Yesterday, in my Who Won the Week post, I wrote about gun violence in America. Mass shoutings and gun violence are controversial topics in this country, so my post generated a lot of comments.
A few comments caught my attention. One commenter seemed to take issue with focusing on the “tools” of gun violence — the guns. She wrote, “My concern is on the dwelling on the tool, known as a gun, as opposed to deeply examining the people and conditions underlying the problem.”
She has a point, but without the so easily accessible “tool,” would those people and underlying conditions be able to produce so many mass shootings in this country?
I responded to her comment, pointing out that “the U.S. has 4% of the world’s population and 42% of its firearms. There are mass shooting nearly every week in this country.” I added, “In May 2019, 50 New Zealanders were killed in a mass shooting. Six days later the country banned all automatic and semiautomatic firearms sales and there have been no more mass shootings since then. Actions speak louder than words. Way louder than thoughts and prayers. It’s time to take action in this country.”
She then replied, “Guns won’t go away. There are too many and they serve a great importance. So, examining other correlations is critical. There are many! New Zealand doesn’t have a 2nd Amendment…certainly an option as a place to go for those who are afraid of our society.”
Actually, with the way things are, I’m not afraid of our society as much as I’m afraid for our society. Anyway, her comment got me thinking about the beloved Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
I do have perspectives regarding the Second Amendment. In fact, I have strong opinions about whether or not it actually applies to the ownership and use of concealed weapons and assault-style rifles.
Let’s review the wording of the Second Amendment: 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.
So what does it really mean? The opening phrase refers to “a well regulated militia.” What is a militia? According to dictionary.com, a militia is “a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.”
Merriam-webster.com defines it as “a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency” or “a body of citizens organized for military service.” Using these definitions of “militia,” most Americans are not members of one.
Now what about well regulated? The free dictionary.com defines well regulated as “controlled or supervised to conform to rules, regulations, tradition, etc.” I suggest that, when it comes to gun ownership, including concealed weapons, open carry, and semiautomatic assault rifles, the notion of “well regulated” is not even close.
Okay, let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that the framers of the Constitution really did intend for all citizens — well, at least white male citizens — to be armed, should they so choose, regardless of whether they were members of a “well regulated militia.”
But let’s also put this in context of the late 18th Century, when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written. This was a time when “standing armies” (e.g., the British Redcoats) were seen as a potential threat to freedom and liberty, and when calling out of the militia required individual soldiers to supply their own weapons.
Plus, the “arms” of that era were single-fire muskets, which, by the way, are impossible to carry around concealed, and flint-lock pistols. According to eHow.com, the steps involved in loading and firing a musket are:
- Standing up, set the hammer to “half cock” for safety reasons. You’ll be looking down the barrel quite a bit, and you don’t want the hammer on full cock, which if kicked or dropped, might cause the musket to fire.
- Grab a charge out of the box or from your ammo pouch. Tear off the top of the charge with your teeth and keep the ball that was on the top in your mouth. Pour the powder down the barrel. Put the ball of lead into the barrel and put the wadding from the package on top.
- Take the ramrod and tamp the powder, the ball, and the wadding into the barrel. The wadding is there to make sure that the ball and gunpowder stay put.
- Add some gunpowder to the flash pan below the trigger and fully cock the musket.
- Aim for the biggest mass you can on the battlefield because this weapon is not very accurate. Once you’ve set your sights on your target, press the trigger and the hammer will come down. This strikes flint against the pan, causing the gunpowder behind the ball to ignite and the weapon to fire.
At best, a highly trained soldier might have been able to pump out two to four musket shots a minute. Now let’s contrast that with an AR-15, today’s semiautomatic weapon of choice. Using 30 round magazines, it can easily fire off 30 to 45 rounds a minute.
Now think about our Founding Fathers back then, sitting around listening to tunes on their iPhones , texting each other, watching the Patriots game on their 65 inch, flat-panel Ultra High Def TV, or checking what their friends were up to on Facebook or Twitter. Can you seriously believe they had military-grade, semiautomatic assault rifles in mind when they drafted the Second Amendment?
And do gun rights activists and the NRA genuinely feel that it’s necessary for everyday citizens to be able to arm themselves with these assault weapons that are intended to inflict the maximum fatality potential in order to defend their homes or to hunt defenseless wild game?
I’m sorry, folks, but any reasonably thinking human being, even those who support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, can’t possibly justify the availability and use of such assault weapons by other than members of the military — the professional military.
