Second Amendment Questions

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

There were fewer people involved in the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the scope was much more limited.

No there weren't, and no it wasn't. Actually, more people signed the Declaration than the Constitution (55 and 39, respectively). I'm not sure what you mean by "the scope was much more limited." The Confederation Congress certainly was not limited as compared to the Constitutional Convention.

True. But I thought we were having a sideline conversation about what the founders believed, where this sort of document, some or most of which were crafted by members of the original framers, would be relevant.

Since the framers saw fit to mention the militia in the Constitution, it merely underscores the non-existence of a consensus on these things (and thus the futility of searching for one). The omission of militias in state constitutions is not more significant than the inclusion of the militia in the United States Constitution. Also, this again takes acceptance of the doctrine of original intent for granted.

In that case, we would compare hit men to the police.

Police are not hit men. We're either looking at criminals and citizens having access to the exact same things, or we're not.

So restrictions do not automatically infringe on the Second Amendment. I'm a bit confused that you seem to disagree with this, since you concede that some restrictions are acceptable.

I don't disagree with it. If you can point where I was ambiguous I can try to clarify myself. I flat out agree that some restrictions are acceptable. You don't let children or mentally incompetent people play with fire-arms. I think you can extend that to those who have proven they can't be trusted, e.g. felons.

However, that was a right or duty reserved for the states. Not the federal government.[/quote]

Since the second amendment has been incorporated, that's rather a moot point to argue.

[pizzazz]

I don't see how the omission of militias from state constitutions is relevant either way. What body would the state constitution allow to have a militia? Most towns are too small.

[Iulus Cofield]

No town is too small to provide soldiers for a militia, unless it actually lacks able-bodied people of the appropriate age. In the Revolutionary and post-Revolutionary Eras, the US military was primarily the state militias. There was a major policy struggle between the Federal government and the States in the structure of the army. The Feds, whose primary spokesman was Washington, wanted a standing professional army under the direct command of the President and his representatives and the States wanted the army to be entirely or almost entirely militias that only were active during wartime. The compromise agreed upon during the war was an underfunded, undersized Federal army supplemented by colonial militias when battles came up, with the militias dispersing after major battles. And this severely hampered the revolutionary army's effectiveness. Post-war, the Federal Army was reduced to basically just the officer corp and a handful of enlisted soldiers. In the War of 1812 the same problem arose and the Army was frequently understaffed and was mostly impotent for prolonged campaigns. [source: American Military Policy: It's Development Since 1775]

[pizzazz]

Ok, but I still don't see how any of this is relevant to the discussion at hand. The fact that the militia was omitted from state constitutions doesn't mean anything if there's no reasonable analogue to this clause in the Constitution.

[Iulus Cofield]

Well, the Second Amendment is often interpreted as guaranteeing two separate but related things, first the right to form militias (thus satisfying the individual states' interests) and also the right for individual citizens to bear arms. So, the militia clause isn't as relevant as it seems to the modern issue of gun control.

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

It's relevant if you interpret it (as many do) as providing for the right to arm a militia, period. (Of course recent court decisions render the situation more complex than that and the court holds that it *does* provide for an individual right._

[pizzazz]

Well, the Second Amendment is often interpreted as guaranteeing two separate but related things, first the right to form militias (thus satisfying the individual states' interests) and also the right for individual citizens to bear arms. So, the militia clause isn't as relevant as it seems to the modern issue of gun control.

Exactly (I actually explained this very point on the first page of the original thread).

It's relevant if you interpret it (as many do) as providing for the right to arm a militia, period. (Of course recent court decisions render the situation more complex than that and the court holds that it *does* provide for an individual right._

But since that interpretation has been discussed and dismissed at least twice and now possibly 3 times in this one thread, why are we still talking about it?

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

Because your dismissal does not constitute the closing of a question.

[Iulus Cofield]

The thing is, militias of the period were raised in the very traditional militia style. The State called for men to bring themselves and their private weapons to a rally point where they might do some training and then march to a battle. So while from a purely legal standpoint the Second Amendment guarantees two very separate things, from the perspective of trying to create a legal framework in which the primarily militia based army could be preserved the two could not be practically separated. To deny the right to form militias was unwanted. To deny private weapon ownership would have necessitated the establishment of expensive state armories, on top of a very costly and probably highly unpopular attempt to disarm a mostly armed populace.

Sure, you can argue that the motivation and context of the Amendment has now become irrelevant, and you may well be right, but for better or for worse this is the law as it was written. State militias (now the National Guard) and private ownership of weapons.

[Arrian]

It's relevant if you interpret it (as many do) as providing for the right to arm a militia, period. (Of course recent court decisions render the situation more complex than that and the court holds that it *does* provide for an individual right._

I'm curious, since every other use of the phrase "the People" in the Constitution refers to every person legally in the country, why did they break with this convention in the second amendment and use it only to mean a subset of "the People?"

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

Yes, I've read the cases, and am quite aware of Justice Scalia's argument (that is, you know, why I referred to those cases). The recent Supreme Court decisions are eminently relevant to any discussion of the second amendment. Having said that, there's no discussion to be had if nobody in the thread is allowed to disagree with the decisions. I myself argue from a frame of reference that may not agree with the court's decision, but accepts them as the interpretation of the Constitution. But I can't decree everyone has to use that frame, and it's incredibly arrogant to assert that this thread has picked up the issue of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and handily "dismissed" entire interpretations in the debate which still rages in the US political arena as irrelevant. You may disagree with them, but they're still quite relevant as arguments.

[Azrael]

Having said that, there's no discussion to be had if nobody in the thread is allowed to disagree with the decisions.

Especially considering that plenty of landmark rulings have later been overturned because of various combinations of differing jurisprudence, interpretation or societal norms.

[pizzazz]

I really should start being more specific.

Cheezwhiz wrote,

Since the framers saw fit to mention the militia in the Constitution, it merely underscores the non-existence of a consensus on these things (and thus the futility of searching for one). The omission of militias in state constitutions is not more significant than the inclusion of the militia in the United States Constitution. Also, this again takes acceptance of the doctrine of original intent for granted.

I'm not really sure of your point here. I don't see how the omission of a clause analagous to the militia clause of the second amendment in state amendments demonstrates anything other than the fact that states were, at one time, considered to be the most important and pretigious level of government.

edit--it seemd to me that the argument in this thread against the "militia only" interpretation and in favor of the "people" interpretation" was not solely based on the recent SCOTUS rulings.

[Chuff]

I'm curious, since every other use of the phrase "the People" in the Constitution refers to every person legally in the country, why did they break with this convention in the second amendment and use it only to mean a subset of "the People?"

Is this actually true? I thought that non-citizens, legally in the country via work permits and such, are granted a much reduced set of rights?

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

I'm curious, since every other use of the phrase "the People" in the Constitution refers to every person legally in the country, why did they break with this convention in the second amendment and use it only to mean a subset of "the People?"

Is this actually true? I thought that non-citizens, legally in the country via work permits and such, are granted a much reduced set of rights?

They indeed are (I'll look up the relevant citation later).

I'm not really sure of your point here. I don't see how the omission of a clause analagous to the militia clause of the second amendment in state amendments demonstrates anything other than the fact that states were, at one time, considered to be the most important and pretigious level of government.

And I don't see how that demonstrates that states were at one time considered to be the most important and prestigious level of government. My own point is a rebuttal of the argument that the mention of the militia in the Constitution is irrelevant since it was left out in some state constitutions, and furthermore doesn't even tell us anything terribly useful about the founders' intentions since the twain contradict (the lack of a unified intent being a separate argument altogether).

[pizzazz]

I'm curious, since every other use of the phrase "the People" in the Constitution refers to every person legally in the country, why did they break with this convention in the second amendment and use it only to mean a subset of "the People?"

Is this actually true? I thought that non-citizens, legally in the country via work permits and such, are granted a much reduced set of rights?

They indeed are (I'll look up the relevant citation later).

So replace "every person legally in the country" with "every citizen," the point holds.

I'm not really sure of your point here. I don't see how the omission of a clause analagous to the militia clause of the second amendment in state amendments demonstrates anything other than the fact that states were, at one time, considered to be the most important and pretigious level of government.

