I must be lost on the second amendment?

Ontheotherhand

I'd argue about the meaning of the second amendment, but it's pointless. The fact is that the meaning of the second IS clear. But, that's irrelevant. The Federal government decides what the constitution means, and the Feds have pretty much eliminated the "right" to own weapons. They haven't exercised the power to take guns, but they certainly have the power and ability. It's just a matter of time. People forget that the US constitution consists mainly of things that the US government is NOT allowed to do. Those who wrote the constitution feared unchecked governmental power, and tried to limit our government. Too bad America has forgotten that.

karl k

your quote is perfect, your reasoning is incomprehensible.

the fact is that the right to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed. the reasoning is that it is necessary for a free state to have a militia (of course) but the fact remains that it shall not be infringed.
i dont know how they could have said it more clearly, and there is no other context.
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

open4one

If you would read the Declaration of Independence, you'd understand the purpose of the Second Amendment.

It has nothing to do with hunting, burglars, or the neighbor's dog.

It has everything to do with retaining the means to throw off tyrannical government.

That's why, if you parse the Amendment honestly, you'll see that the independent clause which is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the operative part. The rest is irrelevant.

You'll also notice that the right isn't created, just noted. It exists.

Oh, and to answer your question, yes, you are lost on the Second Amendment.

Steven, you're probably right, except that I'd change where you say "survive" to "remain free". It may or may not happen in our lifetimes, but things like that tend to happen sooner than you expect.

Fasc, you're lost, too. "well-regulated" didn't mean by the government, it meant they knew how to use arms. It says "arms", it doesn't say "muzzle-loaders". It is not limited, and recognizes that the federal government has no authority to limit it. That's what the "shall not be infringed" means.

And it doesn't say "shall not be infringed for members of the militia", either.

45 auto

The right to bare arms is to have an to us ,If for the enemy is someone that is invading your country, Is trying to do harm to you or yours, like breaking into house,home,car,terrorists acts etc.There are always going to be the enemy within,So if you take the guns away from citizens only lawbreakers or enemy's will have them. Remember if you don't want to have a gun than that your right. Just my thought. I'm to old to run to goodlooking to fight & would rather have 12 try me than 6 carry me. This is my right.

john b

Today, the militia is composed of volunteer members of each state's National Guard. The writers of the Constitution are assumed to have intended that the militia would function much like the revolutionary forces. 1. Groups of men organized in a military fashion with the intent to fight until the end and 2. Groups of men who, already armed would arrive to fill temporary shortages in manpower.

Hence.........the militia and each American's right to bear arms so that they can support the militia in the event that The United States is invaded.

Each American's right to bear arms also assures that in the event that the government no longer represents the will of the people, they can rise up and re-establish constitutional law.

I'd like to add that Australia..........nice place, and virtually the rest of the world, have no civilian access to guns and they don't seem to be cascading toward oppressive government.

I like my guns and I'm glad that I have the right to have them, but it's clear that it's not the only way to keep from becoming oppressed....................there's always voting............it's not as loud.

dude.

Someone asked a similar question yesterday that got a lot of good answers,,,,,they won't change your mind but they might offer some insight.

Black Magic Woman

It gives me the right because you don't get to decide who my enemy is.

ABRanger

We have militia.s they are all in the mountains training as we speak.The forefathers made this amendment in case the British or the French tried to take our country again,but they also didn't realize that we would have a government that would risk and loose the lives of our brothers and sisters over oil.The time will come when we have to bear arms against our own just to survive.

BekindtoAnimals22

So you don't think people should be able to hunt or protect themselves from animals or wildlife that damage their property or are a threat to their livestock? There are people who do not live in cities that need guns.

I believe also that the right to own a gun keeps our government in check. You are far too trusting. I don't believe people need to own military weapons but you need to look at what has happened in Australia since the guns have been taken away from the citizens. Not a pretty picture.

Cleaning up drugs and gangs would be much more in the interest of safety rather than taking the guns away from law abiding citizens. I don't own a gun but want to keep my right to do so. You don't know that at some point the citizens may very well need to become a well regulated militia again.

Christine

Well... Let's see... If a murderer comes on your property and attempt to harm you. What would that make them? The enemy!
If you have a gun... You can overcome the enemy much easier than you otherwise could.