We need to stop the insanity. Enough is enough. It’s time for Congress to put public health above special interests and politics.
This, That, and the Other 
I think the bigger problem is why do you geel tied to a constitution that’s 200 years old? A constitution should work for its people, not the other way around.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There are those who are “strict constitutional originalists” who believe the constitution should be interpreted exactly as written. I’m not one of them. I believe it should be a living document that should be interpreted in the context of the times we live now, not how we lived in 1776.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is part of the problem I think. The world is progressing and yet so many Americans won’t budge from the Eighteenth Century. Does that not also indicate a problem where children are taught that this document is sacrosanct?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s similar to the problem where children are taught that the Bible is sacrosanct, isn’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yup. Interesting, because now we’re nowhere near guns, per se. More in the field of critical reasoning. But, 500 years ago, none of us would have dared question the existence of god, so there is (slow) progress along that pathway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A gun is a tool, yes. Of destruction. And tools of destruction should be well regulated. When you buy a gun your purpose is to intentionally kill. Maybe in self-defensive but rarely are guns used successfully for self-defense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The sight of a gun has protected more people than we’ll ever know. When guns save lives it isn’t reported nor can it be easily counted. Seat belts save lives but I don’t think they can be counted either. Seatbelts have caused deaths, those aren’t reported. A little more intellectual honesty is in order? 😉
LikeLike
The facts are that more people are killed (or their children are killed) by guns intended to protect the family. If someone knows you have guns, you’ll get robbed and unless you’re a gunslinger, you’ll probably lose that fight. Seat belts, unlike guns, were not invented to kill.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You’re wrong. But that doesn’t surprise me. More kid, far more, are accidently poisoned in their own homes. Whether you like it or not, unarmed people represent the vast majority of victims and guns protect far more people than kill them… ask the elites with armed guards. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
So guns weren’t invented to kill?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes and to deter killing. Is killing a new thing since it’s invention?
How do you like a lone woman’s odds against a violent man without one? Better or worse.
Are you proposing that you can make them all disappear?
There’s “what is” and “what you” dream of. Dealing with “what is” is more prudent.
I’d love a total peaceful world. I also love my family. Protecting them is something I take seriously. Who knows what’s the best way? In our country, we’re free to choose. That’s all I’m trying to do. Protecting my right to choose what’s best for me. Incidentally, I’m not a danger to anyone else and my guns aren’t inclined to go off on their own. 😊
LikeLike
David Hemenway, an expert on the public health impact of gun violence and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, was interviewed on Science Vs, a podcast that looks at fads, trends, and opinions to uncover what’s actually true.
Hemenway noted that one commonly cited statistic about guns—that 2.5 million people use them each year to defend themselves or their property — is based on faulty analysis from a 1990s study. A more reliable source of information, the National Crime Victimization Survey, pegs the number of people who use guns in this manner at roughly 100,000, according to Science Vs podcast host Wendy Zukerman. Hemenway added that there is no good evidence that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. There is some evidence that having a gun may reduce property loss, “but the evidence is equally compelling that having another weapon, such as mace or a baseball bat, will also reduce the likelihood of property loss,” he said.
Hemenway noted that research has not uncovered a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the prevalence of guns and the U.S. crime rate. However, he noted, the presence of more guns does make crimes more violent. “What guns do is make hostile interactions — robberies, assaults — much more deadly,” he said.
LikeLike
I couldn’t agree more.
LikeLike
Very well put. Unpacking this will take a few.
First, your oft used ‘assault weapon’ is a ‘made up’ term that has no use (and no definition) but to taint a discussion among people who don’t know guns. It imposes an aura of danger purposefully therefore, to the gun owner, projects an unserious interest about a gun discussion.
Secondly, few people know but the prototypes for repeating rifles were already known to the writers of the Constitution. They weren’t the bumbling, simple, folks of pop culture fame. Many were scholars and inventors in their own right with imaginations. That’s why the Constitution was written with only the most deeply considered basic rights. Remember, we are a republic? Things like contacts, marriage, tax rates, etc. belonged to the States. They believed that the Feds were to maintain minimal control. Those rights that they chose to outline were meant to be taken literally as a timeless framework. Just because ordinary citizens cannot see the worth in modern times, doesn’t negate the purpose or premise.
This decision in 2008, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller, by the Supreme Court, clearly stated that personal ownership for self defense was Constitutional.
The Supreme Court has, in recent times, lost sight of its purpose (Deciding if laws are under Constitutional authority or belong to the States is their job, that’s all.) and has begun implementing and writing laws. It’s a disgrace. But, that 2nd Amendment case was clearly their business and the decision was theirs to make.
