I love the looks he gives the snootie Brit. Like,,, "And?! So?!" so matter of fact. :-)

Oboy... I fear this will provoke the return of a certain rear orfice...

I suspect Constitutional scholars of the future will be rather frightened and bewildered when they study the history of the jurisprudence of the Second Amendment. It was in the 1950s that the Left declared the Second Amendment an "anachronism" whose presence in the Constitution could be simply ignored. It wasn't until the 1990s that the pushback really got off the ground. I recall reading a magazine article written by a moderate-liberal around 1995 titled, "The Second Amendment... It's In There", referring to the Constitution. His argument was that continuing to simply blow off the Second Amendment set a dangerous precedent... after all, if one provision of the Constitution could simply be ignored, then what about others? If a political movement in power declared the First Amendment "anachronistic", how long would it take for the pushback to develop? And when it did, would it be too late?

As for the standing-army bit: The thing to understand here is that at the time the Constitution was written, standing armies maintained in Europe doubled as the 18th-century equivalent of secret police: they spied, arrested political opponents, extracted confessions, arranged for inconvenient people to disappear, and whatever else the monarch wanted done. The Framers had good reason to fear the establishment of that type of institution. Our American concept of the military as a professional organization, without domestic police powers, and indirectly answerable to the people was unknown in 1776. The various empowered and non-accountable police forces -- DHS, BATF, countless state police agencies, and the enforcement arms of the various regulatory agencies -- are a lot closer to what the Framers feared.

I dislike this particular famous person, and distrust his enthusiasms in all contexts.

Sumbitch's right, though.

Also....

"And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/

"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."

This passage as written, as well as the word militia, unambiguously suggests that the 2nd amendment was written to provide for a standing army in DEFENSE of the state. Not its overthrow.

Otherwise they would have written this...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to EXECUTE CIVIL WAR, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

See the difference, Gerry?

If Gerry really loved the second amendment he would join the national guard.

Although perhaps remedial english classes, or simply a good book club, would help him more.

Do you know what a militia was, Peter? Citizens, with their own guns, who would agree to fight but could not be ordered to by the government.

Not exactly the National Guard.

"If Gerry really loved the second amendment he would join the national guard."

Wow. You have a lot to learn.

Where you got the idea that an establishment which debuted in 1905 was the idea of the Founders is a mystery. I suspect that reality itself is a stranger in your house, too.

Why?

If you go down to the National Guard armory, or any other facility with their name on it, you will see this sign on the fence:

U.S. Government Property

It's not a citizen militia. It's a professional force on the cheap, one where every truck, car, pencil and firearm belongs to Uncle Sam.

But don't hide just because of your shame. Get educated.

Go read the fence, first.

I stand by my statements.

Gerry's "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment is not only wrong its egregiously wrong...the intent is to provide for a common DEFENSE of the union not its overthrow.

Aren't you guys at all concerned about that?

And I know what a militia is, momof4. Thanks for your concern. My logic should be clear though. Why don't you try thinking about what I mean and I'll tell you if you got it right.

HOLY COW RADWASTE....you're so informative!!! If you could grab your camera and go to that fence and take a picture of the sign...and also all those trucks, cars, pencils and firearms....and come back and post it that would be very useful. Thanks!!

This passage as written, as well as the word militia, unambiguously suggests that the 2nd amendment was written to provide for a standing army in DEFENSE of the state. Not its overthrow. -- TheRealPeter at July 25, 2012 6:27 PM

When the U.S. Constitution was written, the founders still wanted each individual state to be their own little "experiment" as a republic, and the federal government, with the consent of the states, took care of international trade, regulated the trade between the several states and the rest of the enumerated powers.

Prior to the civil war there was a limited standing federal army. When Lincoln asked Virginia to furnish three regiments totaling 2,340 militiamen and officers that was one of the decisions that helped the Virginia decide to secede.

Each state originally had their own militia. Each individual state was responsible for their own defense against each other and initial defense from foriegn invaders. If Arizona wanted to activate the troops and send them to the southern border with Mexico they had a right to do it. The rest of the states could decide, by a vote in the United States Congress, whether to support this action. Technically the other states could not stop Arizona militiamen from shooting anyone who came across the border.

After Lincoln, the Civil War, etc. the standing army was created and the militias were rolled into the Reserves and National Guard.

It is a good thing the the Heller and McDonald and other associated SCOTUS decisions have laid more emphasis on the second half of the Second.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There is essentially no state militia any more and even governors don't understand the Posse Comitatus Act (Katrina).

