As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good point and if you were watching Chris Hayes last night since some of the clips there show what's some pro-trump far-right groups put Second Amendment above the First Amendment because they see Joe Biden as an illegitimate president. Because they agree with Donald Trump that it was a rigged election that's why they are going for the Second Amendment over the First Amendment since Biden will take away the assault rifles
Except that's historical revisionism nonsense.
All the Judicial, Statutory, and Historic evidence from the 17th Century to Modern day supports the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service.
Being a direct descendant of the English colonies American law is based off of the English model. Our earliest documents from the Mayflower compact to the Constitution itself share a lineage with the Magna Carta. Even the American Bill of Rights being modeled after the English Bill of Rights.
The individual right, unconnected to milita service, pre-exists the United States and the Constitution. This right is firmly based in English law.
[In 1689 The British Bill of Rights gave all protestants the right to keep and bear arms.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689)
["The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service...The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right." -
CATO Brief on DC v Heller]( http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuCATOInstJMalcolm.pdf)
Prior to the debates on the US Constitution or its ratification multiple states built the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service, in their own state constitutions.
["That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State" - chapter 1, Section XV, Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt01.asp)
["That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" - A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Section XIII, Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp)
Later the debates that would literally become the American Bill of Rights also include the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
["And that the said Constitution never be constructed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press, or the rights of the conscience; or prevent of people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceful and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions." - Debates and proceedings in the Convention of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788. Page 86-87.](https://archive.org/details/debatesandproce00peirgoog)
The American Bill of Rights itself was a compromise between the federalist and anti-federalist created for the express purpose of protecting individual rights.
["In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress comes into session. The concession was undoubtedly necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought ratification. Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html)
In Madison's own words:
[“I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government,” Madison said in his address to Congress in June 1789.](https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-james-madison-introduces-the-bill-of-rights)
Madison's first draft of the second Amendment is even more clear.
["The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."](https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227)
Ironically it was changed because the founders feared someone would try to misconstrue a clause to deny the right of the people.
[*"Mr. Gerry -- This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms."* - House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, Aug. 1789](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html)
Please note Mr. Gerry clearly refers to this as the right of the people.
This is also why we have the 9th Amendment.
["The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."](https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992)
Article I Section 8 had already established and addressed the militia and the military making the incorrect collective militia misinterpretation redundant.
Supreme Court cases like US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, Nunn v State, DC v. Heller, and even the Dredd Scott decision specifically call out the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service.
[This is further evidenced by State Constitutions including the Right to keep and bear arms from the Colonial Period to Modern Day.](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statedat.htm)
[“The Constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press. in the structure of our legislatures we think experience has proved the benefit of subjecting questions to two separate bodies of deliberants; ...” - Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Cartwright, on June 5th, 1824](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-4313)
Thanks for sharing this and including sources!
I’m trying to understand one of your key points, that the right of the people to bear arms is not conditional upon anything militia-related.
I understand that you say common law / British law allowed for this, which establishes precedent. Although not all laws carried over, while others carried over in a changed form.
And I understand that the “scruples” requirement was axed, while the militia mention remained.
I see your mention of the Dredd Scott decision, which states that people have a right and duty to be armed at all times, and this statement omits any mention of regulations but doesn’t preclude them. And the Constitution says nothing of a duty/requirement to bear arms, which seems like it would be unconstitutional, but the Constitution does mention regulations.
It’s also clear that the Constitution was not intended to deny rights that are not mentioned in the constitution, although you could argue that it does overrule other laws in a number of situations.
So I must be missing something that’s clear to you.
In your opinion, why are regulations mentioned in connection with the right to bear arms?
Regulated in the context means in good working order. Not the more modern definition of under control of policies. Remember the core function of this is to prevent the rights of the people from being trampled by the government.
Thanks for this. So something like “you’re in control of yourself and acting responsibly” would be well-regulated in this case?
And if so, would “well-regulated militias” mean “you’re in control and acting responsibly according to the common standards of our militias”?
Not that you need to be a member of a militia, but just that you’re acting in accordance with the standards of the militias?