There are many different enemies, not just other countries/armies. Although one day we may need to use our right to bear arms to protect ourselves from other countries/armies... Especially if we keep pissing people off!

Gray Wanderer

The Second was written because of the change from a Confederate form of government to a Federal form of government. Many felt that the Federal form of government would allow for the same types of tyrany they had just revolted against. Protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms was to prevent the government from becoming overbearing and was to protect the states from the Federal government and the people from all levels of government. The militia was to be regulated by keeping it under the control of the people. Two of the authors of the Second made statements which back that stand, and others made statements of agreement.

Tench Coxe made the statement about the Second:
"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Richard Henry Lee stated:
"First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always by kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided."

John Smilie wrote;
"I object to the power of Congress over the militia and to keep a standing army ... The last resource of a free people is taken away; for Congress are to have the command of the Militia ... Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army--or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed."

Rep. William Lenoir stated in a debate about he Second;
"When we consider the great powers of Congress, there is great cause of alarm. They can disarm the militia. If they were armed, they would be a resource against great oppressions. The laws of a great empire are difficult to be executed. If the laws of the Union were oppressive, they could not carry them into effect, if the people were possessed of proper means of defence."

Joseph Story;
"There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our
national bill of rights."

William Rawle;
"In a people permitted and accustomed to bear arms, we have the rudiments of a militia, which properly consists of armed citizens"

YOU state;
"This was writen hundreds of years ago don't you think times have changed?"

Do you want to use that argument to deprive other rights as well, such as the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Or maybe you would like to see the press censored? Or churches be forced to preach what the government mandates? How about doing away with the ban on cruel and unusual punishments? Those protections were also written hundreds of years ago.

BTW: The National Guard is NOT the Constitutional militia, it was formed under the power of the Congress to "To raise and support armies", and is thus a part of the Army/Air Force.

golden oldy

The right of the people, that means the citizens. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Toodeemo

You think YOU are lost? I'm a bit dyslexic. All this tiime I thought it said "Right to arm bears."

rhsaunders

In 1789, every citizen was potentially part of the militia, so all were supposed to have access to firearms. That was, of course, before things like machine guns and atomic, biological, and chemical weapons, and the law has restricted private access to such.

Randy

Back in the 1780's, when The Bill of Rights was written (Yes, the Second Amendment is part of The Bill Of Rights), the militia WAS the people!

The militia back then was much like a volunteer fire department today. Regular people, when called to service, would drop what they were doing and would answer the call to arms.

People seem to think that today's state National Guard units or the military in general is equivalent to the "militia" as decribed by the Founding Fathers... WRONG

The Second Amendment (The Right to Bear Arms): It's here to stay, so stop whining, you liberal fools!

Dan M

The Second Amendment affirms the individual right to keep and bear arms. It is the second amendment among ten amendments concerning individual rights, commonly referred to en masse as â€œThe Bill of Rightsâ€. The phrase â€œthe peopleâ€ in it means the same thing as â€œthe peopleâ€ means in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments: individual citizens. In fact, the Tenth Amendment distinctly references the federal, collective, and individual entities as â€œthe United Statesâ€, â€œthe statesâ€, and â€œthe peopleâ€.

That being said, the right to bear arms has several additional points to its justification.

Even before perusing the US Constitution, there is a natural right to individual defense of self or others which is not dependent upon any document written by man. Weaponry, being integral to defense, is a necessary part of this natural right. The beasts of the field bear fangs and claws. Being endowed more with brains and less with brawn, man makes the tools for his defense and bears those.

Now, turning to the US Constitution, the very first thing to note is that the rights in the Bill of Rights arenâ€™t a list of all of your rights you are entitled to and you have no more than that. Quite the contrary. The Bill of Rights simply affirms and discusses some of your innumerable rights, but you still retain all of the rest of your innumerable individual rights nonetheless. Amendment IX clarifies that distinctly: â€œThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.â€ You have a natural right to individual defense of self or others and the tools of necessity for it. You retain it. It is not denied or disparaged. So affirms the Constitution of the US.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. While liberty and property that are taken illegally (without due process of law) may be regained by means other than physical individual defense, the thing that many times protects life from being illegally deprived, by criminals or otherwise, is physical individual defense. This amendment affirms that my life may only be taken legally. Therefore, I have the right to defend my life from illegal attempts to deprive me of it, with such tools as are necessary for such defense.

smartsassysabrina

The idea of the militia that was written into the Constitution did not take into consideration the idea of the military as a profession, but as short-term banding together of the community to fight against a common enemy. The idea no longer exists since there is a standing military, and thus, no need for everyone to have firearms.

