2nd Amendment is misquoted.?

Question

Actual text 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."

Can someone explain why Americans think that this mean regular citizens have the right to keep weapons in their home? The amendment clearly states that the right to bear arms is only for the purpose of maintaining a Militia (to defend out country against invasion). So if you're not part of the Official US Militia, you should not be allowed to own a weapon. And nowhere in the amendment does it say you have the right to keep a weapon in your house.

A Militia keeps their weapons in a centrally located arms depot, and when the country is invaded by outsiders, the Milita goes to this central depot, collects their personal weapon(s) and defends the country.

Can someone expalin why this is so difficult for Americans to understand? And maybe why it's so difficult for lawmakers and law enforcement persons to understan

Still, everyone below is only referring to the part of the Amendment that states "right of the people to bear arms". No one has mentioned anything about the first part that says "A well regulated Militia". The point of my question is that only citizens who are official members of "A Well Regulated Militia" should be allowed to own weapons. If you also happen to be a private citizen, then fine. But you MUST be part of the "Well Regulated Militia" in order to own a gun. This is the part that is misquoted (or overlooked, whatever term you want to put on it). Each state should have it's own Militia, and if you want to own a gun, then you have to join that Militia and they give you proper training on your weapon of choice. If you're just a joe-blow citizen, you shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon, and weapons should not be available to you. That's the point (sorry, have to spell it out for the morons below who can't really read so well and have no idea what the amendment says)

Answer 1

The argument that citizens have a right to keep and bear arms to protect them from tyrannical government may have been relevant back in the day, but it is utterly irrelevant in the 21st century - even if every citizen in America had a gun, the government has the bomb. "The people with the guns" would not win a war against the government.

In that case, does every citizen have the right to a nuclear weapon in order to protect themselves from tyranical government? Of course not!

Incidentally, I don't accept your point about weapons being collected from a central store. Do you believe that, for example, members of militias such as Hezbollah or the Janjaweed (or even the IRA when they were active) have no weapons in their homes, but collect them from a central store before they go to 'work'?

***In response to your added information:***

I believe you are confusing 'well regulated militia' with a country's 'official' armed services. The point is that a militia is a *private* armed group (sometimes called a 'paramilitary' organisation). In a sense, the word refers to that group of armed citizens which exists to fight *against* the official army, whenever government exceeds its rightful power.
The constitution of the USA enshrined the right of citizens to form just such an armed group for that very purpose.

(None of this is to say that I believe the 2nd Amendment is relevant in the 21st century!)

Answer 2

If it was so easy to understand, why did it take so much twisting and bending of the truth for you to explain? There was no "official" US militia when the Second Amendment was written. The "militia" IS armed citizens. The Amendment doesn't say "being necessary for a safe and secure state", but a free state. This is done by arming citizens to protect their freedom, not by the government to "defend our country against invasion". And tell me how you missed- "The right of the people"? Yes, that must mean the government. And tell me how someone can be armed while their weapons are locked up un an armory. But let's not take my word for it:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)

Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

I rest my freakin case.

Answer 3

Tell the Viet Cong that smalls arms can't beat a nuclear equipped government, and the only one misquoting the 2nd amendment is you. It is a right to own and bear arms as an American, and no law can trump that right.

Answer 4

i guess you are not an american.
the second amendment gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms to protect them from their government becoming to tyranical.this was done due to the british rule under which we lived for to long.
a militia as mentioned in the 2nd is made up of CITIZENS and does not pertain to the regular military.whatthis means is that any citizen who isnt a convicted felon or a mental patient has the right to own a firearm and protecct themselves and their families.some towns in america require gun owner ship and have extremly low crimerates as a criminal wont attack someone who will fight back.

Answer 5

I am not a US citizen, but I have read up on the US constitution as part of my studies.
I disagree with the 2nd amendment, but I agree that it is valid in that it allows people to bear arms. It is not being misinterpreted.
When it was written, the militia were armed civilians, called on at short notice. They were as organised as, say, voluntary rural fire fighters are today. They came if they were called.
If you don't like it, vote against its supporters, that's your right.

It does not, however, preclude to banning of automatic weapons. These should be banned. The VTech gunman may have shot himself after fewer victims if he had to keep reloading, it certainly would have slowed him down..
Opponents might have more luck if they targeted banning automatic weapons.

Answer 6

Like everybody else and their aunt Lizzie, you're interpreting the US Constitution to fit your opinion. I interpret it differently because it also says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The key word of course is *people*. The only way to truly realize what the quoted amendment means is to ask those who framed and wrote it...and they ain't talkin'.

Answer 7

Militia can mean different things. The original idea was to prevent an overpowerful national govt from robbing us of our freedoms. Now I think it is needed so people can protect themselves from criminals.

Answer 8

What percentage of the American populace has actually read the Constitution? And even more frightening, what percentage of them think it's the right to "bare arms" and not "bear arms"??

Most people just believe what they hear on talk radio, television, and from the church pulpit.

Answer 9

It is an individual right,not a collective right, and this has been upheld in court.

Do you think the first amendment should be a collective right, meaning you do not individually have the right to open your pie hole

Answer 10

You say Tomato I say Tomoto.
Who cares what the 2nd Amendment says.
If the government that works for us tries to take away our guns.
We will have a civil war... guess who would win? yea, the people with the guns.