And I don't see how that demonstrates that states were at one time considered to be the most important and prestigious level of government.
My own point is a rebuttal of the argument that the mention of the militia in the Constitution is irrelevant since it was left out in some state constitutions, and furthermore doesn't even tell us anything terribly useful about the founders' intentions since the twain contradict (the lack of a unified intent being a separate argument altogether).

"Demonstrates" was probably a poor choice of words, but that part was irrelevant. However, at that time the State governments were indeed the most most prestigious level of government (the only citation I can offer right now is my AP US history teacher, unfortunately). This general emphasis on the state level is, to me, the only explanation necessary as for why there is no militia clause in state constitutions. There is no contradiction. Moreover, as has been pointed out, the primary disagreement among the Founders was over whether to include a bill of rights or not, not over which rights were inherent.

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

So replace "every person legally in the country" with "every citizen," the point holds.

No, it doesn't. That's the whole point. Non-citizens have rights too in this country.

"Demonstrates" was probably a poor choice of words, but that part was irrelevant.

You're entitled to think that, of course, but simply repeating that it was irrelevant is not convincing me at all.

However, at that time the State governments were indeed the most most prestigious level of government (the only citation I can offer right now is my AP US history teacher, unfortunately). This general emphasis on the state level is, to me, the only explanation necessary as for why there is no militia clause in state constitutions. There is no contradiction. Moreover, as has been pointed out, the primary disagreement among the Founders was over whether to include a bill of rights or not, not over which rights were inherent.

I'm not disputing your claim of the importance of state government, merely the proof offered. Your logic is confusing to me, however - I don't see how an emphasis on local over federal government explains why the militia would have been left out of the state constitutions. I can follow the argument that those states deemed the right to bear arms an individual right, for example, but I honestly can't follow this one.

There's certainly a relevant contradiction if you want to argue that the state constitutions (specifically, the inclusion or non-inclusion of a clause specifically mentioning militias) offer special insight into their thinking on this matter. Some state constitutions leave it out, some include it, and the US Constitution includes it. This doesn't exactly offer us a clear picture of whether the founders felt the right to bear arms should be tied to arming the militia (partially, again, because they weren't all the same men and partially because there was very little on which they were in complete, unanimous agreement).

[pizzazz]

So replace "every person legally in the country" with "every citizen," the point holds.

No, it doesn't. That's the whole point. Non-citizens have rights too in this country.

So in what other part of the constitution does "the people" refer to the government? If the first amendment were written, "The ability of governors to contact the president being necessary to the security of a free state, Congress shall make no law abriding the the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances," would you interpret this as meaning that only governers have a constitionally protected right to petition the government? If so, why would the Founders have added that long extra clause about "the people" and used "the people?"

"Demonstrates" was probably a poor choice of words, but that part was irrelevant.

You're entitled to think that, of course, but simply repeating that it was irrelevant is not convincing me at all.

It's irrelevant because the statement "...the omission of a clause analagous to the militia clause of the second amendment in state amendments demonstrates the fact that states were, at one time, considered to be the most important and pretigious level of government" was not meant to be an argument. The negative part, that it doesn't demonstrate anything else, was the point.

However, at that time the State governments were indeed the most most prestigious level of government (the only citation I can offer right now is my AP US history teacher, unfortunately). This general emphasis on the state level is, to me, the only explanation necessary as for why there is no militia clause in state constitutions. There is no contradiction. Moreover, as has been pointed out, the primary disagreement among the Founders was over whether to include a bill of rights or not, not over which rights were inherent.

I'm not disputing your claim of the importance of state government, merely the proof offered. Your logic is confusing to me, however - I don't see how an emphasis on local over federal government explains why the militia would have been left out of the state constitutions. I can follow the argument that those states deemed the right to bear arms an individual right, for example, but I honestly can't follow this one.

Well, essentially, since the states are so important, it is necessary to assure that the federal government cannot have a monopoly on military force. The same relationship would not hold, for, say, towns or counties (or whatever entity would be gauranteed the right to have a militia in a state constitution) because the state is the primary level of government, not towns or counties. Put another way, how would a state constitution word this mention of the militia?

There's certainly a relevant contradiction if you want to argue that the state constitutions (specifically, the inclusion or non-inclusion of a clause specifically mentioning militias) offer special insight into their thinking on this matter. Some state constitutions leave it out, some include it, and the US Constitution includes it. This doesn't exactly offer us a clear picture of whether the founders felt the right to bear arms should be tied to arming the militia (partially, again, because they weren't all the same men and partially because there was very little on which they were in complete, unanimous agreement).

What states in particular are you referring to here? Again, I'm not really sure of any states whose constitutions who refer to the right to keep a militia in the way the US bill of rights does. If you mean the individual right to bear arms,then according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Later_consideration, the only 3 states that did not originally ratify the bill of rights were Massachussets, Connecticut, and Georgia. Googling each of these states' bill of rights shows that each gauranteed a right of individuals to bear arms.

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

So in what other part of the constitution does "the people" refer to the government? If the first amendment were written, "The ability of governors to contact the president being necessary to the security of a free state, Congress shall make no law abriding the the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances," would you interpret this as meaning that only governers have a constitionally protected right to petition the government? If so, why would the Founders have added that long extra clause about "the people" and used "the people?"

My point is that "the people" also applies to non-citizens - not just "every person legally in the country" or to citizens, not that it applies to the government. My position is that, strictly constitutionally, the people as individuals have a right to bear arms, comma, for the purpose of arming a militia (a militia being comprised of people who bear arms). None of the other amendments in the bill of rights is qualified in this manner. The second amendment is unique in having a dependent clause that says "We need a militia, so the people have this right." It's quite different from "the people have this right, full stop." Notice also that they didn't say anything like "The ability to overthrow a government being necessary..." To the extent you can speak of the founders as having a collective intent, they wanted to make damn sure that nobody replicated what they themselves did in the revolution (see also: Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion...which were put down by militias). Now, I will agree that many of them thought the right was important for additional reasons, but they didn't put them in the constitution, and they can't be used to argue against gun control laws. I also disagree with the argument that any restriction, law, control, or regulation is infringing (as I have seen and had many argue).

It's irrelevant because the statement "...the omission of a clause analagous to the militia clause of the second amendment in state amendments demonstrates the fact that states were, at one time, considered to be the most important and pretigious level of government" was not meant to be an argument. The negative part, that it doesn't demonstrate anything else, was the point.

Ah, I see. So we're in agreement that the state constitutions' positions on militia are irrelevant to the second amendment?

Well, essentially, since the states are so important, it is necessary to assure that the federal government cannot have a monopoly on military force. The same relationship would not hold, for, say, towns or counties (or whatever entity would be gauranteed the right to have a militia in a state constitution) because the state is the primary level of government, not towns or counties. Put another way, how would a state constitution word this mention of the militia?

If that is true, then why would section I, article 8 of the Constitution explicitly give the federal government control over the militia?

The Congress shall have power To [ . . . ]
provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The states could go with something along the lines of

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.

What states in particular are you referring to here? Again, I'm not really sure of any states whose constitutions who refer to the right to keep a militia in the way the US bill of rights does. If you mean the individual right to bear arms,then according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Later_consideration, the only 3 states that did not originally ratify the bill of rights were Massachussets, Connecticut, and Georgia. Googling each of these states' bill of rights shows that each gauranteed a right of individuals to bear arms.

It's not quite that cut and dried. I don't recall any which mention militias by name, but several refer to the right of the people to bear arms "for the common defence" or a similar phrase. For example, Massachusetts' state constitution said "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence," and North Carolina's talked about the people's "right to bear arms, for the defence of the State"

[pizzazz]

So in what other part of the constitution does "the people" refer to the government? If the first amendment were written, "The ability of governors to contact the president being necessary to the security of a free state, Congress shall make no law abriding the the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances," would you interpret this as meaning that only governers have a constitionally protected right to petition the government? If so, why would the Founders have added that long extra clause about "the people" and used "the people?"

