Purely semantic question regarding the Constitution?

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.

Is there anything in this statement to imply that it is necessary for those Arms to be kept by a well regulated Militia? Or is it simply an explanation of what this rule is doing in the Constitution, but that the right of ANYONE to keep or bear arms shall not be infringed?

I realize the definition of "infringed" is more applicable to current law... so feel free to define that as well.

tonalc, you're wrong, a later amendment to the Constitution made the rights protected from restriction by the federal government protected from restriction by the state governments as well.

tonalc, you're wrong, a later amendment to the Constitution made the rights protected from restriction by the federal government protected from restriction by the state governments as well.

Answer 1

If you take these words as written as they should be then what it says is the State may have its own Army to defend itself and maintain security within the State.

The right by all people to bear arms means just that. Actually all the laws passed that infringe upon a law abiding American is illegal and unjust law.

The reason for State Militia and for the people to be armed is to prevent its own Government from seizing control of it people and throwing out the Constitution. An unarmed people within a country is at the mercy of the Government.

Answer 2

The Militias are composed of the people and are necessary to keep the government from becoming tyrannical.

Unless the people have the right to keep and bear arms, they cannot band together to form a militia now can they.

So yes it is an explanation of why the second amendment exists.

Further explanation can be found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson entitled the Articles of the Federation. This work is basically the blueprint for the constitution and it gives great insight to the logic and intentions of the founding fathers when they wrote the constitution for this great nation.

For the second amendment to have any meaning what so ever, you cannot pass any law to make it illegal for a citizen to not be able to posses any weapon that our government possesses to insure that the people have the tools to overthrow the government if the need arises.

Answer 3

When that was written we did not have a standing army of more than a few hundred poorly trained men. When the British attacked in 1812 it was necessary to call out all who had weapons to defend the homeland on home soil. Again during the civil war as each country attacked the other men who were not part of a formal army took up arms to drive away the enemy.

The founding fathers saw the necessity of keeping arms and the right to have them because it deters a would be king or dictator from gaining too much power. It is designed to protect the home from the home. Much as the National Guard (what is left of them) are today. Today people engage in target shooting, hunting (Dick Cheney) and erradication of critters unwelcome such as wild dogs or cats that attack ranch animals and for protection of property of all sorts. Personally that is fine with me as long as they do not use the weapons to commit a crime or to usurp the rights of others.

Answer 4

There is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects.

Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state or private restraints.

Answer 5

It means what it says...that all Americans have the right to keep and bare arms...EXCEPT those who have been convicted of a felony. They gave up that right when they committed the crime.