Defense of the union, yes. But defense of the union, against its leadership in the event of tyranny was just as important, which is why they did not like standing armies in the first place. Which you'd know if you were familiar with American history.

Their greatest fear was not invasion from outside, their greatest fear was tyranny from within, which is why we have a bill of inalienable rights, which specifically limit Federal authority.

And that is the fundamental reason why the state an uninfringable right to bear arms.

Remember, they specifically stated that citizens have not just a Right, but a DUTY to overthrow their governments under the proper circumstances.

Thanks for the history lesson Jim, although I don't need it. Just because SCOTUS decided that the second half of the amendment lived on after the first half became moot has no bearing on Gerry's lack of literacy. Ah...you think SCOTUS decision is synonymous with Gerry's illiteracy. Hahaha....no.

Robert, the framers of the union i'm sure had strong feelings about "defense of the union, against its leadership in the event of tyranny" as you say. They probably had strong feelings about a lot of things. But the plain language of the amendment itself DOES NOT SAY THAT. In fact, it says the opposite.

For you to say "their greatest fear was tyranny from within" is speculation and impossible to prove. Which you'd know if you were familiar with American history. What it does do is betray your incredible bias.

You behave as if the words "unregulated but mostly harmless gun enthusiasts...needed to execute civil war..." are also in the amendment. And that you're surprised I don't see them. THOSE WORDS ARE NOT THERE.

Listen...i don't begrudge you your hobby or your guns. I'm a gun enthusiast myself.

But, for the sake of literacy if nothing else, be a bit embarrassed when Gerry says 'the amendment was "intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of government."'

No, Gerry. The amendment says arm the people for a militia in defense of the union. The exact opposite of what you are saying.

This passage as written, as well as the word militia, unambiguously suggests that the 2nd amendment was written to provide for a standing army in DEFENSE of the state. Not its overthrow.
TheRealPeter at July 25, 2012 6:27 PM

No, Gerry. The amendment says arm the people for a militia in defense of the union. The exact opposite of what you are saying.
TheRealPeter at July 26, 2012 1:07 AM

Now, here is where you lost me, Peter. You're claiming two different meanings for this same set of words, and to me, at least, the meanings are vastly different.
I will preface by saying I'm not a historical scholar, nor did I take the time to look up any references, so I'm going off of what has been stated here, and my memory of what was taught in high school, and researched independently then and since.
I believe that the founders intended the second amendment to mean that people should arm themselves, not just as part of a militia, but individually as well. The reason for this would be in case they needed to defend themselves, "against unreasonable searches and seizure," or to make sure that they would, "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," as well as other rights that may have needed defense.
As you stated, though, we have no way of knowing what the founders intended, and so we must go off of the words they used.

"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."

Let's break this down:
A militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The operative word there would be 'state'. I'm going to go with general consensus that the founders were pretty smart guys, and it occurs to me that smart men would know the difference between the state and the union, especially considering they had just lived through about 12 years with even less federal government than what they were intending to create.
So, I'm reading this that you may be right, the founders may have intended for all able bodied men to join a militia in defense of their state. There isn't, however, explicit reference to what the state should be defending against. Because explicit reference isn't made, and because we can gather from statements made by the framers that they did fear tyrannical government, why couldn't the state defend against the federal government?
So, in order to defend the state, the union isn't allowed to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That's what I'm reading, using only the words available in the actual amendment.

Would agree to that, Peter?

If that is what is actually said, then it seems only reasonable to conclude that the framers were worried about the union taking away the right to bear arms, and the only logical reason I could think of for doing so would be to keep the States from defending themselves. The union wouldn't want the states defenseless against outside threats, as it would weaken the entire union. So I can only logically conclude that the people are to remain armed in case the union becomes tyrannical.
Again, just reading the words that are there, and using logic and reasoning to come to that conclusion.

Apologies for being extremely wordy, just trying to make sure my thought process could be followed.

"HOLY COW RADWASTE....you're so informative!!! If you could grab your camera and go to that fence and take a picture of the sign...and also all those trucks, cars, pencils and firearms....and come back and post it that would be very useful. Thanks!!"

Troll.

The NG is a Federal force, every bit as much as the US Army. Take the hint, and you really shouldn't be taking the time off from work patting down people at the airport to post on this blog, though that's up to Amy.

Thanks for the detail, Jazzhands. An interesting argument. However...

Security of a Free State

Most likely "security of a free State" is synonymous with "security of a free country," as opposed to security of one of the States of the Union against federal oppression (see UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh's commentary).

from http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html, close to the top.

This does not seem to be a point of contention from either side of the gun control debate.

