[yequalsx]

The 2nd Amendment does speak of a well regulated militia and it being necessary for the defense of the United States. I'm in favor a well regulated militia. I'm not a lawyer and have no expertise on the legalities but I do know that amendments can be repealed. There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.

[4d66ba06]

This podcast episode on the Second Amendment was fascinating as it discusses how the US Courts interpretation of the second amendment changed http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect...

[yequalsx]

Thank you for the link. I'll listen to it later.

[jakeogh]

Justice Antonin Scalia reads Heller(2008) for the majority: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290

[zombieprocesses]

> There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.

I didn't say it was unconstitutional. The constitution makes it very difficult to repeal for a reason.

It's why only 1 amendment has ever been repealed and that amendment was written nearly 150 years after the founding of the country.

I'm fairly certain that the 1st and 2nd amendment are pretty much untouchable.

But I wish you the best in trying to get it repealed. The more you try to get it repealed, the more people will support the 2nd amendment and remind people that we actually have rights that we need to protect lest it be taken from us.

[yequalsx]

I grew up a Reagan Republican in the Canal Zone. At that time I never thought I would see the U.S. (much less conservatives) embrace torture, mass surveillance, things like the Patriot Act, renditions, and other such things that have become commonplace. People haven't been particularly assertive of their right to free speech. Few complained when Clinton instituted "free speech" zones at major political events. Now such is commonplace.

It does not stretch my imagination to see people being fed up with it being legal to own firearms with the lethality that is currently allowable. I may be wrong. Fight for your rights. Be vigilant. I will continue to advocate for repealing the right to own guns. I may never see my vision come to fruition.

[splintercell]

"well regulated" meant "well functioning". Like "a well regulated clock".

> There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.

You really think you can get 34 states to vote to repeal something from our bill of rights?

If you are a democrat mastermind and want to do that then your best bet is to get more and more states created out of the blue states to get more than 2/3rd of the states to vote to repeal 2nd Amendment.

[humanrebar]

> I'm in favor a well regulated militia.

So people can have guns as long as they're in a "well-regulated militia"? Do we want all gun owners to be in self-governed militias? I don't follow this line of thought.

[yequalsx]

The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I’m no expert on the legalities and legal interpretations of the 2nd amendment but it seems to me a case could be made that well regulated gives the government broad regulatory powers. The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns. Of course a repeal of the amendment would be fine with me too.

[humanrebar]

The Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought to keep "the military" (British troops) from taking weapons away from arguably "self-regulated" militias. I think it's a tough case to make if you're arguing that the Constitution was referring solely to current members of armed services commissioned by the government.

[yequalsx]

Those militias were under the control of the colonial government. Indeed one of the colonials killed at Lexington was an ensign. That militia was the army at the time.

[humanrebar]

To complete the thought experiment, what would we have to do to form our own militia? Have a charter and elections? The colonial army at the time was not sanctioned by the king to bear the arms it did.

[yequalsx]

My interpretation of the second amendment is that the government has broad regulatory powers when it comes to gun ownership. Furthermore that the right applies only to militias and that in the present day militia would be an organization under government control.

Times change and interpretations change. I do not feel bound to interpret the Constitution by only considering what the founders meant. But for people who are originalists the well regulated meaning in the wording of the second amendment should imply broad government powers of regulation. It’s the only part of the Bill of Rights that grants a right to both the government and the people. It’s an oddly worded amendment. I imagine that the founders understood that a broad, unregulated right to own guns might not be the best public policy and hence threw in the well regulated wording. Also they mention it being necessary to a free state. If it is no longer necessary to a free state what then? Can a ban be placed on ownership? I don’t know how they would answer the question. I do know how I answer it.

[ehmu]

The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

you misquoted it the text 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.

emphasis mine, It is the right of the people that will not be infringed.

[splintercell]

> The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns.

Rhode Island's 1842 constitution starts like this:

> The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . .

So according to you, if the 'security of freedom in a state' is threatened, then the government can suspend the freedom of the press?

Or take 1784 New Hampshire constitution:

> In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . .

So according to you, 'if the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen is not essential to the security of the life' (again, in wartime or any exogenous circumstances like 9/11 attacks) then this right of citizens to be tried in the county where the crime was committed can be suspended by the govt whenever they deem fit?

Or maybe, this 'justification clause' which was written in many different ways at many different places by the people of that time is actually 'one and the most important justification' for a right and not 'If and only if trial of the facts in the vicinity ...'.

Let me explain another scenario. The first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law...". Today we clearly understand it to mean 'US Congress', but in the year 2256, People have created a new legislative body called Congress-22 and now they claim that first amendment only restricts Congress's power to restrict speech. On the other hand Congress-22 still has the power to restrict speech and religion.

Same thing goes with 'militia'. It used to mean "pretty much all able-bodied men from age eighteen to forty-five". This does not mean that it ONLY protects the right of 18-45 men to keep and bear arms, but it cover everyone's right to keep and bear arms.

[yequalsx]

The basic answer is no. I was referring only to the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. I have a view of what that amendment means and how it ought to be interpreted in the present era. I don't think I'd answer yes to your questions on interpreting the various texts you quoted.

[ehmu]

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.

They left out part of it

[splintercell]

Are you implying that "right of the people" implies that it is not an individual right?

> First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the __right of the people__ peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Does that mean that first amendment is not an individual right to free speech, press or religion?

> Fourth Amendment: The __right of the people__ to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How about now? You don't have the individual right against unreasonable searches and seizures?

> Ninth amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained __by the people__.

Again, the 9th amendment which claims that there are rights outside of constitution and they are retained by the people, just because they are not written in the constitution. Are these all the 'right of the states'??

Or my favorite one, the tenth amendment:

> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or __to the people__.

Here, it uses "the states" and "the people" separately. Clearly if second amendment meant it is a right of the states to keep and bear arms, then it would have mentioned it so, and not said "right of the people".

[ehmu]

> Are you implying that "right of the people" implies that it is not an individual right?

I think you had me wrong it is an individual right. They neglected to include the of the people part in their quote. The 2A applies to the people not the militia

I pretty much agree with you on the rest

[yequalsx]

The reading of ehmu's comments doesn't make it clear that he/she probably agrees with your position on the second amendment? It's seems obvious to me. If it's easy to get confused with the intent of ehmu's two comments then it should be understandable that reasonable people can interpret the meaning of the 2nd amendment in different ways.