What do you think were the intentions of the Second Amendment?

Question

Coming from a country where we have very few firearms incidents, and every one is national news when it happens, I can't really understand the resistance in the US to gun control.

The second amendment of the US Constitution gives the citizens of the US the right to bear arms, and is usually the thing quoted in any argument against gun control. However, this right was drafted in the context of raising and maintaining a civil militia. In modern terms, the US National Guard. So, the constitution allows the bearing of arms in the National Guard. In UK terms, this would be the Territorial Army. Why is this then used to argue the allowing of arms, and military arms, for general civilian use?

Quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Second Amendment to the US Constitution:
"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"

OffRoadTaComa04:
Restrict the supply of guns and people can kill people with knives instead. Don't know about you but I think I'd stand a better chance against a knife than a gun. Guns do kill people.

BossBackOCD:
The overall numbers for gun crime in the UK is still quite small compared to the US, where guns are freely available.

The BBC report states: "That represents an average of 27 offences involving firearms every day in England and Wales, with guns fired in nearly a quarter of cases."

That's 9,855 firearms offences every year in England and Wales combined. Remember, in the UK just owning a firearm is an offence. The report is also from 2003, in 2006 there were 11,084 firearms offences (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6372717.stm).

Are there comparable figures for a similar sized area of the US with open gun control?

I'd like to quote someone's answer when I asked this question somewhere else.

"The milita is composed of two parts, organized and unorganized. The organized component has over time become the state National Guard. The unorganized part is composed of those gun owners that heed a call to arms and possibly organize themselves into units during a time of crisis. After the crisis passes they disband.

Since the organized milita could be federalized and used by the national government to suppress other rights (see above), the unorganized milita has to have the right to keep and bear arms, even military types, to defend against tyranny born from within."

Answer 1

Because of the phrase "the right of the people . . " It could just have easily said the "right of the militia, . . " but it doesn't. Whenever other amendments use the term "people" it refers to individual rights. See Amends. I, & IV, IX, X.

Going to the history of the amendment is confusing. It was combined from several proposed amendments relating to the militia; religious objections to service in the militia and the bearing of arms. As I recall the "right of the people . . language was in an earlier draft a standalone phrase that PRECEDED the militia language.

Answer 2

If you research at all the letters and documents left behind by the framers of the Constitution and the debate over the Bill of Rights it is clear beyond any argument that the intent was for the PEOPLE of the United States to retain the right to keep and bear arms.

KEEP IN MIND that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were writtin in the shadow of a recently finished revolution against a tyranical government.

Examples:

Noah Webster
===========
Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.[8]

One example given by Webster of a "power" that the people could resist was that of a standing army:

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[9]

I am not going to repeat here all of the 100s of quotes that make perfectly clear the intention of the 2nd amendment. Follow the link below and you can read *some* of this for yourself.

NEWS FLASH!!!! BBC News Gun Crime Soars!
Don't like that report then just search "great britain gun crime" for many more like it.

Talk about an inconvenient truth!

Answer 3

By reading the militia clause in that manner, you are skewing the original intent of the framers. That interpretation is a 20th century construct. As evidenced through other writings of the framers, it is obvious that the intent was to provide for the right of "the People" to bear arms in their own defense, not to participate in the militia of the day.

The framers would also have a serious argument with calling the National Guard the militia of today since it is federally funded and subject to activation as an auxiliary part of the standing military.

Answer 4

Not just the second amendment. Reading the Federalist Papers and associated musings of the Founding Fathers... it was clear that they wanted an armed populace as a line of defense against any future governments that might turn oppressive on them at some point.

They cut their teeth in the world of George III. And wanted to preserve the right of their progeny to have the same options that they did.

Answer 5

The right of the people to bear arms. The founding father's knew that the government might want to take control again just like how the American Colonies defeated the British. It is our right to protect ourselves. Think about this: If you give half of every law abiding woman in the US a handgun, think of how many less rapes there would be, who in their right mind will try to rape a woman when there is a 50% chance she has a handgun? lol anyways the left-wing liberal democrats who want gun control "infringe" on our rights and try to change them to achieve maximum gun control. However, it IS for the general population to have the right to keep and bear arms for protection. Remember, guns don't kill people, people kill people!

Answer 6

The 2nd amendment is clear in its intent. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Those who interpret this to mean that they can and should own any type of firearm they desire are wrong.

Those who disagree with the the right to bear arms shouldn't.