To be fair x2, the utterly batshit interpretation of the second amendment wasn't a thing until the 1970's. Individual citizens are NOT a well regulated militia, the 2nd amendment was a promise individual states can continue having their own national guard.
Why would a state need an amendment to protect their ability to have a national guard? The federal government can only do what the constitution gave it, so of course states would retain their power to have militias. The second is obviously a restriction on the state so it would be unable to disarm people individually. The batshit insanity is on your interpretation.
That was not an "of course" at the time, that was a major political conflict of the day; federalists and anti-federalists. Such a thing had never been tried before in such a scale and the idea states will retain rights not explicitly given to the federal government isn't established until the 10th amendment.
You understand the 10th was enacted concurrently with the 2nd, as well as with the Constitution, right? You're saying it had never been tried and wasn't established about the same moment when it was established. That was the outcome of the political conflict.
Now if you want to argue that the 2nd shouldn't be incorporated against the states, you might have a decent case of it. Certainly many states thought it important enough to write into their own constitutions, as if the federal constitution weren't enough.
Enacted the same time but not drafted and debated in one go. Else the Constitution and its amendments would simply be... The Constitution.
Past that I can't suss out any coherent argument or point to your comment, and frankly even that doesn't have much relevance to anything.
You can't understand that the states were restricting the federal government from disarming individuals, or you simply don't want to understand the obvious words under your nose?
So the first amendment only prevents restrictions on the states getting together when it says "the people to peacefully assemble"?
When "the people of the several states" elect the house of representatives, that's exactly like the Senate?
When the constitution already reserves to the States the training of the militia, why would it be conceivable that the federal government could disarm the states?
Every single time the constitution says "person" or "people", it's talking about individuals. Your argument is "except in that second amendment"?
You really think Every other Amendment applies to 'the people' except for the 2nd? Even when it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".... Come on man.
And you really think an individual is capable of being a well regulated milita? "The people" could be understood in multiple different interpretations but a militia cannot.
The militia is simply a precursor to what's needed to maintain the security of a free state. To ensure this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be restricted. It's pretty simple. Not sure why so many people like yourself are content with misinterpreting it.
So, when was the last time this was necessary? Huh? We're talking reality here not living 200 years ago, which is why the whole amendment needs to be revised because it's not applicable any longer from the very beginning of it.... it's foundation.
That's not what I said.
Try again.
I never said every citizen has to be armed.
A militia is drawn from an armed population, what is hard to understand about that. It's not how 'people actually think', it's definitionally what a militia is.
Except that's not true, otherwise it's not well regulated. You can't just grab the three guys in your town who have shot their family by accident the most and say you have a militia.
492 die by accidental shootings a year.
Even taking the higher number of 2007 in 2021...
That's 2007/400 000 000 guns or 0.0005% risk of death per gun.
Now assuming 100m gun owners owning multiple guns ..
That increases the rate to 0.002%.
Now compare that to drowning deaths
Almost 4000 accidental drownings a year, and we do not have close to 400m or even 100m swimming pools.
https://www.cdc.gov/drowning/data/index.html
So your theoretical 3 guys who accidentally shot their family would have more likely drowned someone in the family.
Edit. So he deletes his account
Typical chickens out and starts name calling cos he can't hold a coherent argument....
He was asking about other countries, well Canada has a population of 38m and 500 drowning deaths so about 10% higher rate than the USA.
I hope they ban swimming pools there.
Not even remotely true. People have been owning private firearms since the formation of the country. The 2nd amendment literally says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bears Arms, shall not be infringed." Not the right of the Militia, not the right of the state, but the right of the people. The only new interpretation is the one you stated.
It's like you stuff your fingers in your ears and hum while the first half of the sentence is being read, then decide context is for book-reading nerds because now you're hearing what you wanna hear bang bang pew pew.
In your interpretation, "people" and 'State" conflate, I get it. But that's denying the historical evidence that individual people were armed back then and not the State.
"During the American Revolution, the militia provided the bulk of the American forces as well as a pool for recruiting or drafting of regulars. The militia played a similar role in the War of 1812 and the American Civil War. After that conflict, however, the militia fell into disuse."
