What do YOU think the Second Amendment means?

[Mp7]

...

That every citizen of the newly founded country should keep arms ... in case the British show up again.


While i´m pro RKBA .. i´m pro modernization as well.



...the US election laws are up for modernization, too.
It´s about time.


(Now, burn me )

 

[mcdonl]

The most recent (2008) Bureau of Justice Statistics indicate there are 593,000 local police in the US.

There are people 300 million or so people in the US

There were 668,800 people arrested in 2011

Given these quickly thrown together the criminals who were caught out numbered the police.

And, regular citizens outnumber the police 300 to 1

THIS is why we need to be able to protect ourselves from the bad guys and we should be able to use the same tools the police do.

 

[Franco2shoot]

All very nice.... but not linked to reality... The current government is beyond adhering to the U.S. Constitution. Where does the constitution allow the creation of Czars? "Shall not infringe" is pretty straight forward... A read of the Federalist Papers provides good insight into the thinking of the day, and Security alluded to in the first part of the 2nd amendment is more to allow individuals in one area protection from citizens of neighboring states, not duck hunting. Its clear to me that the founders couldn't envision a person "NOT Being Armed". And they wanted groups (Militia's) to be able to form up and forcibly take on any other group, be they civilian or military.

KKKKFL

 

[stonecutter2]

"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."
I don't really see anything too difficult about interpretation of this.

Okay, so what is necessary to do is to harken back to our revolutionary days, to understand partly what the 2nd amendment meant then, and what it means to me now.

Back in the colonial days each town had a militia. And it wasn't dedicated militia men, they were NOT soldiers hired to be soldiers. It was the town blacksmith, cooper, cobbler, innkeeper. Regular Joes. The responsibility of defending the town was left to the town's inhabitants...and the militia they formed for such defense. They conducted drills, and each member provided his own arms (powder was at times a shared commodity for the good of the militia). These are the men who fired the first shots at Lexington and Concord.

The British army was not well regulated - even though by most accounts the British army was the most formidable and strictest in their day. They were ordered to not harm civilians, or their property, when they were told to march and take the gun powder at Lexington. They disobeyed, looted, and burned houses, and that escalated existing tensions. Oh and of course they shot up our militia defending our towns. Our revolution ensued.

So...if you take away the arms, you take away the ability of the towns to have a militia and defend themselves, just as they had to against the British.

The spirit of the 2nd amendment holds true now as much as it did when our country was founded...to keep the powers that be in check by always affording the American citizen the right to keep and bear arms, and form a well regulated militia for the security of a free State.

I know that it is not the 1700's. The people are now vastly outgunned to defend themselves if necessary against a tyrannical government or invader intent on harm.

The answer is not to throw away that which our founders granted us, the answer is to protect what is left of our ability to stand guard at our homes and defend that which God has blessed us with.

 

[stonecutter2]

All very nice.... but not linked to reality... The current government is beyond adhering to the U.S. Constitution. Where does the constitution allow the creation of Czars?

There is no official creation of a Czar. It's a media term for someone in charge of overseeing some policy. This was done for the purposes of making government positions easier for the American public to understand and discuss.

Report on the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Population Affairs, and the average person tunes out and stares at you like you're talking another language. Say "The birth control czar met with the President today" and suddenly people want to know what's going on.

There is no need to have a Constitutional ability as a President to create someone who can help you oversee your various responsibilities. Delegating authority can help effectively manage a lot of responsibility - although it most certainly does have its drawbacks and pitfalls.

 

[gym]

It means exactlly what it says. Our Government is a system of checks and balances. this is a safety valve should one branch seek to invoke it's ,will ,on the country by using legislative, executive, or judicial power,s to try and take away the rights of the common man.
When that happens we have the right to throw them out and put those in place that will do their job as it was meant to be done, for the will of the people, not the will of the few.
It does this with a simple statment, the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[MasterSergeantA]

This.

And it is really not surprising. Almost everyone speaks of "Constitutional rights" as if the rights come from the Constitution, so the assumption that this is so is easily made and constantly reinforced. We don't have any Constitutional rights, we have Constitutionally protected rights.

I have not heard that more well stated in a long time.

