The Second Amendment: Intent

[temporal1]

Q:
I think you can make the Bible say anything you want it to say. You could even use it to prove God doesn't exist if you wanted to, because doesn't it say somewhere that there is no God?

A:
Perhaps it is possible to “make the Bible say anything you want it to say” — if you twist its clear meaning and ignore what it really says.

Take as an example the words you quoted saying “there is no God.”
Yes, those four words are found in the Bible — but what the Bible really says is that only a fool would believe them.
The actual quotation is this: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, and their ways are vile” (Psalm 53:1).

Instead of saying God doesn’t exist, the Bible says the exact opposite!

My real question for you, however, is this:
Why do you want to dismiss the Bible and not take it seriously?
Is it because you think it isn’t trustworthy — or is there a deeper reason?
Only you know the answer, but I suspect the real reason is that you want to run your own life, and you don’t want God to upset your plans. Your problem isn’t the Bible; your problem is yourself, and your stubborn determination to leave God out of your life.

Face honestly your attitude toward God.
Then face honestly the consequences of living without Him — both now, and in eternity.
Don’t be deceived, but face honestly your need of Christ and His forgiveness.

Then discover the joy of knowing God personally by turning to Jesus Christ and giving your life to Him.
The Bible’s words are true: “In him was life, and that life was the light of men” (John 1:4).

https://billygraham.org/answer/i-think- ... it-to-say/

For those who disregard the Bible, the U.S. Constitution is a cakewalk.

[HondurasKeiser]

Those two statements are not inconsistent.

If the 2nd Amendment is not for personal defense, then why would there be regulations for sale and use?

It is okay of you want more control of the government on guns. It is also okay that I do not want more government control. The Assault Weapons ban from 1994-2004, or there abouts, has been found to have little impact on mass shootings. This is what the research shows.

Gun regulations only affect law abiding people. It is already illegal to kill others unless in self defense. Making guns harder to get will only make the person wanting to harm others find illegal or alternative ways. Think of the leftest that plowed through people with a car a while back.

Having a lot of guns in society does mean some will be used for wrong reasons. I think it is not to the level that counteracts the positive. Only God can remove all the violence and killing on this world. Overall, governments have misused and abused it's citizenry and the odds are much higher that a government will harm its citizens more than guns in bad guys hands do.

It is sad that this happened in a school, but just as many died in Chicago over the weekend in a city that has the tightest gun laws around. The laws and regulations are not making its citizenry safe. Children are dying in Chicago. No one is screaming about that. Why not? Politics.

Here is what I am saying.

I believe that the Second Amendment was primarily about the establishment of civilian militias as an alternative to a standing army. From the point of view of the framers, in their recent past from the 30 years war to the 18th century wars between England and France, standing armies were a tool of oppression and tyranny. And, of course the issue of southern militias and slave patrols that Jim highlights. There has been a lot of historical research on this topic and I think it largely backs up my position. But of course, history is also in the eye of the beholder.

By the 20th Century the notion of civilian militias was largely if not entirely obsolete. The last American war in which civilian or state militias played a major role was the War of 1812 and they were largely ineffectual. After the British defeated the Maryland and Virginia Militias at the Battle of Bladensburg President Madison commented "I could never have believed so great a difference existed between regular troops and a militia force, if I had not witnessed the scenes of this day".

In the 20th Century the meaning of the Second Amendment largely shifted away from the notion of regulated militias and towards the private ownership and use of firearms. Both in the general population and within the courts. In the 19th century when it was a largely rural country, the idea of firearm ownership was uncontroversial and unchallenged. But by the early 20th century with an urbanizing America and new weapons like machine guns becoming available, the government first started to regulate firearms in the 1930s. This was the era of Prohibition Gangsters waging wars on city streets and so the government began to tax and regulate firearms, especially sawed off shotguns and machine guns which were the weapons of choice of gangsters and the Court upheld the government's ability to regulate firearm sale, possession and use.