My point is that "the people" also applies to non-citizens - not just "every person legally in the country" or to citizens, not that it applies to the government. My position is that, strictly constitutionally, the people as individuals have a right to bear arms, comma, for the purpose of arming a militia (a militia being comprised of people who bear arms). None of the other amendments in the bill of rights is qualified in this manner. The second amendment is unique in having a dependent clause that says "We need a militia, so the people have this right." It's quite different from "the people have this right, full stop." Notice also that they didn't say anything like "The ability to overthrow a government being necessary..."

That's not what the amendment says. Nowhere does the word "for" appear. The militia clause is a reason, not a qualification, and I don't see any way to read that sentence to mean that the people have the right to bear arms only for the defense of the state, or even that the right is dependent on the fact that militias are necessary for the security of a free state.

To the extent you can speak of the founders as having a collective intent, they wanted to make damn sure that nobody replicated what they themselves did in the revolution (see also: Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion...which were put down by militias). Now, I will agree that many of them thought the right was important for additional reasons, but they didn't put them in the constitution, and they can't be used to argue against gun control laws. I also disagree with the argument that any restriction, law, control, or regulation is infringing (as I have seen and had many argue).

Actually, Thomas Jefferson is famously quoted as saying that we need a revolution every few years/generations.
Not that I'm endorsing any particular interpretation, but if we interpreted the second amendment the way we do the freedom of speech, citizens would have been guranteed, by judges, the right to have any weapon that is not dangerous simply by existing (so no nukes, but high explosives, submachine guns, sniper rifles, artillery, flamethrowers, missiles, rockets, etc. would all be completely legal).

It's irrelevant because the statement "...the omission of a clause analagous to the militia clause of the second amendment in state amendments demonstrates the fact that states were, at one time, considered to be the most important and pretigious level of government" was not meant to be an argument. The negative part, that it doesn't demonstrate anything else, was the point.

Ah, I see. So we're in agreement that the state constitutions' positions on militia are irrelevant to the second amendment?

Well, essentially, since the states are so important, it is necessary to assure that the federal government cannot have a monopoly on military force. The same relationship would not hold, for, say, towns or counties (or whatever entity would be gauranteed the right to have a militia in a state constitution) because the state is the primary level of government, not towns or counties. Put another way, how would a state constitution word this mention of the militia?

If that is true, then why would section I, article 8 of the Constitution explicitly give the federal government control over the militia?

The Congress shall have power To [ . . . ]
provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The states could go with something along the lines of

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 I see the miscommunication/misunderstanding here. In the second amendment, "State" is capitalized and thus refers to the individual states (as we would write now), not the entity of a sovereign nation. In other words, it gurantees the right of individual States to have their own militias, separate from any federal force. Thus your proposed wording thus makes no sense (or at least would have to have an uncapitalized "state," and refer to something completely different), since States don't contain other States.
In regard to that article, the founders of the time did not like standing armies. Thus the militia served purposes that the army would without the need to have a standing army (see below).

What states in particular are you referring to here? Again, I'm not really sure of any states whose constitutions who refer to the right to keep a militia in the way the US bill of rights does. If you mean the individual right to bear arms,then according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Later_consideration, the only 3 states that did not originally ratify the bill of rights were Massachussets, Connecticut, and Georgia. Googling each of these states' bill of rights shows that each gauranteed a right of individuals to bear arms.

It's not quite that cut and dried. I don't recall any which mention militias by name, but several refer to the right of the people to bear arms "for the common defence" or a similar phrase. For example, Massachusetts' state constitution said "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence," and North Carolina's talked about the people's "right to bear arms, for the defence of the State"

What? Here's the entire entry from North Carolina's bill of rights on arms (emphasis mine):

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss10.html
The first emphsis is obvious. The second is to back up my claim above about distrust of standing armies (though I am not aware of any dispute of this point). The Mass. bill of rights contains a similar clause.
I guess you found one original state that did not absolutely gaurantee a right to arms for individuals either in its constitution or by ratifying the bill of rights. That statement is still ambiguous, since "to keep arms for the common defense" makes little sense. If you would like, I could probably find plenty of quotations supporting the individual right to arms from mass. politicians of the era.

[Outlander's Engine]

There were fewer people involved in the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the scope was much more limited.

No there weren't, and no it wasn't. Actually, more people signed the Declaration than the Constitution (55 and 39, respectively). I'm not sure what you mean by "the scope was much more limited." The Confederation Congress certainly was not limited as compared to the Constitutional Convention.

Seriously?

The Declaration did not need to be ratified by the 13 states. There were around 56 signers and that was it. They hammered it out, voted it in and they were done. In comparison, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention knew that they needed to take it back and have it submitted to the states for ratification. So the Constitution also involved the conventions for 13 states, as well as the original delegates. That's a significant number of people to convince.

The Declaration was also significantly shorter and less complex in scope than the Constitution. The Constitution was a fairly complex document setting forth the outline of a revised federal government. The Declaration was a one pager listing the wrongs against the colonists.

True. But I thought we were having a sideline conversation about what the founders believed, where this sort of document, some or most of which were crafted by members of the original framers, would be relevant.

Since the framers saw fit to mention the militia in the Constitution, it merely underscores the non-existence of a consensus on these things (and thus the futility of searching for one). The omission of militias in state constitutions is not more significant than the inclusion of the militia in the United States Constitution. Also, this again takes acceptance of the doctrine of original intent for granted.

Yes. I believe it is futile for you to find documentation of any of the framers proposing firearms to be limited to only the militia. In comparison, there seems to be lots accessible documentation, some already in this thread, stating the exact opposite. If there was disagreement over this, you would be able to find it.

That's not a very convincing argument to me. It is very easy for a criminal element to hire a hit man but that doesn't mean citizens should be allowed to hire hit men to go after suspected criminals.

In that case, we would compare hit men to the police.

Police are not hit men. We're either looking at criminals and citizens having access to the exact same things, or we're not.

We are looking at them having access to the same thing, and that is hiring trained men do things for them. I understand your point, but your analogy stinks.

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

That's not what the amendment says. Nowhere does the word "for" appear. The militia clause is a reason, not a qualification, and I don't see any way to read that sentence to mean that the people have the right to bear arms only for the defense of the state, or even that the right is dependent on the fact that militias are necessary for the security of a free state.

The word "for" doesn't have to be in there to make the dependent clause significant, or to imply necessity. I've provided a way to read the amendment that way - that the right is dependent on the fact that you need a militia. Take the sentence *as a whole* - "X being necessary, the people's right to Y shall not be infringed." The way it is written, Y shall not be infringed *because* X is necessary. Else why include that first clause at all, if it's so irrelevant? Ya need a miltia (a bunch of dudes with guns). Okay. So since we need a militia, the dudes have to be able to have guns. That's all the document *says*.

Actually, Thomas Jefferson is famously quoted as saying that we need a revolution every few years/generations.
Not that I'm endorsing any particular interpretation, but if we interpreted the second amendment the way we do the freedom of speech, citizens would have been guranteed, by judges, the right to have any weapon that is not dangerous simply by existing (so no nukes, but high explosives, submachine guns, sniper rifles, artillery, flamethrowers, missiles, rockets, etc. would all be completely legal).

Aside from the fact that Jefferson !== the founders, he had nothing to do with the Constitution - wasn't even in the country at the time.

Except that there are limits on obscenity and (to a small degree) pornography - neither of which are dangerous simply by existing. And the right could be restricted if there was a danger of "imminent lawless action." And there would be reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner.

I think I see the miscommunication/misunderstanding here. In the second amendment, "State" is capitalized and thus refers to the individual states (as we would write now), not the entity of a sovereign nation. In other words, it gurantees the right of individual States to have their own militias, separate from any federal force. Thus your proposed wording thus makes no sense (or at least would have to have an uncapitalized "state," and refer to something completely different), since States don't contain other States.
In regard to that article, the founders of the time did not like standing armies. Thus the militia served purposes that the army would without the need to have a standing army (see below).

I'm not 100% sure I buy that (capitalization and *spelling* were rather...fluid in writings of this period), but - They would need to uncapitalize "state" in order to refer to themselves rather than the US. Okay. How does that invalidate my point?

