Hacker News Reader

Comment by mapontosevenths | Hacker News Reader

> Criminals by definition don't need to follow the law and they don't need the 2nd amendment

"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. " - The US Constitution

Neither do private citizens.

What part of "well regulated militia" is unclear? Maybe all of it if you have a political slant, but no literate person who didn't set out with an agenda actually takes the second amendment to mean "any lunatic with $100 and an axe to grind should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction without even proving they're sober and sane."

It means what it says, not what some gun owners like to pretend it says and the simple truth is that making them harder to get does actually reduce crime every single time it's been tried.

View on HN

The definition of "militia" has been explicitly written into US law since the 18th century, you don't need to guess at its meaning. It essentially includes every able-bodied male and explicitly recognizes that this militia exists separate from any "organized" militia. Being part of the militia is not an exclusive club, a large percentage of all Americans are a member as a matter of law.

That said, I would argue that the definition should be updated to include women as well.

Actually, lets let James Madison (who wrote the amendment) explain what a militia is:

Madison said "the advantage of being armed," together with "the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

Source: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_...

You will note that the 18th century is quite some time AFTER the constitution was drafted.

I often get the indexing confused myself - the 18th century is the 1700s.

You are right of course. Thanks for explaining rather than just downvoting.

This is off-topic, but it always amuses me that the sentence isn't even a grammatically correct construction in English, and I don't think it was in the 1770s or whenever this was written.

  - A well regulated Militia: noun phrase,
  - being necessary to the security of a free State: parenthetical phrase,
  - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms: another noun phrase
  - shall not be: verb 
  - infringed: adjective

Two consecutive noun phrases separated by a parenthetical is not valid English grammar. The only time I can imagine you'd see consecutive noun phrases is as part of a list of at least 3 elements (like "x, y, and z"), but there is no list here.

The history explains the oddness a bit. It was originally loosely based on Pennsylvania and Massachusetts Bill of Rights which said:

> "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

I think that's very clear. They were deeply concerned about the threat a standing army posed, and wanted the militias to act as a balance. Based loosely on that Madison's first draft then said:

> "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."

Again, more comprehensible than what we have today. Still a bit oddly phrased, but it's clear that the right can't be infringed BECAUSE we need a well regulated militia.

Then, after much debate and quibbling over the exact phrasing and in regard to religious objectors the committee submitted this to the senate:

> "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

As you can see, even this version was a more complete thought, and made it very clear what the purpose of those arms actually was.

However, the senate then did the final butchery, that resulted in the version we have today and because unscrupulous people have exploited it's vagueness, school children can't be safe:

> 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.

Reference: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_...

To me, the real bitch is that the original purpose (to serve as a balance against the standing army) is completely null. There is no militia, or even professionally trained army strong enough to stand against the permanent army the founding fathers didn't even want us to have. Thermonuclear warheads and fighter jets didn't exist back then.

Even though the NRA likes to claim the "militia" means every American, that is NOT what Madison and the others meant by it. It's made clear in the Federalist papers, and even if it were what the founding fathers meant not even the NRA seems to be taking the stance that since the "miltia" means "Everyone" then "Everyone" can own thermonuclear warheads.

The second amendment has been wrongfully interpreted, and it's killing people.

> What part of "well regulated militia" is unclear?

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is unclear? If you're going to base your argument on the first few words you can't win against the opposition does the same with the last part.

> Maybe all of it if you have a political slant, but no literate person who didn't set out with an agenda actually takes the second amendment to mean "any lunatic with $100 and an axe to grind should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction without even proving they're sober and sane."

What WMDs can be had for only $100 that would actually fall under firearm regulation?

> What WMDs can be had for only $100 that would actually fall under firearm regulation?

Maybe I have a coupon? Is the price really the part of this that sticks in your craw?

>If you're going to base your argument on the first few words you can't win against the opposition does the same with the last part.

I'm fine with not infringing on the well regulated militias rights. Exactly as it was written.

> Maybe I have a coupon? Is the price really the part of this that sticks in your craw?

It was the price and also the reference to WMDs. You can't get WMDs at all so the price part is irrelevant.

> I'm fine with not infringing on the well regulated militias rights. Exactly as it was written.

That's also a cherry-picking way to interpret that line. You're intentionally leaving out the part that is inconvenient to your opinion.

> You can't get WMDs at all so the price part is irrelevant.

How many deaths per minute do you consider the minimum to qualify as a WMD? There are probably several firearms legally available that can meet it.

> That's also a cherry-picking way to interpret that line.

See my other post beneath this grandparent. It's long, but a bit more nuanaced.

It's objectively clear what the founding fathers meant, and it wasn't "lunatics should be able to buy guns without a drug test first" as the NRA seems to think.

It is unclear, it is easy to misread using inaccurate modern interpretation of the words.

well regulated = properly functioning, like a watch is well regulated when it keeps good time

militia = everyone, all citizens. In counterpoint to the army, professional paid soldiers.

> well regulated = properly functioning, like a watch is well regulated when it keeps good time

No it doesn't. Even then that usage was uncommon. This is something later scholars made up to justify their position.

I was wrong about this.

Heller put your claims to sleep. For better or worse, this ideologue lost.

It did, but it was a politically motivated decision that had most serious scholars without an agenda agree was flawed. Scalia decided to treat the miltia bit as if it were entirely prefatory, which of course begs the question "why did the put it in there if they didn't mean it?"

Again, common sense says that it means what it says and you don't get to ignore the bits you don't like.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com