Mikey, I think you need a dictionary. How is “well-regulated militia” even close to ambiguous? It seems pretty damn black and white to me.

Do random people owning guns constitute “well-regulated” or “militia”? Join a militia or give up your guns; it seems all of America could agree on that.

Don’t even call yourself a strict constructionalist if you can’t understand the constitution, bro.

“In reality, the focus should be on taking the entire Amendment together because the militia clause is dependent upon the right to keep and bear arms clause.”

Why is that necessarily the case? To many constitutional interpreters, the fact that the amendment begins with "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" denotes the sole purpose of the right and the limit to which it is to be protected.

“if we look at the political environment at the time the Bill of Rights was written, the idea that individuals had a right to own firearms as a means of self-protection was uncontested”

uh oh, looks like you’re delving into the messy liberal world of legislative intent… So what? The framers were also only a few years removed from a despotic monarchical system and had far greater reason to fear domestic tyranny. You can manipulate “intent, environment atmosphere” etc. of the framers to support either side because it is so nebulous.

I know conservatives love to evoke this historically and patriotically romantic “protection from government” justification, but let’s face it; this is not relevant in today’s America, or any of the Western world for that matter. No one in command of their mental faculties currently possesses a weapon for that purpose.

No, the best argument for those second amendment lovers is to analogize guns to drugs. Drugs are illegal, but the inexorable demand for them means that they will find a way into the United States, no matter the penalties, no matter the intensity of the “war on drugs.” Because the fulfillment of this demand has been forced into the black market, law abiding citizens are put at a disadvantage because only those willing to engage in illegal activity can possess and profit from them (in the case of gun possession, this is extremely hazardous-good people cannot protect themselves from criminals). Black market drugs (or guns) are more dangerous because they aren’t regulated, so accidental deaths will rise, and the government will lose the ability to prevent certain proven-to-be-dangerous individuals to get their hands on them (keeping guns/drugs legal prevents an extensive, universally accessible black market network from springing up to supply these individuals.)

J

The first half of your article consists of preparation for your argument, with really no important points at all. Then, you drop the bomb on us:

“The common belief at the time — and this belief still persists today — that one of the first steps a government takes toward oppression of its citizens is to take away their ability to defend themselves.”

Basically, if I understand you correctly, there shouldn’t be gun control, because law-abiding citizens would be able to take pot-shots at oppressive government troops if/when that day comes? I mean, I didn’t put as much fancy language in there, but that’s what I’m getting out of this paragraph.

A militia is “a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.” If you actually want to understand the militia clause, rather than just talk about what you think, you have to pay attention to what people actually did with their guns when the Bill of Rights was being written. Citizens unaffiliated with Washington fought aside his army in the war against the British. They were, in essence, a militia.

I doubt any hunting gun or shooting range gun would do much good today against today’s modern military issue weapons and the training that goes with them. Also, in the situation that Blackwater were to, say, patrol the streets of New Orleans and shoot at citizens, I doubt there would be any resistance (there wasn’t). I seriously doubt that any gun owners, who are more likely conservative, which are more likely patriotic, would have any problem with the beginnings of a totalitarian United States. If I wanted to look like a good journalism student, I could always toss in percentages here, but you get my drift.

If you were really concerned about a oppression of citizens here, you could support keeping the National Guard under the state’s control. For some reason, I can’t find any articles written by you about the usurpation of this right by the Bush administration. I also can’t find any articles promoting the National Guard, or any similar organizations, which would serve the purpose of keeping citizens involved.

The more likely situation is that this is another conservative article from Hahn, looking at an old issue in the same tired way. Think outside the box and come up with more original ideas once in a while. Maybe I’d respect your opinions if they involved critical thinking.

Mike, I’ll support the right to keep and bear arms if you’ll support blue state secession. Let’s help each other.

“blue state secession”

Don’t you mean “blue city”? The urban areas are the only “blue” places in the country. I suppose they could be city states, like olden days with walls ‘n gates and such.

A militia is the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service; “their troops were untrained militia”; “Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia”—United States Constitution.