Fine, but none of that supports the assertion that the second amendment somehow cordons state miltias off from federal control. The US is explicitly given the right to call state militias; state militia troops can (and in fact were) federalized.

What? Here's the entire entry from North Carolina's bill of rights on arms (emphasis mine):

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss10.html
The first emphsis is obvious. The second is to back up my claim above about distrust of standing armies (though I am not aware of any dispute of this point). The Mass. bill of rights contains a similar clause.
I guess you found one original state that did not absolutely gaurantee a right to arms for individuals either in its constitution or by ratifying the bill of rights. That statement is still ambiguous, since "to keep arms for the common defense" makes little sense. If you would like, I could probably find plenty of quotations supporting the individual right to arms from mass. politicians of the era.

I was referring to the Massachusetts 1780 Constitution and North Carolina's 1776 Constitution.

Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.

17. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defense of the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

If you want to use the 1788 Constitution, fine - they put the militia right after the citizen's right to bear arms. I'm not arguing that there's no individual right to bear arms; merely that that right is very closely linked to the necessity of the militia. Which is why you see references to militias right after your clauses granting the individual rights. They didn't just throw things in at random places.

Georgia's state constitutions of 1777 and 1789 say precisely nothing about the right to bear arms - though they do provide for a miltia.

(I'm perfectly happy agreeing that there was a pretty much universal distrust of standing armies.)

I fail to see how "to keep arms for the common defense" makes little sense. It made sense to the drafters of Massachusetts' constitution. It makes perfect grammatical and logical sense to me. What do the people have the right to do? Keep arms. What are the arms for? For the common defense.

Quotations from random Massachusetts politicians are irrelevant to a discussion of actual documents and laws. Yet again, I don't subscribe to original intent and dislike tying the conversation down to that interpretation.

The Declaration did not need to be ratified by the 13 states. There were around 56 signers and that was it. They hammered it out, voted it in and they were done. In comparison, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention knew that they needed to take it back and have it submitted to the states for ratification. So the Constitution also involved the conventions for 13 states, as well as the original delegates. That's a significant number of people to convince.

The Declaration was also significantly shorter and less complex in scope than the Constitution. The Constitution was a fairly complex document setting forth the outline of a revised federal government. The Declaration was a one pager listing the wrongs against the colonists.

Heh. You seriously think the Declaration was "a one pager listing the wrongs against the colonists"? It meant treason and war with the most powerful military and naval force on the planet. You say getting the entire 2nd Continental Congress to unanimously declare independence was as simple as "they hammered it out, voted it in and they were done"? There was tortuous debate over whether they should even be declaring independence at all.

I'm not comparing the complexities of the documents; I'm saying the "scope" of the signing of the Declaration was not "much more limited" than that of the Constitution. It was at least as difficult to get all of the states to agree to declare independence (and, of course, war) as to get the new Constitution through.

Yes. I believe it is futile for you to find documentation of any of the framers proposing firearms to be limited to only the militia. In comparison, there seems to be lots accessible documentation, some already in this thread, stating the exact opposite. If there was disagreement over this, you would be able to find it.

Strawman. I never said the framers proposed any such thing. What I did say was that (1) the Constitution ties the right to bear arms with the necessity of a militia, which mention (and innumerable others in private writings) directly contradicts the assertion that the founding fathers felt that the right was completely independent of the need for the militia and (2) the founders were not a unified group nor a hivemind and as such looking for a consensus among all of them extra-Constitutionally, in their private writings, is not only irrelevant, but futile (Jefferson wrote to Washington the quote another poster has quoted about revolutions being necessary at the same time Washington was putting down the rebellion to which Jefferson referred!). They don't think the same on everything.

We are looking at them having access to the same thing, and that is hiring trained men do things for them. I understand your point, but your analogy stinks.

No, we are not looking at them having access to hiring trained men to do things for them. I can hired trained men to do lots of things for me. I can hired trained men to wire my house, fix my roof, dryclean my clothes, walk my dog, and be my bodyguard. What I cannot (legally) hire a trained man to do is kill someone else. Your argument is that citizens should have access to guns because criminals have access to *the exact same thing.* Not a similar thing. Not an analogous thing. The. Same. Thing.

[lutzj]

What I cannot (legally) hire a trained man to do is kill someone else. Your argument is that citizens should have access to guns because criminals have access to *the exact same thing.* Not a similar thing. Not an analogous thing. The. Same. Thing.

Not quite. Hit men, by definition, have no purpose except to commit murders; it's a loaded term equivalent to "murder guns." A better analogy would be the neutral "hired arms," and of course it is okay to hire people with guns as hunting partners and bodyguards. If you have one of your hired arms commit a murder, you are committing a crime, just as you would be if you used one of your guns to commit a murder.

[Outlander's Engine]

The Declaration did not need to be ratified by the 13 states. There were around 56 signers and that was it. They hammered it out, voted it in and they were done. In comparison, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention knew that they needed to take it back and have it submitted to the states for ratification. So the Constitution also involved the conventions for 13 states, as well as the original delegates. That's a significant number of people to convince.

The Declaration was also significantly shorter and less complex in scope than the Constitution. The Constitution was a fairly complex document setting forth the outline of a revised federal government. The Declaration was a one pager listing the wrongs against the colonists.

Heh. You seriously think the Declaration was "a one pager listing the wrongs against the colonists"? It meant treason and war with the most powerful military and naval force on the planet. You say getting the entire 2nd Continental Congress to unanimously declare independence was as simple as "they hammered it out, voted it in and they were done"? There was tortuous debate over whether they should even be declaring independence at all.

Yep, I am. There was debate over the declaration of independence, but the debate was pretty much over by the time of the convention. For that, you can check the wiki article and its citations.

I'm not comparing the complexities of the documents; I'm saying the "scope" of the signing of the Declaration was not "much more limited" than that of the Constitution. It was at least as difficult to get all of the states to agree to declare independence (and, of course, war) as to get the new Constitution through.

Horsefeathers. We were comparing the time it took to get consensus, in which case the relative complexities of the two documents are the meat of the discussion.

Yes. I believe it is futile for you to find documentation of any of the framers proposing firearms to be limited to only the militia. In comparison, there seems to be lots accessible documentation, some already in this thread, stating the exact opposite. If there was disagreement over this, you would be able to find it.

Strawman. I never said the framers proposed any such thing. What I did say was that (1) the Constitution ties the right to bear arms with the necessity of a militia, which mention (and innumerable others in private writings) directly contradicts the assertion that the founding fathers felt that the right was completely independent of the need for the militia and (2) the founders were not a unified group nor a hivemind and as such looking for a consensus among all of them extra-Constitutionally, in their private writings, is not only irrelevant, but futile (Jefferson wrote to Washington the quote another poster has quoted about revolutions being necessary at the same time Washington was putting down the rebellion to which Jefferson referred!). They don't think the same on everything.

No. I'm saying that you have been provided with citations arguing that the founders believed in the right to bear arms. You have argued that there was no 'consensus' on the matter. You have argued that the founders were not a unified group on this matter. Fine. Show your work. Show me something. A debate. A letter. Something from somewhere showing "a lack of consensus" on the individuals right to have fire-arms.

If this has gone to far off topic for this thread, PM me. Because, really, the argument was over the modern relevancy of the 2nd, not the original intent.

This is relevant-

We are looking at them having access to the same thing, and that is hiring trained men do things for them. I understand your point, but your analogy stinks.

No, we are not looking at them having access to hiring trained men to do things for them. I can hired trained men to do lots of things for me. I can hired trained men to wire my house, fix my roof, dryclean my clothes, walk my dog, and be my bodyguard. What I cannot (legally) hire a trained man to do is kill someone else. Your argument is that citizens should have access to guns because criminals have access to *the exact same thing.* Not a similar thing. Not an analogous thing. The. Same. Thing.

That's either a strawman or confusion. I did not argue access to the exact same thing.

Yes, a hit man kills, which in effect removes an opponent. We, as a society, have grouped together and employed a number of people to do exactly that. If the mechanism is a little bit more removed due to the intricacies of the justice system and the courts, its still there. We even still kill if need be. We are a bit more restrained in that than our forefathers, but that is relatively new.

