How unique in history is the 2nd Amendment?

Historically how rare was it that people were allowed to arm themselves? Especially in modern times, in the ancient days I know many people had family swords. Once guns became common though it seems more rare that common people are allowed to arm and defend themselves. Also is it out dated in your opinion?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Not rare at all.
>Once guns became common though it seems more rare that common people are allowed to arm and defend themselves.
Wrong. Once guns became common, it coincided with the emergence of standing armies, organized police forces, and military industrial complexes that centralized lethal force in the hands of the state

That said, America is still not unique since in many countries, you could still own a firearm but you only need a fucking license. Why this is tyranny to many US Bubbas whose privilege to drive their fudd-trucks also requires a license is fuck-weird.

First, driving a car isn't a constitutional right so it's not really comparable. America is the only country I know of in there bill of rights has arms ownership as a right. It's a privilege in every other country it they even get to have that privilege.

Centralizing control of the state involves disarming people, hence why so few people in the developed world have a right to own firearms.

Many tribal societies commonly carry around their weapons with them all day. It's just the natural way of doing things when you aren't constrained by artificially imposed legal regulations.

>America is the only country I know of in there bill of rights has arms ownership as a right. It's a privilege in every other country it they even get to have that privilege.
Don't you have to notify the government before making purchases in america? How is that any different from needing a license like in Europe?

In a private sale all that is required is a drivers license. A background check is required to get a gun from a federal firearms dealer. These are supposedly deleted after a time period but I kind of doubt it. Also a form you fill out at FFLs is kept for 25years with the dealers and if they go out of business then the forms revert to the government where they just sit in warehouses. All these are far less intrusive then what the requirements are in most European countries.

You don't need a license for free speech
You don't need to take a test for free speech

How can anyone believe that the wording implies that you can only own a gun as part of a militia?

>america is the only country I know of in there bill of rights has arms ownership as a right
Britain has(had) the right to arms and self defense in their common law, but marxist infiltrators just ignored it like they do here.


>europe
>ownership
implying


>How is that any different from needing a license like in Europe?
Because it is unconstitutional and a violation of our rights. But government education/propaganda regarding The Constitution/SCOTUS and SCOTUS justices that have never read The Constitution (read: legitimately hate america, completely disregard the laws, and/or are corrupt) let it go on.


They don't understand commas and/or believe "it's [current year] bigots!" is a valid substitute for not reading the 'constitutions' of the colonies, the state constitutions of the original 13 states, the state constitution of almost every single state, the federalist papers, the articles of confederation, the definition of a militia, or The Constitution itself.

>First, driving a car isn't a constitutional right so it's not really comparable
Right to travel is a fundamental right.

Because that's what it literally says.

No it literally does not

The participial phrase "Well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" explains why the right to bear arms is important.
2A extends to private person's right to bear arms by flexibly extending the definition of "militia."
However you'd have to be borderline illiterate to think that the sentence does not limit right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a well-regulated militia.

the people

>Right to travel is a fundamental right.
cars are not the only way to travel.

a militia is the people.
aka the population as a whole.
thus the right to bear arms for the people shall not be infringed.
It's not rocket science,

You are supposed to avoid constructions that render parts of a statute or other provisions meaningless or absurd. That's what you are doing. If the framers simply wanted to say "people's right to bear arms shouldn't be infringed," that's what they would've written. Instead, they decided to limit it with a participial phrase about a militia.

Guns are not the only arms.

It is your opinion that a militia is the people. The 2A can just as easily be read to refer to a state-regulated militia. Only thing supporting the current interpretation is politics.

>Right to travel is a fundamental right.
the fuck?

And do you think guns are free speech? I would think guns are the fascist speech, as in speech of the strongest one.

Do Americans seriously believe as long as they have guns they can rise up against the US? Even ignoring how decentralized the US is across its 10 million square kilometers and even ignoring that even 1/10th of the military supporting the government would mean you'd get wiped out instantly you do realize that simple obesity would beat you, right?

You fucks are so fat the general populace is never winning a war against anything but chocolate. ~35% of the United States is outright obese, ~68% of fat or obese how the fuck are you going to rebel against anyone? What, you're going to drive really really slowly on your motorized scooters?

It states that the reason the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Nothing in that sentence states that people outside the militia are not allowed to own weapons as that would be infringing upon the people's right to bear arms.

Amazing argument, better take all of their guns away. I mean, the government is so powerful, they may as well make the people even more powerless. Fine argument, really top notch.