This was more or less the state of affairs for most of the rest of the 20th Century. States and cities passed all manner of firearm regulations including the very restrictive such as virtual prohibitions on handguns in cities like NY and DC. And the court was silent in its approval despite many court challenges. They chose to let all those laws stand.

It wasn't until quite recently that the Supreme Court with a new conservative majority began to actively roll back state and local firearms regulations, and usually with 5-4 votes. So it is only really quite recently that the court (or the conservative majority) evolved its thinking into the more second amendment individual absolutist thinking that pervades today. It is more or less like abortion. A different court could easily take things in a completely different direction.

The notion that constitutional rights evolve is completely uncontroversial. Take the 14th Amendment, which was passed in the context of abolishing slavery but has since come to be interpreted in all sorts of new ways from Miranda warnings to interracial and gay marriage. The interstate commerce clause has similarly been interpreted in all manner of new ways to authorize everything from social security to Medicare to worker safety regulations. Policies that were never thought of or intended when it was drafted in 1789.

So I think it is entirely consistent to believe as I do that the second amendment was drafted with one primary purpose in mind in the 18th century but has evolved to serve an entirely different purpose in the 21st century. Most of the constitution works that way.

And by the way. The Constitution is not the only law of the land. Even if the Constitution were silent about personal firearm ownership and use, states would be perfectly free to authorize the use of firearms and regulate them. Most criminal law is actually state law not Federal law. I personally have no objection to firearms and the right of people to own and use them. I just object to the idea that the Constitution prevents states or Congress from passing reasonable firearms regulations. Afterall, the second amendment contains the term "well regulated" right there with "right to bear arms"

With the exception of Robert, who seems to think we have the right to cannonade the DMV and launch our personal warships if necessary, I see no one else saying that 2nd Amendment rights are absolute or 'unregulatable' - The 1st Amendment rights are themselves proscribed here and there and, with the exception of Randian-type libertarians, most people tend to agree that some regulation or proscription of those rights are good and necessary. I'm all for reasonable regulations on personal firearm use and given my druthers I'd prefer to leave such regulations up to local jurisdictions as contexts like NYC or DC are very different from Central Pa are very different from rural Idaho.

The question though as Ernie put it to us, is not what we think about modern firearm use or regulation or even recent Supreme Court rulings. Rather, he asked us to limit our conversations to what we think the text means. That's why most of us have been remiss to speak beyond that.

[Robert]

Here is what I am saying.

That did help clear up your posts. I still see it as cherry picking, but can accept your thought process.

I believe that the Second Amendment was primarily about the establishment of civilian militias as an alternative to a standing army.

As in many things, it can have multiple reasons and purposes. The framers were always quite limited in their wording, contrary to today when they have 5000 pages just to fund the government. Mostly to hide things since who can read and process the 5000 pages, but that is for another topic.

This was more or less the state of affairs for most of the rest of the 20th Century. States and cities passed all manner of firearm regulations including the very restrictive such as virtual prohibitions on handguns in cities like NY and DC.

And cities like Chicago still does. We can see the lack of benefit there easily. I am not saying cities or states can not pass laws. I am saying the federal government can not because of the 2nd Amendment. "shall not be infringed" is pretty wide and clear.

Take the 14th Amendment, which was passed in the context of abolishing slavery but has since come to be interpreted in all sorts of new ways from Miranda warnings to interracial and gay marriage.

Yes, this is the progressive concept that things evolve. I struggle with that. I think new amendments should be passed instead of distorting the old ones to fit what some want. This is why things like Roe V Wade gets passed, then overturned later. When one depends on interpretation, that will change and will bend it new ways. I do not see that as a good process long term.

The notion that constitutional rights evolve is completely uncontroversial.

Yes, it is. This is the whole struggle between conservative and progressive. It is quite controversial.

