjan]

You can disagree with Scalia, but saying he "cannot read" is an idiotic statement.

The man is widely considered one of the greatest constitutional scholars of all time. He was a respected constitutional law professor, and very successful attorney prior to his appointment. He was so revered that he was confirmed unanimously 98-0. Yes, confirmed unanimously by the Senate!

Saying Scalia "cannot read" is like saying Usain Bolt is slow, Hafthor Bjornson is weak or Sir Isaac Newton was dumb.

Well, read what I actually said - only two explanations for him deliberately adding words to the text in order to justify the decision he made: a) he cannot read OR b) he is full of shit. If you believe that he can read, that just means you believe that he's full of shit.

Like, if I somehow beat Usain Bolt in a 100 m dash, I could say either Usain Bolt is slow or he was having an off day. So, if Scalia says, and I quote his quote of the 2A: "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." when the word "because" isn't there, and he also changed the punctuation to make the word "because" seem to fit, he either can't read or he is full of shit, that is a correct statement. Hint: he's full of shit.

I don't care if he led the Jews out of Egypt and then conquered Persia, if he is wrong, he's wrong. And his interpretation of the 2A is wrong, because he adds words to it in order to make it fit his pre-conceived notion of what it says. Note how when I paraphrased it, I clearly did so in jest, and didn't use quotation marks, and then note how Scalia used quotation marks around the whole thing, including the parts he changed, in his opinion. I think this is intellectually dishonest. You don't quote Shakespeare and add word to change the meaning, so why can you do that with the Constitution?!

Anyway, if you want to get overly pedantic about it, it's also true that he cannot read, since he's dead. Dead people can't read.

 

[TedEH]

The man is widely considered one of the greatest constitutional scholars of all time.

Well, the alternative presented was that he's otherwise full of shit, which isn't inconsistent with being a good scholar. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But also, you blatantly navigated around the point to nitpick what was pretty clearly a turn of phrase. Edit: ninja'd.

So... maybe... the 2A isn't really the problem anyway - it's just a McGuffin

I wouldn't even give anyone the benefit of the "maybe". It's absolutely a McGuffin. Because it's easier to say something like "yeah, but this old document guarantees me some rights if you happen to interpret it the way I do" than it is to say "I'm ok with kids getting shot as long as you don't take anything away from me."

 

[spudmunkey]

Interestingly, if you walk into the NRA's headquarters in Virginia, the lobby has the 2nd amendment engraved in giant metal letters into one wall.... but, it omits the first part about a well-regulated militia entirely, and begins "...the right of the people."

It's like how people only remember (and weaponize) "The customer is always right" but conveniently forget the "in matter of taste" ending...

 

[bostjan]

It's like how people only remember (and weaponize) "The customer is always right" but conveniently forget the "in matter of taste" ending...

Whoever said that obviously never worked for a ride sharing company.

But I believe that that trend recently on social media, to attribute the missing half of the phrase, just like nearly everything else on social media, is make-believe.

The trouble is that that quote isn't a quote. It's a generic slogan that took on a life of its own. If you search for the exact phrase, I very highly doubt you'll find it as a motto of any actual business, but you will likely find dozens or even hundreds of examples that are similar.

Even so, I remember it being a big thing when I worked in the restaurant industry when I was quite young. If someone complained that their food was too spicy, even if it had no seasoning in it at all, we were to try to offer something more bland, for example. I think that the "matter of taste" part plays well with the actionable part of the philosophy, even if it was never part of the motto. Of course, if someone said that they already paid, but they didn't, that was a totally different kind of argument.

But even if the addendum is added, it still is a bullshit motto. Do you know how many people walk into a restaurant deciding that they are not going to pay for their meal before they even look at the menu? Just complain about everything. If complaining to the server doesn't work, demand to speak with the manager. If complaining to the manager doesn't work, demand to speak with the corporate office. If there is no corporate office, or if the corporate office doesn't care, demand that someone call the police. If the police don't care and yell at you for wasting their time, demand to speak to a sergeant. If the sergeant tells you to get lost, demand to speak to a lieutenant... and on and on it goes until either someone relents and you get your free meal or you end up in jail and get a different sort of free meal...

But back to 2A, even if you cherry pick out the part that seems to pertain to the idea that everyone gets a gun, it's not even true. Are you an ex-felon? If so, lost of places won't let you have a gun. Flagged on a background check - no gun. Want a fully automatic gun? Nope. Guns in X state with Y options? Depends on X and Y. And it never ever says "gun" or "firearm," so... how do you interpret it? Too broad and you have people buying nuclear warheads; too narrow and you ban people from owning body armor - what's crazy is both of those are true in parts of the USA!!!!