>Nothing in that sentence states that people outside the militia are not allowed to own weapons as that would be infringing upon the people's right to bear arms.
Except legally, not stating something is same as banning it. If I say "the cabinet can only be composed of white people" that's banning anyone that isn't white from being part of the cabinet.

The regulatory part is other body of law that could forbid discrimination or such but there is no piece of legislation or constitution that expands that "bear arms in militia" to "anyone can bear arms".

It was fairly common and I would say the norm throughout history. All manners of peasants and serfs have owned weapons in the past as self-defense against brigands. Never mind the fact that it would be advantageous to have a well-armed populace in the case of foreign invasions.

>Guns are not the only arms.
in terms of effectiveness they literally are.

When a reason is stated, you have to construe the statute to mean its power/effect is limited to that reason. Just compare 2A with 1A. 1A doesn't say Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, because a well-regulated something or other is necessary.

During the time it was written it meant every able-bodied man not in the Army or Navy. But even if it was to be interpreted as State run militias, it still specifically states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If they meant the militia ONLY to keep arms they would probably write it as "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right to bear arms is part of English common law, which is where the US got the idea in the first place, the constitution being essentially a refined and rigid expression of common law

>it still specifically states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Yeah, for the purpose of establishing a well-regulated militia.
This is rather more important than you think it is. A constitutional right is not without limits. Even 1A which is actually not circumscribed but simply says "make no laws abridging freedom of speech" can be limited. The difference between constitutional rights and regular rights is simply the degree of care the government must take in order to make sure it is limiting the right for a good reason, and in the least restrictive way.
When a constitutional right is limited to a purpose, it should logically be easier for a government to limit that right for things that lie outside the purpose.

It doesn't say 'bear arms in a militia', it says the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. What one could say is that the necessity implies that every state should have a militia that provides training, that anyone could, join. Despite that, the amendment in no way implies that you have to be in the militia. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is very very clear. Your comparison doesn't work at all.

A well regulated militia being necessary is just the stated justification for the state having no right to infringe on the right of the people to bear arms. They could drop the line and it would have no impact on the meaning

>The 2A can just as easily be read to refer to a state-regulated militia
except it can't. It referring to the militia referenced in the second amendment.
Read the federalist papers and look up the militia acts of 1792 and 1862.

The federalist papers basically said: *paraphrasing a fair bit*
>Ok, so the people should have the right to keep and bear arms because they will need to form militias to fight domestic or foreign enemies.
>What if we just have government militias under the control of governors?
>Thats really fucking stupid. Governors might abuse their power and try invade other states when they aren't acting against freedom. Not to mention a government militia would only be able to fight against foreign enemies or cause/respond to coups. And ever worse would be that a government milita is just a standing army in disguise.
>What about both a private and state militias?
>That sounds pretty good.


.
In case you still don't get it I can spell it out for you:

>a well regulated militia
a militia in proper working order (read: access to arms and able to form at a moments notice)

>being necessary to the security of a free state,
commie faggots (foreign or domestic) will try to ruin what we have going here, you need to be able and ready to fight them.

>the right of the people
The people's right

>to keep and bear arms
have ownership and complete control over arms (from sticks up to and beyond 16in naval guns)

>shall not be infringed
shall not be infringed


.
And to top it all off:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is completely meaningless as far as the constitution is concerned, its only the justification for the right. It was basically included as a preemptive "fuck off".

>. They could drop the line and it would have no impact on the meaning
They could, but they didn't. And because they didn't, the participial phrase has to be interpreted. You don't get to cherrypick the parts you like and pretend that's "what the Framers intended" while ignoring an entire half of the 2A.

It requires no interpretation because as stated it has no bearing whatsoever on the right in question. Its just commentary

It is no more commentary than the part that starts "right of the people."

Yes it is. It just gives the reason why the right was included. Seriously need to work on your reading comprehension

>A constitutional right is not without limits
except they are.

>Yeah, for the purpose of establishing a well-regulated militia.
How can a militia be in proper working order if the people don't have direct and immediate access and control of arms?

>Even 1A [rights] can be limited.
You're right. They could abolish the first amendment.
Just because an illegal/unconstitutional law or ruling exists does not give it legitimacy or change the constitution...

>When a constitutional right is limited to a purpose
There are no constitutional rights limited to a purpose. The only thing the constitution does is restrain the government.

