Yale Daily News

When you consider the phrase "the people" used in other parts of the constitution it is referring to individuals. Why should "the right of the people" in the second amendment be any different? As far as one saying that death is the human cost of misreading the 2nd amendment it is. People have no way to defend themselves from certain death because the D.C. City Council misread the 2nd amendment and now only the criminals have guns.

``it is reasonable to say that “well-regulated Militia” can be understood as one organized by and subject to the regulations of a state or local government.``

Sorry. This is not so.

By ''well regulated'' it was meant at that time to mean 'in proper working order':

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

This is the proper usage as understood at that time. Therefore, if you are a conservative and ''strict constructionist'' as principled conservatives are supposed to be but often are not, this is the interpretation you would prefer.

This means that people should have the right to keep and bear weapons to protect themselves from government imposed evils. On that basis, the people of Los Angeles should have weaponry and the right to blow away criminally racist punks like Mark Fuhrmann so that they may remain secure in their persons.

Agreed?

Unfortunately, the author does not appreciate that the meanings of words in English have evolved and changed over time. This leads to his fatal error of basing his argument on present day usage.

The fact is that in the 1800s, when the Bill of Rights was created, the phrase "well regulated" actually connoted "well practiced, good working, well disciplined.

Thus, the phrase "well regulated" has nothing to do with the very modern association of regulation with government oversight or interference.

"I recognize that I haven’t responded to the counterargument that more guns actually promote safety. While my understanding of the available evidence leads me to disagree with this assessment,..."

Xan, I challenge you to provide the exact evidence that you have researched to come up with that assessment. It sounds exactly like you didn't do the research and just blindly repeated the mantra of every anti-gun group out there. For the sake of journalistic integrity, please let us know what "evidence" you've seen and what kind of research you've done behind the numbers.

So then by this logic, the document that begins "We the People.." doesn't really pertain to each person individually but only to the collective in general, and thus means that certain persons or subgroups may not be entitled to enjoy those benefits described therein. So let's bring back slavery and other discriminations to correct the error of our mistaken interpretation of the true meaning of "the people".

Give me a break.

You know, laws that violate "the people's" 2nd ammendment right to bear arms are a lot like Uninsured Motorist Coverage laws: the uninsured are still driving around uninsured and the good law-abiding citizens are paying for those individuals who shirk their civic responsibility.

When the guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will still have guns, leaving the good law-abiding citizens again to pay and to be at the disadvantage of those who shirk the law.

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to secure sound governance, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed."

The militia is a promise which arms keep. The flight 93 passengers were a well-regulated militia, formed ad hoc, and more successful at defending you and me than the entire US law enforcement apparatus. Their unconstitutionally enforced vulnerability forced them to sacrifice themselves during their successful militia action, rather than kill or subdue their attackers.

The shoe bomber was disarmed before he could attack the US by a well-regulated militia of two flight attendants. New Orleans residents formed ad hoc well-regulated militias to secure their free state after Katrina, despite the violation of their individually pre-existing right to arms.

"...a mass of citizens armed with whatever weapons they desire” is exactly what the framers were protecting, as you yourself say, before contradicting yourself a few paragraphs later ("we should understand the “the Militia” and “the People” as roughly equivalent.") by a contrivance.

The framers themselves 'simplified' the language (see the texts here: http://rs6.loc.gov) themselves. There is no need for us to 'simplfy' it any further, except for those who have never bothered to take a course in 18th century grammar:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well-regulated militia is from time to time necessary to secure a free state and because all the people must be prepared to act when called."

The 2A not only protects your right to be armed, it assigns you a DUTY to be armed. Your argument is an argument to shirk that duty by local popular vote. Even two disarmed flight attendants smaller and weaker than their foe have a better sense of responsibility.

Would you believe me if I told you that the definition or usage of words change over time? A well regulated timepiece doesn't refer to a government entity passing laws or rules on it. It simply means it is running well...

B in Austin

The right to bear arms is an essential check on government; if the people couldn't have arms, there would be nothing to prevent tyrannical rule.