The same website offers their best defense of the "2nd amendment as defense against tyranny argument." It can be found here http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html.

Notice it is stunningly weak. They refrain from using the actual text of the amendment, for obvious reasons.

@ TheRealPeter

For Intentions and purposes of human government and it's proper Context to the US Constitution see * The Declaration of Independence:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

Please tell us how The People (not the state, not the militia, not a standing army but the PEOPLE) were to accomplish abolishment and reinstitution of a new form of Government with celery sticks instead of guns?

The very means by which this document originated and the spirit behind its creation didn't follow through in its philosophy in HUMAN government and natural rights for the remainder of the document?

Surely, you don't take Thomas Jefferson for being that careless or stupid?

Unless your guns can shoot down Predator drones and bombers, they won't help overthrow the government. This sort of thing made sense when everyone was more or less equally armed.

On the other hand, they do make effective pacifiers for the more fearful among us, so carry on.

"Unless your guns can shoot down Predator drones and bombers, they won't help overthrow the government. "

So the ground-based insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan was ineffective against American forces?

MonicaP... while what you say is true to an extent... in order for the government to use such things on US soil, they would be violating their own laws, and THE PEOPLE would have to react. All those things you speak of have ground stations, require power and support, and being manned.
So it's kinda strawmannish.

The important thing here is the IDEA that The People, are individuals and as such have not only rights and responsibility, but also the ability to defend themselves against anyone else. Anyone.

That holding extends to the government, which is ostensibly existing for their benefit, but could be turned against them.

The implicit nature of this is Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone, and NOT scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. This difference is important and fundamental to our existence.

The threat of being able to defend yourself as an individual keeps many things from being taken for granted, bot by you and by others around you. Multiply that by the number of people in the US... and you have a country that is governable only by it's own consent. Even though that mark ebbs and flows, at it's base, it's about being secure in your person, by virtue of the potential to defend yourself.

Take that idea away and you are secure in yourself only by someone else's good will.

This doesn't mean you MUST defend, but that it's a possibility. The same way that at 6' and shaped like a bear, it is not as likely that I would be accosted on the street.

Get another fundamental idea out and polish it:

Unless you have individual rights and liberties, you cannot form associations as you wish.

By the accepted definition, "Militia" means any able-bodied male of gun-toting age up to the age of forty.
It seems like the most vocal gun-toting males in this country are well past age forty!
Be that as it may, historically, militias have been the most un-reliable forces to take the field. "A well-regulated militia" becomes a true oxymoron. They were the first to fight and the first to run.
Up to the time of the Civil War, small-town militias were everywhere, numbering from a few men to a dozen or more.
Their main roles were social: they hosted picnics, marched in parades, and showed off their drill. They did not fight. They did provide the officer cadres for the citizen armies that fought each other from 1861-1865.

Today the real threats to our personal security and freedom come from cyberspace.
The Second Amendment won't help you there.
With a few mouse clicks, any IRS goon can ruin your life forever.

TRP:

"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."

This passage as written, as well as the word militia, unambiguously suggests that the 2nd amendment was written to provide for a standing army in DEFENSE of the state. Not its overthrow.

Others have called you out on this, but I'm going to pile on, anyway. First off, the words "unambiguously" and "suggest" do not belong together, which hints at where your thinking has gone off the rails. Remember, the fundamental fact of the US Constitution is that it is a contract between the government and the governed that places limits on the power of government. The next thing to note is that everywhere else in the Constitution, where the word People is used, it refers to individuals. It requires torturing language to the breaking point to suddenly make People collective in the 2A. And in case that wasn't rack enough, the first two clauses are obviously explanatory; the last clause is a direct limitation on Congress. It stands on its own, unlike the first two, which do not. To see what I mean, rewrite the 1A in the form of the 2A: A well informed citizenry, being essential to maintaining a free State, the right of the people to the free exercise of religion, speech, the press, assembly and petition shall not be infringed. Explanation, then direction on an individual right limiting government. You may not agree with the explanation, or think it means something different than what others do, but the limitation remains.

For you to say "their greatest fear was tyranny from within" is speculation and impossible to prove. Which you'd know if you were familiar with American history. What it does do is betray your incredible bias.

Which segues directly into ...

And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement.

Now, why might that be?

Answering that requires a little familiarity with American history.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most states turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."[84] Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns in order to price destitute individuals out of the gun market.

… which in turn neatly segues into …

Unless your guns can shoot down Predator drones and bombers, they won't help overthrow the government. This sort of thing made sense when everyone was more or less equally armed.

