Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Reason for the 2nd Amendment

Continued from the James Madison FA nomination page :
When you consider that the various state militias were used throughout the Revolutionary War, and at the time of ratification nearly all states in the north had either abolished slavery or were making efforts ( 1, 2, etc ), to do so, it goes that there was no need to arm an entire nation of militias for the sole purpose of keeping slave rebellions in check, and esp since these were very rare and isolated in the first place, even in Virginia, . Even John Brown got next to no support from slaves to get his slave rebellion going, so the idea that the 2nd Amendment was passed just to arm militias for dealing with runaway slaves and potential rebellions, frankly, sounds like a lot of bunk coming from the uninformed gun control camp, and as such, sort of flies in the face of the established facts and all the sources.out there. re: the new book, Madison's Militia, I generally don't trust any source that claims that all the sources are wrong in an effort to prop itself up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2023

Just swap around the paragraphs so the first thing you read is what the 2nd amendment as interpreted by SCOTUS actually says. THEN explain there are different versions.

The final, handwritten original of the Bill of Rights as passed by Congress, with the rest of the original prepared by scribe William Lambert, is preserved in the National Archives.[30] This is the version ratified by Delaware[31] and used by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller: 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.[32]

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the version passed by Congress and put on display and the versions ratified by the states.[24][25][26][27] These differences have been a focus of debate regarding the meaning of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of what the courts have called the prefatory clause.[28][29] Some state-ratified versions, such as Maryland's, omitted the first or final commas:[31][33][25]

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 ratification acts from New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Carolina contained only one comma, but with differences in capitalization. Pennsylvania's act states:[34]

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.[35][36]

The ratification act from New Jersey has no commas:[31]

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. 50.34.156.185 (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Your proposed edit would not improve the article. It makes sense to first note that there are differences, explain why those differences are important, and then discuss what the differences are. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2023

In the section titled “Text,” citations are attached to supposed facts, but after a review of the sources listed, those sources do not uphold the supposed fact. Said differently, the supposed facts are not upheld by credible sources. For instance,

“ Some state-ratified versions, such as Maryland's, omitted the first or final commas:[31][33][25]”

Source 31 Davies is an incomplete citation and cannot be verified. Source 33 Campbell doesn’t mention Maryland but talks about omitting the comma in general terms. Source 25 Freedman talks about 18th century comma use in general terms but does not explicitly give an example from a “state-ratified version,” which is the point being made in this Wikipedia article. It seems random sources were attached in a misleading attempt to make a weak point seem credible.

Moreover, it’s just a bad sentence. A better wording would be: “Some state-ratified versions omitted the first and third commas. For instance, Maryland depicted Article the Fourth as,”

Similarly, the sources below do not explicitly prove the supposed fact being presented:

“ The ratification acts from New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Carolina contained only one comma, but with differences in capitalization. Pennsylvania's act states:[34]

“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.[35][36]”

Source 34 Campbell only talks about New York’s version having one comma on page 184. It said nothing of Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and South Carolina. Citation number 34 should be moved to just after New York.

Source 35 is Congress’ final version of the proposed amendments from September 25, 1789 and has nothing to do with Pennsylvania’s act, which is the point being made in this Wikipedia article.

Source 36 is a GPO article that depicts the Second Amendment with one comma and says nothing about Pennsylvania’s act.

It appears who ever wrote this Wikipedia article did so maliciously. The rest of the sources should be fact checked. This article is not accurate or credible and does not deserve any protected status. 174.215.221.22 (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Create subsection of "Scholarly commentary" entitled: Meaning of "shall not be infringed."

As it relates to the recent grammatical talk, and that which has been archived.

This article should have a subsection of "Scholarly commentary" entitled: Meaning of "shall not be infringed."

What shall not be infringed?

A well regulated militia? As it is necessary to the security of a free state.

The right to keep and bear arms?

Or both?

Or some other conjunction?

Which Constitution's, The U.S., the States respectively, shall not infringe? Philfromwaterbury (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Until Amendment XIV, the constraints of the Bill of Rights were considered to apply only to Federal actions. — How a militia could be "infringed" is a puzzle. —Tamfang (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

District of Columbia v. Heller

It does not say only Self defense and the way it is written in the post is they ruled that it was self defense. "such as self-defense within the home" this allows for more uses of a the right to arms. It also does not state the main purpose of District of Columbia v. Heller was to "struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional" thus regulating the methods that a citizen wished to keep their ARMS was not up for debate. 2601:5CC:C701:8000:9196:5B69:D4F2:B63 (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Warning: Financial Incentive to Vandalize 2nd Amendment Article

Wikipedia should be aware, there seems to be people making money off selling guns contributing or altering the article in favor of unlimited gun restrictions.

They may have financial incentive to vandalize the article for that reason. Notice an earlier post in Talk was deleted on this topic.

2nd Amendment was for National Defence in 1791. This can be proven by the text "security of a free state" and the repealing of The Militia Act of 1792 in 1795, where it was revised to read repealed at the bottom.

The Constitution granted the government power to fund a military in 1789, but it wouldn't be large enough until 1795 when it repealed the Militia Act of 1792.

The Second Amendment can be fulfilled by having the person join the National Guard ("a well-regulated militia") or full time military where the person also fulfills the "security of a free state" text.

76.135.82.13 (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Tae Hyun Song (Special Law Contributor)