The Bill of Rights concerns itself with Individual Rights. People have Rights; Governments have Powers.

The Tenth amendment specifically refers to the Powers of the United States and the Powers of the States. Individuals have Pre-Existing Rights that are recognized by the United States Constitution. These pre-existing Rights of the people are not Granted to the people by said documents.

The Second Amendment is actually written in extremely strong language compared to, for example, the First Amendment.

Amendment #1 simply states that Congress shall make no law ....., but does not preclude an excutive order, whereas the second amendment states in iron clad words: "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The second amendment leaves no wiggle room for rogue Executive Orders or Judicial decisions.

I also would like to see your data that refutes the thoroughly researched work of Professor John Lott which clearly demonstrated with County Level Data from across the entire country that More Guns = Less Crime. In today's environment it is far too easy for your readers to check on such unsupported statements as yours and to classify them as "Urban Legends" and myths of the "Drive-By" Media.

Roy in Ohio

Hey Xan,

You did not answer my questions from last week or from this one.

Why not give me one or two replies?

BTW, I have a law degree, know the subject quite well, and await the courtesy of a reply.

While this is all back and forth about the same thing without saying anything. Lawyers, probably. Look, Americans, that is U.S. Citizens, have rights. If that is agreed, then we have enumerated and non-enumerated rights, is that also agreed? The States and the Federal Government were both given specific and enumerated rights in a document we all cherish. In those there is no question that they were very specific and identified so that those that weren't would remain either with the States or the individuals as citizens. The purpose was, as anyone in this discussion should remember, to purposefully underscore the fact we, as free people, would not be subject to Hillary Clinton or any other Queen, or King in the future. We were given the rights needed - free press, speech, assembly, arms, and so on (read the news tonight and see if you can find a place where these aren't allowed, and where they are fighting for them, hint:look south for an oily looking Venezuelan, and around the world for a greasy looking ex-KGB)so we could keep our government in check - them knowing we could be a real problem for the govern by those governed. Know this. Live this.

"I will say only that the debate about the purpose and role of weapons in contemporary America is best left to our elected bodies rather than our unelected courts"

GREAT! I will say

I will say only that the debate about the purpose and role of SLAVERY in contemporary America is best left to our elected bodies rather than our unelected courts, Hey! as a matter of fact some states would ban abortion and "race mixing" and imprison gays if it were not for those pesky courts!

Thank you so Xan for agreeing with some of the most repugnant elements of society.

Those darn Courts done ruined whites only schools and stuff.

Xan.

"When the 2nd Amendment was ratified, the “Militia” did of course consist of virtually all adult (white) males"

Was Crispus Attucks a slave?

How about all the black men who fought in the Revolutionary War? If they were not slaves and were not in the Militia and not in the Army, then what the heck were they doing on the battlefield?

I should apply to Yale, even with my G.E.D I seem to know a lot more about history then most recent college grads I meet.

My girlfriend has a law degree from a respected school, she didn't know the difference between the Confederacy and the Union.

When anti gun groups come up with a coherent factual debate I will applaud, I despise giving history lessons to everybody I talk to!

The following phrase is way off base. "Much as the First Amendment right to assemble is constrained when it threatens public safety (I have no constitutional right to stage an anti-gun protest in the middle of I-95, for example), so too the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is constrained by the right and duty of local governments to protect their citizens." It is true that government is supposed to protect us, but not by taking away our God given rights. If you believe in the statement above; then why doesn't the government lower the speed limit nationally to 45mph; no matter what road you are on. Just think of the lives that would be saved and the safety of such a law. I know why they do not do it. It's because they do not really care about safety as much as they do control. Mike irmantis57@yahoo

Where to begin? The phrase "keep and bear arms" sprang from the British assault on Concord and Lexington, where arms were stored in government arsenals.

There was a legal duty to serve and a right to possess arms before 1620, in the New World, that became a right to keep and bear arms so that the people could defend themselves against any enemy, whether criminal, alien invader or government tyrant.

