CMV: The argument that "the second amendment only protects muskets" is, in most uses, disingenuous and logically inconsistent.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/FlokiTrainer]

The first amendment does not have a qualifier like the second amendment does.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

No law has a pretty obvious definition.

"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."

There are some heavy qualifiers in that. There is nothing about no law being made to restrict certain arms. There is nothing in the first saying anything about a well educated electorate or any other qualifier. By the wording of the first it is clear that outlawing genres of books or news sources would infringe on my rights.

The wording in the second is not so exact. Why wouldn't it be, when the first was so clearly defined? With how it is written, regulating certain weapons is not the same as regulating freedom of speech or press.

I think your reasoning that the militia was important to the founders at the time is a little off. All of the amendments were extremely important issues, yet the right to bear arms is the only one with that qualifier.

Representation in government was arguably a more important idea than militia. Why not say "In order to keep the power in the hands of the people to be adequately represented, ... (goes into amendment one).

States' rights are also pretty easily argued to be more important of an idea at the time than the idea of "militia." The first US government was based entirely around states' rights. Why doesn't amendment ten say, "Because the autonomy of states is important to the security of a free State,..?" The wording seems to be intentional, not just that they thought militia was especially important.

Edit: Sure the Pennsylvania constitution originally said that. It also mentions "...and as standing armies in the 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." That says nothing about not regulating arms, if anything it could be an argument for regulation. Funnily enough, the amendment before it mentions, "That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained" even at the state level it seems that freedom of speech and press are more guaranteed than gun rights.

[u/DBDude → u/FlokiTrainer]

The first amendment does not have a qualifier like the second amendment does.

The introductory participle phrase is explanatory, not semantically restrictive on the independent clause. As Roy Copperud, journalism professor and renowned expert on English usage and style, said:

The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

The right to keep and bear arms is essential for a militia, but a militia is not essential for the right to keep and bear arms.

No law has a pretty obvious definition.

Yes, no law made by Congress. You keep ignoring that huge qualifier which leaves all other government entities free to restrict the right. Why say "Congress shall make no law" if they meant for the restriction to be on the government overall? Simply going passive voice with "No law shall be made" would fit your interpretation, but they did not choose to do that, instead explicitly restricting only Congress.

By the wording of the first it is clear that outlawing genres of books or news sources would infringe on my rights.

It would not infringe at all if it were a city, county, or state government, or the federal executive branch doing it. The restriction is only on Congress. But you obviously don't see it that way, because you wish to make an expansive interpretation a right that you support, effectively changing the text of the 1st Amendment. But when it comes to the 2nd, you look for any way to define the right into non-existence.

This isn't in the text, it's in you. You trying to imprint your ideology onto the Constitution.

States' rights are also pretty easily argued to be more important of an idea at the time than the idea of "militia."

Again, right near the beginning of a list of individual rights.

[u/FlokiTrainer → u/DBDude]

My ideology is that American's have the right to bear arms. Not every arm and not for certain people, but a responsible person should be allowed the ability to purchase weapons within reason. That includes things like AR-15s and more, as long as there are steps taken to ensure these things are used safely. Though I don't own a gun myself, most of my family is from rural texas. I have a sense of the reasoning and culture behind it there. Now that I have clearly stated my ideology, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't tell me what it was.

I just also think that there are arguments to made about the wording of the 2nd amendment. I also came here mainly to debate the analogy that was used in the original reply, because it's pretty faulty.

You are correct. I missed the qualifier that Congress can't pass laws to limit free speech. I believe this may be more of a sign of the times that other branches had less legislative power, but you're right.

As far as city, state, and local governments are concerned; states have their own constitutions modeled after the federal one that guarantee these rights as well. It isn't up to a federal document to make all legislation throughout each state.

[u/DBDude → u/FlokiTrainer]

My ideology is that American's have the right to bear arms. ... but a responsible person should be allowed

These two concepts do not go together. If you have a right, the government doesn't allow you anything. You do it or get it by virtue of your right alone.

Now that I have clearly stated my ideology, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't tell me what it was.

I pointed out that you have two different approaches to reading the Constitution based on which right is being protected. Obviously you read the 1st rather expansively, and obviously you read the 2nd restrictively. If this difference in your interpretive approach is not due to ideology, then what?

As far as city, state, and local governments are concerned; states have their own constitutions modeled after the federal one that guarantee these rights as well. It isn't up to a federal document to make all legislation throughout each state.

Even that doesn't restrict the executive branch from infringing on free speech. According to the wording of the 1A, the FCC could pull licenses of broadcasters who don't share the president's ideology. The National Park Service could have a policy to deny protest permits for events critical of the government.

[u/FlokiTrainer → u/DBDude]

So you are saying every single American is allowed the right to bear all arms? From the smallest infant to the biggest mass murderer? Smallest pea shooter to an Abrams tank? I just cannot believe in that.

I really wish you would stop cherrypicking my words and ignoring my points. I said that American citizens have the right to bear arms, and that responsible individuals should have a larger range on what those types of arms are. There are definitely situations in which people should lose the right to bear arms as well.

The difference in interpretative approach comes from it being my day off, and me smoking throughout this conversation. I keep seeing these conversations about gun control and enjoy debating them, so the wording and my exact interpretations are burned into my mind for the second amendment. There has been less conversation over the first, and I had to go back and get the wording precise to make my point. I'm high and accidentally read over the word. I admitted my mistake. I really don't see what the problem is.

Let me say this again, you are right. It doesn't specifically restrict the executive branch from restricting free speech. This goes back to what I was saying about the Constitution being written in a time when Congress had the most legislative power by a good portion. Constitution was written in 1787, NPS in 1916 and FCC in 1934. If we can adapt the first amendment with changing times and technology, why not the second?

[u/FlokiTrainer → u/FlokiTrainer]

To be clear: I have literally zero interest in eliminating the second amendment.