About the 2nd Amendment?

Question

"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 2nd amendment clearly isn't about preventing crime, but to prevent the oppression of states and the people as a whole. Personal possession of a weapon isn't really even included unless you are a part of a REGULATED militia?
The amendment could also be read as keeping the state secure from an inside insurgency of certain minorities.

Why is the 2nd amendment then associated with preventing crime? Bearing arms, according to the constitution is more about storming the white house than defending yourself against crime.

Answer 1

Criminals like unarmed victims...just like governments. Every single state that has inacted concealed permit laws has seen a significant drop in violent crimes in a very short time. Every single one. That's why it's associated with stopping crime.

Also, criminals, by definition do not worry about gun laws. Therefore, if you make guns illegal or extremely difficult to lawfully obtain, only the criminals will poses guns making every law abiding citizen a defensless target.

Answer 2

The second amendment secures the right to bear arms. It does not deny citizens the ability to protect themselves. Citizens with weapons may have been called upon to protect the nation as a militia. The Constitution does not, however, provide for a standing army. This idea kills the "storming the white house" angle. Citizens were not expected to rise against the government in military fashion. In the future if martial law were enacted that would be a possibility, though. Final point: the Bill of Rights is to protect citizens from imposing power-freaks who would oppress their will upon the people regardless how wrong it is.

Answer 3

You have to understand plain English (something we aren't taught anymore). The first clause: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is not a complete thought. Therefore, it is a DEPENDENT clause. What is it dependent upon? "The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." This is a complete statement thus an INDEPENDENT clause. That means the most important part of the 2nd Amendment was that the rights of individuals (there is ample evidence from the framers that "the people" means the individual) to own guns. The well regulated militia was to be a bottom up organization at the local and state level.

Answer 4

This is a political hot button swirling around a sentence that is poorly phrased (if "being necessary to the security of a free state" is a dependent clause, the sentence should work well without it--but it doesn't) and coming from a historical context that has changed so dramatically that it is unhinged for many people. And the NRA plays on that so its members can continue to stroke their guns.
But I'm not how to read in the "inside insurgency" as a deliberate scenario envisioned by the Framers, although the amendment would certainly apply to that case.

Answer 5

Good point.

Back then, when the 'war' was over, the militia was disbanded. There was no money or need to keep a military contingent around all the time. I believe that the INTENT of the 2nd amendment is that people are allowed to have, keep, train 'arms' (that being for personal and possibly state protection).

I don't know the facts, but it could have been a knee jerk in that in the British 'world', people were NOT allowed personal firearms unless they were an official part of the military. (just guessing on my part)

The inference is that anyone that would have a gun/rifle, etc. would be trained on its use. It's not the professionals and trained that scare me with weapons... it's the people that - because of the amendment will buy a weapon and load it and put it in the kitchen drawer - with no training, no knowledge of its use other than what is seen on TV.

Answer 6

Back in the day everyone was part of the "militia." Makes sense if you think about it... gov't for the people by the people = ordinary citizens have the right to possess guns. History revisionists want to say "well-regulated" should mean gov't control. but that was not the Framers' intent-- hence the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Answer 7

Read the MILITIA ACT of 1786 !
Welcome to the militia , you as an American citizen are part of the militia , from age 16 to age 65 .

Protection from all enemies foreign or domestic , that includes protecting oneself from criminals .

The states with the worst anti-gun laws have the highest crime rates .

Who would you rather try to rape , a woman , totally naked and empty handed or a woman , totally naked holding a .38 revolver ?

If the GOVERNMENT should become a tyranny , we'll just have to change it back . If that means storming the White House , we'll do it .

Our sons and daughters in uniform will join us , too .

Answer 8

The meaning of this is that the American government cannot unduly enforce anything upon American citizens that is not within the rights of the law. By allowing the American people to keep and bear arms we have the right to protect our selves to the fullest extent of the law. The government is ran by the people for the people and to even out the control of the Militia as private citizens we can have any weapons we choose.

Answer 9

What if the state becomes a non free state. Therefore, the free state would become the people who would seek out freedom within them selves. If the high state could be creating the crime against the free state. Did you know Korea had once a president; now it has " a high officer" ruling over it. So who got to rule there; the people with guns or with out?

Answer 10

So let me see if I understand.

9 of the 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights set restrictions on what government can do.
1 of the 10 Amendments sets restrictions on what citizens can do.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
.