Mike, how about you can keep your guns when you enlist in the military? That’s the only time you’d ever get good use out of them anyway.

i think partly, though, instead of picking apart the semantic minutiae of this amendment, we need to think independently of the constitution about the smartest gun policy for our country. regardless of what side you’re on, i think it is agreed that this amendment is excessively cryptic, quite possibly outdated, and isn’t worthy of being our ultimate authority on this important issue. the framers were just legislators, not omniscient beings, so i don’t think we should be afraid to call a spade a spade, or this amendment ambiguous to the point of being useless.

I’m totally in favor of Blue City secession. Let them try and survive without the support of the hinterlands that provide them with all the products they need to survive. The country folk will be more than adequately ready to survive without the burden of the city bureaucracy.

Let’s just ban ammunition. Guns are useless without it and the Second Amendment is silent on that front. It’ll be fun to watch the hypocrisy of the so-called strict constructionalists as they argue that the Second Amendment is more expansive than its written words indicate.

“Don’t you mean “blue city”? The urban areas are the only “blue” places in the country.”

Ah, but the large red areas that make up the rest of the blue states share the same burdens imposed by the federal government, namely heavy taxation.

I predict that there will be a blue state secession pretty soon. The only catch is that it will be led by blue state conservatives, so as to insure that they will end up with a socialists government.

somehow I get the feeling that if the founding fathers saw footage of the Va Tech massacre, they’d reconsider that second amendment.

“A militia is the entire body of physically fit civilians…”

Right, so you defined militia, but you did not define “well-regulated.” I think you have to at least be registered with a local, state, national government in order to be “called forth” in times of crisis.

What is the phone number of your local militia?

Gun control will totally prevent all violent crimes with weapons because those with criminal intent never use an unlicensed weapon.

Really Mike, oppressive government…hmm because in this class from high school, called AP US History, there is strong evidence that in many cases it is the states that have proven oppressive…It was in fact the state of South Carolina that caused the nullification crisis…It was the immoral and backward thinking of the South that led to the creation of the confederacy, because for the life of them, they just couldn’t get over being asked not to farm(own slaves)…It was the southern states who terrorized blacks and abolitionists for daring to question the use tests to stop blacks from voting…It was segregationists who forced 5 presidents to federalize the national guard to allow black people to vote or go to college or gasp! assembly peacefully(thats also a right by the way mike)…It was governors who ordered the decisions at Kent State and the 1968 Dem convention, not congress or the president.It is states that have passed draconian measures on abortion, gay marriage and crime…NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT…so your point about that is well…wrong…god forbid that a governor stands in the doorway of city hall to stop gay people from getting married…as far as guns are concerned in DC…maybe the fact that one third of the people living there are functional illiterate and that most of the people who work there(you know the ones with the 6 figure incomes) don’t live there AND the education system is awful…maybe thats why the ban didn’t work…poor education and a 16.3 unemployment rate usually leads to poverty which leads to crime…maybe you should have rote about the success of operation ceasefire in preventing gun trafficking in Boston and LA(but alas, the US is the largest Gun maker and trafficker in the world) or maybe why the Bush White House didn’t continue the Brady Bill, which was named after the guy who was hit during the attempt on Satan…i mean Reagan…o that would be killer, like the guy from VT, was insane, but still got firearms…but that wont stop you from supporting gun ownership with the NRA!!!

“somehow I get the feeling that if the founding fathers saw footage of the Va Tech massacre, they’d reconsider that second amendment.”

I agree. They’d have changed “RIGHT to bear arms” to “DUTY to bear arms”.

Lets bring up abortion tomorrow. This should be easier for everyone to agree upon.

signed,

I’ll interpret anything to fit my affirmative conclusion to the constitutiality of the second amendment, Jr.

I believe this is the first reasonable editorial you’ve ever written. I suspect many people who have heretofore responded are motivated by a phobia of firearms in general.

11:20am-

By hinterlands, I hope you mean Guangzhou, not the state Georgia. mmmm, Globalization.

the hinterlands would be lost with urban technological innovation, capital investment, management, and most importantly, farm subsidies from those blue scumbags in washington!

4:10 maybe you and ever other Ted Nugentite should watch ABC Nightly News with Charles Gibson…this weeks special report titled “Officer Down” talks about the difficulties police are facing nationally, because of the government’s inability to protect them like by not continue the Brady Bill, because since it expired in 2004(Bush White House, GOP control of Congress, neocons in Supreme Court) assault weapon attacks of cops have increased…so i guess the NRA is more dangerous than extremist Islam…at least in this country…

Our lax gun regulations have allowed Mexican drug cartels to amass arsenals of high-powered weaponry. Those weapons are responsible for the deaths of many reporters and law enforcement officials, and countess civilians. Before spouting off yet again about your right to blow up deer with uzis, consider that our gun laws help fuel immigration, as Mexicans (especially on the border) flee their homes out of fear for their lives.