But during the time it was written the militia was every able-bodied man not in the military. I just prefer to interpret the second amendment the way the founders actually wanted it to be interpreted.

There are regulated state militias today known as "organized militias," but the "reserve militia" is the same thing that a militia was when the founders wrote the second amendment. The purpose of the second amendment is not to give the organised militias the right to have guns. ALL Militias are the people. Some are regulated and organised but the people that aren't in the military, or in an organised militia, are still the reserve militia, aka people with the capacity to fight if they need to. Thus, all able-bodied men and women have the right to bear arms.

>A constitutional right is not without limits
Oh yeah, there's also the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" part. Maybe you missed that.

For those that have issues with reading comprehension.

> A constitutional right is not without limits
None of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights were meant to be limited in any way. All limitations were imposed after the framers of the constitution had croaked. They made it very clear that constitutional rights are meant to limit the government's power.
Whether or not you believe this is a good idea is another matter entirely.

>hurr durr so we should have nukes?!?
Legally? Yes. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.
That doesn't mean that I actually want civilians to own nuclear bombs. I'm just saying that the 2nd amendment clearly states that the right to bear arms is not supposed to be restricted in any way, shape, or form.

You need to learn the basics of statutory construction and drafting. No part is supposed to be superfluous.

>except they are.
Except constitutional rights are limited all the time. Go ahead and name one constitutional right that is not subject to any limit.

>How can a militia be in proper working order if the people don't have direct and immediate access and control of arms?
A militia is composed to reasonably young adult male. So should the government be able to ban all firearms to women and old men? Or should a membership in the national guard be required? Is private ownership and practice required if a well-regulated militia exists without it? These are just some of the reasons why the leading participial phrase limits the right to bear arms and why 2A is a far more limited constitutional right than most other enumerated rights.

>You're right. They could abolish the first amendment.
You do realize the government can infringe on your right to freedom of speech and assembly already, right? For example a government can limit pornography shops to the red light district.

>No part is supposed to be superfluous.
Bit stupid of the constitution writers to write in a superfluous statement then

>"Just because an illegal/unconstitutional law or ruling exists does not give it legitimacy or change the constitution..."
Fuck off back to europe you serf.

>None of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights were meant to be limited in any way.
Except all the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights were already limited by existing laws.

>They made it very clear that constitutional rights are meant to limit the government's power.
Yeah and the bill of rights does not absolutely prohibit the government from regulating the enumerated rights.

>Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear
Except the 2A isn't simply "shall not be infringed." You can't just pick and choose what part of 2A is relevant. 2A was written the way it was because all of it was meant to be the law. Otherwise why couldn't someone pick and choose the part he likes and read it as "shall be infringed"?

>Bit stupid of the constitution writers to write in a superfluous statement then
They didn't.

>Yeah and the bill of rights does not absolutely prohibit the government from regulating the enumerated rights.
What are the 9th and 10th amendments?

>Except constitutional rights are limited all the time.
Not him, but why on earth does that make you think they were meant to be limited? The constitution isn't magic. If lawmakers ignore it, then they can do whatever the fuck they want. SCOTUS has upheld numerous laws that have later been overturned by other iterations of SCOTUS as unconstitutional.

First amendment has always had limits and exceptions. Hell its probably looser now than its ever been before

>Except the 2A isn't simply "shall not be infringed."
We've already established that the right to bear arms belongs to the people, and that right shall not be infringed. The supreme court and every English major with a brain agrees that this is indeed what the amendment says.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is completely superfluous. At best you could interpret it to mean that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so long as that first statement is true

>Hell its probably looser now than its ever been before
good
hopefully they do the same with the second amendment

>At best you could interpret it to mean that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so long as that first statement is true
Or that the right is not to be infringed because the justification/reasoning is true.
You know, like it says...

Thats pretty much what I said, except its entirely possible to imagine a situation in which a well regulated milita is NOT necessary to the security of a free state

>If lawmakers ignore it, then they can do whatever the fuck they want.
No they can't. If they pass a law that is facially unconstitutional, an affected party can challenge the law in federal courts.
The problem is none of you actually understand anything about constitutional law because you have as a collective a combined zero hour of legal education. A constitutional right does not prevent the government from infringing at all. It simply raises the bar the government must clear before it can legally infringe on a right. If a government wants to pass a law infringing on 1A right, for example, it has to show that the law is necessary to a compelling government purpose, the law is narrowly tailored to that purpose, and it is the least restrictive law available. However, if the government can show this, then it can infringe on 1A right.
And different types of speeches are accorded different levels of scrutiny.
I really wish people would take actually read a book or something before going off to share their "opinions" but then I remember this is the internet.

