Gun Control

[Front-Ranger]

True, Mandy. In 2008, the Supreme Court was interpreting this amendment, and Justice Scalia found the right to bear arms to be an individual right "consistent" with the overriding purpose of the 2nd Amendment, to maintain strong state militias.  Scalia wrote that it was essential that the operative clause be consistent with the prefatory clause, but that the prefatory clause did not limit the operative clause.

But why have a prefatory clause at all, if not to modify the operative clause? PLus they conveniently ignored the fact that the amendment does not grant individual rights, only the right of the people, as a body, to be secure through the protection of an armed (and well regulated) militia.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Janice, I didn't get a chance to vote in this poll. Would you like to reopen it for voting?

There has been a lot of controversy about whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution actually confers the right to any ordinary citizen to bear arms. Here it is:

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.

As I interpret this, the right is extended to the people, as a body, to have a militia (a well regulated one) that is armed, to protect them. In other words, our armed forces, our police, etc. Nowhere does the amendment mention individuals, and it BEGINs with a reference to the militia, so that must be pretty important to the meaning. The second clause refers to the security of a free state, so it must have been very important to the writers that the people should be and feel secure. And when a crazy person can mow you down with a machine gun anywhere, do you feel secure? No.

It is, or was. At the time the amendment was written the U.S. either had no standing army, or else it was a very, very small one (sorry, I forget exactly which was the case). The defense of the states individually and the of the nation as a whole depended on the citizen-soldier militia. Moreover, I think it was the case that before Independence most citizen-soldiers were expected to supply their own weapons, but I could be mistaken about that, or the situation might have varied from colony to colony.

That is a grammatically-challenged sentence, to say the least.  The verb, when it finally comes, is in a poorly-chosen place.  I can see where there would be room for interpretation.

Part--and maybe even a lot--of the trouble is that our usage of the language has evolved since the last decades of the 18th century. The sentence was probably clearer to Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, et al., that it is to us today, unfortunately.

[delalluvia]

It is, or was. At the time the amendment was written the U.S. either had no standing army, or else it was a very, very small one (sorry, I forget exactly which was the case). The defense of the states individually and the of the nation as a whole depended on the citizen-soldier militia. Moreover, I think it was the case that before Independence most citizen-soldiers were expected to supply their own weapons, but I could be mistaken about that, or the situation might have varied from colony to colony.

You are correct.  Remember the Founding Fathers admired the ancient Romans.  Especially men like Cincinnatus, the famous Roman.  He was mostly a farmer, who in times of war, became a dictator-soldier, who then resigned his office and went back to farming when peace came.  The new American government wasn't going to provide - or couldn't afford to - these citizen-soldiers with weapons, they had to bring their own.  So if they had to bring their own, it follows that private citizens would be given the approval to have and bear arms.

[ifyoucantfixit]

            I feel that also it is not out of line to believe, that the men of that time were going out on a regular basis and killing the food for their tables.  There was also many wild animals that they had to protect themselves from as well.  Unless they were city dwellers.