The Second Amendment.

[2ndRateMind]

'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'.

1) Is the reference here to a 'well regulated militia' an irrelevance, or does the Second Amendment mean that US Americans have the right to keep and bear arms only within the context of a 'well regulated militia'?

2) If the safeguard of the security of a free state were to be substantially established, (say by social or political or legal progress) would the right of the people to keep and bear arms evaporate?

This thread is in the philosophical topic advisedly; I am hoping for a philosophical, rather than a political, discussion.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Note: Since the passing of gun control laws, the UK has one of the lowest firearm death rates among developed nations, with 0.2 deaths per 100,000, compared to 10.2 in the U.S. ie., you are 51 times more likely to die because some maladjusted idiot has a gun in the US, than in the UK

[bluethread]

'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'.

1) Is the reference here to a 'well regulated militia' an irrelevance, or does the Second Amendment mean that US Americans have the right to keep and bear arms only within the context of a 'well regulated militia'?

The Constitution of these United States was originallly a delinaition of the powers of the federal government and the amendments were assurances of particular rights that those powers were necessarily not to infringe. The keeping of private arms was not mentioned, because it was a social given. Nearly everone had a personal weapon. Tha first amendment mentions "a well regulated militia" to identify the state interest in the matter. It is the only case that was considered relevant at the time, because the tenth amendment made all other cases matters for the states and the citizenry respectively. States were free to regulate arms as they saw fit and the federal government was not to inerfer with that, because the states, through local militia, had the right to internal defense.

2) If the safeguard of the security of a free state were to be substantially established, would the right of the people to keep and bear arms evaporate?

This is an oxymoron. Without arms the security of a free state can not be established. The Constitution grants to the federal government the use of arms for the establishment of security from external forces and state conflicts. The first and tenth amendments reserve to the states the use of arms for the establishment of security from internal forces, i.e. invasion into the particular state by other states, the federal government, or external forces. At least that is how it was originally set up.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

Interesting. Should Americans go by what their constitution actually says, or by the inferred, deduced and alleged social and political situation of three or four centuries past?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

Interesting. Should Americans go by what their constitution actually says, or by the inferred, deduced and alleged social and political situation of three or four centuries past?

Best wishes, 2RM.

That is an ongoing debate between the originalists and the "living document" types. The problem I have with the "living document" argument is that it changes our government from an actual constitutional republic to a common law constitutional republic. The reason I say this is because if the meaning of a document changes based on the reader, one can make just about any document say just about anything. This in effect nullifies contract law and a constitution is a contract between a government and it's citizens. The general standard of contract law is that it is bound by the four corners of the document. Thus, if it is not actually in the words on the document, it does not apply.

Now, language does change, so one must establish what the words mean. Based on what I have just said above, the only dependable way to define those terms is based on the intent of the writers. Therefore, I am a believer in original intent. If one does not like that, then there is an amendment process that permits the social contract to be changed, without undermining the foundations of constitutional and contract law.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

Interesting. Should Americans go by what their constitution actually says, or by the inferred, deduced and alleged social and political situation of three or four centuries past?

Best wishes, 2RM.

That is an ongoing debate between the originalists and the "living document" types ... the only dependable way to define those terms is based on the intent of the writers. Therefore, I am a believer in original intent.

Hmmm. I would tend to agree with this. The only problem with original intent, is that the authors of the constitution lived in a different time, with a different set of social mores, under different circumstances, and one cannot appeal to them to discover a) what they meant, and b) how they would apply that intention to the time and situation that currently pertains.

So, if one wants to remain loyal to the brave document that is the American Constitution, it seems that one is left only with the words on the page. For what it's worth, I do not think that the reference to a citizen militia an irrelevance, and I do think that the free status of each separate US state pretty well established. I cannot see Texas invading Kentucky any more than I can see Buckinghamshire invading Kent. There may be external threats, but these are best dealt with at the national level, even though it is wise to keep a state militia for dealing with state emergencies, such as flood and wildfire. But the idea that every citizen should own one or more guns, without supervising discipline, seems to me to be an extrapolation of the constitution that the constitution, as written, does not support.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread] Therefore, I am a believer in original intent.

Hmmm. I would tend to agree with this. The only problem with original intent, is that the authors of the constitution lived in a different time, with a different set of social mores, under different circumstances, and one cannot appeal to them to discover a) what they meant, and b) how they would apply that intention to the time and situation that currently pertains...

... it seems that one is left only with the words on the page.

OK, with a little bit more pondering over this, it seems to me that the 'original intent', so far as it can be construed from the amendment, runs as follows:

The highest good being protected here is the security of a free state. A well regulated militia is the means to that end. (ie, if the security of the free state can be protected without a well regulated militia, then that militia can be dispensed with). Finally, the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms is the means to enable a well regulated militia. So similarly, if the militia can be formed without a general right to keep and bear arms, or if that miltia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state, than that right also can be dispensed with.

