The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
“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.”
George Mason’s original draft reads:
“That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.”
Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights had put it this way 12 years earlier:
“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
The Right-To-Bring-Assault-Weapons-to-School Second Amendment turns out to have its origins in an attempt to avoid maintaining standing armies. In place of standing armies, the states of the new United States were to create well-regulated militias. The first half of the Second Amendment explains why people should have a right to bear arms:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … “
Bearing arms in a well-regulated militia did not mean bearing guns that can reliably shoot well, since such didn’t exist. It certainly didn’t mean bearing guns that can kill entire crowds of people without reloading. It didn’t mean bearing arms outside of the well regulated militia. Much less did it mean bearing arms in school and church and Wal-Mart.
By “free state” many supporters of this bill of rights meant, of course, slave state. And by “people” they meant, of course, white male people — specifically people who would be taking part in well regulated militias.
The Third Amendment reads:
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
The Second and Third amendments originated as restrictions on what we would later create and come to call a Military Industrial Complex, a permanent war machine, a federal tool of abusive power.
The militias of the Second Amendment are meant to protect against federal coercion, popular rebellions, slave revolts, and — no doubt — lunatics who try to mass-murder children.
The descendants of those militias that we call the National Guard are meant, in contrast, to recruit ill-informed young people who imagine they’ll be rescuing hurricane victims into endless occupations of oil-rich lands far from our shores.
To comply with the Second Amendment we must end federal control over the National Guard, regulate such state militias and police forces well, regulate their weapons well, and deny such weapons to all others and for any other use.
The Second Amendment has been made to mean something very different from what was originally intended or what any sane person writing a Constitution would intend today. This means that we must either reinterpret it, re-write it, or both.




49 Comments

What David Said
They got that right.
If one accepts the “to oppose tyranny” idea as the framers’ intent, this (essentially, “times have changed; they only accounted for anachronistic weapons” becomes a bit of lame canard, given that cannon and such were not restricted in the period. By that token, though, the “can you ban XYZ type of weapon” ship has long since sailed (with automatic/explosive weapons bans standing up to court challenges).
My personal view is that it is perfectly acceptable to regulate weapons based on ammunition capacity (without the previous “grandfathering” issue that still “loopholes” automatic weapons bans, today) and cyclic rate of fire (literally how fast a weapon can shoot) but that it is a public policy mistake to revive the foolish “assault weapons” ban, as it tended to focus on superficial qualities, not technical capabilities, of weapons.
There were large capacity weapon systems in that era. The thin red line. Three ranks of soldiers firing in succession and then reloading.
The British and Australians have solutions. Ban firearms.
In the US one could only own a firearm if active in the National Guard, which is, I believe, the Swiss model.
Gimme a break! Obama negotiate?
By the time Obama gets done negotiating with the republicans over gun control.He will have had
1. Taxed all ammunition rounds after the first 100,000 purchased in any given year.
2. Exempt any citizen that lives south of the Mason Dixon line or has a rural address in any other part of the country.
3.Keep it revenue neutral by paying for it by reducing veterans benefits
4.Have it take effect in 2017.
I support the right of everyone to bear a really heavy single-shot muzzle-loading MUSKET, that takes a minute to reload after every shot – if you’re really good at it.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Recommended
Recommended. Thanks, David.
We’ve banned illegal aliens and have 12 million we’re told we can’t round up and get rid of.
How are we going to round up and get rid of 300 million guns?
So,I guess in the face of tyranny you can run around waving your purple finger yelling ” But I voted!”.
Notice how well that is working in places like Egypt.
Once again the typical knee jerk reaction is to run out and “ban” this or that and completely ignore the issue that most of these mass murderers are mentally ill, as in sick and fucked up in the head.
They shouldn’t even have drivers licenses, let alone guns.
The horse is already out of the barn when there are 320 million people in this country and 350 million guns already sold. You can ban stuff until you are blue in the face if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. The fact is, that if I were so inclined, I could search out and purchase a fully automatic weapon with armor piecing ammunition in this country.
Both of which have already been banned.
Why not give a tax credit for buying and installing a gun safe for the weapons already out there?
If accessibility is half the problem then give people an incentive to make the ones already out there less accessible.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for responsible gun ownership,heavy emphasis on responsible, but I don’t see the need for thirty round clips in a freaking hand gun.That is ridiculous.
The government already banned assault weapons and large capacity clips once, remember?
They didn’t seem to feel the need to make sure that ban stayed in effect though did they?
I’m sure they were just busy campaigning and sucking up to lobbyists so it just slipped their minds.
They will take care of that now that it is politically expedient.
