> It also seems to me that for those who tend toward original intent interpretations (majority of current Supreme Court) would agree that the founders only saw it fit that people be able to own guns with similar firepower and lethality as muskets.
You'd be wrong there. The Supreme Court agrees that the founders saw fit that people are armed with weapons similar to those used by the military, with certain restrictions.
And those weapons at the time were....muskets, bayonets. They had no vision of the M-16, AK-47, etc. The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia..." So let's well regulate it.
According to Wikipedia:
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[11] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[12][13]
As I stated, I have no expertise in this matter. If it requires a repeal then that is what I would favor.
So, obviously, the First Amendment only applies to quill pens and manually-operated printing presses. Right?
"The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia...""
If the First Amendment had read "A well-educated legislature being essential to the governance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" you would argue, what? That only well-educated people should have books? That only the legislature should have books?
No, you wouldn't. Neither would anyone else, because that would be a contrived and nonsensical interpretation of the language.
Well if the first amendment were stated differently than what it is then people would interpret it differently. I fail to see your point on that.
There is much that the writers of the constitution didn’t foresee. I think it’s ridiculous, in many cases, to try to seek what they originally intended. Society is far more complex now than it was then. I mentioned their views for the self described originalists. These people tend to have a very broad interpretation to what the second amendment means but narrowly interpret other parts of the Constitution.
The 2nd amendment has had many cases before the Supreme Court. It wasn’t until 2008 with Heller that it was interpreted to mean an actual right to own guns. As far as I understand the history of the legal interpretation if the second amendment. It appears the modern interpretation is out of sync with what the founders intended.
My interpretation of the 2nd is that not only does it make explicit the right to own and carry arms, but also the right to own any and all arms of military relevance. You can't fight off King George XXIII if he has war machines imaginable only by the likes of Tyssot, Swift, Mercier, or Restif, and you still only have your musket from the 1770s.
At the time of drafting, the founders hadn't yet encountered the Pawnee vs. Cheyenne/Lakota style of total warfare, and had barely even invented hit-and-run tactics. As such, it would have been prudent to amend the amendment at least once in the last 230 years. I'd prefer that laws banning chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological weapons would have constitutional backing, that torture and other war crimes be banned explicitly, and there be some concession for denying deadly munitions to antisocial maniacs and bellicose outlaws.
Reinterpretation is not the proper channel towards rational arms policy, or to resolve any other problem with the document not anticipating societal progress. Amendment is the prescribed remedy. There have been calls in the past to convene an Article 5 Amendments Convention, as it is the only way to propose an amendment when the Congress won't, but we've never actually had one. Perhaps it is time?
The Second Amendment did not limit the type of arms it applied to, and the reason that it's preamble referred to the dependency of the security of a free state on a well-regulated militia was because it was in the context of the best universal opinion at the time that large standing professional armed forces for either internal security or international conflict were a mechanism of tyranny, and that having a free country absolutely required a dependency on avoiding those and instead relying on mobilizing the armed populace (with all the weapons of war) to deal with internal and external threats.
Leaving aside gun laws, we've long since completely abandoned the premise of the second amendment on a far more fundamental level with our professional militaries and paramilitary police forces.
Only because Miller was not properly heard almost 100years ago.
Short barrel shotguns were extremely common in world war 1 trench warfare, and that’s what Miller was charged with. Too bad he was dead before the supreme court heard that case.
Please man, the pre-Heller 2008 argument of “well regulated” where you need to pretend means “lots of regulations” and not the real meaning of “well trained and in good working order” is tired.
Leave that nonsense at Reddit.
I used to... I still find it interesting how the “collective right” angle is pushed post Heller and MacDonald with the obviousness that’s always been there of “can you read the rest of the right past the first few words?”
How would you regulate the training---what if you fail the training that's required to be part of a well-regulated militia? If the right to bear arms would be only contingent to being part of a militia, would the failure void your right to bear arms? (serious question)
Why in your interpretation of government subsidized training/ammo is it a requirement?
If the constitution is a document that explains the natural rights of citizens, and is restrictions on the government (which it is)... Then saying A well-regulated militia being necessity to a free state - would imply that government is obligated to train and supply ammo - any requirements for this to be part of your rights would be null considering the next words are "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Note that it says "the right of the people" (as a whole), not the right of "people" (all of them).
The right is not there for everyone. It's only applicable inasmuch as you are part of the militia, and can be restricted if you're not.
