Can someone explain how the second amendment does not guarantee individual gun ownership?

Question

Ok, I have the constitution open right now. You guys should all know the constitution. If not, here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti
(opened to the BOR)

OK, let's take an excerpt:

The first amendment:
"...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
---OK, this is pretty obvious. Individual people have the freedom to assemble and complain to the government.

The second amendment:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
---OK, this is pretty obvious. Individual people have the right to bear arms. People claim that this means the state can organize a militia, but individual citizens cannot have private weapons. That IS the usual argument for gun control, correct?

So how come the first "right of the people" means individuals, but the second "right of the people" means the state, even though they are only..(I'm counting)

23 WORDS APART!!!

Answer 1

Yeah, people are dumb. They read what they want to read.

Did you hear about the implied right to privacy in the 14th Amendment? That was good one. It's not in there at all, but that must be what it means.

An implied right to an abortion in an amendment about discrimination, and no right to own a gun in the amendment giving the right to own a gun.

Ah, I see how it is.

Answer 2

The Second Amendment declares an individual Right, not a collective right. The states militias are the National Guard and, betcha didn't know, the Highway Patrol. The unorganized militia is EVERY American over 18 yeard old. Nobody has to own a gun if they don't want to. Everybody else absolutely CAN own one or as many as they want, if they choose to.
The PEOPLE is the key words here. We are the People. No politician or judge can LEGALLY deny law-abiding citizens guns just because they don't like them. It's those few that are trying to make illegal and unconstitutional laws against guns because they know the REAL reasons the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights. It is to give US, the People, the power to resist and change an out of control government, by force if necessary. THAT'S what they are afraid of! liberals want us under their thumbs so they can tell us "Do as I say, not as I do." And THAT is the whole truth of the matter.

Answer 3

From what I was taught in college the reason that some say that a person does not have the right to bear arms is because it is for the purpose of a militia. Meaning the military. Back when the constitution was written all males ages 14 years of age and up were part of the militia. So that means if the constitution was taken the way it was originally meant, women could not bear arms, neither could minorities and all boys 14 and up could have guns. Also, the US Supreme Court has ruled that we do have the right to bear arms.

Answer 4

I think you're not taking into account as well that it was written for another time, the dialect was slightly different than our own.

Also you're ignoring the beginning of the sentence in favour of it's ending.

"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."

My guess is the army wasn't overly well armed in the beginning, so it was easier for individuals to have guns, to maintain the militia in times of need. This is just a guess.

Point is that the sentence is a full one, with no periods, the sentence is regarding militia AND individuals, so one should assume that the sentence pertains to those who are individuals in a militia.

Also, for the argument, it doesn't say what type of arms people are allowed to bear, so I for instance, were I a citizen of the USA, if I wanted, should be able to carry a bazooka. It's a type of armament, the same goes for any form of armament like a machete.

If you're going to start second guessing one part based on partial sentences, then others will start second guessing parts based on words.

In the end, I just wish that gun companies in the USA weren't allowed to make profits and advertise. They're worse than big tobacco, because they make tools specifically to kill. Let's face it, if they didn't we'd all have rubber bullets.

Answer 5

Read: United States vs. Miller 307 US 174 (1939). In this ruling, which has never been reversed, the US Supreme court enacted into federal precedent the holding of the Tennessee Supreme Court in Aymette v. State of Tennesses, 2 Humph, Tenn, 154.

The rationale here is that certain weapons are not part of the commonly used weapons of the militia and/or organized armed forces, and the reading of the amendment tends to indicate that this was the intent of the founders.

The Supreme Court has routinely reaffirmed this case over the years. It might be interesting to note, however, that a US District Judge in Washington, DC recently overturned that city's nearly universal ban on private ownership of handguns on 2nd amendment grounds. The case is certainally headed for appeal, however, and I expect the decision to be overturned.

Answer 6

That's easy. Everyone knows that the early American millitias were only made up of polititians. Back then, "The right of the people" really meant "The right of the government" because the signers of the constitution were all about big government and must have really meant that. And why does everyone think that "arms" means guns? The Second Amendment only makes It illegal to chop off the arms of government officials, and that is how it should be. Every day average people should not have protection against chopped off arms, because what if they steal stuff?

Answer 7

Well given the Constitution was written at a time when EVERYONE bore arms, I can only assume that they meant that people had the right to own a gun. Does that mean that we all have the right to walk around with a six-shooter strapped to our thigh - probably not. The greater good prevails on some issues, and given that at the time of the writing people did not live on top of each other like we do now I think we have to make some adjustments for the changing of the times.

As they say guns don't kill people - people with guns kill people. I personally see nothing wrong with owning a firearm as long as you are not a.) a violent offender, b.) too stupid not to keep it secure from children harming themselves with it, or c.) planning on robbing my house (in which case be warned - mine is probably bigger than yours and I am dead accurate - literally).

I would add d.) too stupid not to shoot yourself - but that is just cleaning the shallow end of the gene pool in most cases anyway.

Answer 8

If you look at the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" phrase you'll notice it is set of by commas. It's called an appositive. It, the phrase, (notice the appositive) it defining the term well organized militia ie. the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The men who wrote the constitution were very intelligent men, who had a good grasp of English. They were lawyers, planters, and teachers. Many people who lobby for gun control use the fact that they must have known that as the basis for their argument.

Answer 9

The anti-gun people claim it is the provision about the well-regulated militia. However, since the well-regulated militia is non-existent, as is evidenced by the number of illegal aliens residing in the country and as is evidenced by 9/11/01, the Oklahoma City Bombings, the first WTC bombing and other incidents that have occurred that smack of terrorist activities, the second amendment still guarantees us the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from all these illegal activities.

By taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens, only the criminals have guns and they have big ones -- uzis, AK47s, automatic handguns etc. Let's get our well-regulated militia back -- the citizens of the United States enforcing our constitution and the laws of the land.

Answer 10

The deal is the US supreme court has placed it self as the sole interpreter of the Constitution, and while 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th amendments have been given great weight in protecting individual rights. The great Supreme court has decided that even though it is the second in line the state and not the people have deem the right to control guns

Answer 11

the interpretation is based on the word infringed, not the word people. the govern,ment may not eliminate gun ownership, but it can limit it to some types. for example, an individual cannot legally buy a machine gun, but if an individual is in a special gun club and has the proper storage facility, he can get a license to own one. it is highly regulated, but not eliminated. eliminating the right to own a weapon such as a handgun is an infringement, and is not legal under the us constitution. it is illegal, especially in some states to carry a weapon whether licenced or not in some areas, but to deny the right tro own one will never be allowed by the federal courts.
the only thing is, the ownership of guns is restricted to those who have not had limitations placxed on them for specific reasons sauch as having been convicted of a felony, being mentally unsound, blind etc.
anyone who does not fall into a restriction has the right to buy and own, but may not be allowed to carry or use it except as allowed by law, any kind of legally permitted weapon. the types normally accepted as allowed for personal use are rifles, though not automatic, such as a machine gun, or any weapon capabl;e of firing more than a singl;e round when a trigger is pulled, a handgun, a shotgun capable of holding up to five rounds, and black powder wepons such as the old type of handloaded miuzzle loaders called muskets.
additionally, some individuals can legally own automatic weapons under very limited, and highly regulated conditions if the bureau of alchohol tobacco and firearms issues the required permit. for those who collect guns.