So I think it is entirely consistent to believe as I do that the second amendment was drafted with one primary purpose in mind in the 18th century but has evolved to serve an entirely different purpose in the 21st century. Most of the constitution works that way.

Much of the constitution is bent to work that way. I disagree with much of it.

Afterall, the second amendment contains the term "well regulated" right there with "right to bear arms"

See, this is the distortion I object to. It takes two parts of the amendment that are not supposed to be associated and forces them where they were never intended to go. People who supported slavery used these tactics. Those who bend it to their will use it to control and manipulate others. If you want to associate and support people like that, you can, but I really think it is contrary to the commands of Christ to let our no be no and yes be yes. I think it compromises our testimony of our faith. People need and want clarity. When they find we are clear in all things, they trust our statements of faith much more.

If the citizen's intent changes, let NEW laws and amendments reflect that. There is a process for doing just that. Why bend and manipulate the existing ones to fit your wishes?

[Robert]

With the exception of Robert, who seems to think we have the right to cannonade the DMV and launch our personal warships if necessary, I see no one else saying that 2nd Amendment rights are absolute or 'unregulatable' - The 1st Amendment rights are themselves proscribed here and there and, with the exception of Randian-type libertarians, most people tend to agree that some regulation or proscription of those rights are good and necessary. I'm all for reasonable regulations on personal firearm use and given my druthers I'd prefer to leave such regulations up to local jurisdictions as contexts like NYC or DC are very different from Central Pa are very different from rural Idaho.

I do think they are that clear, but not saying state or local laws can not be tested, but should fall short since the constitution should be the supreme law of the land. I am saying they need to add a new amendment to clarify, if the citizenry wants it changed.

Same way that I do not think a state should ignore the 14th Amendment and allow slavery again, or not allow women to vote in that state. The picking and choosing is sad and quite harmful to the unity of the country. This is why we have so much division right now. Some are ignoring and others are adding as they see fit. The US Constitution is the common ground we all meet on. It is not what everyone likes or accepts, but it is what we all meet on as much as for others as for ourselves. The challenge is everyone is so narcissistic that they all think it should be what they want instead of realize some of it is what others need to stay at the table.

I guess that makes me a Randian-type libertarian.

[Ken]

Afterall, the second amendment contains the term "well regulated" right there with "right to bear arms"

See, this is the distortion I object to. It takes two parts of the amendment that are not supposed to be associated and forces them where they were never intended to go. People who supported slavery used these tactics. Those who bend it to their will use it to control and manipulate others. If you want to associate and support people like that, you can, but I really think it is contrary to the commands of Christ to let our no be no and yes be yes. I think it compromises our testimony of our faith. People need and want clarity. When they find we are clear in all things, they trust our statements of faith much more.

Of course the two parts of the amendment are intended to be read together. They are one single sentence. The first clause states the purpose (what we have been arguing about) and the second clause provides the mechanism:

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.

I think they were being intentionally vague, probably because they were not all in agreement. The word "people" is plural. As in the preamble to the Constitution which reads "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." where the term is used to indicate collective action not individual action. And in other contexts in other parts of the Constitution when they clearly intended to specify an individual right they used the singular term "person" or "citizen"

Had they intended to clearly make individual ownership of firearms an individual right separate from the regulation and administration of militias they could have written: "No person shall be denied the right to bear arms". The 14th Amendment, for example, is written in the singular to specify that such rights are individual: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Likewise, they did not use the language contained in the First Amendment which explicitly prohibits government regulation: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " Had they wished to prohibit government regulation of firearm ownership they could have repeated this same language in the Second Amendment and written "Congress shall make no law respecting the right of individuals to bear arms" but they did not do so either.

This thread is about the perceived intent of the framers of the Constitution when they write the above text. Not what a 21st century court or legislature has decided that the words mean in a 21st century context. There is a lot of historical evidence which suggests that my interpretation is the more accurate one. But because the text is deliberately vague and history is subject to cherry picking by both sides it is obviously an area of continued debate.