Free speech is free speech whether it’s internet based or in a town square in 1776.
Self defense is the same in any time period with the time period weapons. (Hand grenades, automatic weapons, and mortars are clearly weapons of war not personal use. Cannons probably weren’t used by everyday colonial citizens for that same reason.)
AR-15 is a popular American weapon. It’s light enough for a senior citizen to use and actually easier and more accurate than a handgun to handle. Small women, elderly, and infirm people find most other weapons prohibitive to use. An AR-15 isn’t easy to conceal, so don’t worry. It isn’t super powerful either. Some places don’t allow them for deer hunting for that reason. So those myths aren’t true. In all honesty, some AR-15s can use higher caliber ammo, though.
So, the AR-15 is akin to the Pitbull. Can be dangerous, has a scary reputation, is widely available in the U.S. but 99 times out of a hundred is no problem unless it is in the wrong hands. Oh, they make marvelous self defense to for vulnerable people too.
And finally, NOBODY has a right to curb the rights of any other American by using the premise “It seems to me they really don’t need it.”. It seems to me, golf courses are a waste of real estate. It seems to me, many people don’t deserve to have children or pets. It seems to me, people shouldn’t object to illegal searches, if they have nothing to hide. It seems to me, that wire taps are a good thing… see how that attitude got ugly REAL FAST?
Well, I may have missed something but I’m tired. THANKS for this interesting and adult exchange.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not sure what your point is: Are you saying that in order for us to have the right to life (as in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” set forth in the Declaration of Independence) we need to purchase and learn to operate an AR-15?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Not at all. But to protect that right and AR-15 is a fine tool which likely would never be needed (like a smoke alarm) but if it were necessary, it is a comfort to own. It’s scary appearance works far more often than it’s call to use. I don’t own one. They’re expensive. But I would and have no problem with others owning them. Quite like owning a big scary dog. Most people are safer just by their presence.
The government can’t guarantee anyone’s personal protection. That’s why the 2nd amendment exists.
No one can erase a Constitutional right because of their opinion of it, but many are trying. Including Free Speech.
LikeLike
Way to admit by the way, how frightened you are. It’s a killing tool. It’s SOLE purpose is to maim and kill, not protect. Even if you killed someone breaking into your home, you are still killing another human being. Guns Kills. End Of. Dogs don’t necessarily kill, they actually protect. Guns Kill. That is their ONLY purpose. A dog is more likely to put a intruder off. Before they come in a intruder has no idea if you have a gun or not. I have Pomeranians and they scared off a wannabe intruder, Pomeranians.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/a-dog-shoots-a-person-almost-every-year-in-america/
It’s why guns are mostly used in suicides in America, because they are killing tools.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You want to use one to “feel safe”, go ahead. But dogs are actually more likely to put off a intruder, before they even get into a house. Get a dog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not frightened at all, I own guns and dogs.
You can tell yourself whatever you want. I’m glad most people and most neighborhoods are safe. Good for you and good for me. Call the police if you’re in danger. I’m sure you’ll be okay.
Oops… better hope the power grid doesn’t go down. They’ll be too busy to respond. Good luck.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Guns are not smoke alarms. There is no comparison…and to say so is dangerous.
I am not as sure as you seem to be about why the 2nd amendment exists. I am from a rural area. I took firearm training at age 11. My family hunted and we ate the food. Yes, there was a sporting aspect, but it wasn’t just sport. Today, most Americans are no longer dependent on hunting for food or live where we need a gun to protect against wolves raiding a sheep farm. At the time the constitution was written hunting and protecting livestock were very real needs for many Americans. Taking away the right to have guns might have meant starvation. In Britain, which was the entity from which we were declaring independence, only the very wealthy could hunt. Poaching was severely punished. The poor didn’t really have the right to life, that was one of the fundamental differences in the United States.
These days, targets for guns are people, not elk or pheasants where only enough to feed yourself and your family are taken. Those targets (people!!!) aren’t doing anything other than going about their business, often to work to support themselves and their families.
Statistics actually say that guns do not make people safer. It is way too easy for children, and suicidal, or homicidal, family members, to get a hold of them, and many are stolen every year. Without quite a bit of training you are more likely to injure yourself or someone you love instead of defending whatever you think you are defending. Like many things, gun ownership is a responsibility. One that many clearly do not take seriously. Can you legislate that? I doubt it, but do not know. It makes sense that people should have significant training to own guns, but my understanding is that most don’t.