[Iulus Cofield]

Are you arguing that the criminal justice system is equivalent to hiring hitmen? There are a lot of reasons why those two are neither the same nor analogous. Probably the most important distinction is that hitmen can be hired to kill for any reason, whereas police are empowered to arrest, judges are empowered to imprison, and sometimes jailers are empowered to kill, only for very specific reasons agreed upon by democratically elected representatives.

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

Not quite. Hit men, by definition, have no purpose except to commit murders; it's a loaded term equivalent to "murder guns." A better analogy would be the neutral "hired arms," and of course it is okay to hire people with guns as hunting partners and bodyguards. If you have one of your hired arms commit a murder, you are committing a crime, just as you would be if you used one of your guns to commit a murder.

"Hit man" is not a loaded term; it's what we call that noun. Euphemisms mask the meaning. If "hit man" offends you for some reason (maybe you are a hit man? ), we can use "hired assassin," but it's not like that changes anything. I don't think you are seeing what I mean. The argument is that since criminals have access to guns, citizens should have access to the same thing. The logic doesn't work when you apply it to other things criminals have access to. Criminals have access to hit men. Criminals have access to money laundering operations. Criminals have access to chop shops. Criminals have access to a market for stolen goods. Criminals have access to getaway cars. Well...no. That's WHY they're criminals. The fact that someone will break a law doesn't mean the law shouldn't exist (which is what that argument boils down to). See also my last paragraph.

Yep, I am. There was debate over the declaration of independence, but the debate was pretty much over by the time of the convention. For that, you can check the wiki article and its citations.

(I assume you meant to type "Second Continental Congress" instead of "Constitutional Convention"). Have you checked the wikipedia article and its citations? Because that's...just not true. The Second Continental Congress is the body which proposed the Declaration in the first place.

Unless you mean that the debate over revising the Articles of Confederation (or of scrapping them altogether and starting fresh) was pretty much over by the time of the Constitutional Convention, in which case you are also wrong. Neither the Second Continental Congress nor the Constitutional Convention started work on these documents with a mandate. It took a ton of work to convince everyone to get on board and rebel, and it took a ton of work to convince everyone to adopt the new constitution. Anyway, the original assertion that led to this particular tangent was that 3 years wasn't a very long time for ratification considering the communications technology at the time, which isn't so.

Horsefeathers. We were comparing the time it took to get consensus, in which case the relative complexities of the two documents are the meat of the discussion.

No, not if "communications technology at the time" (as was asserted) is the cause. This argument essentially denies that any of the states were slow to adopt the Constitution, which is to deny history.

No. I'm saying that you have been provided with citations arguing that the founders believed in the right to bear arms. You have argued that there was no 'consensus' on the matter. You have argued that the founders were not a unified group on this matter. Fine. Show your work. Show me something. A debate. A letter. Something from somewhere showing "a lack of consensus" on the individuals right to have fire-arms.

If this has gone to far off topic for this thread, PM me. Because, really, the argument was over the modern relevancy of the 2nd, not the original intent.

I don't think I've articulated this clearly enough, and it's resulted in some misunderstanding. It is not my intent to say that there was a great big debate on this particular issue; it is my intent to address the idea of original intent (and I'm sorry if poor phrasing on my part led to confusion about that). I'm not saying "they don't agree on this specific thing". I'm saying "there are so many issues they don't agree on that it doesn't make sense to consult them for interpretation." I'm saying that as a general principle seeking consensus among the founders *in their own individual writings* is both A) misguided because it is so often not there and B) irrelevant anyway. You can't cherry pick the issues on which you let original intent guide you - either you let it guide you on all, or both, otherwise it makes little sense. Since this disparate group of politicians from different parties disagreed fundamentally on a metric ton of things, you can't let the non-existent agreement guide you on all issues (Obviously, there was consensus on some very broad things - Democracy is good. The United States is good. Tyrannical government is at all costs to be avoided. Etc.). Going by original intent means you can't really be internally consistent.

Yes, a hit man kills, which in effect removes an opponent. We, as a society, have grouped together and employed a number of people to do exactly that. If the mechanism is a little bit more removed due to the intricacies of the justice system and the courts, its still there. We even still kill if need be. We are a bit more restrained in that than our forefathers, but that is relatively new.

Ummmm. No. Police kill as a last resort; they do not exist for the sole purpose of killing specified individuals for money. If you are going to argue that the police are hit men/hired assassins, then I have to say that is a ridiculous argument and one in which I do not care to participate further.

[lutzj]

Not quite. Hit men, by definition, have no purpose except to commit murders; it's a loaded term equivalent to "murder guns." A better analogy would be the neutral "hired arms," and of course it is okay to hire people with guns as hunting partners and bodyguards. If you have one of your hired arms commit a murder, you are committing a crime, just as you would be if you used one of your guns to commit a murder.

"Hit man" is not a loaded term; it's what we call that noun. Euphemisms mask the meaning. If "hit man" offends you for some reason (maybe you are a hit man? ), we can use "hired assassin," but it's not like that changes anything. I don't think you are seeing what I mean. The argument is that since criminals have access to guns, citizens should have access to the same thing. The logic doesn't work when you apply it to other things criminals have access to. Criminals have access to hit men. Criminals have access to money laundering operations. Criminals have access to chop shops. Criminals have access to a market for stolen goods. Criminals have access to getaway cars. Well...no. That's WHY they're criminals. The fact that someone will break a law doesn't mean the law shouldn't exist (which is what that argument boils down to). See also my last paragraph.

Private citizens do have access to businesses, the ability to dismantle their vehicles to extract valuable parts, the ability to sell things, and the ability to drive cars. You have to use those things for money laundering/stolen cars/escaping robberies for them to become illegal. Similarly, everyone has the ability to employ bodyguards or other armed personnel, but you have to then use that person to commit murder for them to be a "hitman," and that is the point where such behavior becomes illegal. It's the same way with guns; a gun is only a murder weapon when it is used to murder someone.

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

Private citizens do have access to businesses, the ability to dismantle their vehicles to extract valuable parts, the ability to sell things, and the ability to drive cars. You have to use those things for money laundering/stolen cars/escaping robberies for them to become illegal. Similarly, everyone has the ability to employ bodyguards or other armed personnel, but you have to then use that person to commit murder for them to be a "hitman," and that is the point where such behavior becomes illegal. It's the same way with guns; a gun is only a murder weapon when it is used to murder someone.

When you take things from specifics and go to generalizations, they lose all meaning. Criminals have access to things. So do citizens. That's not a particularly meaningful statement. I'm pointing out the flaw in logic, here - that a criminal having access to something is *not* an argument for citizens being given access to the exact same thing.

[Outlander's Engine]

Yep, I am. There was debate over the declaration of independence, but the debate was pretty much over by the time of the convention. For that, you can check the wiki article and its citations.

(I assume you meant to type "Second Continental Congress" instead of "Constitutional Convention").

Yes, I mistyped that. I was double checking myself and flipping back and forth between the two.
edit: I mistyped and I meant congress, not convention.

Unless you mean that the debate over revising the Articles of Confederation (or of scrapping them altogether and starting fresh) was pretty much over by the time of the Constitutional Convention, in which case you are also wrong. Neither the Second Continental Congress nor the Constitutional Convention started work on these documents with a mandate. It took a ton of work to convince everyone to get on board and rebel, and it took a ton of work to convince everyone to adopt the new constitution. Anyway, the original assertion that led to this particular tangent was that 3 years wasn't a very long time for ratification considering the communications technology at the time, which isn't so.

Horsefeathers. We were comparing the time it took to get consensus, in which case the relative complexities of the two documents are the meat of the discussion.

No, not if "communications technology at the time" (as was asserted) is the cause. This argument essentially denies that any of the states were slow to adopt the Constitution, which is to deny history.

Say what now? No. Communications tech at the time means 3 years to adopt the Constitution was not surprising to me. We then compared the time it took for them to produce the Declaration of Independence, which was a document that was narrower in scope and involved fewer people. You objected to my description of complexity and the number of people involved. I offered a rebuttal. If, at this point, my arguments on the matter (re scope and persons) do not convince, then I'm not really interested in pursuing it further because to be honest, I think it's as plain as day and not germane to the topic.

