Why is there a divide on the meaning of the second amendment when it is very clearly written?

Question

It obviously protects the right of all citizens to own (possess) and bear (carry) firearms.

Well the constitution is not a "live" document. If it were, you precious free speech (1st amend.) could be taken away also. Lastly, in 2005 the Federal DOJ interpreted it to be very clear when contrasting the terms "militia", "the people", "bear", and "keep" with other uses throughout the document. It clearly means that the people (you and me) have a right to keep and bear arms in case we are needed. People are the "militia". You cannot cherry pick the amendments that you like. You must accept all of them.

Answer 1

Bound's hubby here:

The Second Amendment, according to the Liberals, guarantees the state the right to maintain a militia. By their interpretation, they believe the Second Amendment is a collective right, not an individual right.

By the virtue of the Supreme Court not hearing challenges to the Second Amendment and letting Federal District Court and Circuit Court of Appeals rulings stand, insures that the Second Amendment guarantees individual rights. As some of the people above noted, you left out the provisions concerning the militias. This illustrates their ignorance of history, in many cases. Under US Code, I believe, Title 10 Section 311 defines the concept of the militia. There are two types of militia. The organized militia and the unorganized militia.

The organized militia, as defined by US Code, consists of the National Guard. When President Truman federalized the National Guard in 1948 making them a deployable force at his discretion the same as the regular Army and Army Reserve removes the National Guard from the militia argument of the Liberals.

The unorganized militia, as defined by US Code, consists of all able-bodied males ages 18-55 and all able-body females with prior military experience ages 18-45. The unorganized militia is exactly that... unroganized. They do not hold rank, they do not drill and they do not train. They are the closest thing to the Minuteman of Revolutionary war fame. In Miller vs. United States (1934?) Miller tried to defend his possession of a sawed off shotgun in violation of the Nataional Firearms acr of 1934. The Court ruled that he could not possess the sawed off shotgun, but provided a great service for the gun owner.

In it's ruling, the Court stated that the private citizen in his capacity as a member of the miliia was obligated to possess a firearm of current military style and caliber.

According to the Miller rulinng, which has never been overturned by the Court, the Court expects the private citizen/militiaman to be able to fight, side-by-side with the regulars and not only be supported but supplied by the stocks (inventory) of the regular army. This means that there is a legal justification, if not mandate, to own and possess AR15 type firearms contrary to the desires of the gun-banners.

To truly understandthe position of the founding fathers on the Second Amendment, you mudt read oth the Federalist papers and the Anti-federalists papers. Regrettably, these are two books that get little more than mere mention in contemporary history books. If students today were really well education on the foundations of American and it's government, the gun-banning Liberals would have fewer followers.

Without the Second Amendment, that the gun-banning Liberals fear so much, there would not be a Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment insures government recognition and compliance with the balance of the Bill of Rights.

Here endeth the lesson.

Answer 2

Allright, I'll admit it right now: I'm a foreigner, an actual living, breathing Canadian who doesn't ride a Polar bear or live in an igloo or make beaver soup. YOUR Second Amendment is one of the most brilliant pieces of writing from a century which was filled with brilliant writing. Rather than say anything positive, it puts LIMITS on the power of Government. If we do not understand this concept today, then it is OUR fault, not theirs. THEY knew what they were talking about. It is SUBSEQUENT generations who have twisted their words into meaning something they never were intended to mean. MILITIA includes ALL able-bodied men. That was the law in 1793 and it is the law today. THIS is where the Federal Government actually gets the legal power to institute a Draft. As to the universality of arms possession, it goes back at LEAST 600 years previously to the writing of your Constitution. King Henry II made it law that every man was OBLIGED to possess and have ready certain weapons for use in time of war. In comparative battlefield power/protection, the modern equivalents of these weapons would be a 'Fritz' helmet, a Second Chance Level III vest and a LAW rocket. Before that, it was regarded as perfectly normal for EVERY man to protect his own life, his own family, his own property. They realized then, as we do not now, that police and authority can only be REACTIVE and that the only person who can protect YOU when the need arises is... YOU. Stormgirl, you are 'way off base. The Amendment is nothing to do with hunting or recreation. It is about DEFENSE of the person, the property, the family and only THEN the state.... and the Declaration of July 4, 1776 confirms the RIGHT and the DUTY of the People to revolt against an oppressive Government. The Second simply tells the Government that it MAY NOT disarm the People. Read my book on the Assize of Arms. You Americans are SO lucky! Gawd! What the rest of the world wouldn't give to have YOUR rights! You can not LOSE those rights... but it is entirely possible that you might THROW THEM AWAY. .