And now, we have a standing volunteer-based, careerist military that is popularly held as containing super-citizens to whom civilians, presumed less patriotic citizens, owe gratitude for some kind of protection of freedom by precipitate invasion of nonaggressor sovereign states, when the protection of freedom and democracy is the duty and privilege of every citizen; and in Dist. of Columbia v Heller, Scalia, with the endorsement of the other conservative ideologues ensconced on the Supreme Court, fabricates in the 2nd Amendment an individual license to lethal force for self-defense that supersedes civil order, countermanding the preamble’s charge to maintain domestic tranquility and promote general welfare. Conservatives, whatever their political party affiliation, are not patriotic stewards, but rather treacherous subverts of the Constitution.
Actually, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was consistent with the mood of the country at the time the Bill of Rights was written.
‘According to the Boston Gazette, of all General Gage’s offenses, “what most irritated the People” was “seizing their Arms and Ammunition.”’
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html
It is sad to see David Swanson, who I admire for his work opposing foreign wars of aggression, jump on the anti-gun fetish bandwagon.
The two are not so separable:
http://davidswanson.org/node/3910
Dude…….your looking at the magazine as half empty. Not half full.
Is THIS the NEW David???????
Clever.
CORRECTION: “You’re”
Question remains ; how can you regulate “A well regulated Militia,’ without comparable fire power held in civilian hands ?
Can disarmed citizens over throw a well armed police force ?
As of now the military sets the agenda for the country . How can we change that since the last guy was blown away on 11-22-63 who wanted to constrain the military ?
The objection against Gage was the prohibition of local mobilization for civil defense against an imperial power that maintained a standing military used for civil and colonial oppression, not for the right of an individual to disrupt the peace of the community.
With all due respect, I disagree.
The right to an abortion and contraception are based on the 14th Amendment.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/abortion.htm
Here is the relevant language:
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I happen to agree with the justices at the time that this is where you find Constitutional protection for abortion and contraception, but you can see they needed to extrapolate to get there.
To pretend that matters dear to liberal hearts are clearly spelled out in the Constitution, while the 2nd amendment is hopelessly obscure is ill-advised, at best. Moreover, simply peruse the Founder’s personal writings to gauge their 2nd Amendment intent To wit,
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/firearms
The intent was that the popularly elected governors and the President would be the civilian commanders-in-chief of the civilian militias when they were called to duty.
I’d say the Taliban are doing a fairly good job in Afghanistan of it.
Liberal justices asserted at the time the 14th Amendment argument was a stretch. I think the 4th Amendment protection of the right against personal seizure (governmental coercion to carry a pregnancy to term) makes a stronger argument.
From your Jefferson source, about facilities for dancing lessons over those of sword-play at university:
“…Dancing is generally, and justly I think, considered among innocent accomplishments; while we cannot so consider the art of stabbing and pistolling our friends, or dexterity in the practice of an instrument exclusively used for killing our fellow-citizens only and never against the public enemy.”[19]
Bravo!
I say repeal first, then rewrite a new law to narrowly allow firearms on a case by case basis according to “need”.
I’m alright with that. I consider my target practice an innocent accomplishment, and have no desire to kill my fellow citizens.
As a matter of fact, I go out of my way to avoid conflict, and am very seldom armed. Killing is bad for the soul.
Hmmmm. How about you make militia members join a permitted militia and then require the storage of weapons in a locked facility only accessible by chain of command?
It’s also important to note, and one can find this in the Congressional Record, that the amendment went to Congress with explicit language that individuals had a right to own arms. But it didn’t pass, and the language we have now (talking about a militia) is what passed.
That history of the amendment makes it clear to me that they didn’t intend individuals to have the right to own arms. Because if they did, they would not have changed the wording of the amendment before passing it.
So the people have the right to keep and bear arms particularly because the security formerly offered by the militias is no longer available to the people. The descendant of those militias, the National Guard, is under federal control and not citizen control, plus the large standing army is dangerous to liberty.
Also, too, the words chosen for the amendment are HUGELY IMPORTANT.
If one wants to argue that they’re simply following the framer’s intent, then the people should have the right to ALL WEAPONS. Because the CHOSE the word ARMS instead of FIREARMS (firearms has been a word since at least the 1600′s). They could’ve also chosen the word GUNS.
But instead they chose the word ARMS, which means, weapons. All weapons. If they intended to limit the weapons to which the people had a right to, they would’ve instead chosen the appropriate limiting word such as firearms instead of the all encompassing arms.
So, when can I go to WalMart and get my very own nuke?
Meanwhile, as we focus on the horrendous tragedy of last week, another person is driving their car and texting or phoning. Right now, more kids are killed each year by some soccer mom texting her BFF about their luncheon date than have been killed in the last ten years by school massacres. You have the dad who calls his family while driving to ask if he needs to stop at the store, the lost middle aged business man using his GPS device, etc..