The argument seems to me to be of the form: Because S, then M. Because M, then R. Dispense with S and/or M (the security of a free state and a well regulated militia respectively), then the justification for R (the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms) starts to look decidedly shaky, from the perspective of original intent.

Of course, one may want to protect R, the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, for other reasons, but to pretend they are constitutional unless they contribute in a meaningful way to S and M would be disingenuous.

Best wishes, 2RM

[wiploc]

OK, with a little bit more pondering over this, it seems to me that the 'original intent', so far as it can be construed from the amendment, runs as follows:

The highest good being protected here is the security of a free state. A well regulated militia is the means to that end. (ie, if the security of the free state can be protected without a well regulated militia, then that militia can be dispensed with). Finally, the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms is the means to enable a well regulated militia. So similarly, if the militia can be formed without a general right to keep and bear arms, or if that miltia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state, than that right also can be dispensed with.

The argument seems to me to be of the form: Because S, then M. Because M, then R. Dispense with S and M (the security of a free state and a well regulated militia respectively), then the justification for R (the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms) starts to look decidedly shaky, from the perspective of original intent.

Now imagine a parent saying, "Close the window, it's cold out," and a child responding, "No, it's not really cold out, therefore I shall not close the window."

Is that child complying with the parent's original intent?

[2ndRateMind]

Now imagine a parent saying, "Close the window, it's cold out," and a child responding, "No, it's not really cold out, therefore I shall not close the window."

Is that child complying with the parent's original intent?

Hmmm. I do not generally like folksy analogies, when what is required is a decisive argument. They are too much liable to multiple interpretations, and I think clarity on this matter necessary. 25,000 or more premature, random, tragic deaths a year hang in the balance. But to humour you, it could be argued that the parent's intent about shutting the window was to prevent the child feeling cold. But if the child does not feel cold, then the intent behind the injunction to shut the window is already accomplished.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[AgnosticBoy]

Note: Since the passing of gun control laws, the UK has one of the lowest firearm death rates among developed nations, with 0.2 deaths per 100,000, compared to 10.2 in the U.S. ie., you are 51 times more likely to die because some maladjusted idiot has a gun in the US, than in the UK

This bit of information seems to factor into your view on the 2nd amendment so it's only fair to address it. Most people who flash this bit of information around usually say that guns are the problem, especially considering that Britain bans guns for civilians, right? I believe there are ways to reduce gun violence without banning guns from civilians.

First off, all or most active duty cops in the US carry weapons, yet we see no high crime rate involving weapons with cops. Secondly, stats that show gun crime committed by LAWFUL gun carriers vs. UNLAWFUL gun possessors, show that gun crime level is <1% amongst LAWFUL gun carriers (source below).

So the problem of gun crime appears to be a major problem only with those who are already bad people to begin with (the criminals and other UNLAWFUL gun possessors). Otherwise, there is no big problem with allowing LAW abiding citizens to possess guns.

Source:
Texas Department of Public Safety-https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/Repor ... rt2016.pdf
OR
https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/ >click on "Reports & Statistics">click on "conviction rates"> click on "2016 Conviction Rates Report (PDF)". The report compares crime by LTC (Licensed to carry or licensed gun carriers).
* The only category involving crime committed with a gun, that is, AGG ASSLT W/DEADLY WEAPON", shows only 0.3951% committed by Licensed carriers. In other words, less than 1% of gun crimes are committed by LAWFUL gun owners.

Here's some other data to provide balance to your note in the OP, which again I assume is one of the premises for your proposing banning guns (the UK system): This is about Britain...

There were 37,443 recorded knife offences and 6,694 recorded gun offences in the year up to September 2017.
...Stabbings in London are at their highest level in six years, with a 23 per cent rise from the previous year.

How does the average Brit defend themself?!
Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5251268/l ... uk-deaths/

[AgnosticBoy]

OK, with a little bit more pondering over this, it seems to me that the 'original intent', so far as it can be construed from the amendment, runs as follows:

The highest good being protected here is the security of a free state. A well regulated militia is the means to that end. (ie, if the security of the free state can be protected without a well regulated militia, then that militia can be dispensed with).

I'm of the opinion that there can never be enough security so your point about the state being able to provide their own security is your personal assessment. I think the individual state constitutions should factor in as well because they extend our constitutional rights to apply to protection of property (cars, house, and innocent life). That right indicates the State knows that it can not protect us from every crime or threat. So it's not just a matter of a "tyrannical government".

There is a long line of state court authority recognizing a right to self-defense — and a right to defend property — under state constitutions. Twenty-one state constitutions expressly secure such rights, often using language such as this:

All men … have certain inalienable rights — among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, [and] acquiring, possessing and protecting property.

Source: Washington Post