A strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is sexist against women

[krispos42]

I was poking around in one of the threads about the recent ruling against DC's gun laws and in a discussion about the wording of the 2nd Amendment, I came to the realization that a strict interpretation disarms virtually all women.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2761648

People who are pro-gun-control continually point to the first part of the 2nd Amendment, which goes "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,..." and state their belief that this means that there is no Constitutional right for people outside of the militia (today's National Guard) to own firearms.

However, if one actually looks up what the current status of the militia is, you find this:

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
{wais.access.gpo.gov}
{Laws in effect as of January 20, 2000}
{Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 20, 2004 and December 23, 2004}
{CITE: 10USC311}


TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC311

(note: I replaced the square brackets with curly ones so that there wasn't any html problems)

This means that men, age 17 to 45, are all by default in the militia, and ONLY women in the National Guard are. Logically, this also means that 17-to-45 men can legally buy, own, and posess guns, but only a relatively few women.

Numerically speaking, there are about 57,000,000 men in the militia, compared to a few tens of thousands of women in the National Guard. That is a ratio of upwards of 1,000:1!

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-12.pdf

So, what are the thoughts on this? Is this fair to women, disarming them? Should we re-write 10USC311 to include women as well in the militia? Should we stop saying that the 2nd only applies to militias?

[Pro2nd]

1. Not Necessary

Actually, I don't think it's necessary to re-write the statute. Any attempt to undermine a woman's right to firearms based on gender would be struck down by the courts.....and rightfully so. BTW, it's nice to see some of these judges actually reading the Constitution for a change and upholding our God-given inalienable right to self defense, whether it be against criminal vermin, or a criminal government.

[krispos42]

2. Well, I wonder how it would be resolved

A strict interpretation of one amendment (the 2nd) violates another (the 14th).

I honestly don't know how this would go.

Welcome to the DU! :hi:

I see that this is your very first post. Glad to see I inspired somebody to join! :-)

[iverglas]

8. awww

I see that this is your very first post. Glad to see I inspired somebody to join!

I wasn't reading this forum back when this was posted here ... thank all my stars ... so I missed the brief but oh so stellar appearance of your new chum.





Funny how that happens, isn't it? Even when they manage to skulk out of the Guns forum for an instant, they still can't actually talk about anything else.

And funny how this topic sank like a stone. I forgot to look for how it got exhumed ...

[brothernature]

3. I don't think the founders ever intended for everyone to have guns

The 2nd Amendment is obviously worded wrong. Never mind that they were so confused about so many other things, especially oppressing women and minorities, but they would have been fools to allow normal people to own guns. That would threaten what little power they were able to maintain. The purpose of the amendment was obviously to establish the military industrial complex.

And I'll hear nothing about people needing them to hunt. That simply was not the case. Had the white man done the harmonious thing when they invaded N. America and learn the ways of the Native Americans, instead of infesting their culture with the wickedness and violence of westernism, then the Native Americans would have never developed weapons. Few people know that Native Americans were vegans before white man came. They lived in harmony with the Earth Mother and lived under matriarcial communities. They only harvested skins from animals who had already returned to the Mother. (Earth) They never killed or captured animals.

Anyway, before I digress further, the United Nations should ban all weapons across the globe. Until we can live in that kind of harmony, only women should be allowed to have guns. If that were the case, there would be no violence and the guns wouldn't be needed anyway.

[krispos42]

4. I respectfully disagree

But a response here would be off-topic for the forum and would be more approprate for the Gungeon.

My point here is that a sizable number of Dems advocate for gun control, based on the first part of the 2nd amendment. I was wondering how they would feel if they knew that that argument might be sparking another sexist condition.

[EstimatedProphet]

5. Haha! You funny!

:rofl:

[KneelBeforeZod]

6. I can't tell if you're kidding or not ...

>> Few people know that Native Americans were vegans before white man came. They lived in harmony with the Earth Mother and lived under matriarcial communities. They only harvested skins from animals who had already returned to the Mother. (Earth) They never killed or captured animals.

"Few people know" this because it isn't true.

I can't tell if you're kidding here, or not ... but this is absolutely false. Why would they need spears and arrows (weapons which are generally used as projectiles) to scavenge? Why are there native cave drawings of hunts? Native Americans developed the process of drying meat, making jerky which could be stored for long periods of time. They were NOT vegans ... and in fact perfected processes of capturing and killing animals for clothing, food, and farming use. They were omnivorous ... like most current humans are.

I also am not sure where you got the matriarchal thing ... because, if I recall correctly, Indian chiefs (like Sitting Bull, for instance) were mostly male.

Just wanted to correct the hugely distorted record, there.

H

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. Of course he's kidding...

I think it's a fairly safe bet that anyone who suggests that the native Americans were vegans ("vegans"... not even "they didn't eat meat"...) is either trying to make people laugh, or to make them look foolish. Given the post count, I'm inclined to guess the latter, but I may be doing him an injustice.

[iverglas]

9. as long as it's been exhumed

People who are pro-gun-control continually point to the first part of the 2nd Amendment, which goes "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,..." and state their belief that this means that there is no Constitutional right for people outside of the militia (today's National Guard) to own firearms.

Wha' happened? Run out of fresh eyes for your population of straw people down in the dungeon?

Even if people who advocate gun control ever did say any such thing (and I certainly don't), there's an obvious solution they could offer.

Remove the sexist distinctions in the legislation governing militias in the US.

Fuckin' duh.

Too obviously, ordinary legislation cannot be used to restrict the exercise of rights that are set out in a constitution by making distinctions that are prohibited under that constitution.

The sexist distinctions made in that legislation are obviously unjustified and unconstitutional, without there being the slightest need to drag the second amendment into the discussion.