Answer 3

Read the other Amendments that refer to what a 'well regulated militia' constitutes.

Militias were a concession to the state governments that allowed them to protect themselves from an imperious federal government. A militia is a state run organization, whose officers are appointed by the states, and which follow a federally mandated regimen of training and equipping. It basically describes the National Guard.

While the Second Amendment does not specifically give all Americans the right to bear arms (which means use them, show them, menace with them), the Federalist Papers do support that position.

As to why there is a divide? It is because it is one of the most obscure, unclearly written Amendments that we have. It is only clear to either side, where individual parts support their positions.

Answer 4

A people denied the right to bear arms can not defend themselves against a tyranical government. Note the countries which have MAJOR issues with human rights violations: China (Tienamen Square), Russia. It is the unarmed populations which are subjugated and denied their "inalienable" rights. True, one does not want a 7 year old carrying a gun, but remember - Alexander the Great was a general at the ripe old age of 18. Many of those who fought to free this country were under 21. That is still true today (funny they are entrusted with the safety and security of the world but are denied the right to have a single beer). It is not age but maturity and mental stability which should be the criteria. Denial of the right to bear arms is a sign of a government which seeks to subjugate it's people and eliminate their capacity to defend their rights against an out of control government. This is the reason We The People were given this fundamental right. We wrestled this land from the English George the Third and now we must be wary of the Texan George the Third (he is the 3r president named George). The continued elimination of our rights as a free people will go on unabated so long as we allow our ability to defend ourselves to be stripped away. Look at the rampant disregard for the law of the land engendered it the bills passed by congress (illegal ex epost facto laws granting retro active acceptance for torture and other transgressions of the Genieva Convention which violate 1. the US Constitution and 2. interanational treaties which are the secondary law of the land) and the acts of unconstitutional invasive and predatory fiat promulgated by his majesty G.W.B.
We are already being told what we can and can not eat, say, or do ever more as time goes on. So much for the right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness engendered in the Declaration of Independance. So much for the fact that the Constitution is an instrument of restraint upon the government and reserves the rights not specifically ascribed to the goverment to remain in the very capable hands of the PEOPLE. By definition the Federal, state or local government which in toto or in part deny one the right to own/carry arms is in gross violation of the Supreme Law of the Land - The Constitution of the United States of America. Any President, Senator or Representative who votes in support of such abuse is in strict violation of his/her oath of office to support and defend the Constitution.

Answer 5

Please don't confuse Liberals with the facts.
"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."
There seems to be some confusion. Yes, it talks about a "well regulated militia", but it also says the "right of the People". You don't have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms. And why do so many people think that just because you CAN own firearm you HAVE TO own firearms. If you don't like guns don't own one! But don't take away my RIGHT as a person to be able to own a firearm to protect myself, my family and property, or to use it for hunting and recreational purposes.

Answer 6

The Second Amendment is an antiquated law that no longer serves a purpose in our society. The only reason it was added is because the patriots still had some resentment to their treatment by the British. The REAL divide is between those who believe in that amendment and those who don't approve of it. After all, some people shouldn't be allowed to handle firearms. Haven't you seen that fat guy handle that shotgun in the training sequence of the first Police Academy movie? Enough said!

Answer 7

Because there has been a large antii gun movment in America, it began when Kennedy was assinated with a mail order rifle. To me yes its clear cut, espically if you study the author of the ammendment Thomas Jefferson, study further the Federalsit papers by Madison. If this isnt nough, look at history from the 20th Centrary,Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia,. Japan and China implimented gun control inordr to create a totalarian state

Answer 8

The problem is instead of reading the Constitution that is written in plain English we interpret the Constitution. By doing this, we can make it say what we want it to. Same goes with the Second Amendment people do not read it they interpret it and make it say what they want it to.

Answer 9

because some people have military type guns and it is not necessary to defend yourself with a machine gun. The divide is over protection versus people using the guns to commit crimes, etc. It also divides people on how much of a weapon they need to defend themselves with. It just shows how much times have changed since the document was written, they drafters of the constititon had different guns and weapons in mind than what we have today.

Answer 10

Because it effects our safety from those who should not bear arms I am not anti-gun by any means, but I think the divide comes from whether or not ALL people who are American citizens SHOULD bear arms. Do you want a nine year old child playing with a semi-automatic handgun, for example? How about a homicidal person recently released from a mental hospital? How many guns should they possess? You see where I am going with this. I also would add that anyone who can't see who they are shooting, should not bear arms.