[Ernie]

The question though as Ernie put it to us, is not what we think about modern firearm use or regulation or even recent Supreme Court rulings. Rather, he asked us to limit our conversations to what we think the text means. That's why most of us have been remiss to speak beyond that.

Thanks to those of you who have tried to be conscientious about my request.

[RZehr]

According to Thom Hartmann, a major purpose of the second amendment was to preserve slave patrols to be able to prevent enslaved people from effectively rebelling.

The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the framers knew the difference — see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason and James Madison were totally clear on that… and we all should be too.
...
https://truthout.org/articles/the-secon ... e-slavery/

Goodness, another evil fruit of racism. For not believing in Genesis, liberals sure do subscribe to the idea of one original sin, one that everything they don’t like can be traced to. Oddly, they are completely quiet on abortions racist roots. I guess because they don’t view abortion as a sin. Do they then agree that the one “good fruit” of racism is abortion, or what?

[HondurasKeiser]

According to Thom Hartmann, a major purpose of the second amendment was to preserve slave patrols to be able to prevent enslaved people from effectively rebelling.

The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the framers knew the difference — see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason and James Madison were totally clear on that… and we all should be too.
...
https://truthout.org/articles/the-secon ... e-slavery/

Goodness, another evil fruit of racism. For not believing in Genesis, liberals sure do subscribe to the idea of one original sin, one that everything they don’t like can be traced to. Oddly, they are completely quiet on abortions racist roots. I guess because they don’t view abortion as a sin. Do they then agree that the one “good fruit” of racism is abortion, or what?

No, didn't you hear? Being Pro-Life is itself an attempt to instantiate 'White Supremacy'. But then again, isn't everything?

My personally favorite iteration of this nonsense.

[Ken]

The question though as Ernie put it to us, is not what we think about modern firearm use or regulation or even recent Supreme Court rulings. Rather, he asked us to limit our conversations to what we think the text means. That's why most of us have been remiss to speak beyond that.

Thanks to those of you who have tried to be conscientious about my request.

I think the authors of the Second Amendment were talking about civilian militias armed with these:



All of which could be fired by an expert shooter firing from a distance at a rate of about 3 rounds per minute. In any sort of close combat situation you got one shot and then your firearm became a stone-age club unless you had a bayonet fixed to the end in which case it became an iron-age spear.

I think if you were to interview James Madison and ask if the language of the Second Amendment meant that a psychopathic 18 year old had a right to buy a military weapon with high capacity magazines capable of firing over 100 rounds per minute along with hundreds of rounds of ammunition without any state regulation or oversight and carry such a weapon into a school to murder children I think they would have been horrified at that prospect. And he would have said, “no, that is absolutely not what we meant at all.”

[joey_the_ox]

The question though as Ernie put it to us, is not what we think about modern firearm use or regulation or even recent Supreme Court rulings. Rather, he asked us to limit our conversations to what we think the text means. That's why most of us have been remiss to speak beyond that.

Thanks to those of you who have tried to be conscientious about my request.

I think the authors of the Second Amendment were talking about civilian militias armed with these:
...

All of which could be fired by an expert shooter firing from a distance at a rate of about 3 rounds per minute. In any sort of close combat situation you got one shot and then your firearm became a stone-age club unless you had a bayonet fixed to the end in which case it became an iron-age spear.

I think if you were to interview James Madison and ask if the language of the Second Amendment meant that a psychopathic 18 year old had a right to buy a military weapon with high capacity magazines capable of firing over 100 rounds per minute along with hundreds of rounds of ammunition without any state regulation or oversight and carry such a weapon into a school to murder children I think they would have been horrified at that prospect. And he would have said, “no, that is absolutely not what we meant at all.”

Ken, this is explicitly what the purpose of the thread is not to discuss. Obviously the writers had no conception of modern weaponry. But we are not discussing their conjectured response to the current situation.