The Second Amendment: Intent

[Ernie]

The second amendment reads like this.

"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."

Please keep conversations focused on:
The perceived intent of those who passed the Bill of Rights

[HondurasKeiser]

The second amendment reads like this.

"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."

Please keep conversations focused on:
The perceived intent of those who passed the Bill of Rights

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I'd say that was the intent.

[joey_the_ox]

The second amendment reads like this.

"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."

Please keep conversations focused on:
The perceived intent of those who passed the Bill of Rights

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I'd say that was the intent.

And that right had an explicitly militaristic intent (the first part of the quote). In other words, the intent was not to protect the right of bearing arms for the purpose of hunting on your back 40 or shooting clay pigeons.

[HondurasKeiser]

The second amendment reads like this.

"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."

Please keep conversations focused on:
The perceived intent of those who passed the Bill of Rights

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I'd say that was the intent.

And that right had an explicitly militaristic intent (the first part of the quote). In other words, the intent was not to protect the right of bearing arms for the purpose of hunting on your back 40 or shooting clay pigeons.

Indeed. The antecedent clause gives the justification for why 'the people's right to bear arms' should not be infringed.

[Ken]

Alexander Hamilton tells us what he thought it meant in the Federalist No. 29. He was one of the authors of and ratifiers of the Constitution and original Bill of Rights

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-paper ... r-25493342

He focused on the "well regulated militia" aspect of the Second Amendment, not the universal availability of weapons without restriction that seems a more modern interpretation.

Hamilton discusses state-regulated citizen militias in contrast to a standing Federal army and goes into detail about what they meant by "well regulated". The modern counterpart is probably the volunteer National Guard (weekend warriors) contrasted against the professional standing Armed Forces.

[temporal1]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I'd say that was the intent.

And that right had an explicitly militaristic intent (the first part of the quote). In other words, the intent was not to protect the right of bearing arms for the purpose of hunting on your back 40 or shooting clay pigeons.

Indeed. The antecedent clause gives the justification for why 'the people's right to bear arms' should not be infringed.

yes. that word, “militia”

mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
"creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"

a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.

all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

mere personal ownership for personal protection, hunting+sport were taken for granted?

other countries have similar. i think of Switzerland first, because of a visit there, being surprised to learn how well-armed and trained citizens in this famously neutral country are. “militia.”

[joey_the_ox]

Alexander Hamilton tells us what he thought it meant in the Federalist No. 29. He was one of the authors of and ratifiers of the Constitution and original Bill of Rights

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-paper ... r-25493342

He focused on the "well regulated militia" aspect of the Second Amendment, not the universal availability of weapons without restriction that seems a more modern interpretation.

A quote from the above (emphasis added):

...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

The bolded part would not be possible to achieve if citizens were restricted from having the same type of weaponry that is available to the army. In other words, the "well regulated militia" intent includes the "universal availability of weapons without restriction" as a precondition. Following the OP, I'm just speaking of the original intent here.

[Ken]

Alexander Hamilton tells us what he thought it meant in the Federalist No. 29. He was one of the authors of and ratifiers of the Constitution and original Bill of Rights

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-paper ... r-25493342

He focused on the "well regulated militia" aspect of the Second Amendment, not the universal availability of weapons without restriction that seems a more modern interpretation.

A quote from the above (emphasis added):

...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

The bolded part would not be possible to achieve if citizens were restricted from having the same type of weaponry that is available to the army. In other words, the "well regulated militia" intent includes the "universal availability of weapons without restriction" as a precondition. Following the OP, I'm just speaking of the original intent here.

Yes, but the text discusses the use of arms, not the personal possession of arms. The National Guard, for example, has well equipped armories that contain weaponry equivalent to what regular army units have. But they are under lock and key and “well regulated”. National Guard members don’t store tanks and heavy machine guns in their homes and garages. Armories were actually a common feature in the early years of the Republic. Storing of military weapons in people’s homes was not. Militia members didn’t store cannon, howitzers, or mortars or other such arms in their homes. The state maintained them in armories.

Small arms like handguns and rifles are of little use in actual war when invading armies have armored columns, artillery, missiles, attack helicopters, bombers, and the like.

[joey_the_ox]

Alexander Hamilton tells us what he thought it meant in the Federalist No. 29. He was one of the authors of and ratifiers of the Constitution and original Bill of Rights

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-paper ... r-25493342

He focused on the "well regulated militia" aspect of the Second Amendment, not the universal availability of weapons without restriction that seems a more modern interpretation.

A quote from the above (emphasis added):

...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

The bolded part would not be possible to achieve if citizens were restricted from having the same type of weaponry that is available to the army. In other words, the "well regulated militia" intent includes the "universal availability of weapons without restriction" as a precondition. Following the OP, I'm just speaking of the original intent here.

Yes, but the text discusses the use of arms, not the personal possession of arms. The National Guard, for example, has well equipped armories that contain weaponry equivalent to what regular army units have. But they are under lock and key and “well regulated”. National Guard members don’t store tanks and heavy machine guns in their homes and garages. Armories were actually a common feature in the early years of the Republic. Storing of military weapons in people’s homes was not. Militia members didn’t store cannon, howitzers, or mortars or other such arms in their homes. The state maintained them in armories.

Small arms like handguns and rifles are of little use in actual war when invading armies have armored columns, artillery, missiles, attack helicopters, bombers, and the like.

So are you arguing that the original intent was not aimed at the "personal possession" of arms?

[nett]

I hope Ken stretches thoroughly before performing the mental gymnastics needed to defend his position.