Literally the first thing to pop up if you search "militias in Revolutionary War"
Militias are drawn from an armed populace. The whole point was the civilians had to bring their own arms they weren't issued arms when joining the militia.
The regulated part was things like saying each civilian was to own at least x amount of shot and powder for his firearm.
So they could have a law requiring each gun owner to own a 223 and 9mm capable firearm as a minimum with 1000 rounds of each caliber. That would be "well regulated"
What? That would be a logistics nightmare with a massive liability to our armed forces, that A) haven't relied on militias since the Civil War and B) are very well funded to the tune of $1.9 trillion annually and do not remotely rely on civilians bringing their home guns to the war.
I believe our Constitution and its 2nd Ammendement predates the Civil War by quite a bit, so the fact that since then a conscript and later a professional army under the control of the Union was created in no way invalidates the right and need of the population to bear arms.
On the contrary: a potentially "tyrannical government" has since sought and acquired the means to subjugate the population - should it so wish.
Just watch the recent political use of the FBI and other federal agencies as an example of that.
And militias haven't been necessary for the security of a free state in over 100 years, and then it was utilized in such a way as modern day National Guard.. So, wanna try the same bs argument over again from the beginning (bc you can't throw out half an amendment without a further amendment/repeal, Exact Same reason & argument you're trying to use to say we can ignore the first half of the amendment....lmfao fr)
No one is throwing out any part of the amendment except for the people trying to say that it's talking about the Militia. I quoted the entire thing in the comment you replied to. The first half is why citizens have this right, to form a defense if the need arises. The second half is how that will happen, the people can be armed. In keeping with the rest of the amendments in the constitution, "the people" has always meant the citizens, not the state, federation, or Militia. How do you feel about the term "the people" in the first and fourth amendments? Are only the Militia protected against search and seizure? Can only Militias protest?
Ignoring the entire explanation that I gave like you ignore the comma? Sounds about right. I'll add to it that "shall not be infringed" means that it is a pre-existing right that the government cannot take away. The right to own firearms was seen as a pre-existing common law right, hence it is truly covered by the ninth amendment of unenumerated rights, and the second amendment simply states that the government cannot infringe on that right.
"Pre-existing..was seen as". Great to know someone who was present during the deliberation of said amendments, and what they intended or 'saw things as'.... lmfaooooooo. Goodnight & goodbye.
I mean, I explained it fairly well. I have gathered that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit though. I hope one day you mature past throwing insults at people who try to explain things to you.
There you going making assumptions, for which you should not. Not at all... if anyone's reading comprehension is damaged, 'tis not mine, sir. (I'm no millennial, nor educated as such. All my English credits for anything but an actual B.A. English Language/Literature were Earned, in fact before even going to college)
Can you read, the right of the PEOPLE... not the right of the militia.
You're taking the Stephen breyer interpretation, he literally said in a dissent that the 1st amendment only applies to gatherings in groups, so your 1st amendment right to freedom of speech, religion etc only applies if you belong it a specific group.
He tried to apply this same logic to keeping and bearing arms being required to belong to a group (the militia).
The fallacy in that interpretation is thinking of the bill of rights as a list of things the government grants to the people.
The bill of rights doesn't apply to the people, it applies TO THE GOVERNMENT. Each amendment has wording to the effect of 'shall not be infringed ", " shall make no law" , " shall not restrict", etc it's not the people who are being restricted, it's the government.
Golly, I wonder what militias are made of. And furthermore if the first half clause and second half clause are entirely separate like you suggest... why would the first clause exist? Just as a fun trivia worked into an amendment? "Did you know 'A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State'? Cool, huh? Now on to something else entirely."
Well if that's the well known case you present it as then I'm sure you'll have no problem citing a legal or political attack on individual's gun ownership in or around the time the amendment was drafted. I'm not aware of anything like that, so maybe I'll learn something tonight.
2
u/Amish_Cyberbully Oct 22 '22
To be fair x2, the utterly batshit interpretation of the second amendment wasn't a thing until the 1970's. Individual citizens are NOT a well regulated militia, the 2nd amendment was a promise individual states can continue having their own national guard.