Gun control only disarms the innocent.

Without guns, the people are completely dependent on the government for protection. Ask the people of New Orleans how well that worked out for them during Hurricane Katrina.

Ending the drug war is the real solution to gun violence.

I read your article where you said:

“The issue before the Supreme Court will not, however, be an exercise in the effects — dismal though they may be — of the D.C. gun ban. The question I hope the Supreme Court will address is whether or not the Second Amendment protects individual rights and whether or not the Washington, D.C. City Council, by effectively banning gun ownership, has violated those rights”.

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the DC Gun Ban Case (DC V. Heller) and will limit their review to one question: whether D.C. laws “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.” That's it.

Some people are confused today as to the true meaning of the Second Amendment, although it's intended meaning was clear to those who wrote it. By putting their words into their correct historical context, the confusion can be eliminated. References below from The Second Amendment Primer (1996) written by Les Adams are very useful for this purpose.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist review of the phrase "we the people" as used by the framers of the Constitution makes the same concurrence as four other Supreme Court justices:

"While this textual exegesis (explanation) is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "we the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom the rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community." *

• United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)

David T. Hardy is an American attorney and author of numerous law review articles on the Second Amendment, author of the book, Origins and Development of the Second Amendment (1986) and is a leading Second Amendment expert. Mr. Hardy points out the following observation from of James Madison, who most likely fought harder for the adoption of the Bill of Rights than any other of our founding fathers.

"Madison's initial Bill of Rights proposals have two features which merit comment. First, contrary to some claims that "right of the people" connoted a state rather than an individual right, Madison's plan used "right of the people" to describe freedom of speech, press and other clearly individual rights.

A second noteworthy aspect of Madison's plan is organization. Today, of course, we are accustomed to a Bill of Rights structured as a number of amendments, generally printed following the Constitution. But Madison envisioned amendments written to be inter-lineated with the Constitution's text. Thus we can determine exactly what the context in which each right was seen. If Madison had seen the right to bear arms as primarily restricting federal power over state militia, he probably would have designated it as an amendment to Article I, sec. 8, which contains the federal power to organize and call out the militia. Instead, he grouped the right to keep and bear arms with freedom of speech and similar rights and placed it after Article I, sec. 9. There, it would follow the guarantees of individual rights in the original Constitution (viz., limitations on suspension of habeas corpus and enactment of bills of attainer or ex post facto laws)." *

• HARDY, ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT 71-2 (1986)

How incontrovertible does the Second Amendment become with the benefit of these insights? Below is a reading of the Second Amendment as the founding fathers must have meant it to mean. When these words are read with the clear historical meaning of the phrases commonly used in the times when they were written, their intended meaning becomes clear to us.

A well regulated militia (that is, well functioning, and well trained in the use of ordinary personal firearms) being necessary to the security of a free state (we have seen all the evils attendant to the existence of a standing army and know that our personal and community safety and security, as well as our freedom, must come from ourselves, equipped with our own arms and ammunition, trained {or well regulated} by ourselves, organized and led by ourselves), the right of the people (an individual right just as we possess in the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments; not the states collective right to form a select militia that might become, under certain circumstances, the equivalent of a standing army in our midst) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. *

*Adams, Les, The Second Amendment Primer (1996)

Because the founding fathers (and the states) were so opposed to a standing (or professional) army, the militia's very existence was dependent upon our individual right to keep and bear arms (and ammunition). Therefore, the real confusion is that the right protected by the 2A is not exclusively an individual or collective right, it's both. In some states, the law required citizens to regularly go shooting to keep their shooting skills sharp, should they be needed for militia duty.

The question the Supreme Court will decide is if it is necessary to be in a militia or not, to still have an individual right to keep and bear arms for private use in ones home? Although an important question, it is very limited in scope and even if the court finds militia participation is not necessary to possess an individual right to keep and bear arms at home, I doubt it will likely wipe out very many of the tens of thousands of gun control laws on the books.