Perhaps modern language would read thusly... An armed citizenry is essential to the desired form of freedom known as a free state, therefore the absolute right of the people to keep arms in their own control and to carry those arms for defense and other lawful purposes in necessary to the secuity of a republican form of government and shall not be infringed.

As the saying says about blind people and eyes, "In the land of the disarmed, the man with a gun is king and if he has a gang, he is a coup."

James Macklin www.geocities.com/ks2ndamendmentsociety

Another well intentioned but frail expert on what the founding fathers intended.

RE: "The right to bear arms is an essential check on government; if the people couldn't have arms, there would be nothing to prevent tyrannical rule."

Ok Neocons and the like, please take me on the fantastic journey that seems to pervade your collective imaginations which has Hillary/some future democratically elected leader taking over the White House and becoming a 'tyrannical' leader out of nowhere. I mean just give me the outright ridiculous scenario so that we non Conservs are at least on the same page. Are you imagining, for example that a democratically Elected Hillary, might enter the White House - decide she's going to stage some sort of ultrafuturistic coup, become “Queen”, turn the national military (perhaps via a letter or public announcement) into her weapon of choice, dismiss Congress and the Supreme Court – she, her peers in the White House and the national military will ignore all governmental checks and balances and leave the federal government in DC and abroad stricken and subject to her tyrannical rule.

But no worries, even in the worst doomsday scenario – the gun-toting militia, led by the commenters on this page no doubt, will gather at the flag pole, guns ablaze and take back the federal government from the illegitimate tyrant. Im sure, then, all of us idiot liberals who support measures taken by NYC and DC to limit perpetrators’ of BOTH domestic and criminal violence access to guns will bow to our superior conservative counterparts and thank God that they kept their assault rifles close by for just such an occasion.

I mean, when you reply ignore my tone, I just really cant imagine what you all are thinking MIGHT happen TODAY (I have an idea of why the forefathers were concerned about this in 18th century post-colonial America)– so give me a great (meaning = plausible) example of what you all are concerned about so that I understand your perspective better – that’s all.

No reply to our of our queries.

Hmmm, why am I not surprised??

It is obvious that Xan has only a superficial knowledge of this topic. While he is entitled to his opinion (one that is obviously VERY flawed) I see no real purpose for this publication to allow him to palm himself off as some type of expert in the subject.

Merely posting such an uninformed article without having any form of reasoned discussion makes the writing worthless. Unless Xan makes some effort to address the many queries he has ignored (which obviously come from people far more informed than he) these articles have no value.

May I respectfully suggest that YDN allow someone else to have this forum space so that we can have a more intelligent discussion on this and similar topics?

Why do all the other amendments refer to the rights of individuals except the 2nd? How convenient for the anti-gun crowd! Wait till they come for free speech? The 2nd amendment is the "Teeth" for ensuring we keep the rest of them.

There is no safety in denial. Sheep merely tolerate the sheepdogs until a wolf comes along, they then all run behind him for protection...

"The right of the people to be secure"

1) in their persons

2) housed

3)papers

4 and effects

is NOT A PERSONAL RIGHT?

Of course it is a personal right or else it is no right at all.

So too, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms ..." is also a personal right.

Notice that the Second Amendment states:

"A well-regulated militia..." It does not say "A well-armed militia..."

The key to understanding the framers intent is to know of their fear of and rejection of a state funded militia, because such a militia would be beholden to and serve the intersts of the state that pays them, rather than the people.

Today's state reserve forces is closer to a state funded militia than it is to the founders concept of a citizen militia acting to preserve and protect their own interests.

another reason why maybe everyone having a gun is NOT a great idea

http://www.wmur.com/news/14872365/detail.html

Xan,

Your "fiercely nonpartisan" perspective is not "well-regulated" unless your are properly informed:-)

There is much scholarship on the 2nd Amendment. If you were to read just a sample of it you would learn that the interpretation you oppose is so well supported as to be called the "Standard Model."

I am not saying that there is no argument against the Standard Model. However, your interpretations for "well-regulated" and individual vs. collective rights are classically identified garbage.