Regulating the militia (just like saying what e.g. is due process) is up to the law, and can be arbitrarily restrictive as long as the overall right of the American people to form an armed militia is not infringed. For example, prohibiting hunting would be just fine.
I’m not a lawyer, never claimed to be an expert. Heller is a recent ruling. Previous rulings contradict Heller in some aspects. See, the way the Cinstituion is interpreted over time changes. It’s not like we are bound by a ruling for all eternity.
The reasoning is not tired. It’s how I interpret the text. Fortunately for your position my interpretation doesn’t matter since I’m not on the Supreme Court. Indeed, even decades after Roe v Wade people still argue against the reasoning used in that ruling and desire change.
It’s not nonsense to advocate for one's position just because there is a Supreme Court ruling against that position.
Using words that don't mean what you think they mean is a bad argument.
Sorry, well-regulated means well trained and in good working order.
Militia - is you and I, and anyone else of able body that can fight for defense of self and country.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. - that's the part you apparently didn't read. Of all the bill of rights, they all apply to people directly - except of course 2A where you say "people" is collective inexplicably.
Hey, I'm not arguing. Keep using arguments that very old, very tired, well defeated by logic and precedent. It makes my job as someone who cares about civil rights easier.
I quoted a Supreme Court ruling in which the justices said there was no such right enshrined in the 2nd amendment. Thus there are people who are learned in the law who disagree with your position. Is it really hard for you to imagine that well educated, knowledgeable people can come to a different conclusion than you on what the 2nd amendment means?
I’m claim neither to be well educated or knowledgeable. I do claim that when I read that amendment it seems to give the government broad powers of regulation over gun ownership.
As I’ve said through these posts, fight for your rights. Be vigilant. We are on opposite sides but open debate and discussion is good for a democracy. Maybe my view will prevail in the coming decades. Maybe not. Societies evolve and views change. Only by people of like mind to you being willing to advocate for your rights will my position be prevented from becoming normative.
> I’m claim neither to be well educated or knowledgeable. I do claim that when I read that amendment it seems to give the government broad powers of regulation over gun ownership.
I highly recommend that you either stop holding these ill-informed opinions by your own admission or stop prefixing your every post with the same disclaimer.
I doubt that you are an expert on all topics you post about. I'm actually well educated. So now I am claiming this. Mostly in mathematics, physics, logic, and history. I'm not an expert in any area outside of mathematics.
However, just like you, my lack of expertise does not preclude me from having an opinion and stating those opinions. Since there are experts who agree with me that the 2nd amendment gives the government powers of regulation it's hard to credibly claim that my position is ill informed. Even if my reasons are ill-informed why should I stop from engaging in conversation? That's the best way to learn.
I've not denigrated anyone or suggested that anyone was ill-informed or otherwise try to diminish those who disagree with me. I'm not so full of myself that the act of dissent from my position causes me to lash out or attempt to quash said dissent. In fact the contrary is true. Several times in these threads I've said to those with whom I disagree that they should fight for their rights and remain vigilant.
Stand up for your beliefs. I will stand up for mine. I hope someday that gun ownership will be viewed with horror by the general populace. My position will not win out if well reasoned individuals who disagree with me remain vigilant and proactive.
While the military arms at the time were muskets and bayonets, that was not the only technology available. Many colonial troops had rifles of their own that they used. These rifles were superior to the British musket in many regards and helped the colonial troops win.
Surely the founding fathers were aware of this and knew that the second amendment would allow citizens to have weapons that were more deadly than the standard military firearm at the time. In fact, this trend even continued well into the Vietnam war. It was really only in the past 50 or so years that the military has eclipsed the citizens in terms of standard issue firepower.
So no, the founding fathers were not aware of the M-16 and AK-47[0], but they also had more than muskets and bayonets, and were perfectly content to have a citizenry that outgunned the military.
[0] - I should note that the M-16 and AK-47 are essentially illegal in the US at this point, along with any weapons of similar firepower, so that point seems moot anyway. The only people able to acquire them are incredibly rich collectors.
Many, many more recent cases have conflicted with Cruikshank and chipped away at its jurisprudence. The court was not well run or fair in those days.
Miller is especially bad case law too, he was dead by the time it was heard and essentially no one even argued that side of the case - it was a total sham.
You'd be wrong there. The Supreme Court agrees that the founders saw fit that people are armed with weapons similar to those used by the military, with certain restrictions.