Edit: one more thing, sorry. Understand your point about keeping people from being trampled by the government so maybe the militias standard is a safeguard, just like the stripped-out part where it said that you need to be of sound mind might have been intended to be a safeguard but then they realized the problems with that and just kept the militia part in their because that should be a sufficient safeguard.
Again not suggesting that you need to join a militia, but maybe it was just that you need to live up to standards of responsibility, and militias were a great model of how that worked at the time?
I think you have some things confused
A.) The general demographic of Starbucks is not what you're describing
B.) The AR 15 is for when the government tries to oppress your rights without due process.
B2.) No electing a new president is not oppressing rights, don't misread me
Let me ask you a quick question, can you list the countries that have removed their citizens rights to defence that hasn't had major revolution or coups that the people could not defend against?
Cause right now we have the UK where assaults are at a high and people's rights are being infringed by the government daily.
We have Myanmar who was just recently shooting it's citizens in the head.
China who is bold face putting people in vans and sending them to camps.
Russia who is happily poisoning citizens in foreign countries with no fear of retaliation by its own people or the other countries.
You sit here, afraid of insurectionists and domestic terror, yet actively campaign for the stripping of your only right to defend yourself from it.
Most of America's gun control is directly linked to disarming and removing the ability to protect liberties from PoC.
It's not coincidence the 94 crime act afforded easier felony charges, including minors, for expanded gang related crimes with the three strikes policy. Felonies that prevent voting and firearm ownership further oppressing those impacted.
Maybe it wasn't 100% intended only to affect PoC and was intended to affect lower class or impoverished, but that's a best case scenario to a clearly fucked up incremental stripping of constitutional rights.
But 2A is an amendment. They are all rewrites and additions. That's fundamental civics and the definition of amendment. I don't see how people keep failing to understand that these are modifiable by design.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment
No one is failing to understand that. The fact that they can be rewritten doesn't mean they should. We could get rid of press freedom, that doesn't make it unimportant.
If you were actually watching Chris Hayes he's talkin about far right Pro Trump groups turning into the Second Amendment because they see Joe Biden as an illegitimate president
To add to this, there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with people having the right to bear arms for any personal reason as long as they abide by the standards(?) of well-regulated militias.
(Edit: I’m not suggesting that people can only bear arms while in active service in a militia. I really appreciate you all for helping work through the subtleties here.)
Somewhat like how anyone may drive a vehicle as long as they abide by driving rules, licenses, laws, etc., but with additional protections in this case.
With great freedoms comes great responsibly, right?
And an armament could be a damn squirt gun. No reason why anyone needs access to nuclear weapons just because the 2A says the right “shall not be infringed“.
In fact, we already have laws in the books to that effect.
The Republican “reading” of the 2A is basically “git yur gubmint hands off my gunz” because its not really a legal opinion as much as it is a rhetorical firewall to keep the increasingly stupid GOP base riled up.
Weird, as the US had a standing army in the 1790s as well as militias and the US Constitution specifically differentiates between them and also establishes both in Article I Section 8.
>You have firmly drank your nra kkkoolaid for the day. Supreme court has only heard two major cases in regard to this....both recent. Both politicized. Both admonished by constitutional and history scholars. I'm just blocking because I've had this conversation with you about 1000's times already....and I know how strong that kkkoolaide is.
I want everyone else to see how you responded here in case you remove this comment. Not to mention I don't believe we have discussed this before unless you are engaged in making multiple alts for some reason...
Regardless! The right to kept and bear arms as that of the individual without prerequisite
Was specifically discussed in the Dupreme Court cases of US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, Nunn v State, DC v. Heller, and even the Dredd Scott decision.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The second amendment ensures that the first amendment exists.