However, in the spirit of the debate, if you have a point there you wish to make, I'm all ears. Or eyes. whatever.

[Outlander's Engine]

I don't think I've articulated this clearly enough, and it's resulted in some misunderstanding. It is not my intent to say that there was a great big debate on this particular issue; it is my intent to address the idea of original intent (and I'm sorry if poor phrasing on my part led to confusion about that). I'm not saying "they don't agree on this specific thing". I'm saying "there are so many issues they don't agree on that it doesn't make sense to consult them for interpretation." I'm saying that as a general principle seeking consensus among the founders *in their own individual writings* is both A) misguided because it is so often not there and B) irrelevant anyway. You can't cherry pick the issues on which you let original intent guide you - either you let it guide you on all, or both, otherwise it makes little sense. Since this disparate group of politicians from different parties disagreed fundamentally on a metric ton of things, you can't let the non-existent agreement guide you on all issues (Obviously, there was consensus on some very broad things - Democracy is good. The United States is good. Tyrannical government is at all costs to be avoided. Etc.). Going by original intent means you can't really be internally consistent.

What I find odd is that I agree with what you are saying, but I think your argument is completely unsound. Yes, arguing from original intent is worthless. Times, attitudes and technology change too much.

However, figuring out the actual intent behind the text is relatively easy. they were not that divided on what is actually in the constitution. They also left behind copious notes and historical documents. In short, attempting to argue from original intent that the 2nd amendment only provides arms to the militia is a lost cause.

Yes, a hit man kills, which in effect removes an opponent. We, as a society, have grouped together and employed a number of people to do exactly that. If the mechanism is a little bit more removed due to the intricacies of the justice system and the courts, its still there. We even still kill if need be. We are a bit more restrained in that than our forefathers, but that is relatively new.

Ummmm. No. Police kill as a last resort; they do not exist for the sole purpose of killing specified individuals for money. If you are going to argue that the police are hit men/hired assassins, then I have to say that is a ridiculous argument and one in which I do not care to participate further.

No. That was not my point.

If criminals band together and produce specialists, which they do, the obvious defense is for citizens to band together for mutual defense. Thus the militia, law enforcement and the rest of the justice system.

When criminal organizations produce specialists to seek out and remove an opponent (a hit man), the obvious analog is the citizens police force which seeks out and removes criminals. Or bounty hunters, which had its own problems, but are also legal.

In short, your rebuttal to my point that whatever criminals possess should be legal to citizens was to use the example of the hit man. I'm extending it to show that it doesn't apply.

[Azrael]

The Declaration did not need to be ratified by the 13 states. There were around 56 signers and that was it. They hammered it out, voted it in and they were done. In comparison, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention knew that they needed to take it back and have it submitted to the states for ratification. So the Constitution also involved the conventions for 13 states, as well as the original delegates. That's a significant number of people to convince.

While your language isn't explicitly incorrect regarding "ratification", the entire thrust of your argument is nonetheless false.

Those 56 signers first had to convince the various state governments (and/or government-esque entities) that they were representing to revise their instructions, allowing them to declare independence. Many of those signers were initially sent to the Congress with explicit instructions that they could not do so. In essence, "ratification" came first -- before they could formally discuss the topic, draft the resolution, vote and sign -- in the individual acts of the represented governments in formally allowing independence to be discussed, never mind declared.

I might steer you towards the relevant section on wikipedia to provide a broad outline.

In short, you do not have your facts straight.

[Outlander's Engine]

The Declaration did not need to be ratified by the 13 states. There were around 56 signers and that was it. They hammered it out, voted it in and they were done. In comparison, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention knew that they needed to take it back and have it submitted to the states for ratification. So the Constitution also involved the conventions for 13 states, as well as the original delegates. That's a significant number of people to convince.

While your language isn't explicitly incorrect regarding "ratification", the entire thrust of your argument is nonetheless false.

Those 56 signers first had to convince the various state governments (and/or government-esque entities) that they were representing to revise their instructions, allowing them to declare independence. Many of those signers were initially sent to the Congress with explicit instructions that they could not do so. In essence, "ratification" came first -- before they could formally discuss the topic, draft the resolution, vote and sign -- in the individual acts of the represented governments in formally allowing independence to be discussed, never mind declared.

I might steer you towards the relevant section on wikipedia to provide a broad outline.

In short, you do not have your facts straight.

I've been up and down that article over the last several days double checking myself, since I was surprised that this would even be an issue.

I suppose I might as well embrace off-topic. I bolded the part the caught my eye.
I'll be offline for some time. I'll have a chance to look back here briefly however but not post. So. Just to make sure. Are you opposed to;
A) 3 years for ratification of the Constitution wasn't out of line given the constraints of technology.
B) You can't compare the time involved to create the Declaration to the ratification of the Constitution due to scope and number of people involved.
C) The scope and/or complexity of the Declaration and the number of people involved were less than the creation and ratification of the Constitution.

Point A was what I thought was the main thrust of this sidebar discussion.

[Azrael]

Replace it, if you wish, with:

The Declaration did not need to be ratified by the 13 states. There were around 56 signers and that was it. They hammered it out, voted it in and they were done. In comparison, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention knew that they needed to take it back and have it submitted to the states for ratification. So the Constitution also involved the conventions for 13 states, as well as the original delegates. That's a significant number of people to convince.

While your language isn't explicitly incorrect regarding "ratification", the entire thrust of your the quoted argument is nonetheless false.

In that you are greatly oversimplifying how easy it was to forge the Declaration by ignoring the actual historical process that was involved. It was emphatically not just some 56 fellows in a room. The sentence that I have underlined was also true for the Declaration, although the state "conventions" were instead precursors, and not called conventions.

I'm not taking a side in which process was "easier". I'm pointing out that neither should you unless you have your facts straight, which you did not.

[Outlander's Engine]

Replace it, if you wish, with:

The Declaration did not need to be ratified by the 13 states. There were around 56 signers and that was it. They hammered it out, voted it in and they were done. In comparison, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention knew that they needed to take it back and have it submitted to the states for ratification. So the Constitution also involved the conventions for 13 states, as well as the original delegates. That's a significant number of people to convince.

While your language isn't explicitly incorrect regarding "ratification", the entire thrust of your the quoted argument is nonetheless false.

In that you are greatly oversimplifying how easy it was to forge the Declaration by ignoring the actual historical process that was involved. It was emphatically not just some 56 fellows in a room. The sentence that I have underlined was also true for the Declaration, although the state "conventions" were instead precursors, and not called conventions.

I'm not taking a side in which process was "easier". I'm pointing out that neither should you unless you have your facts straight, which you did not.

Yes, I am simplifying how easy it was to get the Declaration out, but I'm not ignoring the actual historical process.

Now, saying that they hammered it out, voted it in and were done may be strong language. However, I was comparing it to the Constitution and its ratification process.


And I think I have my facts straight. So let me regurgitate them here.

Just based on the wiki entry, it wasn't until Jan 1776 that the hold-outs began to give up hopes of reconciliation with Great Britain. Between April and July there was a "complex political" war to revise the instructions to the congressional delegates. That's seven months from when they decided in earnest to begin pursuing independence to actually getting the declaration signed.

The pre-amble for the Declaration was submitted in May. The 5 man committee was appointed in June, and the final document was adopted on July 4th. That would also set the actual drafting of the Declaration at around 3 months. If you leave out the May 15 preamble and only concentrate on the time taken to draft the official version, then they started in June, so (1) month. Again, just taking this from the wiki.

So. Only 5 were involved in the actual drafting, 34 formally signed it initially and other signatures were added later. All of the people involved were in one area during this time. Everyone present signed it. It took about 7 months to get everyone on the same page and one month for the final draft.


Now, on to the Constitution and its ratification process. Which was a bit more involved.


Again, taking from the wiki. On February 21, 1787 congress decided to revise the Articles of Confederation. They didn't actually get delegates together until May. Now, there's a significant difference here. The delegates involved with the Declaration already knew that they had been given permission to declare independence if they voted on it. However, in this case, these delegates decided to propose a new constitution instead of just amending the existing articles. The key point was they did not already have authority to do this. That changes things a bit.