In 2011, 25% of all auto collisions involved cell phones. That is over a million collisions. Not as sensational as having your kid injured or killed by a gunman at the local school. But your kid or adult friend (or your mom or dad,) is every bit as injured or dead, even though the death might not make the evening news in a large city.
Tried to bear an SP Howitzer recently?:-)
bear v. . 1. To hold up; support.
A gun ban doesn’t have to actually work in the way you think it does. A gun ban would be like a marijuana ban was back when it first implemented: an effective weapon in the culture wars. It would turn 3/4 of American movement conservatives into instant criminals where we could pick them off like birds on a wire and lock them up using the instruments of state if they make any problems. Once the demographic tide turns– and it will, look at pot and gay marriage– a gun ban can be used to persecute and marginalize every goddamn redneck who refuses to turn over their firearms. And that’d be damn near every one. Wind down the “War on Drugs”, fire up the “War on Guns” and Katie bar the door. Y’all are under arrest– and mandatory sentencing means you’re gonna die in the joint ‘less you rat out your friends.
See how that might work?
this just in:
terrorist = enemy of the state
They won’t (can’t) ban “guns.” The last time they banned “assault weapons,” a nebulous term, sales of semiautomatic rifles and large magazines increased. Who needs a folding stock, bayonet mount, flash suppressor or grenade launcher anyhow? When has prohibition of anything ever worked?
From your mouth (er…keyboard) to the Goddess’s ears, Kurt Sperry. But given the history of gun laws being used predominantly against minorities If Winkler’s right), and especially blacks, I wonder if the laws would be prosecuted in any way uniformly, or…racially blind. See how that might work in my admittedly cynical world?
Yep; Kevin has it up, with broad commentary.
It was obviously a snark. Obviously, right? And yes it’s likely a gun ban would become just another tool for screwing over brown Americans in the real imperfect world. But the dumb hicks don’t know that you see. And the idea– thought experiment if you will– is aimed like a laser sighted .223 at the very bullseye of their fear wheelhouse. A delusion world where there’s a black man in a White House lying in wait to spring the Socialist Muslim UN commanded black helicopter hordes of blue helmeted storm troopers to take some revenge on them and their 200+ years of sweat soaked racist guilt, their worst ‘tables are turned now’ dystopic worst case scenario. Comin’ for their sacred, fire breathin’ phallic Jesus sticks.
Oh lordy. Lordy lord.
Mexico also has that “solution” and look what has happened to the population there.
The Mexican government there has the population completely under control, as do the drug kingpins. The people are powerless to fight back in any meaningful way. Are guns in the hands of the people the answer? I don’t know. Sub-commander marcos tried peaceful demonstrations and nit lead nowhere. His followers were shot or disappeared.
I disagree. The FF weren’t so dumb.
Not buying.
To bear something doesn’t mean one has to carry it, it merely means one has to be equipped with it.
“to be equipped or furnished with”
Obviously, they don’t. There are a million Americans living in Mexico for some reason.
A million Americans live in Mexico because they like it and it is far and away cheaper. Im have friends who live there, mostly in enclaves where they have no problem with the locals. Or with the gov’t for that matter. What control are you speaking of?
Ah, jeez, Kurt Sperry; I’m so sorry I missed the satirical nature of your comment. All I can say in my own defense is that I feel so sincerely both out of synch with conventional liberal gun control and mental health ‘fixes’ to prevent mass murders and killing sprees, *and* so sincerely overloaded on the calumny being perpetrated on us by ‘the less evil’ Obomba administration (stir in the new NDAA, tra la la…) that it’s almost like a dream out of body experience I never came fully back from.
All my best,
wd
wd
You’re not alone. My attempts at satire haven’t worked more than once with readers.
I wonder if Jonathan Swift had such a problem?
this just in
from my #34
The manufacturers over-produced high-capacity magazines before the ban date, and then they sold like hot-cakes. The whole thing was called off in 1994.
So when the primary problem is mental health and possibly drugs, Obama is taking the political way out and going back to something that hasn’t worked. But the government will always go for taking something away from citizens instead of looking out for the general welfare, which is why we have the 2d Amendment.
Lol on the ‘yer not alone’ stuff. ;o)
As far as ‘mental health’ and ‘possibly drugs’, I have some longer thoughts for another day. Was Lanza medicated? I’ve found zero evidence, just speculation.
wd
Adam Lanza was referred to a psychologist, who often prescribe these days. Adam’s uncle reports that Adam was taking Fanapt, an atypical antipsychotic. It has some wicked side effects. Nothing more yet. I think they’ll avoid offending Big Pharma if they can. Video games is another important aspect.
I won’t hijack David’s thread any further than that.
Thank you; I had avoided reading any coverage for days. (I don’t do the combo of disasters and media well.)
Gangsta’s will be the first to go.