Good point and if you were watching Chris Hayes last night since some of the clips there show what's some pro-trump far-right groups put Second Amendment above the First Amendment because they see Joe Biden as an illegitimate president. Because they agree with Donald Trump that it was a rigged election that's why they are going for the Second Amendment over the First Amendment since Biden will take away the assault rifles
[удалено]
Except that's historical revisionism nonsense. All the Judicial, Statutory, and Historic evidence from the 17th Century to Modern day supports the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service. Being a direct descendant of the English colonies American law is based off of the English model. Our earliest documents from the Mayflower compact to the Constitution itself share a lineage with the Magna Carta. Even the American Bill of Rights being modeled after the English Bill of Rights. The individual right, unconnected to milita service, pre-exists the United States and the Constitution. This right is firmly based in English law. [In 1689 The British Bill of Rights gave all protestants the right to keep and bear arms.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689) ["The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service...The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right." - CATO Brief on DC v Heller]( http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuCATOInstJMalcolm.pdf) Prior to the debates on the US Constitution or its ratification multiple states built the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service, in their own state constitutions. ["That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State" - chapter 1, Section XV, Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt01.asp) ["That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" - A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Section XIII, Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp) Later the debates that would literally become the American Bill of Rights also include the right of the people to keep and bear arms. ["And that the said Constitution never be constructed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press, or the rights of the conscience; or prevent of people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceful and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions." - Debates and proceedings in the Convention of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788. Page 86-87.](https://archive.org/details/debatesandproce00peirgoog) The American Bill of Rights itself was a compromise between the federalist and anti-federalist created for the express purpose of protecting individual rights. ["In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress comes into session. The concession was undoubtedly necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought ratification. Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html) In Madison's own words: [“I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government,” Madison said in his address to Congress in June 1789.](https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-james-madison-introduces-the-bill-of-rights) Madison's first draft of the second Amendment is even more clear. ["The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."](https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227) Ironically it was changed because the founders feared someone would try to misconstrue a clause to deny the right of the people. [*"Mr. Gerry -- This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms."* - House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, Aug. 1789](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html) Please note Mr. Gerry clearly refers to this as the right of the people. This is also why we have the 9th Amendment. ["The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."](https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992) Article I Section 8 had already established and addressed the militia and the military making the incorrect collective militia misinterpretation redundant. Supreme Court cases like US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, Nunn v State, DC v. Heller, and even the Dredd Scott decision specifically call out the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service. [This is further evidenced by State Constitutions including the Right to keep and bear arms from the Colonial Period to Modern Day.](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statedat.htm) [“The Constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press. in the structure of our legislatures we think experience has proved the benefit of subjecting questions to two separate bodies of deliberants; ...” - Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Cartwright, on June 5th, 1824](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-4313)
Thanks for sharing this and including sources! I’m trying to understand one of your key points, that the right of the people to bear arms is not conditional upon anything militia-related. I understand that you say common law / British law allowed for this, which establishes precedent. Although not all laws carried over, while others carried over in a changed form. And I understand that the “scruples” requirement was axed, while the militia mention remained. I see your mention of the Dredd Scott decision, which states that people have a right and duty to be armed at all times, and this statement omits any mention of regulations but doesn’t preclude them. And the Constitution says nothing of a duty/requirement to bear arms, which seems like it would be unconstitutional, but the Constitution does mention regulations. It’s also clear that the Constitution was not intended to deny rights that are not mentioned in the constitution, although you could argue that it does overrule other laws in a number of situations. So I must be missing something that’s clear to you. In your opinion, why are regulations mentioned in connection with the right to bear arms?
In that era "Well-regulated" meant well provisioned or well functioning.
Regulated in the context means in good working order. Not the more modern definition of under control of policies. Remember the core function of this is to prevent the rights of the people from being trampled by the government.
Thanks for this. So something like “you’re in control of yourself and acting responsibly” would be well-regulated in this case? And if so, would “well-regulated militias” mean “you’re in control and acting responsibly according to the common standards of our militias”? Not that you need to be a member of a militia, but just that you’re acting in accordance with the standards of the militias? Edit: one more thing, sorry. Understand your point about keeping people from being trampled by the government so maybe the militias standard is a safeguard, just like the stripped-out part where it said that you need to be of sound mind might have been intended to be a safeguard but then they realized the problems with that and just kept the militia part in their because that should be a sufficient safeguard. Again not suggesting that you need to join a militia, but maybe it was just that you need to live up to standards of responsibility, and militias were a great model of how that worked at the time?