Which is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The Black Panthers well remember that the original point of gun control was to disarm blacks, making them defenseless against, oh, the KKK (which was essentially nothing more than a hood on the head of Southern governments.)

The same principle remains: no society goes from civil to drones and bombers overnight. That is a journey of many steps. The point of the 2A is to interrupt that trip before the boot laces are even tied.

...and the people were left free to keep and bear arms by a Congress that viewed the most likely threat to liberty as coming from government and the state.

OK, so almost every day you have a rant here about the TSA and you, and many of the people who post here, seem to see the TSA as a sinister foreshadowing of even more restrictions on liberty. And libertarians/tea partiers are very angry about many other restrictions on liberty. So let's say that all political/peaceful approaches to abolish the TSA hit a dead-end and, furthermore, that extensive restrictions on civil liberties come to pass. Will libertarians and tea partiers take up arms and start using violence in order to fight these restrictions? Should they?

So let's say that all political/peaceful approaches to abolish the TSA hit a dead-end and, furthermore, that extensive restrictions on civil liberties come to pass. Will libertarians and tea partiers take up arms and start using violence in order to fight these restrictions? Should they? -- JD at July 26, 2012 7:18 PM

Depending on your state (and some localities) and your public transportation system you can carry a firearm openly. Add in that in may states you don't even have to provide identifying information to the police.

So some VIPR team standing in the transportation system lobby, that are security guards, not LEO approaching someone can be told "Go fuck off!" with impunity. For that matter you can tell the cops the same thing.

What happens in those circumstances is open to interpretation. But if an innocent person carrying a firearm legally is shot, or shoots a TSA agent after being assaulted is open to question.

There may be an open insurrection or secession at some point that comes to open fighting. Having been in the military, I can't see a monolithic group of commanders that would support the empire or rebels. Hell, I can't even see a full military group of tanks, or full squadron of pilots that would be willing to fire on U.S. citizens.

What will happen is there is a tipping point (a la "V for Vendetta") that the citizens have had enough, or a new civil war. It won't be the TSA alone, it will be the alphabet soup taking more and more and restricting liberty to the point that causes the disgust to build.

I think that the both the Revolutionary and Civil wars were triggered by about 25% the population hitting the boiling point.

Oh, here's a way to be civilly disobedient, but you have to be fiscally disciplined. Change your withholding to be eight or double your actual dependents. Save all the extra cash and make interest off it. Then file as normal and pay the tax bill. That $0 dollar from about 100K people every two weeks would put a dent in the revenue stream. Also they wouldn't have the interest from your cash.

Losing a couple billion would force the federal government into even drastic measures. That would make more of the people aware of how draconian our free, liberty respecting government has gone off the tracks.

Jeff:

Thanks for the feedback. I stand by my assertion.

The 2A as written, as well as the word militia, unambiguously suggests that the 2nd amendment was written to provide for a standing army in DEFENSE of the state. Not its overthrow.

Here's a rewording of my assertion, just for you.

The explanatory clauses of the 2A discuss the need for a citizen militia to come to the defense of the union, NOT ITS OVERTHROW.

The rewording should help clear up some of your misapprehensions.

Also..."segue" doesn't mean what you think it does.

Jeff and Feebie and others here are wrongly convinced of 2 things:

1) The framers were rabid anti-government zealots.
A selective reading of their hyperbolic secession propaganda tells them so beyond all possible doubt!

2) The explanatory clauses don't exist, or at least aren't important. Cause SCOTUS said so. Or something.

These two beliefs allow them to turn this:

"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."

into this:

"For reasons explained elsewhere, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

MOSTLY FAIL

and lastly into this:

"An unregulated Militia, being necessary to overthrow a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

DEFINITELY FAIL...compare with original.

TRP:

Also..."segue" doesn't mean what you think it does.

Actually it does.

From Wikipedia:

In journalism, a segue is a method of smoothly transitioning from one topic to another. A segue allows the host or writer to naturally proceed to another topic without jarring the audience. A good segue makes the subject change seem like a natural extension of the discussion.

TRP:

What's your point?

"The framers were rabid anti-government zealots."

Ohhh would we call the zealots? I sure didn't. But here's some context again:

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

While I agree many quotes and interpretations related to the second amendment are altered or maybe poorly referenced, I think it is very clear our founders supported an armed populace to resist tyranny:

"The constitutions of most of our states assert that all the power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves...that it is their right and duty to be armed at all times". Letter to John Cartwright 1824

It is painfully obvious that The Real Peter has no idea what the difference is between: The State, The Union, and The People.