The Second Amendment in its Entirety

The Second is often used to defend the simple right to own a gun. I have been a big proponent of this, in general, and I even competed in Colorado state shooting competitions for muzzleloaders and .22 caliber, along with a fair amount of hunting.
These days, though, I prefer to refer to the Second with some hesitancy.
The ENTIRE Second Amendment is as follows: "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."
I believe that a literal translation of the amendment, in the context of the time it was written, gives citizens the right to bear arms, with the defined reason being to ensure that citizens will be able to arm themselves against foreign and domestic enemies. However, anyone who believes that the populous of armed Americans could make a dent in the State's armament today could be easily perceived as naive.
This is not an argument for a repeal of the amendment, obviously. This an argument for a revision. Not only do I not believe that the amendment does not directly allow for individual carry rights, I think that this would be a healthy reality. Anyone who has a fear of that has not seen Australia's gun history. The difference being that Americans are gun-nuts who can't remember what Jesus said.

 

Well, you are getting there and kudos to you for reading it objectively. I suggest you look up the history of the amendment as well. The Southern States were very afraid that the federal government would take power from the state militias by either banning guns or taking responsibility from the militias by forming a national army. What were the state militias in the South doing? Keeping down the slaves. Read Madison.

 

The country started with the Articles of Confederation. Under this, the federal government had very little power, almost no budget, and no army. For ten years, we had armies that were only built by the states themselves (one big National Guard). It's understandable that Madison was hesitant. Once again, though, this history only places the 2nd in the context of 18th century puritans who couldn't understand that we would have fully automatic rifles and drones. The tables have still turned.

 

You do not believe the amendment does not allow carry?

Translation from a double negative. You believe the amendment allows carry.

Is that what you mean?

BTW, the origin of the second is well documented and derived from English law allowing people to own and bear arms.

 

Thanks for the catch! And no, I'm not really talking about the specifics of carrying a weapon.

 

And although the majority has determined the amendment as such, there are major linguistic professionals that would disagree. Noam Chomsky is the easiest one to name. Look up his comments of the literal study of the constitution.

 

Original proposed draft:

 

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion… in private self-defense … – John Adams

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed – Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms – George Mason

It is understandable that government must change with the times, but it cannot change not beyond the clearly limited enumerated powers of the Constitution. The words of the Constitution are clearly defined and understood if you do your due diligence and research the meaning behind the phrases when written.

 

Do you admit that the creation of semi-automatic weapons and drones changes the situation? I understand that lower laws straighten out these differences, but to cling to the Constitution as a holy scripture, and to presume that it doesn't have mistakes and need revision... well.

 

Well, drones are not considered small arms which the second basically addresses. Semi-automatic weapons have been around for 100 years. All guns were derived from military weaponry from the blunderbus to the AR-15. Are you saying that the bolt action rifle would not be covered by the 2nd?

 

I personally don't, Just like I don't believe the advent of TV and radio changes free speech. It's a matter of perspective

 

Whether you believe in it or not, it has been changed because of TV and the internet. That's an entirely different argument, but in any case, it's an argument for revision.

 

It's not about not being covered. It's about legally dealing with the reality that we face now. This, again, is not an argument to take back guns. I have my own personal ideas about that, which I stated at the end of the post. However, to say that the founding fathers could have been taking these types of weapon into consideration is naive.

 

I would submit that the stigma of carrying is from leftist & media propaganda, not anything inherent in people being armed. They fan the flames of hysteria over any wacko who goes postal & shoots people, when a good argument can be made that liberal policy causes that more than anything. The breakdown of the family unit, the muddying of moral relativism, the excusing of crime & hardened criminals, the crazy world that the left continues to push on us.. no wonder people go nuts!!

 

You are drawing some serious lines, there. I can tell you that those items cannot be directly attributed to these results.

 

The analogy of media and the first amendment is entirely appropriate. What you are arguing is the same. Since we have newfangled things, we must change the Constitution.

 

And is that not what should happen? It DOES happen. Why can't it happens with this? It is evidence of culture lag, when cultures go through rapid technological changes and experience turmoil in the adoption of them.

 

No, because human nature does not change. Only the trappings.

 

Human nature does not change? We have transformed from a semi-democratic state in the last 80 years. Our conduct towards child labor has been re-written, and even the fundamentals of economics have evolved.

 

Laws do not change fundamental human nature, they only provide a guideline for punishment. If human nature changed, then the laws would not be necessary.

 

Laws are formally recognized admission and acceptance of the State's responsibility to enforce social norms. They are reflections of our nature, and how we conduct ourselves. Look at the differences in countries' laws. It determines what is acceptable behavior.

 

Well regulated Militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

 

Not necessarily. The majority of people were against same sex marriage and it has come down to individual rights in the courts so social norms are being overridden by rights. Rights trump social mores.

 

Then you believe incorrectly, because it could hardly be clearer that 2A does precisely that.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled the Second amendment defines an individual right to keep and bear arms.