The founding fathers intended for the Constitution to be a living document, but it has been ignored, subverted, and out-dated for so long, I'm surprised anyone still believes in a right to bear arms.

Martinmm

more like guide lines ,eh?

roberto c

There are two "rights" in the second amendment.
The "right" to keep arms and the "right" to bear arms.

Now the reason for the 2A was to protect the militia. Article 1 section 8 of the US constitution allows for the federal government to arm the militia, that was also considered the power to disarm the militia. Ie, you took your own gun and used it in the militia, it would be yours but also the militia's gun, and therefore the feds could take your gun away and never give it back.
The "right" to keep arms therefore gave individuals the "right" to have a gun, there is no action here, it is about possession. It was done so the militia would have a stock pile of arms in the event of problems arising with the government.
The "right" to bear arms was designed to prevent the govt taking away the personel of the militia, it protects and individual to be in the militia. We can see this through the debates in congress over the 2A, they were worried for example that if they said religiously scrupulous people would not have to bear arms, then the government would be able to declare all individuals religiously scrupulous and ban all individuals from bearing arms.

There is a debate over the meaning of bearing arms, as many people want/think it means to carry arms generally. However carry and conceal laws disprove this, as a "right" cannot be licensed and carry and conceal is, and the NRA actually support this. Also the supreme court has said in the past that carry and conceal is not protected by the second amendment.

A few states had right to bear arms clauses in their constitutions prior to 1791, and they talked about "common defence", as opposed to self defence.

Dastardly

Yeah mostly the gun nuts ignore the militia part and it's irrelevance today (do you think some rifle toting beer-bellied guys in baseball caps are gonna put up much of a fight against the US military?). But damn they need their semi automatics for god knows what.

albercaespuma

Take your anti gun rhetoric and shove it... It's people like you who want to give all our rights away "for the friggin' children" and are not smart enough to realize that, once you take the guns away from law abiding people, the only guns will be with the professional thugs... ghangsta's and the police.

Be happy we can still own guns because once they are gone, so will your FREDOM and LIBERTY... the only thing standing between your children's future and a life of slavery is the fact that this corrupt government can't enslave an armed population.

Freedom of speech says that You are entitled to your ideas but you are NOT entitled to your "facts"

noble_savage

At the time the Constitution was written, there were no standing armies or militias in the US. Standing armies were regarded as a sign of tyranny, so avoided. Whenever an emergency arose that required a military response, the federal government and the states would specifically call on citizens to gather to form a militia or organize into an army. So of course most of the time the citizens who serve in militias need to start out providing for their own guns unless the government happened to have enough for everyone who enlisted. It wasn't until after World War 2 I think that the US had a professional standing army, which eliminated the need to raise ad hoc militias. That's the logic, at least. It's pretty archaic now and there's no longer any constitutional justification for it.

moon_flower_unicorn_power

i agree 100%

what

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton

This was written in a time when our founding fathers coming from England, wanted a government formed that would never again, rule the people within this country to be ruled by a tyrant king. The intent is that in order for the people as a whole to be free of tyranny (a king or a government) that enforced it's law by weapons used against the subjects (the citizens), that the subjects must be able to deffend themselves against the government with in the borders of the USA.

That right to bear arms said nothing of shooting your neighbor in a drug deal, nor a sqabble over a parking space. The militia at that time was the people of your village who were to defend this village against any enemies--including Indians, foreigners, or a government gone bad.

Times have changed, but the ammendments were written for that time. The ammendments are often taken out of context now, because the intents were for that period of time and history.

FascFiter

Indeed. People need to know the history of the Second Amendment. When it was written, people did not trust the central government to protect them, so thye wanted to be sure that they could have state militias, under the control of the governor (NOT Private Little Armies!). "Well-regulated" is the key. WHo has the authority to regulate, but the government?
The Second Amendment does NOT confer an unqualified individual right to have a weapon.

Also, when it was written, it referred to muzzle-loading muskets. How many conservatives, who insist on "Original Intent", would go back to that and that alone?

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: