what do you think the 2nd amendment means?

Question

the one where you get to bear arms for self-defense

Answer 1

It means that Americans have the right to have firearms to defend themselves not only from enemies of other countries, but also to defend themselves against a government that might try to strip the people of their rights. As long as people of the country are armed, they can form a resistance. Everytime a government striped a people of their rights first thing to go was the right to have guns. If the people have no weapons then there's nothing to fight back with. I've heard the argument that well now a days they have rockets and missiles and that regular people would be no match. All i say to those people is look at Iraq. The terrorists have small arms and rpg's. We have airforce, navy, army, marines, all kind of special forces, but you gotta admit that they are putting up a fight. With Gorrilla tactics a weaker force can defeat a stronger one. Thats how America was created in the first place. An American Gorrila force against a organized British force and the Americans won. Look at countries that took away guns, Australia, England, the crime and violence went up because they took guns away from the law abiding people. I dont get people who say that people should not be able to buy or posses guns, do they think that the criminals are just gonna say "o well since its illegal to have guns lets just turn em in". Get real, the good people turn in the guns and the criminals just keep theirs. Then the criminals rob the good people because they know they don't have guns to defend themselves. Of course you have to be respobsible with guns.

Answer 2

Check out this quote:
"No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. "

This is from a book called "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" written by William Rawle in 1829. Someone who's time was much closer to the founding father's than we are.

And Stephen the idea of limited technology applying to the 2nd Amendment while you are exercising the 1st Amendment via the internet is amusing.

Answer 3

It's the amendment that secures you're ability to defend yourself from criminals and the gov't.

Maybe you noticed that the founding fathers were skeptical of gov't. Imagine how they would feel if they could see all their work erased and the constitution just a "guideline."

To the first guy - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Sounds like your talking about ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

To the third answerer: Before that they had flint lock, advances in firearms weren't unheard of. The authors of the 2nd Amendment weren't morons, they knew that firearms would advance and they protected your right to own them.

You all seriously have mitigated the Constitution so much there's no infingement you can't rationalize.

Answer 4

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 believe it means our military should be well armed. At the time, the U.S. didn't have much of a military and so the citizenry were often called upon for defense at a moments notice. Since we have an excellent (may I say THE BEST IN THE WORLD) military, it is not necessary for citizens to be armed to protect this country. Pistols are for killing people. Rifles are for hunting animals. Where I live, s.e. Va, there doesn't seem to be a day that goes by where someone is not killed or wounded by another person using a pistol, usually an illegal one at that.
I'm afraid ROCKERCHICK is incorrect thinking you can kill someone who is breaking into your home. In most states, you must prove that your life or the life of your family was in imminent danger if in fact you do kill an intruder.

Answer 5

the right of the individual to bear arms. the government can make laws regarding weapons,but can not keep an individual from owning one without good cause.

steve d. actually the minutemen could get off 2-3 shots per minute.
olde salt. rifles,shotguns and pistols can be military weapons. they have their uses and the military may one day need the citizens help.

Answer 6

" . . ., the right of people to keep and bear arms", in addition to the establishment of a military to keep a free country. It means to me that we have a right to establish and maintain a "militia", however that is continually redefined over the generations, updated as necessary in order to have our country always free, and the right for each and every free American citizen to own and carry firearms, for whatever purpose they deem necessary, whether that be hunting or defending one's home or person. It is much more compreshensive than "the one where you get to bear arms for self-defense" as you state. God Bless you.

Answer 7

this amendment was put in place for to serve the people...not the government. it was a badly worded amendement perhaps and i would agree. however...

what the bill of rights did not expound on in that era is now expoundable. and that is that the people have right to gather and speak and love one another for the purpose to advise/support and protect one another ..as a people as a nation without the harrassments or interference of special interests appealing to/as national principles/forces which undermine same. it is that simple.

if the founding mothers and fathers knew what we know now....they would have included the whyfores of arming oneself and there would be much less commotion. but now as then...the people are largely disabled from speaking (1st amendment) about what is valueable of freedoms. but now...since so many issues of fear have been waged upon the psyche of the american and western populace distracting them from lucid realizations of these values it remains for the philosophers and others which know the purpose and values pertaining to the 2nd amendment to support the 1st.

just know this...the 2nd amendment was not about arming oneself to the disablement of the 1st. and the 1st was not about abuse of either in the processes and practices of prosperity providing for self at the expense or loss to another.

therefore the media must be held responsible for loss of freedoms by abuses and conspiracies to undermine freedoms by non-acknowledgments to these higher principles.

and military must be held responsible for loss of freedoms by abuses and conspiracies to undermine the 1st in support of same and other.

don't worry so much folks.....WE DO NOT NEED LICENSE TO CARE FOR OUR SELF OR NEIGHBOUR.

let us expound now of what the founders could not or did not back then.

be well

Answer 8

It's a complex amendment. However, I believe it to mean just what it says. We have the right to bear arms.

Answer 9

"The right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed" It is pretty straight forward actually. We as Americans have the right to keep and carry firearms as we please. Look at many European countries and how "gun control" worked for them. In many places violent crimes went up 2 fold. Criminals don't care what the laws say, and they will continue to get guns as they please. The only thing they are doing is taking away the guns of law abiding citizens. They are then not capable of protecting themselves. Gun control is a joke. As Charlton Heston said, "from my cold, dead hands" will they take my guns away. God bless America.

Answer 10

It means that we have the right to bear arms to protect our country from invaders and our family from harm