It's completely superfluous to what you want the 2A to say. But that's more or less irrelevant. What's important is what it actually says.

>No they can't.
You live in a fantasy world.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
>the commerce clause doesn't exist because we say so
>t. SCOTUS

>an affected party can challenge the law in federal courts.
And what happens when the supreme court only uses case law and completely ignore the constitution when making rulings?
Well fuck, the ride never ends...

>A constitutional right does not prevent the government from infringing at all.
The constitution says otherwise, but case law matters more... amirite???
Fuck off back to europe.


/thread

The founding father's biggest mistake was trusting the supreme court to do its job right.

And what it actually says is the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. That statement is qualified in any way. 2A contains two seperate statements, that a well regulated militia is necessary, and that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed

>John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!

SCOTUS opinion is pic related.

>an affected party can challenge the law in federal courts.
You are operating on the assumption that the courts will rule the way they should rather than how they feel like they should. Have you ever heard the phrase "judicial activism?"

Not* qualified

Then why does it use commas?

Somebody has to interpret the constitution, and they are not obliged to interpret it the way you want them to

Because the first statement justifies the second

Because it wouldn't make sense otherwise.
...security of a free state the right of the people...

>laws
>interpret
That's called a bad law. It's not the courts job to fix it or make sense of it, that's for the legislature.

There is no law in existence that does not require interpretation

In certain cases like there's really nothing to interpret, or an interpretation has been made by a previous iteration of the court, and the current one goes in the opposite direction.
Really, very little "interpretation" is ever required. The constitution isn't a lone document that was found in a cave. All of the founders were fairly prolific writers and orators, so their opinions on each amendment from the bill of rights is not hard to determine.

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That's what two statements looks like.

>objective laws do not exist
Fucking euros...

>make sense of it
That's what interpretation is.

Another canon of legal construction is that plain language should be read as such, and ordinary rules of grammar and punctuation should be used, not some fantasy grammar and punctuation rules that lead to your desirable result.

Situations change, events come up that were not explicitly covered in the original law. Individuals or groups may challenge the interpretation of the law. Sometimes situations arise when a strict or established interpretation of the law contradicts its intent, etc. etc. etc.

An entity has to exist to rule on this situations

Then write them down in strict and excruciatingly well defined form. Seriously we are talking about a document that doesnt even define its terms

>An entity has to exist to rule on this situations
You're right, it does. That doesn't change the fact that this entity has more power than any other when it comes to the law, and this entity is not free from corruption.

>The constitution says otherwise, but case law matters more... amirite???
Stare decisis is just another canon of legal construction, and the whole point behind it is to prevent the courts from imposing novel interpretations of law without providing very good justification.
You and the others should maybe stop posting.

exactly.
And legitimizing interpretation results in case law and subjectivity. Those lead to the complete downfall of the legal system.

It's already happened and been a thing for decades.
The law itself is completely meaningless to judges now. (EVEN IN FUCKING APPELLATE COURTS).
We are legitimately at a point where a judge saying "because I said so" is more legitimate than the law itself.


>Situations change, events come up that were not explicitly covered in the original law.
>Sometimes situations arise when a strict or established interpretation of the law contradicts its intent
>An entity has to exist to [solve] this situation
The legislature...

>without providing very good justification.
The court is free to provide any bullshit justification that they want to. They are supposed to provide fair and reasonable justification for their rulings, but there is nobody who can really enforce that.

True, and I never meant suggest otherwise

Which would be an absurdly awkward, slow and inefficient method, which is why every civilized country on earth has a judiciary

>Which would be an absurdly awkward, slow and inefficient method, which is why every civilized country on earth has a judiciary
I would rather have a slow and inefficient system that is consistent with its purpose than being subject to the whim of an unelected cunt.
There is a reason why we started to codify law instead of trusting the corrupt and powerful to be honest.

Eventually the legislature would get the hang of simply not writing shit laws.

You know mod, there was nothing wrong with the picture, this is humanities and there is nothing wrong with displays of non pornographic anthropological nudity. Also it's not like anyone is going to get fired or divorced for having a picture of a tribal nigger's penis on their screen and the picture is loosely pertinent to the discussion. Also this is an 18+ site.