Did you know the second amendment doesn't give you the right to own a gun?

Question

It gives "the People" the right to "keep and bear arms" as part of a "well-regulated militia".

"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."

Answer 1

You're entitled to your own interpretation no matter how wrong it is.

Answer 2

Well, regulated Militia as defined in the constitution doesn't mean didly squat. The new interpitation in King Bush's Patriot Act allows them to confiscate arms and ammunition from the militias of the people if they determine that said militia is a possible threat to the Federal Government.
Which they have done several times since the Patriot Act was passed in order to override the constitution.

Answer 3

I mostly agree with you. I *do* think American citizens have the right to own firearms, but not without incurring a duty to this country's armed forces. I've always wondered why gun control proponents didn't draw attention to this very issue. When our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they did not include the right of everybody to do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences. The whole system is based on the interplay of rights and responsibilities.

For example, we all have the right to practice religion as we see fit, but we have a responsibility not to use that right to carry out human sacrifice. We all have the right to freedom of speech, but we have the responsibility not to use that right to put other people in danger (the old "Fire!" in a crowded theater argument). While we are all very fortunate to have the rights and freedoms guaranteed by our founding documents and paid for by the blood of our brave armed forces, we also inherit the responsibilities that go along with those rights.

The second amendment makes it easy - the right and responsibility are set out in black and white right there and require very little interpretation. In this country, the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is so that this country can have and maintain a well-regulated militia. If you want to exercise your right to own a gun, you must accept the responsibility of being part of the well-regulated militia.

In more modern terms, I think a requirement for gun ownership ought to be service in the National Guard or the Reserves. You can own all the guns you like, but if you choose to exercise that right, you must also fulfill the responsibility set down in our Bill of Rights.

Answer 4

I agree; I don't think the massive standing army that we currently have, nor the fact that you can't conduct a war with a regular, untrained civilian anymore, was imagined by the Bill of Rights drafters. It is true, however, that these words are quite vague. By a so-called "strict interpretation," the second clause does not depend on the first. In other words, using the tools of formal logic (which is how strict interpretationists like to pretend how they read the Constitution), one cannot validly translate the langauge of "A militia being necessary, bearing arms rights are not infringible" to "A persons' right to bear arms is only valid insofar as as they are a member of a well-regulated militia." You can't pretend that the "plain language" of the Constitution says arms are only for militias; neither, though, can the NRA (etc.) argue that the "plain language" of the Constitution provides for unfettered access to arms. We need to move the debate about this (and many other "legal" issues) beyond the bounds of "strict vs. constructionist" interpretation, even beyond the bounds of "intention," (what did the "founding fathers" "mean"). Instead, we need to consider what is actually good and right for our country now, and what interpretation best serves today's reality.

EDIT: my point is actually made by many of the supporters of gun rights, here. So many of them say that they would kill anyone who would prevent them from owning guns. Why? Why have a gun if the only reason is to kill those who would take it away? What is the benefit of a tool that perpetuates violence? And to those who say that it's to protect us from government tyranny, you'd say that if we went and shot the current government, which is clearly a tyranny of the rich, that would be "illegal"....

Answer 5

I think you are misreading the text of the amendment. The first clause "A well regulated militia..." is subordinate to the second clause. Thus, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the key statement. The initial clause, simply explains why the right is important.

Answer 6

It states that the well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, yes. The clauses aren't connected in such a way as to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms, however.

Try my proposed Salt Amendment: "A well-seasoned steak being necessary to the enjoyment of a good dinner, the right of the people to keep and bear salt shall not be infringed."

See? The right of the people to keep and bear salt is absolute. It doesn't depend on their steak ownership.

Answer 7

The intent is that the people should have the right to have the ability to stand up against thier government should that government need to be overthrown. You have to look at the document in the context of which it was written. IT was written when the US colonies were declaring thier independance over an overreaching and dictatorial king. All of our rights were created so that people can not be supressed by thier government. Right to free speech, right to assembly, bear arms, right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. etc. Any person therefore needs to have the right to take up arms and form a militia if needed. If you only have the right to bear arms once you join a militia then what good is the right? What is a militia? can you be a militia of one person?

Answer 8

That is what it says, but that is not the end of interpretation. We don't interpret other parts of the bill of rights so narrowly. For example, there is nothing expressly in the text of the constitution that explicitly says people have a right to abortion or to commit sodomy or to use birth control, but those rights have been found in the bill of rights. To be consistent, the right to own a gun should be analyzed in the same way. We should not say that the constitution should be analyzed in an expansive way to protect the right to have an abortion, but the second amendment should be read in a very narrow way to deny any rights to gun ownership. AND vice versa. We should not say that the second amendment should be given a broad reading to protect individual rights to gun ownership, but that abortion or sodomy are not protected by the constitution because there is nothing in the text that expressly grants you the right to do those things. So to be consistent, I think the Constitution probably does give some protection to the right to own a gun, but the state can also regulate gun ownership to a great extent; just as the Constitution also protects the right to privacy and to your person, so that the state has limited abilities to interfere with your decisions about what to do with your own body.

Answer 9

Is it not strange beyond belief that even thinking Americans , if there is any one fitting the description, hide under written lines to justify what is definitely a piece of anti -life legal phraseology? Whatever might have been the circumstances to have created this particular provision to bear arms, there is no use for such letter of the law to continue with it. Americans, no doubt, motivated by only thing -private profit -have always quoted the legal provision like religious fanatics and dogmatists quoting scriptures to find justification for the ill-effects of such anti-social legislation enacted by a coterie of self-perpetuating clique , we now call a nation. The effects of gun law has caused immeasurable distress and misery to every right thinking human being. There is no gun yet invented that fores in one direction only. Measurestaken to protect individuals from killing have been half-hearted and as it happens, with every new change in law more and more get killed. Americans are indulging in a devil dance and they cannot pretend to be civilsed and respectful of noble values unless they utterly destroy the element of human destruction called guns, The alternative is plain; every few yew years some deranged person will with a gun in one's hands go on the rampage and cause pain, misery and grief. Are there not decent mothers in the U.S.A, to feel for their young ones? Think over it!

Answer 10

well the way i see it, if liberals are going to use a loose interpretation of the constitution, so can those who believe in owning guns. first of all we are the people, second of all what are the standards for a well-regulated militia? and lastly, guns are not outlawed and shuldnt be. if a government outlaws the guns, we the people have a right to impeach them as we choose out leaders. the people are only as good as their government so if we dotn see our leaders fit, we can impeach them if they decide to outlaw guns. guns are a necessary defense, since criminals that shoot mercilessly like the man at VA Tech will get guns illegally. they are already breaking a law by killing so what stops them from getting guns without it being legal.

Answer 11

Sigh.. When will liberals learn to read and comprehend what they're reading?
"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The people means every American citizen not the government...
To the idiot that said the 2nd amendment was written 200 years ago so it's outdated..The other 9 bill of rights were written over 200 years ago as well..I guess we should get rid of those as well huh?
The 2nd amendment was added because everyone has a god given right to defend themselves and a armed populace is the only way to insure the government stays in line.