Why are so many people unable to understand that the Second Amendment states that the MILITIA ...?

Question

is to be WELL REGULATED, and that the right to keep and bear arms is NOT to be infringed?

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, [This is the goal]

being necessary to the security of a free state, [This is the reason for the goal]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. [This is the means to achieve the goal]

My point is that The People are the ones who are to regulate the militia and that is why the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed, as was outlined by Tench Coxe and Richard Henry Lee. What I find especially interesting is the argument that since we have a standing army we need to abandon our defenses against the abusive use of a standing army.

Answer 1

The Second Amendment affirms the individual right to keep and bear arms. It is the second amendment among ten amendments concerning individual rights, commonly referred to en masse as “The Bill of Rights”. The phrase “the people” in it means the same thing as “the people” means in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments: individual citizens. In fact, the Tenth Amendment distinctly references the federal, collective, and individual entities as “the United States”, “the states”, and “the people”.

Answer 2

The militia does not have to be well regulated, the second amendment does not force anything upon the federal government, it prevents the federal government from doing things.

Article 1 section 8 states that the federal government can arm the militia, but they don´t have to, just as an individual can keep arms, they don´t have to keep arms.

Basically the theory of the founders was that if the feds did not keep the militia up, then the citizens would, that is why they prevented the feds from taking arms away from these very citizens and why they prevented the feds from stopping these citizens being in the militia.

The part "a well regulated militia" is not the goal of the 2A. As i have said, it is merely that the 2A protects the militia and this militia is important because it is the last security of a free state.

I´m not sure what the point you are trying to make is, but the militia is divided into two parts, most individuals are in the unorganised militia, and there is an elite part called the national guard. The feds could easily say it is well regulated.

But again, it does not matter, as the 2A does not require the feds to do anything at all.

As for the "right" to keep and bear arms and it shall not be infringed, it is every day, criminals, the insane, children are not allowed to have guns.
Basically it protects those individuals who are keeping guns for the militia, and who may one day be in the militia. That does not mean an individual cannot use their guns in other legal ways, it just assumes that because they are being "selfish" so to speak, they are at the same time looking after the community. The whole checks and balances system works on the basis that humans are selfish and want power, so they force these people to fight for power amoung themselves and it works.

Answer 3

The Second Amendment 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.”

The reference to “a well regulated militia” was not thrown in just for filler. Adult males were required to serve in the states’ militias, at the time that the Constitution was adopted. This service was “necessary to the security of a free State.”

To claim that people should be able to own guns in an unregulated manner defies the wording, the purpose and the meaning of the Second Amendment. You can’t claim the rights of one section of the amendment and discard the reasoning of the first section. That makes no sense.

The Second Amendment is a state’s right versus the federal government, not an individual right. The states have “well regulated militias.”

Answer 4

There is more to it than what you are saying. You apparently don't understand all that is involved in the amendment. The militia was and is , " We The People." Our forefathers wanted the people to be armed with the modern weapons of the times so that we would not only be able to protect our selves from foreign invaders, but also to keep our own govt. honest and in line so that it would not become another tyranny as was Britain. The right to keep and bare arms is for the people, not for the govt.

Answer 5

I am guessing that you are saying the the militia is the ones with the right to keep and bear arms, and that it does not protect the individual rights to bear arms.

That being said, who do you think a militia is made up of? INDIVIDUALS!!!!

Answer 6

shall not be infringed means No Fringe laws no "if this" and "if That" no state by state bans etc.

and it is bear not bare celto............

smart *** is wrong the US Army was formed before the Constitution it meant a Peoples militia AND individual rights to bear arms. Liberal idiot.

Answer 7

The point that the left refuses to allow is that the militia did not issue arms. It was common knowledge, and presumed that you could supply your own.

Answer 8

I don't think you understand the amendment. There is no militia anymore, instead it has been replaced by a standing army, so the rationale is outdated.

Answer 9

because they don't understand that guns ARE NECESSARY TO KEEP US FREE (mainly from our own government!)

Answer 10

whats your point?