The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment

quote:

---

As passed by the Congress:
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.

​

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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.[8]

---

I HAD thought the term "well regulated militia" was often dishonestly and conveniently omitted by gun enthusiasts so that they could illegally legitimize their stockpile of guns. I HAD thought the word 'people' was referring to 'collective,' not individual. I HAD thought the first two of three interpretations of the amendment were correct:

quote:

---

Three basic competing models were offered to interpret the Second Amendment:[107]
1. The first, known as the "states' rights" or "collective rights" model, was that the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals; rather, it recognized the right of a state to arm its militia.
2. The second, known as the "sophisticated collective rights model", held that the Second Amendment recognized some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by members of a functioning, organized state militia while actively participating in the organized militia’s activities.

---

But it seems the third model for individual rights were upheld in 2001, 2008, and 2010:

quote:

---

3. The third, known as the "standard model", was that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

​

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2]

---

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - WikipediaNot sure if this is a worthwhile topic for 'debate' as I am really not offering any argument but maybe a potential springboard for discussion. If a moderator wants to delete this, ok. And if there isn't any substance to pursue, then please feel free to continue the gun control debate from the other thread. (it seems that it might still have legs)

Me neither. This is just an interesting subject that I don't know enough about, and I hope that this thread could illuminate the amendment's original intention and how it has morphed into today's usuage. Yes, I think that is correct. It seems the original intent of the second amendment was to guard against the tyranny of a federal or standing army and, less so, with foreign invasion. So, in the 1700 and 1800s, it was all about securing STATE'S rights and powers to counter dictatorial threats via a regulated 'FEDERAL' militia.However, as was amply demonstrated in the other thread, there is now no militia that could counter the US military. Also, american rights and liberties have been greatly eroded by the feds since 1700 (except for individual gun rights, ironically), so the second amendment wasn't even successful.So, since the amendment hasn't been useful for this purpose in a long time, should it have been abolished 150(?) years ago? Should amendments be allowed to morph into other purposes?Edited by dronester, : corrected STATES to 'FEDERAL'

Gun rights are not limited at the federal level? (I really don't know too much about this subject.)

According to Wiki:

quote:

---

The question of a collective rights versus an individual right was progressively resolved with the 2001 Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson, in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. All of those rulings upheld the individual rights model when interpreting the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right.[112] Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such constructions were widely used elsewhere.[113]

---

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - WikipediaThanks for the replies guys, i find the historicity of such things interesting.

I do not recall that being anybody's position. Can you provide a source? Was the Branch Davidians "ordinary rabble?" In another decade or two, what would Palestinians say about that question?But no need to answer these questions, Staggler's inciteful response has made them moot.

i wasn't the one who originally wrote "ordinary rabble" so I cannot help you. Well, if that answer is correct, then that tentatively nullifies the assertion that "pacifying an entirely population of motivated resistance is simply not something a modern military is able to do" This has been demonstrated to be self-evident. Why use a nuclear bomb when rubber bullets or gas can be used? OTOH, the dictator that america had enthusiastically supported for dozens of years, Saddam Hussein, IMO, would have used ANYTHING he had to stay alive and in power. Perhaps. I hate to be a Dora Downer to nit-pick because I would love to read encouraging reports about oppressed people successfully fighting for their liberties and human rights, but your specific examples above are poor because:Libya's armed rebellions had a "little bit" of help. Syria may be spiraling into a civil war. In what parameters do you see the Chechnya rebels 'succeeding?' Although you didn't state Egypt in your Arab-Spring example, its rebellion has not fully succeeded yet, and is still in danger of becoming a military state.Thus, your original binary question: "which is it?," Message 14, doesn't really help to make things clearer.Anyways, besides going off-topic with these complex, yet, unimportant side issues to the thread, I think Straggler's post Message 15 is much more on target to the topic.Edited by dronester, : clarityEdited by dronester, : added "...oppressed people..." and attributed posts

Straggler prophesized that in 2012.M'eh, . . . lucky guess.