2nd Amendment to the US Constitution

[Armitage]

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've always wondered how this can be construed to support private, unlicensed/regulated gun ownership?
To me it seems to protect gun ownership only in the context of "A well regulated militia".

 

[J Heartless Slick]

Originally posted by: ergeorge
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've always wondered how this can be construed to support private, unlicensed/regulated gun ownership?
To me it seems to protect gun ownership only in the context of "A well regulated militia".

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" has been interpreted as meaning to support private gun ownership.

 

[Fausto]

Commence Flame War.

 

[Pepsei]

people can see it differently to match their own agenda.

quite a few lower courts has ruled that it doesn't support private gun ownership. but hasn't been tested in the supreme court.
i'm not quite sure... so feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: ergeorge
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've always wondered how this can be construed to support private, unlicensed/regulated gun ownership?
To me it seems to protect gun ownership only in the context of "A well regulated militia".

Militia = private citizens, not military. Plus, the militia part is just the preface, the point of the amendment is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'

 

[vash]

Some interpret this more like: private citizens should be able to hold as many arms necessary to overthrow the government in case they no longer represent the people.

I don't interpret it that way, but that's what some people believe.

vash

 

[snooker]

The way I read it is it is saying a well regulated militia (I.E. Local/State law enforcement agencies) as well as the people's (me and you) right to bear arms shall not be infringed.


Thus, the federal government can not do away with local and state agencies nor can the federal government take away our right to bear arms (Own a handgun or rifle).


Aparently that does not apply to the state's individually. From the way it seems, States can infringe upon these rights, it is the federal government who can not.....


Living in Florida I screwed up years and years ago and now as long as I live in Florida I can not own a firearm, nor can I vote in local/state or federal elections. But if I decided to move to Georgia I would be granted my rights back because their state laws are different.......

 

[AU Tiger]

I don't own a single firearm, but believe the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." is the important part of the amendment to consider.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: ergeorge
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've always wondered how this can be construed to support private, unlicensed/regulated gun ownership?
To me it seems to protect gun ownership only in the context of "A well regulated militia".

yeah, you are right, if you read the federalist papers, it says right in there that the founding fathers meant this phrase to be interpreted 200 years later as "if you are in the national guard you can take your govt issued rifle home at night, and if the U.S. ever turns into a dictatorship, you have to follow orders to kill your neighbors for whatever reason the dictator feels are just"

just do a google search on federalist papers and you can read it for yourself

ok here is a link just to help -> linky

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: J Heartless Slick

Originally posted by: ergeorge
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've always wondered how this can be construed to support private, unlicensed/regulated gun ownership?
To me it seems to protect gun ownership only in the context of "A well regulated militia".

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" has been interpreted as meaning to support private gun ownership.

Arms ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärm)
n.
A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
arms
Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms.

Where is the confusion? Americans shall have the right to have weapons

 

[Armitage]

I guess my issue is, how does unlicensed, unregistered private gun ownership by anybody constitude a "well regulated militia"?
Even if we use axiom's definition of a militia as "anyone with a gun that was willing to fight.", it doesn't appear to meet the requirement of "well regulated".

And I'm not trying to start a flamewar here. You don't even know my position on gun control.
This is just a question I've always had about the second amendment.

 

[Analog]

look at the number of supreme court cases on this, and you'll understand why its so vague.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: ergeorge
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've always wondered how this can be construed to support private, unlicensed/regulated gun ownership?
To me it seems to protect gun ownership only in the context of "A well regulated militia".

The quotation does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms", it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". The logic is simple: A militia is necessary. A militia is made up of largely untrained minutemen who are civilians. A militia does not provide guns for its members. Therefore members of the militia must have their own weapons. Since the members of the militia are civilians, civilians must be allowed to own weapons.

ZV

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ergeorge
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've always wondered how this can be construed to support private, unlicensed/regulated gun ownership?
To me it seems to protect gun ownership only in the context of "A well regulated militia".

The quotation does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms", it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". The logic is simple: A militia is necessary. A militia is made up of largely untrained minutemen who are civilians. A militia does not provide guns for its members. Therefore members of the militia must have their own weapons. Since the members of the militia are civilians, civilians must be allowed to own weapons.

ZV

In that case, you could potentially limit gun ownership to members of a "well regulated militia"?

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero
look at the number of supreme court cases on this, and you'll understand why its so vague.

I don't follow you here?
Are you saying that it is intentionally vague, or that there are alot of court cases because it is vague?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ergeorge
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've always wondered how this can be construed to support private, unlicensed/regulated gun ownership?
To me it seems to protect gun ownership only in the context of "A well regulated militia".

The quotation does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms", it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". The logic is simple: A militia is necessary. A militia is made up of largely untrained minutemen who are civilians. A militia does not provide guns for its members. Therefore members of the militia must have their own weapons. Since the members of the militia are civilians, civilians must be allowed to own weapons.

