The Grey Labyrinth is a collection of puzzles, riddles, mind games, paradoxes and other intellectually challenging diversions. Related topics: puzzle games, logic puzzles, lateral thinking puzzles, philosophy, mind benders, brain teasers, word problems, conundrums, 3d puzzles, spatial reasoning, intelligence tests, mathematical diversions, paradoxes, physics problems, reasoning, math, science.

extropalopakettle · No offense, but....

2nd 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.

I'm trying to understand the argument of those who say the "well regulated Militia" part limits gun rights to militia members. Assuming that's so, what does the 2nd amendment mean?

Does the 2nd amendment prohibit government from infringing on some right? Not a general right to keep and bear arms, but only to do so as part of a militia. Does that mean any individual may organize a militia? So I not only have the right to keep and bear arms, but also an uninfringible right to organize a militia too. Or is that solely the purview of government, to organize a militia if it sees fit? If that's the case, then it seems the 2nd amendment only prohibits the government from infringing on it's own right. If government wants to organize an armed militia of the people, it can't infringe on the right of the people to serve? But why would it infringe on people doing what government wants them to do, when it wants them to do it?

Chuck · Daedalian Member

As I read it, the militia clause is the reason for the amendment. People can keep and bear arms because of the need for a well-regulated militia. It doesn't look like that clause places any restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. To me it looks like any restrictions at all on arms ownership, including special gun taxes, would be unconstitutional. Of course, I don't expect the government to allow people to own artillery pieces that can hit the capitol building from miles away, and the supreme court is sure to back up such restrictions, but that's my interpretation of the amendment as written.

novice · No harm. Pun intended!

extro...* · Guest

extro...* · Guest

Thok · Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!

Chuck · Daedalian Member

Chuck · Daedalian Member

extro...* · Guest

Chuck · Daedalian Member

I mean more like in case a militia might become necessary in the future.

extro...* · Guest

But the folks who use that clause against gun ownership rights ... what do they think it means?

Chuck · Daedalian Member

Some seem to claim that it means the state militia can have guns but not individuals in their homes. In the distant past the militia were the members of the general population who had their own guns, but that's no longer the case.

Chuck · Daedalian Member

I guess well-regulated means functioning like a military unit rather than like an armed mob.

Jedo the Jedi · Paragon in Training

I thought the point was that the government couldn't disband a military unit which was for the purposes of defending the people's right of security, this in the face of a government which wished to do just that.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

Courk* · Guest

I'm a bit rusty on the history involved, so I might have some of this wrong.

Back when this was written, wasn't at least a good chunk of our army made up of militias? The US wasn't in a position to be able to maintain a full army for defense, supplying soldiers with guns and whatnot, so the plan was to keep relying on militias for any defense needs. The best way to ensure any future militias are prepared is to let them use their own guns, which means they have to have the right to own guns in the first place.

I imagine the modern-day argument is that we have an army, navy, etc that is well supplied and is able to provide defense as needed. Should a massive call be made for non-soldiers, the country is also now in a position to quickly supply arms for them, as well, without needing to rely on personally owned weapons.

Basically, the right to bear arms was to provide weapons for a militia, but the concept of a militia is now dated. I don't read it as giving anyone the right to form a militia, the only statement about militias is that they are important for defense.

Quailman · His Postmajesty

The arms they had the right to bear were one shot muzzle loaders. I'm all for protecting that right.

Pablo · Never Draws a Blank

I've always thought that the primary purpose of the Constitution was to protect the people against abuses and overreach of their own government, since that was the environment our founders came from. I thought the militia referred to was to make sure the "people" had the same rights to weaponry as the government, in the hopes of assuring a balance of firepower.

I've never been a gun owner, so never got too deep into this, but that was my understanding.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.