What is your interpretation of the Second Amendment?

Question

Great answers so far.

Check this out:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

...and let's not forget:

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” —Patrick Henry

Answer 1

The point of the Second Amendment is the protection of all the other amendments.

Why? Its simple: our founding fathers knew that at some point in time our government would acquire too much power, go beyond the scope of the constitution, and become tyrannical in nature.. At that point, it is the duty of all US citizens to put OUR government back in its place.. with firearms if necessary.

Answer 2

The second amendment protects individual's right to bear arms from being infringed by the federal government. The framers included the amendment as a guard against excessive federal power, thinking that state militias would be an effective check against federal power.

I do not believe the amendment applies to state governments. I believe "well regulated" was included for a reason and the states should have the power to regulate guns as they see necessary. I definitely dont think the right to bear arms should be considered a substantive due process right under the 14th amendment, but then I dont think half of the rights that have been interpreted into the 14th belong there.

Answer 3

I think the Second Amendment speaks for itself very clearly.

For those who say the words, "the people" mean the state and not the individual citizens, consider this: the US Supreme Court in a ruling handed down concerning the First Amendment stated that the words "the people" meant the INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS and not the collective state. So why would those same words mean something different in the Second Amendment? Answer: they don't.

For those who say the phrase, "well-regulated militia" means the National Guard, consider this: at the time the amendment was written, there WAS no National Guard. A militia was made up of individual citizens, civilians not a member of any military organization, but under some form of order once assembled and capable of acting in defense of their land.

And lastly, what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do people not understand?

To answer the question: my interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it is my right as an American citizen to own firearms.

Answer 4

The Second Ammendment reads:

"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."

This means that because armed forces are required by government, people should be allowed to carry weapons. The argument that the language implies a connection between the two, that the right to bear arms is limited to those in the 'militia,' is falacious. This ammendment grants individuals the right to bear arms to protect themselves against the militia, not as members of it. Any other interpretation of the text yields a scenario in which the common people are bereft of the right to resist their government like the founding fathers resisted the British.

To suggest that the founding fathers intended people to lack the right to protect themselves from the kind of despotic power grab that they themselves rebelled against is to demonstrate a mind-boggling ignorance of the context in which the constitution was written and the intent of its writers.

Answer 5

It's not like its rocket science until you allow wide interpretation...

Look, its the right for individual citizens to bear arms. At the time it was written, individual rights were very important. The English Government was being kicked out and our new governmnet created. It was folks, back then, who had the guns, who came to gether, to fight for independence. The right to keep and bear arms was very important.

Nowadays, the guns we have available are capable of things only dreamed of in the late 1700's. I don't agree with the average person being able to own full automatic or machine guns. However, I do agree that we should have the ability to purchase guns and keep them.

Look, there's a vicious circle about if we didn't have guns, then crooks wouldn't steal them, and wouldn't have them, and we wouldn't have to buy them to defend ourselves. Sorry, but our history involves and partially revolves around the history of the firearm - handguns and rifles and shotguns. They are here to stay, just like illegal drug use. We can't seem to end the drug trade - so how are you going to stop trade in guns? I don't see it happening anytime soon.

We can "what-if" this one for a long time. Whatever you're viewpoint, guns are here and are an integral part of our society. The second amendment has a proper place in our society. It doesn't force anyone to go out and get a gun, nor do you have to hide your guns (unless they're illegal, and then you're an idiot for having them). You don't have to take them out and show them off to anyone at any time. But you can legally own them without fear of the government coming to take them away.

Americans have a great freedom that is protected by this Amendment - the freedom of choice. Exercise it at your own discretion, and continue to debate the issue. Maybe someday guns won't be necessary - but until then, I'll keep my ability to chose to have one or not, thank you very much!

Answer 6

It means what it says: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

It's the Second Amendment which makes all the others possible. Had there been something analogous to the Second Amendment in the Chinese Constitution, there would have been no Tiananmen Square Massacre.

Answer 7

The framers meant what they said. However, the arms that existed in the 1770s are not the arms that exist today. What arms should be permitted in light of the intention of the framers? Would everyone agree that individuals should not be able to possess nuclear or chemical weapons, even though they are "arms"? Probably, but what about tanks, or anti aircraft missles or fighter aircraft? If we agree that some arms were not intended to be in the hands of the general populace, the question then becomes "where should the line be drawn?"

Answer 8

I'm a Brit, and from my point of view I can see two logical flaws with the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The opening statement 'A well regulated militia being necessary' implies that should a well regulated militia NOT be necessary (i.e. in a country with a large standing army), the amendment does not apply. Also, emphasis on the well regulated. Does that mean only law enforcement/national guard personnel can be armed, any responsible person can be armed or any drunken paranoid can have a gun to protect him from the black helicopters?

Answer 9

I'm not big on guns so I guess that's why I don't care, but I don't see any reason for the population to be armed. It is a 200 plus year old law that needs to be reconsidered. Yes, there are many responsible gun owners , but how many times do we need to hear about kids shooting up their schools and violence in the streets until we realize that just because it says"shall not be infringed", doesn't mean it's right. Things have changed since the time the laws were written. What if the law extended to hand grenades and other explosives? Everyone has the right to possess hand grenades and TNT? Guns serve no good purpose to the general population. There are many laws in this country that need to be re-written or eliminated all together. I know many of you gun owners out there will disagree, but just because a few people 200+ years ago wrote something, doesn't mean it applies in today's society......IMO.

Answer 10

It means that every citizen has a right to own and keep firearms. It was originally included to prevent the government from completely controlling its citizens and to ensure that the checks and balances and the Constitution would protect us from abuse of power.

Hey, what's the government hoping to accomplish by trying to take away our rights to bear arms and giving illegal immigrants amnesty?