Actual debate and drafting of the new constitution started May 25 with 55 delegates. In July they began drafting the final documents. They submitted a final document on Sept 17. Call it 3 months to produce the final draft.

And then, of course, it took them 3 years to get ratification. This was something substantially more involved than the selections of the delegates to congress for the Declaration. Again, from the wiki:

Several states enlarged the numbers qualified just for electing ratification delegates. In this they went beyond the Constitution's provision for the most voters for the state legislature to make a new social contract among, more nearly than ever before, "We, the people".[31]

Kind of a convuluted sentence. Check the footnote:

^ Maier, Pauline. op. cit. p. 134, Connecticut expanded electorate to add all town meeting voters; p.140, Massachusetts dropped property requirements; p.218, New Hampshire dropped some property requirements, and added town delegates; p.223, Rhode Island put the question to a referendum which rejected the ratification convention, the Federalist minority centered in Newport and Providence boycotted the election; p.228, Virginia dropped “legal and Constitutional requirements” to expand the freehold electorate; p.327, New York dropped property requirements, timed assembly elections at the same time, and allowed up to five sequential days of voting until the voting rolls were “complete”.

That's a lot more people than were involved in sending the delegates to the congress for declaring independence. And some of these people needed to gather together and have further "conventions" of their own.


9 months to get everyone together and agree on something. 3 months to create the final draft. 55 delegates, all involved in the document. 39 signed it. 3 years to ratify it, which involved a whole truckload more people.


So. That's my defense for asserting that the Constitution involved more people than the Declaration of independence. I haven't touched on the complexity point. Can I just punt and say 5 pages > 1 page?

One last note. I resisted laying all this out due to my feeling that it was an off-topic subject. Since you also seem interested, I figured I'd take the time to lay out my reasons for my original point. Thus, wall-o-text.

[pizzazz]

That's not what the amendment says. Nowhere does the word "for" appear. The militia clause is a reason, not a qualification, and I don't see any way to read that sentence to mean that the people have the right to bear arms only for the defense of the state, or even that the right is dependent on the fact that militias are necessary for the security of a free state.

The word "for" doesn't have to be in there to make the dependent clause significant, or to imply necessity. I've provided a way to read the amendment that way - that the right is dependent on the fact that you need a militia. Take the sentence *as a whole* - "X being necessary, the people's right to Y shall not be infringed." The way it is written, Y shall not be infringed *because* X is necessary. Else why include that first clause at all, if it's so irrelevant? Ya need a miltia (a bunch of dudes with guns). Okay. So since we need a militia, the dudes have to be able to have guns. That's all the document *says*.

Yes, the militia clause is significant. No, the right to keep and bear arms is not in any way dependent on the existence or necessity of a militi. I agree that the first clause, in addition to providing for the state's to have militias, provides a reason for the right to bear arms. That doesn't imply dependence.

Actually, Thomas Jefferson is famously quoted as saying that we need a revolution every few years/generations.
Not that I'm endorsing any particular interpretation, but if we interpreted the second amendment the way we do the freedom of speech, citizens would have been guranteed, by judges, the right to have any weapon that is not dangerous simply by existing (so no nukes, but high explosives, submachine guns, sniper rifles, artillery, flamethrowers, missiles, rockets, etc. would all be completely legal).

Aside from the fact that Jefferson !== the founders, he had nothing to do with the Constitution - wasn't even in the country at the time.

Except that there are limits on obscenity and (to a small degree) pornography - neither of which are dangerous simply by existing. And the right could be restricted if there was a danger of "imminent lawless action." And there would be reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner.

Ok, fine, Jefferson was just the first that came to mind. But there are plenty of examples (including some already posted in this thread) of the Founders supporting the right to arms to protect against the government potentially becoming a tyranny.

Yes, those limits exist. Why do they exist? Because we feel they may cause harm of some type to others. But explosives and all those other things I listed are merely collections of chemicals, plastic, metal, etc. They are only harmful if used (or, I suppose, in the case of an accident, so let's say we're on a big property of our own). And yet they're often illegal anyway.

I think I see the miscommunication/misunderstanding here. In the second amendment, "State" is capitalized and thus refers to the individual states (as we would write now), not the entity of a sovereign nation. In other words, it gurantees the right of individual States to have their own militias, separate from any federal force. Thus your proposed wording thus makes no sense (or at least would have to have an uncapitalized "state," and refer to something completely different), since States don't contain other States.
In regard to that article, the founders of the time did not like standing armies. Thus the militia served purposes that the army would without the need to have a standing army (see below).

I'm not 100% sure I buy that (capitalization and *spelling* were rather...fluid in writings of this period), but - They would need to uncapitalize "state" in order to refer to themselves rather than the US. Okay. How does that invalidate my point?

Fine, but none of that supports the assertion that the second amendment somehow cordons state miltias off from federal control. The US is explicitly given the right to call state militias; state militia troops can (and in fact were) federalized.

Did you read my post? Again: Your proposed wording makes no sense. And while capitalization may have been fluid, it's fairly common in the Constitution to capitalize "state" when referring to eg "the several States."

I don't recall saying it "cordoned off" the Federal government, or anything like that. However, if you read carefully, you'll notice that Congress only maintains those powers while the milita is in service of the Federal government. At all other times, the states had complete control over their own militia (this is how the Federalists got that section through, otherwise the Anti-Federalists would have gotten it amended so that it could not be used y the feds to destroy the miilta through neglect.

What? Here's the entire entry from North Carolina's bill of rights on arms (emphasis mine):

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss10.html
The first emphsis is obvious. The second is to back up my claim above about distrust of standing armies (though I am not aware of any dispute of this point). The Mass. bill of rights contains a similar clause.
I guess you found one original state that did not absolutely gaurantee a right to arms for individuals either in its constitution or by ratifying the bill of rights. That statement is still ambiguous, since "to keep arms for the common defense" makes little sense. If you would like, I could probably find plenty of quotations supporting the individual right to arms from mass. politicians of the era.

I was referring to the Massachusetts 1780 Constitution and North Carolina's 1776 Constitution.

If you want to use the 1788 Constitution, fine - they put the militia right after the citizen's right to bear arms. I'm not arguing that there's no individual right to bear arms; merely that that right is very closely linked to the necessity of the militia. Which is why you see references to militias right after your clauses granting the individual rights. They didn't just throw things in at random places.

I know they're not in random places. I have already state the two rights are linked. Of course, the first amendment contains freedom of speech and freedom of religion, so I guess those must be related too. And in a way they are; they are freedoms that Congress can pass no law abridging.

Georgia's state constitutions of 1777 and 1789 say precisely nothing about the right to bear arms - though they do provide for a miltia.

(I'm perfectly happy agreeing that there was a pretty much universal distrust of standing armies.)

I didn't realize while googling that Georgia has had about dozen constitutions, so I was reading the 1945 constitution. My apologies. Still, I have a hard time believing any of the 3 original states rejected the Bill of Rights because they did not believe in an individual right to bear arms.

I fail to see how "to keep arms for the common defense" makes little sense. It made sense to the drafters of Massachusetts' constitution. It makes perfect grammatical and logical sense to me. What do the people have the right to do? Keep arms. What are the arms for? For the common defense.

I don't know where that came from... was I typing that at night? But at any rate, if it makes so much sense, why isn't the second amendment worded this way?

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

Yes, the militia clause is significant. No, the right to keep and bear arms is not in any way dependent on the existence or necessity of a militi. I agree that the first clause, in addition to providing for the state's to have militias, provides a reason for the right to bear arms. That doesn't imply dependence.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," is a dependent clause. As wikipedia puts it, "A dependent clause (also subordinate clause) is a clause used in conjunction with an independent clause and augments or attributes additional information to it. Dependent clauses cannot stand alone as a sentence; instead, they always modify the independent clause of a sentence." The dependent clause here is modifying the independent clause stating that this right shall not be infringed. Why is that clause in there, modifying it? Because its writers felt the need to say something about why the people had this individual right - something they did exactly one time in the entire bill of rights: this time. All the rest, they felt, were self-explanatory. Not this one. It's linked to a specific need; it is not independent like the others. Yes, it exists, but for a reason. There's no reason given for the freedom of speech. None for freedom of religion. The Constitution is silent on why you have the right to be secure from unreasonable searches. But the right to bear arms? That's because the nation needs a well regulated militia (or needed one back then).