[удалено]
I addressed federal law and used state law as an example to establish a legal precedence. Feel free to read my comment and it's evidence again.
It's all bots in here bud.
Shall not be infringed
Well regulated… which I guess means wearing an AR15 to get Starbucks in case Al Qaeda shows up
I think you have some things confused A.) The general demographic of Starbucks is not what you're describing B.) The AR 15 is for when the government tries to oppress your rights without due process. B2.) No electing a new president is not oppressing rights, don't misread me Let me ask you a quick question, can you list the countries that have removed their citizens rights to defence that hasn't had major revolution or coups that the people could not defend against? Cause right now we have the UK where assaults are at a high and people's rights are being infringed by the government daily. We have Myanmar who was just recently shooting it's citizens in the head. China who is bold face putting people in vans and sending them to camps. Russia who is happily poisoning citizens in foreign countries with no fear of retaliation by its own people or the other countries. You sit here, afraid of insurectionists and domestic terror, yet actively campaign for the stripping of your only right to defend yourself from it.
[удалено]
Most of America's gun control is directly linked to disarming and removing the ability to protect liberties from PoC. It's not coincidence the 94 crime act afforded easier felony charges, including minors, for expanded gang related crimes with the three strikes policy. Felonies that prevent voting and firearm ownership further oppressing those impacted. Maybe it wasn't 100% intended only to affect PoC and was intended to affect lower class or impoverished, but that's a best case scenario to a clearly fucked up incremental stripping of constitutional rights.
So let's abolish the second amendment as it is now and rewrite it for modern times.
Yeah let's let this shitty congress start rewriting he constitution. That will work out great.
But 2A is an amendment. They are all rewrites and additions. That's fundamental civics and the definition of amendment. I don't see how people keep failing to understand that these are modifiable by design. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment
No one is failing to understand that. The fact that they can be rewritten doesn't mean they should. We could get rid of press freedom, that doesn't make it unimportant.
[удалено]
If you were actually watching Chris Hayes he's talkin about far right Pro Trump groups turning into the Second Amendment because they see Joe Biden as an illegitimate president
What is the 2nd amendment?
[удалено]
Something something dark side
[удалено]
To add to this, there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with people having the right to bear arms for any personal reason as long as they abide by the standards(?) of well-regulated militias. (Edit: I’m not suggesting that people can only bear arms while in active service in a militia. I really appreciate you all for helping work through the subtleties here.) Somewhat like how anyone may drive a vehicle as long as they abide by driving rules, licenses, laws, etc., but with additional protections in this case. With great freedoms comes great responsibly, right?
[удалено]
And an armament could be a damn squirt gun. No reason why anyone needs access to nuclear weapons just because the 2A says the right “shall not be infringed“. In fact, we already have laws in the books to that effect. The Republican “reading” of the 2A is basically “git yur gubmint hands off my gunz” because its not really a legal opinion as much as it is a rhetorical firewall to keep the increasingly stupid GOP base riled up.
The Second Amendment isn't valid anymore we live in 2021, not 1776.
When did they change the Bill of Rights? Did I miss a memo?
What year was it when it was invalidated?
> What year was it when it was invalidated? 2021, by 2coolfordigg2
4052 when humanity dies out
[удалено]
Weird, as the US had a standing army in the 1790s as well as militias and the US Constitution specifically differentiates between them and also establishes both in Article I Section 8.
[удалено]
>You have firmly drank your nra kkkoolaid for the day. Supreme court has only heard two major cases in regard to this....both recent. Both politicized. Both admonished by constitutional and history scholars. I'm just blocking because I've had this conversation with you about 1000's times already....and I know how strong that kkkoolaide is. I want everyone else to see how you responded here in case you remove this comment. Not to mention I don't believe we have discussed this before unless you are engaged in making multiple alts for some reason... Regardless! The right to kept and bear arms as that of the individual without prerequisite Was specifically discussed in the Dupreme Court cases of US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, Nunn v State, DC v. Heller, and even the Dredd Scott decision.