Let's talk about the 2nd Amendment?

Question

The wording: 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.

Let me kick off with a link:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/ashbody.htm

What's it about? What does it insure? Has it been infringed?

What's a miltia? Who would regulate it?

Your responses will be honored one and all.

Let's do something interesting on Q&A.

Answer 1

First thing to remember is that the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated against the states via the 14th. So, it only limits federal regulation of firearms, not any state gun laws.

That being said, there are several references to the Militia, in Article I Section 8 under the powers of Congress, as well as limitations on the states keeping Troops (Article I Section 10).

Taken in context, I would interpret the 2nd to allow state militias to maintain firearms, not subject to federal control, despite the prohibition in A1§10 against keeping troops.

As to what constitutions a "regulated militia", because the training of such forces is left to the states (A1§8), and because the 2nd applies only to federal regulation, each state would determine the qualifications for serving in such a militia, and how much regulation was required.

Answer 2

The Second Amendment codifies the right of the individual, as descended from God, to own and use firearms for the protection of his life, the lives of his family members and his property. It also codifies that the citizens have the right to oppose a corrupt and tyrranical government by force of arms if the desire to change the government at the ballot box is ever denied.

The "militia" as described in the text is ALL the people. It is NOT the military or the National Guard as the libs want you to believe. The National Guard did not exist until around 1915. The Bill of Rights secures INDIVIDUAL freedoms. The US Military and/or the National Guard are governemnt agencies, not individuals.

"Well-regulated" means to be kept in practice at shooting and hitting the target. It has nothing to do with regulation by the government.

It most certainly has been infringed. Every time a new law is passed against any aspect of owning or using a gun for legal and lawful purposes, it has been infringed. The libs scream bloody murder when they even think in the most foggy of terms that the First Amendment has been attacked, but are a thunderclap of silence when it comes to the Second. Why is that? It's because they see guns as a threat to their power. To own a gun is to be a free man. To be denied a gun is to be a slave. Libs like slaves. They want people dependent and always to be asking of government. When people can make it on their own, they won't need libs to feed them from day to day. Why do you think they fought welfare reform so hard?

Answer 3

“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 Second Amendment.
The unarmed citizenry are at the mercy of:
a. The illegally armed (criminals)
b. Looters in the time of disaster (New Oeleans)
c. Corrupt dictatorships (Hitler, Stalin, Kadafi, Mao, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein)
d, Ethnic Cleansing (Darfur massacres, Rhodesia, Bosnia, to name a few)
e. United Nations (UN Conference on International Gun Control, July 3-7, 2006).

So you see, the founding fathers didn't see fit to allow the lawful possession of firearms just so you could hunt a deer. They saw, coming from a brutal and corrupt regime, the need for the new American citizenry to have the means to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property. They understood that a nation unarmed is a nation living in fear and tyranny of the government, when it is the government which needs to fear the people.

Answer 4

I saw somewhere--I'm going to guess on a PBS special--that when you look at the meaning of the second amendment in context of the times, it takes on a very different meaning from the "right to bear arms" we usually think of today. The founding fathers were living during a time when they, in order to secure freedoms that they believed to be basic human rights, had to rise up against their government and take those rights by force. They also were aping a kind of government that hadn't been seen in thousands of years, as well as adding their own thoughts as to how it should run into the mix, and they really didn't know how it would work out. In this context, the idea of a militia might mean that, just in case the government gets too intrusive or takes away citizens' rights, the people will be able to be armed well enough to rise up and seize their rights back.

In that sense, it seems likely that the second amendment has been broken. If the whole point of the law is to let people who have issues with the government bear arms and rise up, it makes so sense for the government to enact any laws restricting who can and can't own them. The government would by definition not want people who wanted to overthrow it to have guns, after all.

As to a good working idea of the second amendment in today's world, in a 21st century context, It's much harder to say. I guess it's something we have to work out as we go.

Answer 5

I really like that question, because you didn't even put your opinion it there, you just stated clear fact that is obvious to everyone, and there is only one conclusion that can be drawn from it.

In a nutshell, it means

The people's ability to have guns shouldn't be taken away because we need armies to protect our country.

At the time the amendment was written, it was very true. The civilian population needed to have guns because that was the main source of their weapons.

Since we have armies to protect our country which have a greater quantity and more powerful weapons than civilians should have, the original purpose for this amendment doesn't really apply.

I would like to point out the following.

We have a military that protects our country.
The military has weapons that citizens shouldn't have.
The founding fathers did a great job but their situations are different than ours.
People can state their opinions about this all they want, but the real answers must be found in unbiased statistics, case studies, and trial programs.
We have the duty and obligation as citizens of this country to make it a safer place to live.

Answer 6

It absolutely has infringed. Look at the date, it was the depths of the depression while FDR was just revving up his socialist machine, but it wasn't firing on all cylinders yet. You had a lot of people who happend to be broke and owned firearms.

A militia can be a non-government group of armed people organized for the protection of life, limb and property. A militia can be regulated by anyone or noone.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people and if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns. All the anti-gun nannies should have to place a big sign on their front doors which says "There are NO FIREARMS on this property!"

I have a sign which says "This Property Protected by Smith & Wesson"

Answer 7

You seem to be deft at finding links. If you can, find the complete interrogation of Admiral Karl Doernitz, last supreme commander of Nazi Germany. He had a very interesting comment about an armed citizenry.

Answer 8

Only sane, non-criminal and capable people should be able to have a gun. That leaves out a majority of people.