Second amendment, 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.
Question: "Militia" and "State" was (is) the context, do you feel "personal" separate from "State" and "Militia" is included in this statement of the Second Amendment?
2007-02-13 02:30:10 · 8 answers · asked by edubya 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, it's a personal right. At the time, "militia" referred to the body of men able to serve in an emergency. It didn't refer to "on duty" personnel. They were always referred to as the "select militia" because they'd been called up, or "selected" for active duty. So the amendment refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" it refers to individual citizens, the very people who would be called up in a national emergency. You see, in those days, men brought their guns with them when they reported for duty. There was no "government issue". So in that respect, it's pretty clear the right to bear arms is an individual right, not a collective one, confined to active duty military units like today's National Guard. Nevertheless, those who want to outlaw private gun ownership in this country disagree, and the debate goes on...and on...and on...
2007-02-13 02:57:12 · answer #1 · answered by texasjewboy12 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know how you could form a militia without the citizens having their own guns. The context of this was also written to include the fact that the citizenry may have to rise up against their own government if it became tyrannical (IE. as the English government did towards the colonists)
Most people don't know that this ammendment actually came from England's attempts to disarm the colonists during the early phases of the Revolution. At that time gun rights were guaranteed through the English Declaration of Rights which allowed for the right of self defense and specifically did not restrict gun ownership.
So for all of you gun control nuts out there. The Second Amendment was written in the context of self defense based on previous English law.
2007-02-13 02:45:56 · answer #2 · answered by meathookcook 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it means that the people of the nation have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, especially if they are needed for the militia. Just because our militaryhas its own rules, doesn't mean our Bill of Rights can or should be changed. I don't own a gun, I've never used one, I don't recall ever even touching a gun, but I know that I have the right if I decided I wanted to.
The People still have a right to become a militia if they wanted to, but personally, that should only be a last resort, as in if the national guard and other military branches are incapacitated for whatever reason. If they can't protect us, we must do it ourselves.
2007-02-13 02:51:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sometimes the people feel seperate from State and Country. The RIGHT to bear Arms, was a right given to us by our forefather's in order to defend ourselves against "tyranny, and governemnt", which is in the Constitution. There are hints to us in those words. Basically it means WE WILL NOT BE CONTROLLED, and if the government ever tries to, turning a deaf ear to the people and their wants for this country we call America, the Land of the FREE, the Home of the Brave, WE THE PEOPLE have the RIGHT to kick their az*zes, and WE WILL! God Bless America. We are FREEDOM, and WE will NOT lose it!
2007-02-13 02:40:05 · answer #4 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well... due to the context of the time.. I would say personal was intended... it wasn't easy to run off and get a gun in those days... so if you didn't already have one you wouldn't be much help to a militia.. and if one person were to supply all the equipment it would almost be more of a freelance army than a militia.
2007-02-13 02:38:46 · answer #5 · answered by pip 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, the government felt compelled to guarantee its right to keep and bear arms. Of course they also wanted to stick it in the middle of amendments pertaining to the guarantees of the rights of the people. After all, had it read:
A well educated populace, being vital to the success of a free republic, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
Only well educated people could keep and read books.
2007-02-13 02:36:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"People" have the right to keep and bear arms
"People" have the right to free speech.
If one means all people, so does the other. You can't pick and choose.
2007-02-13 02:43:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no it's not. And the time it was written it was a different world. Maybe it's time to change it?
2007-02-13 02:38:25 · answer #8 · answered by sydb1967 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