ZV

In that case, you could potentially limit gun ownership to members of a "well regulated militia"?

No, because the people are the militia.

 

[wyvrn]

The part "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is set off by commas. It implies the right of a citizen to bear arms is a prerequisite to having a militia in the first place. How effective would a militia using pitchforks and kitchen utensils be?

I don't see why people have such a hard time getting this. You would have to have a very strict interpretation of that clause to support strict gun control laws. Since much of the constitution was written in such a way as to encourage debate about how a provision should be enacted, it is not conclusive that one particular interpretation of the clause would fit all circumstances. It is widely believe by historians that some vagueness was put into the Constitution and Bill of Rights on purpose. Our forefathers knew we were gonna have to be flexible in our laws because times change.

 

[Amused]

Let's make another Amendment with the same sentence structure as the Second...

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.
The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.

Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.

Similarly the Second Amendment states, the people from whom a necessary and well-regulated militia will be composed, shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

It was the Founders' desire "that every man be armed" such that from the "whole body of the people" (militia) a sufficient number would serve in the well-regulated militia.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: wyvrn
The part "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is set off by commas. It implies the right of a citizen to bear arms is a prerequisite to having a militia in the first place. How effective would a militia using pitchforks and kitchen utensils be?

I don't see why people have such a hard time getting this. You would have to have a very strict interpretation of that clause to support strict gun control laws. Since much of the constitution was written in such a way as to encourage debate about how a provision should be enacted, it is not conclusive that one particular interpretation of the clause would fit all circumstances. It is widely believe by historians that some vagueness was put into the Constitution and Bill of Rights on purpose. Our forefathers knew we were gonna have to be flexible in our laws because times change.

Exactly.

Zenmervolt explains it well.

 

[wyvrn]

Ahh didn't see his post when I made mine. Very good

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: wyvrn
The part "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is set off by commas. It implies the right of a citizen to bear arms is a prerequisite to having a militia in the first place. How effective would a militia using pitchforks and kitchen utensils be?

I don't see why people have such a hard time getting this. You would have to have a very strict interpretation of that clause to support strict gun control laws. Since much of the constitution was written in such a way as to encourage debate about how a provision should be enacted, it is not conclusive that one particular interpretation of the clause would fit all circumstances. It is widely believe by historians that some vagueness was put into the Constitution and Bill of Rights on purpose. Our forefathers knew we were gonna have to be flexible in our laws because times change.

Exactly.

Zenmervolt explains it well.

 

[Yomicron]

The Amendment says that the people's right to bear arms is required for a milita, it does not say that a milita is required inorder for people to bear arms.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ergeorge
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've always wondered how this can be construed to support private, unlicensed/regulated gun ownership?
To me it seems to protect gun ownership only in the context of "A well regulated militia".

The quotation does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms", it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". The logic is simple: A militia is necessary. A militia is made up of largely untrained minutemen who are civilians. A militia does not provide guns for its members. Therefore members of the militia must have their own weapons. Since the members of the militia are civilians, civilians must be allowed to own weapons.

ZV

In that case, you could potentially limit gun ownership to members of a "well regulated militia"?

No, because the people are the militia.

So how does that definition satisfy the "well regulated" statement?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ergeorge
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've always wondered how this can be construed to support private, unlicensed/regulated gun ownership?
To me it seems to protect gun ownership only in the context of "A well regulated militia".

The quotation does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms", it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". The logic is simple: A militia is necessary. A militia is made up of largely untrained minutemen who are civilians. A militia does not provide guns for its members. Therefore members of the militia must have their own weapons. Since the members of the militia are civilians, civilians must be allowed to own weapons.

ZV

In that case, you could potentially limit gun ownership to members of a "well regulated militia"?

No, because the people are the militia.

So how does that definition satisfy the "well regulated" statement?

We live under regulations in our every day life. "Well Regulated" simply means the opposite from anarchy. It means within the law.

 

[wyvrn]

That's up to the people, since the militia is a people's army. However, the phrase "well regulated militia" does not in any way (in my mind) serve as a limit to the people's right to bear arms. Bearing arms is a prerequisite to a militia, not the other way around as has been explained many times.

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ergeorge
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've always wondered how this can be construed to support private, unlicensed/regulated gun ownership?
To me it seems to protect gun ownership only in the context of "A well regulated militia".

The quotation does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms", it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". The logic is simple: A militia is necessary. A militia is made up of largely untrained minutemen who are civilians. A militia does not provide guns for its members. Therefore members of the militia must have their own weapons. Since the members of the militia are civilians, civilians must be allowed to own weapons.

ZV

In that case, you could potentially limit gun ownership to members of a "well regulated militia"?

No, because the people are the militia.

So how does that definition satisfy the "well regulated" statement?

 

[308nato]

In the vernacular of that day, "well regulated" simply meant well practiced. It was your DUTY to posess a firearm and KNOW how to use it.