 

[gego]

Throughout most of civilization the political arrangements have been characterized by ruler and those ruled. Those in power were always torn between wanting to have their subjects armed to support the rulers and disarmed for fear of revolt. When swords were the technology of the day there were occasions when ownership by common people was prohibited.

The idea of rights has taken a long time to become ingrained in the minds of people. We like to think they come from God or Nature, but the reality is that the concept of rights is something that societies invent and agree upon; you only really have the rights that your and your neighbors agree you all have. It is a sort of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" idea. We all value our own lives, so it makes a lot of sense to all agree that we each have a right to live, and to defend that life, and it is out of that concept that we believe we have a right to use good tools, guns, to exercise that right.

If you look at the times when the 2nd amendment was written, guns were seen as a very valuable tool in a hostile world. Defense against the native Indian population had been and still was a significant issue; hunting was very important for survival; and we had just fought a war against the British monarchy and the ruler/ruled system the King headed. Indeed, the British troops who were met at Lexington for the initial battle of the Revolutionary War were marching to Concord to confiscate arms stored in a warehouse by the Massachusetts Militia. Rights were on the minds of the Framers of the Constitution, and obviously they considered life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as rights of humans.

The 2nd amendment to me was their recognition of the value of arms in the defense of life and liberty. If you read what the Founding Fathers had to say, they recognized that arms were of value in defending against any government that might threaten us, both foreign governments or our own. The political reason for recognizing the right to keep and bear arms was for defense against aggressors including individual aggressors or aggression by governments. The Constitution, after all, is a political document, not a manual on hunting or target shooting.

There are a considerable number of fearful people today who want to redefine the right of other people to live. They want everyone to not be adequately able to defend our own lives. I say this is a form of insanity, but since the anti-gun view is widespread, it is just considered a political opinion.

 

[0to60]

Most people are saying that the 2A is so that we can protect ourselves from tyranny. Where exactly does it say that? If we just look at the wording alone, it says nothing about the intent. It simply says this is a right that shall not be infringed. Any more than that is a subjective interpretation, no?

 

[Skribs]

Whether you want to look at the issue specified in the second amendment (essentially a defense against tyranny) or the intent behind it based on similar clauses in state constitutions at the time (defense against tyranny, personal defense, hunting) or the current belief (sporting purposes, hunting, personal defense), it all means that our rights shouldn't be infringed.

If you look at it literally, for defense against tyranny, that means that as patriots we should feel obligated to have as good of weaponry as our military. Yeah, maybe we won't have F-22s parked in our back yard or a yacht quite as big as an Admiral has, but we should still not be limitted because "that's for military only." That flies in the face of a literal interpretation of the second amendment.

A historical interpretation of the second amendment adds in hunting and personal defense. With few exceptions, choice of platform has little effect on whether the weapon is good for hunting. An AR with hunting bullets is just as good as a .223 bolt action with hunting bullets. The exceptions are fairly obvious - hunting with a grenade launcher, a belt-fed machine gun, or hunting small game with a safari rifle is probably not going to yield a cost-effective amount of meat. Regardless, the government shouldn't regulate what they consider to be enough to protect myself or my household, especially if police (who operate in trained, coordinated groups against the same criminals) have no restrictions. And again, I bring up the point that our weaponry should be as good as our military to prevent the military from taking over.

Going to what most laymen on the other side of the fence believe, well I've already covered hunting and personal defense. So what about sporting purposes? Well, "sniper rifles" have a sporting purpose in target shooting. "Assault weapons" have a sporting purpose in action shooting. I'm sure there are sports for about every type of firearm, so saying that a firearm has no "legitimate sporting purpose" is to declare those sports illegitimate. Should we say that contact sports are the same and ban football?

You know, it doesn't really matter how I read the second amendment. I keep coming back to the same conclusion: no matter what purpose you feel it covers, there is no legit reason to restrict it.

ETA: 0to60,

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 militia is what fought off the Brits and granted us our Independence. This bill basically says that in order to be free, we need the ability to defend against a tyrannical government. It doesn't specifically say tyranny, but with a little bit of understanding in history, it's pretty obvious what they are talking about.

 

[Tommygunn]

Most people are saying that the 2A is so that we can protect ourselves from tyranny. Where exactly does it say that? If we just look at the wording alone, it says nothing about the intent. It simply says this is a right that shall not be infringed. Any more than that is a subjective interpretation, no?

The founders didn't weigh down the 2nd amendment with a great deal of extraneous reasoning, not unlike the 9 others in the B.O.R.s.
A "hint" is the existance of the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary ....."
The militia system was their version of first-responders. They would be equipped equally to the army and if the fedgov became a tyranny the militias would resist.
There are references in letters the founders wrote and in works like "The Federalist Papers" that provide further clarification of their intent.
Some liberals would have heart attacks if they were to read some of what the founders wrote . . . .

 

[Skribs]

And Tommy, that right was exercised in Athens, TN (I think it was TN) right after WW2 to deal with a corrupt city government. So it is an important right.

 

[0to60]

Alright, next question. What is a "well regulated" militia?

 

[goldie]

This is from wikipedia; In a dissent, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens said:

The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves". So it kind of sounds like you had the right to keep & bear arms if you were in a militia,or citizen trained army, not just a private citizen;on the other side, guns were used privately for hunting & survival,& later for protection against indians & the push west,& there is & never was any mention against it.Private ownership & use just seemed to get blended in with the original interpretation.I dont think any regulations on guns even started untill around prohibition.Criminal idiots screwing it up for the rest of us.....

 

[beatledog7]

The problem is in the question: what does it mean?

All that matters is what it says and what those words prohibit. We're far too focused on trying to glean meanings from simple words. What else can anyone rationally argue that "...shall not be infringed" could possibly mean beyond exactly what it says.

Yes, words have meaning, but in our effort to over think their meaning we lose touch with the words themselves. Consider this simple word:

STOP

We see it every day on those familiar red octagonal signs, and we know exactly what to do when we see it. Every policeman in the US--and in most of the world--knows what drivers are supposed to do when they encounter this sign, and they're all empowered to ticket us when we don't do it.

And what is that? It's STOP.

Not roll by slowly, not yield, not check to see who's watching and proceed at speed...simply, STOP.

The Second Amendment, as all of the Constitution, needs to be read in exactly that way. The Federal government is obligated to do everything the Constitution says it must do, and it is equally forbidden from doing anything that the document doesn't specifically say it can do.

That's all the meaning anybody needs.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Consider this phrase from the Virginia Constitution, which before it, this phrase was included in the Virginia Declaration of Rights from 1776.

Consider that the Bill of Rights was in part based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights

Consider that many of those who introduced and debated the amendments in the Bill of Rights were also instrumental in the authoring and passing of the Virginia Constitution

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Note, that a well regulated militia is composed of the body of the people.

Thomas Jefferson wrote at one time "...the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms."

Note that it says the armed body of the people are a safe defense for a FREE state.

Note that it states a standing army in times of peace are dangerous to liberty.


Only the ignorant would state that our founding fathers did not mean for the people to bear arms in order to protect themselves from the government, or that our standing army and National Guard make the second amendment obsolete.

Ignorance is excusable. Willful ignorance, or obfuscation of facts is inexcusable.

 

[gc70]

I want to hear from law abiding gun owners what the Second Amendment actually means to them. I asked that question to a group at my shooting club and I couldn't believe the replies I received!

Let's start with what the Second Amendment was written to mean - no restrictions, no limitations, no exceptions. No, I'm not a wacko; that is really what the Founding Fathers meant, although you have to consider the purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to appreciate the truth of that conclusion.

The Constitution is a pact between the States that created a national government with specific, limited powers. To ensure that the national government did not try to extend to areas in which it was not granted any power, the Bill of Rights was adopted to specifically prohibit the national government from exercising any power in certain areas. With that backdrop, it is easy to see that the Founding Fathers really meant for the Second Amendment to be an absolute and total prohibition on the national government trying to exercise power or authority over the RKBA. The national government was totally prohibited from anything involving the RKBA because the States retained power and authority over the RKBA.

Having covered what the Second Amendment meant when it was written, what does it mean today? Today it means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Faithfully applying the Second Amendment to the States would mean that neither the national or state governments would have any power over the RKBA, which would be an impossibility that would wipe out 225 years of state-based control and regulation. So the Supreme Court, in applying the Second Amendment to both the national and state governments, has tortured the concept and language of the Second Amendment to mean what they want it to mean.

 

[Skribs]

HOOfan, that was an excellent post.

I really like this gem in particular: Ignorance is excusable. Willful ignorance, or obfuscation of facts is inexcusable.

 

[PedalBiker]

Having covered what the Second Amendment meant when it was written, what does it mean today? Today it means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

Which makes me wonder what our Alice in Wonderland government will come up with next.

 

[Zardaia]

Even if you agreed withe the argument that the founders couldn't imagine modern arms, they did provide a means to alter/amend the constitution over time to keep up with then unforseeable issues. Until such time as a large enough majority exists to amend 2A, it means exactly what it says. Shall not be infringed.

 

[Skribs]

Very good point Zardaia.

If we as a society ever do vote to remove that "shall not be infringed" from the amendment, it will be like the line from the terrible prequel Star Wars trilogy: "This is the sound of the end of our freedom; thunderous applause." (Not sure if that is the exact quote, I only memorized the good movies).

 

[Tommygunn]

Alright, next question. What is a "well regulated" militia?

That is usually taken to mean it is well-trained, supplied, and are able to work coherently together.
During the pre-and revolutionary war days, professionals like George Washington were shocked at the people showing up for militia service. They'd arrive with broken guns, without guns, drunk, unprepared, et cetera and so forth. The militias would often acompany British regulars against the Indians when they became violent. The British barely tolerated them because they would usually run when the real shooting started.
Although our founders valued the concept of the militia system, they were not stupid and realized that kind of thing just wouldn't work.
Therefor they provided for their belief that an unqualified militia was useless. They debated and ratified the term "well-regulated."

 

[Baba Louie]

Sad to say this really... It does not MATTER what any individual citizen or subject thinks it means.

It means whatever the politically appointed Justices to the Supreme Court of this Nation's Government says it means.

End. Of. Story.

"Shall not be infringed" obviously means "Reasonable Regulations apply" and even then 4 out of the 9 do not agree one iota about that interpretation.

Incorporated? No. Yes. Maybe. Does that matter?

Arms suitable for Militia? No. Yes. Maybe. Does that matter?

We all know what the words mean now and what they meant when drafted.

We all know the history of the article, the who, what, where, when, why.

We've all seen it turned inside out three to nine times over with legal expenses none of us could ever afford to pay to hear it argued in court with findings used by both sides to interpret whatever they think said findings mean.

We've all heard politicians say they're not going to take our duck or deer hunting guns away when they know darned well what is at stake.

Power. Maybe THE Power. When "words fail" Power. Power to keep check and balance in the hands of those who foot the bill and shed the blood.

Sad, how wise were the men who formed the words, that they had to incorporate those words into a binding agreement that even then, even THEN, not all of the States would agree to ratify.

So it is. The words mean only what THEY say they mean.

I suppose that is a good thing.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Even if you agreed withe the argument that the founders couldn't imagine modern arms, they did provide a means to alter/amend the constitution over time to keep up with then unforseeable issues. Until such time as a large enough majority exists to amend 2A, it means exactly what it says. Shall not be infringed.

We could point out that several of our founding fathers were inventors, and students of former Rennaisance men such as Leonardo da Vinci (a designer of weapons). To mention, that these people were very learned and were not prone to short sightedness.

They knew technology would advance. However, they lived in a time when people were held accountable for their own actions. Objects were not blamed for the actions of a person.

We could argue that, but it would still fall of deaf ears.

HOOfan, that was an excellent post.

I really like this gem in particular: Ignorance is excusable. Willful ignorance, or obfuscation of facts is inexcusable.

Thank you very much. I have read a lot of willful ignorance from the antis in the past few weeks. I have read/heard it from the media. The problem therein lies, that those who are truly ignorant, will gain their information from the willfully ignorant.

 

[radiotom]

Does the 2nd amendment allow the people to have nuclear weapons?