The idea that one should just buy a gun, as if it is equivalent to obtaining a dog (many dogs are extremely intelligent, more so than a lot of people) is dangerous. My youngest niece is guarded by a wonderful doberman who would never hurt her, or her father or sisters, as getting a hold of a gun might. I hope and pray that no one who reads your opinions and buys a gun has a mechanically adept child who shoots a friend (or family member) in a game.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your well written thoughts.
The smoke alarm wasn’t a direct comparison. It was an example of something many people own and makes them feel safer, but is most likely never going to be needed.
Hunting is a very good reason to own guns. Since there are far more than 300,000,000 guns currently owned in America, it seems most of them are stored and handled safely.
Guns make weak and vulnerable people safer. Do people get hurt and killed? Yes. Is total safety ever a reality? People are killed in many ways for no fault of their own every day. Murders by hand guns are large. Most are illegal guns. Suicide is tragic. I don’t see how giving up something I handle safely could change that. Again, preventing all tragedy isn’t possible.
I hope and pray and believe most people respect gun ownership. But, protecting reckless people from themselves isn’t possible. Look how many text and drive… or, take potent unprescribed drugs (which are illegal and still everywhere). I also don’t think people, in general, are stupid. Anyone who sees my post and decides a reckless use, is stupid.
Our Constitution is the law of the land. If you’re sincere about dissolving the 2nd amendment, spread the word and get enough people on board to amend the Constitution. Spread lies and half truths won’t work though.
Knives kill more people than rifles so work on hand guns.
A free society comes with more risks than a totalitarian one. Perhaps, moving to North Korea where there are no mass shootings could work for people. 😉
LikeLike
I really wrestle with the gun thing, since I was raised in an environment where my father, who kept guns and hunted, made it VERY clear to us that they were not toys. A childhood friend of his was killed in a gun accident. He wouldn’t even let us play cops and robbers bang banging with finger guns. I do not think of guns as always a bad thing. I believe that gun owners should be responsible, like my dad is, and careful, and that many are not. Answers are not easy or glib in a world that has changed and is changing. There is a lot of mythology about firearms. Many in this country seem to worship them above God. I see a lot of that mythology in your discourse. For example see this link for data about knives: https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/. Between suicides, homicides and accidents guns take a large number of lives every year. One might argue that suicides will find another way, but many domestic violence cases, which often include children, are truly horrific. A cooling off period or less access to a quick violent “solution” can make a difference. We need to think about this and discuss how we can do better. Just going to work at Fed Ex or a public utility shouldn’t be a death sentence. All to often it is the innocent that are the victims.
LikeLiked by 2 people
First: The definition of an assault rifle: a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic or semiautomatic rifle designed primarily for military use.
Second: Repeating rifles first saw use by cavalry during the American Civil War, WELL AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment.
Third, strict constitutional originalists believe the Constitution should be taken literally, whereas other constitutional scholars believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in the context of the current times, not frozen in time as written 250 years ago.
Fourth, regarding the referenced Supreme Court decision, how many semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 are used for self-defense rather than as a weapon of mass destruction? I’m not opposed to gun ownership for self defense, just to ownership by any Tom, Dick, or Harriet in the general public to military-style, semiautomatic killing machines.
And finally, whether it seems to you that that golf courses are a waste of time, how many lives have been lost by people playing golf? Or by those having children or pets, or by those who object to illegal searches (I notice that you at least used the word illegal)? Or even by pit bulls? But how many lives have been lost by people using semiautomatic weapons to commit mass murders?
I’m surprised that you would use such spurious arguments, Susan, to plead your case.
LikeLike
I’ll get around to a thorough rebuttal. Thanks. It may be tomorrow. Your comment is ripe with problems. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
You need not pen a rebuttal. I’ve no doubt that I will find whatever you write to be RIFE with problems.
LikeLike
I apologize for my last comment. That was rude of me. Please feel free to post a rebuttal if you wish to. Just be aware that you and I will never see eye-to-eye on this. And it seems that we’re both the type who wants to get the last word. So I’m not sure there’s any point in taking this discussion further. Why don’t we just agree to disagree and call it a day?
LikeLike
You’re very kind and I wasn’t offended by your comment. It’s an emotional topic. I really think exploring what’s going on is healthy. I’m not in it to make you agree. I’m looking for the Truth. The terms (and facts) used are important to nail down. We wouldn’t want to mislead anyone. The topic is quite serious. It’s also hard to convey everything through text. I do want to alert you (and anyone who reads this) to information that I have. Of course, anyone can research things on their own once they’re made aware.
The founders knew about repeating weapons, by the way. A representative was at the Continental Congress. Wide use of the weapon wasn’t the actual point. Unless they were dumb, they could also easily imagine progress and efficiency improvements as muskets were a long way from spears. Could they imagine laser guns? Probably not. But advancement in gun powder and bullets wasn’t beyond a thinking person’s imagination.
I also want you to know that my list of ‘seems to me’ was about “rights” being eroded on anyone’s (even the public’s) feelings. No direct corollary to guns was intended. Am I that bad of a writer? LOL
If you don’t mind, I’ll keep it to specific questions so we don’t drift on topics. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Something to chew on. I’ll take your first comment. RECENTLY, While questioning the proposed head of the ATF, Senator John Kennedy asked him to define assault rifle. He couldn’t or wouldn’t. Look up the YouTube exchange for yourself. It’s odd that you have a definition and he didn’t? The rest for tomorrow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just Google “assault rifle” for the definition.
LikeLike
Hmm… Google knows more than the ATF?
Let’s explore that term and the term mass murder. I want us on the same page.
I also want to nail down your concerns. Is it the large magazines? Is it the 2nd Amendment? Is it the number of people killed in a single incident as opposed to over several days or months? Guns are dangerous.
Do the shootings that involve corner unarmed people most often end on their own or when someone else (usually but not always, police) with a gun gets involved?
Those are on my mind. You don’t even have to answer, if this is too tiring. I want to put those questions out for everyone. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, for addressing this issue in a coherent and brief way! I agree with you 100%. We have amended the Constitution 28 times, including rescinding a previous amendment, and it’s time to do the same with the 2nd amendment. If it were up to me (and perhaps you as well), I would simply get rid of it altogether, but I know that would be an extremely unpopular idea and it would never make it through the amendment process. We could, however, amend it to make it clearer, in keeping with our modern society and technology. If it were less ambiguous, the Supreme Court would not be able to rule cases on it according to the majority of the Court at any particular time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks. I keep hoping that maybe someday reason and rationality will prevail and the Second Amendment will be modified to reflect how the things have changed from 1776 to 2021.
LikeLike
I am reblogging this!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks!
LikeLike
Don’t forget to edit the part about muskets. Repeating rifles were a known quantity at that time. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Repeating rifles did not really come into use to any extent in the United States until the Civil War, 75 years AFTER the Construction was written. Maybe prototypes were being developed, but you have no way, Susan, to definitively claim that the Founding Fathers had an knowledge of such weaponry when they penned the Second Amendment.
LikeLike
“Gun control advocates love to claim that the Founding Fathers couldn’t possibly have conceived of repeating rifles when they drafted the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The history of Joseph Belton, an inventor and gunsmith from Philadelphia, and his correspondence with the Continental Congress proves otherwise.
Belton claimed to have devised a new form of repeating flintlock musket that was capable of firing as many as sixteen consecutive shots in as little as twenty seconds. After the gun had fired its consecutive loads, it could then be reloaded individually like all other traditional weapons of that time.
Belton wrote to Congress about his new invention on April 11, 1777, letting them know he could be available to demonstrate it to them at any time.”
LikeLike
Powerful post. I have been trying to teach students for years the phrasing of the 2nd amendment and what it implies is that militias will have the right to bear arms, not individual citizens, and surely not the types of weapons that are currently plaguing the nation with violence and bloodshed. Probably the most powerful tool against gun violence and guns is education. The changing of ideas and understanding the history of guns, and why gun laws are important.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unfortunately, such lessons seem to be falling on deaf ears…at least in Congress.
LikeLike
Not deaf ears, just stubborn ears that will need more lessons to learn. So many lessons in time about equality, injustice, and hatred have all need to be shouted over and over again, but the joyful news is they were finally heard. I will not let my flowing voice be silenced because of stubborn stones. They will be moved. This is inspiring me to also write a piece concerning this topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d love to read your thoughts should you decide to write your piece.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most people — INCLUDING member of the NRA — think guns need more regulation. The bigger problem isn’t that we need defense from our government. The problem is that the weapons industry, but big guns we sell to countries who can’t feed their people but need more weapons, to hand guns and rifles and automatic weapons. It’s a MASSIVE industry. New Zealand didn’t have a massive weapons industry to protect. if we didn’t have the industry, we would have long since dealt with the issue.
Follow the money. Always follow the money.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very true. Money and greed.
LikeLike
This will open a can of worms for nutters Fandango. Australia did the same in 1996 removing 650,000 legally owned guns from the community.
The second amendment is just a silly as the Right to Arm Bears
LikeLiked by 2 people
The right to arm bears is, indeed, pretty silly. 😂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I haven’t heard that one before, about arming bears. Did you come up with that, BUSHBOY?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Someone from the US told me I guess
LikeLiked by 1 person
Totally agree with you Fandango.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Could not have said it better👍🏻
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s also called a Amendment, Amendment means to change. Amendment does not mean to stick with it forever, lol … Unless Amendment means the opposite to every else in the world in America? lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
An amendment can also enhance something. Most of the only 27 amendments add rights.
Let me guess? You went to college.
LikeLike
If you don’t mind, I would like to clarify what the Militia is according to Federal law,
10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes states,
“(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
If your position is that the Second Amendment pertains strictly to the provision of a Militia, then everyone who fits the description above fits the bill. However, it doesn’t end there. In their decision on the case of US v Miller (1939), the SCOTUS stated in part “ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time”.
Note that they stipulate that militia members called up must 1) supply their own weapons, and 2) that they must be of the kind in common use. It doesn’t end here, though.
The language of the Amendment itself shows that it doesn’t pertain solely to the provision of a militia. Consider the following. Mr. Roy Cooperud is one of the foremost experts in the English language. He’s been on the usage panels for the American Heritage Dictionary, as well as Merriam-Webster, which means he’s likely forgotten more about our language than you or I will ever know. Here is what he said when asked if the Second Amendment pertains strictly to the militia.
“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.”
He also says, “The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”
This is a guy you could use as an expert witness in court, and his analysis of the amendment is that it is an individual right enshrined with the intent of ensuring that this nation and its people will be adequately defended. In case you want the source, here is the link:
https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
I pray it works, I’ve had mixed results with sharing links in these comment sections.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From my perspective, when it comes to the phrase “A well regulated militia,” the key words are “well regulated.” I would not consider a ragtag group of armed, white supremacists or far-right insurrectionists you be well regulated, whether or not you attempt to apply the word “militia” them.
LikeLike
If I’m not mistaken, at the time the Constitution was written, the term “well-regulated” meant well trained and well disciplined. Today it may carry a different connotation, but it’s important to know what the Founding Fathers intended, not what we think it should mean, and go with that. I’d recommend reading the Federalist & Antifederalist papers for that kind of insight, along with “Democracy in America” by Alexis de Tocqueville.
As far as the”ragtag” groups you’re referring to, I’ve been a Soldier for almost 16 years. I’ve slept in holes, crawled through mud, sat in bunkers in Southern Iraq, and in general come out looking ragtag as can be. I know you’ll want to make a distinction between me and the types you’re disparaging, but there isn’t really much of one. I get paid to do what I do, and they usually don’t.
Of course, I’m opposed to white supremacists, but not the right-wing, as I’m an unabashed right-winger. Nor am I a big fan of people seeking to link the two ideologies to each other. It’s apples and oranges.
Bear in mind, political ideologies aside, that the training I’ve received can be had for the right price in this country. Also, bear in mind that the hard data shows that the American firearms owner is the most responsible and law-abiding segment of our society.
LikeLike
I was thinking, maybe yesterday, that it is “unconstitutional” truly to NOT regulate guns or their use or purchase and holding. Then I ran into this loosely-related conversation just a few minutes ago.
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/parkland-father-launches-new-dad-s-for-gun-safety-campaign-115051077961
LikeLike
In light of the recent ruling (6/3/21 ) by Federal judge Roger Benitez overturning a California firearms ban on assault weapons where he ruled it violates the Constitutional right to bear arms, his words, referring to the Second Amendment, I have a suggestion. In my thesis regarding the Second Amendment I think it will prove his ruling right to bear arms” has everything to do with a “militia” and nothing to do with a “person” or individual, which the following will suggest..
Justice Amy Coney Barrett Second Amendment dilemma
In some 225 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students, lawyers or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.
I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, “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.”
Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.
If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)
The 4th Amendment reminds us, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons….”
The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.
It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person.”
Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?
Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero reference to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.
Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.
In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.
Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..
And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”
“[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;
The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall not infringe or encroach on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.”
Clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…
People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.
I am not against guns, everybody has them. I’m against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.
William Heino Sr
LikeLiked by 1 person
A well articulated discussion and I appreciate the depth of your response. Thanks.
LikeLike