Yes, those limits exist. Why do they exist? Because we feel they may cause harm of some type to others. But explosives and all those other things I listed are merely collections of chemicals, plastic, metal, etc.

And you're just a collection of elements. Your point?

They are only harmful if used (or, I suppose, in the case of an accident, so let's say we're on a big property of our own). And yet they're often illegal anyway.

Likewise hate speech can only be harmful if exerted (around other people) - specifically, it can exist, as in your "big property of our own" example, without being harmful; muttering "that n-word over there should die! Get him, boys!" to yourself is an example of prohibited speech existing in a way that isn't harmful. But they're both harmful if used around others (and/or others' things, as the case may be). Both hate speech and explosives are regulated for that exact reason.

Did you read my post? Again: Your proposed wording makes no sense. And while capitalization may have been fluid, it's fairly common in the Constitution to capitalize "state" when referring to eg "the several States."

Yes. Did you read mine?

You keep saying it makes no sense with no further explanation, which I don't get. Change the capitalization to your recommendation - fine. Then you have the state's constitution saying "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."

How does that not make sense? A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of any (specifically, this particular) free state. So the right of the People (in this state) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Simple. Logical. Grammatical. Understandable.

Again - what doesn't make sense here?

I don't recall saying it "cordoned off" the Federal government, or anything like that. However, if you read carefully, you'll notice that Congress only maintains those powers while the milita is in service of the Federal government. At all other times, the states had complete control over their own militia (this is how the Federalists got that section through, otherwise the Anti-Federalists would have gotten it amended so that it could not be used y the feds to destroy the miilta through neglect.

You wrote:

Well, essentially, since the states are so important, it is necessary to assure that the federal government cannot have a monopoly on military force.

But the federal government can assume control of the militia. The militia is not a protection against that.

Actually, rereading the thread, I'm not certain what you're saying with that to begin with (I'm pretty tired so I might just be missing it).

I know they're not in random places. I have already state the two rights are linked.

You say they are linked, and yet say that the right to bear arms is independent of the need for a militia. These statements are logically incompatible. Either they are linked, or they are not linked, but not both.

Of course, the first amendment contains freedom of speech and freedom of religion, so I guess those must be related too. And in a way they are; they are freedoms that Congress can pass no law abridging.

You're the one who brought up first amendment laws.

Right. And you accept laws limiting the exercise of freedom of speech as non-abridging. If it's OK to limit how, where, and when we can exercise free speech, why exactly are gun control laws automatically infringing? They can't be. Clearly there can be unreasonable gun control laws which violate the bill of rights, just as there can be for free speech. But that doesn't mean every law pertaining to either is automatically wrong or infringing on our rights.

I didn't realize while googling that Georgia has had about dozen constitutions, so I was reading the 1945 constitution. My apologies. Still, I have a hard time believing any of the 3 original states rejected the Bill of Rights because they did not believe in an individual right to bear arms.

No problem. A lot of states (but not all) have rewritten them. It can get very confusing very quickly keeping all the changes and dates straight.

I'm not saying that they did reject it for that reason. What I am saying is that (contrary to your assertion), these states very clearly linked the individual right to bear arms with the need for a militia.

I don't know where that came from... was I typing that at night? But at any rate, if it makes so much sense, why isn't the second amendment worded this way?

Because the US is not Massachusetts? Because the writers felt like wording it in a different, but equivalent, way?

It makes plenty of sense that Massachusetts adopted this language because that's (apparently) the language Massachusetts wanted, or at least what the majority faction in Massachusetts wanted. If you argue, as you did, that the 3 states which rejected the bill of rights had constitutions which granted a right to bear arms independent of anything else, it weakens the argument considerably (to say the least) to find these passages in their constitutions.

[pizzazz]

I don't have great internet nor do I have unlimited time, so I apologize for the quick reply. I'm ignoring some things that seem to be off-topic or side discussions.

1. Explain exactly how you think the wording of the second amendment allows for restrictions on the individual right to bear arms. I understand completely what dependent clauses are and that the beginning of the amendment provides a reason for the right. However, there is no part that states that if militias become unnecessary, or cease to exist, the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed. Moreover, providing a reason is not the only function of the first clause; it establishes the right of states to have militia to begin with.
The fact that the necessity of the militia is a reason for the right, as one purpose of two, does not suffice as an explanation here. In fact, I'm going to quote the Supreme Court from Heller. Emphasis mine.

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “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.” Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.
Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.... But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. “It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.” Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.

Later on,

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/dcvheller.html.

2. Fine, I wrote in error concerning the state constitutions. On the other hand, I'm starting to feel like several of these lines of argument now have at best a tenuous connection with the original issue. I'm having a hard time figuring out the entire chain of argument and so am not going to continue them unless you feel like summarizing them.

[nitePhyyre]

1. Explain exactly how you think the wording of the second amendment allows for restrictions on the individual right to bear arms. I understand completely what dependent clauses are and that the beginning of the amendment provides a reason for the right. However, there is no part that states that if militias become unnecessary, or cease to exist, the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed.

So you understand that the second part of the sentence depends on the first part for its existance, but don't understand why without the first part the second part wouldn't stand on its own? C'mon, now you are just being dishonest with yourself.

Moreover, providing a reason is not the only function of the first clause; it establishes the right of states to have militia to begin with.

Only if "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" formed a sentence, which guaranteed a right. It does neither.

The fact that the necessity of the militia is a reason for the right, as one purpose of two, does not suffice as an explanation here. In fact, I'm going to quote the Supreme Court from Heller. Emphasis mine.

The Amendment could be rephrased, “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.”

'Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State' could also be replaced by with "Given that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State" or "Assuming that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State". And if your assumption goes out the window...

Let's remove this from the 2nd for a moment.
I am a healthy, fully formed, adult human male, I was shot in the leg, I can no longer walk.
I am a healthy, fully formed, adult human male, because I was shot in the leg, I can no longer walk.
I am a healthy, fully formed, adult human male, I can no longer walk.

The first sentence is the version without 'because' that you find in the constitution.
The second is the Heller revision.
The third is the same sentence with the clause removed. In your opinion is it a sensical sentence?

tl;dr
Heller's revision gives all the information you need to know. The 2nd should be read as "Given A, then B".

Have the courts ever heard "The 2nd amendment is obsolete" case? Or is that up to the legislators to deal with?

[Greyarcher]

1. Explain exactly how you think the wording of the second amendment allows for restrictions on the individual right to bear arms. I understand completely what dependent clauses are and that the beginning of the amendment provides a reason for the right. However, there is no part that states that if militias become unnecessary, or cease to exist, the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed.

So you understand that the second part of the sentence depends on the first part for its existance, but don't understand why without the first part the second part wouldn't stand on its own? C'mon, now you are just being dishonest with yourself.

If A then B, not A therefore not B is invalid logical form. The latter right could just as well stand on its own, but the constitution says nothing either way.

That said, I'm fine with thinking it's not obsolete. It doesn't have to be necessary now to be a safeguard against possible futures, since 50 or 100 years could see the world much changed.

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

No, the military (sometimes law enforcement agencies too - let's call all such entities the military simply for ease of conversation; insert relevant nouns/names as you see fit) has better hardware, ergo, if it is sufficiently motivated it can crush any band of armed citizens like a june bug. We can only outgun the military if it lets itself be outgunned - if it is unwilling to fire on "civilians" (a term I doubt applies to armed members of a rebellion), and it's simply proved itself more than willing to do so in the past. We are not the military's keepers any farther than the military lets us be.

You really think that the military - a group that's *trained for the specific purpose of combating enemies of the state/keeping the peace/defending the nation* - wouldn't ever possibly find sufficient motivation to quell organized violence before it even starts, let alone crush a bunch of armed whack jobs who started a violent, treasonous rebellion which threatened the government, the entity it is sworn to protect?

If so, you are forgetting your American history, Sir.