How important is the Militia clause in the right to bare arms?

[KevinthePRF]

Gun owners=No importance whatsover

Gun control advocates=Exclusively important

Any questions?

[Burgold]

I'd only add to the conversation that the founders didn't think of rights as belonging to groups, but to individuals. So it's impossible for the right to bear arms to be a collective right.

All rights are individual rights. How would a collective even exercise its rights?

That's an interesting point/argument. I wonder if it's true?

We do know that for the founders all men being equal and having equal rights was not quite true. Rights were granted differently based on gender and race, and for a number of founders who didn't get their way... land ownership.

[Popeman38]

However, to say that alone does not answer the question "who does the Second Amendment give rights to?" That was the question: is it a right of the people, or is it a right of the State to have a militia in a way in which they deem necessary. That is, "does the Amendment say that all people have the right to have arms," or does it say that "the State has a right to have a well regulated militia," or does it say that the State has the right to determine how to regulate arms.

Again, if you define militia in todays terms you change the intent of the amendment. It was designed to give individuals the right to keep and bear arms because a militia then was able-bodied male who owned arms and brought them with them when called.

[Darth Tater]

The militia clause is very important. It is one of the items that proves the anti-government leanings of the framers as the amendment is intended to provide a protection against the almost dead-certainty of tyrannical democratic government.

[Teller]

I think that this clause is the big troublemaker for people trying to interpret the second amendment. How important, how relevent, is the "militia" clause? What does it mean in a modern context?

Should the clause be ammended to remove well-regulated militia?

We'll acknowledge the "militia" clause, when you guys acknowledge the words "Congress shall make no law..."

If one limits scope. So does the other. If one is taken literally, then so must the other.

To pick and choose is dishonest, IMO.

[JohnLockesGhost]

I think restricting the right to bare arms is a terrible slippery slope.

Next liberals will be going after bare feet, and, heaven forbid, bare midriffs.

[Teller]

I think restricting the right to bare arms is a terrible slippery slope.

Next liberals will be going after bare feet, and, heaven forbid, bare midriffs.

It's like they've barely given any thought to how unbearable that would be.

[JohnLockesGhost]

It's like they've barely given any thought to how unbearable that would be.

Out of my cold, bare hands!

[Burgold]

We'll acknowledge the "militia" clause, when you guys acknowledge the words "Congress shall make no law..."

If one limits scope. So does the other. If one is taken literally, then so must the other.

To pick and choose is dishonest, IMO.

I was honestly looking for an academic examination of the importance of the clause in this thread, not really looking to condemn. I do agree that we all pick and choose which verses we like based on our preferences and philosophies. And also think that even though we all do this, it is dangerous.

I think restricting the right to bare arms is a terrible slippery slope.

I think you may be right. My aversion to guns has much more of an emotional, than a logical or legal basis. As I explained once before, my aversion is based on the greatest bit of wisdom my dad ever shared with me.

When he was teaching me to drive he said-

"Andrew, I trust you. It's all those other idiots out there I don't trust."

And that's exactly the reason I believe in gun control. I may trust you. You seem responsible and have a good head on your shoulders. It's all those idiots out there that I don't trust to have a gun.

Ironically, I realize the logic also extends the other way. Because you don't trust all those other idiots, you need a gun, but I think my way of thinking is safest. If no one has a gun except me the world would be a safe place (and all of you would do my bidding... mwhahahahaha)

Next liberals will be going after bare feet, and, heaven forbid, bare midriffs.

Out of my cold, bare hands!

Entirely unfair being your own set-up man. :laugh:

[stevenaa]

As someone pointed out, I think the "well-regulated" clause is the sticking point for most people.

Why? Why can't an armed militia of private citizens, with private arms and standing against a tyrannical force be regulated by private Citizens. Why can't they stand well organized and regulated by leader of men who rise in the shadows of a government that defies the constitution and seeks to limit our freedoms? Why does it imply it should be regulated by the government?

[Burgold]

Why? Why can't an armed militia of private citizens, with private arms and standing against a tyrannical force be regulated by private Citizens. Why can't they stand well organized and regulated by leader of men who rise in the shadows of a government that defies the constitution and seeks to limit our freedoms? Why does it imply it should be regulated by the government?

I don't think that's the argument some are making. I think it's that this militia needs to have some kind of formal structure, be it civilian or governmental. To give an absurd example (well, absurd to me), if the Boy Scout local chapters declared themselves militias... and developed a set of rules and code of arms conduct, then they would be a well armed militia. More seriously, if a neighborhood watch organized to prevent local crime. I think you could call that a well-organized militia and it might even be close to what JohnLocke was calling the 1776 definition.

[Larry]

IMO, I see two possible ways to interpret that sentence.

1. It explains why the people must have arms: It's the only way to repel the Redcoats. If so, then it could be interpreted as being the only portion of the entire Constitution that has a build-in "expiration date". When the nation no longer needs armed citizens to defend our borders, then the clause no longer applies.
   
2. Or, it's simply an explanation of one reason why the right must be preserved. A preamble, so to speak.
   

I really think the evidence leans towards option 2. It's circumstantial evidence, I'll admit. But in the absence of a clear label that says "this phrase is meaningless", circumstantial evidence is what you've got to look at.

I'd say the #1 piece of evidence is those words "the Right of the People". That, to me, says that they thought of being armed was a fundamental right, one of the many that people had before governments came along. To me, that wording is almost good enough, by itself, to make it clear that they didn't intend the 2nd to have an expiration clause.

#2: Frankly, the Framers never intended the US to have the kind of military we have today. IMO, they wouldn't have put an expiration clause in the 2nd for the simple reason that the present state of the US military would have been inconceivable to them. You might as well wonder why they didn't include instructions on how to contact extraterrestrials.

#3: A lot of the Framers left personal writings that, IMO, make it clear what their views were on the proper relationship between the People and their Government.

In short, I don't see any reason to assume that the Framers intended the 2nd to expire. (Other than the (IMO, logical) argument of "then why'd they put it in there?")

[Burgold]

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that a group like a neighborhood watch is exactly what they had in mind in terms of a militia.