can someone clarify this 2nd amendment for me please?

Question

"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."

also why is it important to our nation

Answer 1

It simply gives US citizens the constitutional right to own firearms.

Answer 2

It means that # 1 a well regulated Militia is necessary to keep the States free and secure and # 2 we the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

From the writings of our Founding Fathers we find that the Militia they referred to is we the people.

Heck over in Switzerland you'd swear the 2nd Amendment was really in force there, because adult males age 18 - 45 are required to have at least 1 Handgun in their home (this is why the crime rate is low and Switzerland, this is also why Switzerland has not had to fight in a War since 1815, because they are armed and ready for War).

Answer 3

WOW you asked a big question. Politicians argue over this one till it makes your head spin. The ironic thing is that the conservatives insist on limiting rights to just those specifically espoused by the constitution. Yet they ignore the militia cause entirely.

The constitution was written at a time when all citizens came out to protect their community. They created the local militia and kept their community safe. They also needed guns to provide food for the family and protect their property.

It was probably inserted due to the fact that the British Govt. confiscated the weapons in the colonies as a matter of course to prevent rebellion. Its rather ironic that this issue actually furthered the case for rebellion.


Now, we have a police force, national guard and federal armed services. The community militia has, not only been abandoned but it was outlawed after the civil war.

In this age those aspects of society have been largely forgotten so the militia phrase seems incongruous it as many things were a compromise in the document. One side wanted free rein on guns others wanted them regulated. This was the compromise.

It no longer works well today as we are much more crowded, guns are much more dearly and tempers are much less under control than they were then.

Answer 4

It depends on who you listen to. Gun control advocates will tell you that this means that only members of the National Guard or regular military have the right to bear arms. Many pro-gun people will tell you that back in the old days, every able bodied male was in the milita, and it is old language.

If you are hung up on the term "Militia", remember this:

10 USC 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Every able bodied male in this country is in the milita, so I guess we can own whatever we want.

Answer 5

Debates on this question get really amusing, because the Democrats who usually support the "living constitution" are like "the framers intended it to be only for militia..." and the Reps who support "original intent" are like "but in the modern context, it means that we have a right to bear arms..."

Most moderates think that it's still somewhat valid law even though the nature of militias have changed a bit, and support the idea that people should be able to get a gun as long as they meet certain criteria (aren't suffering from a psychological disorder, have a pretty clean criminal record, et. al.)

On an unrelated note, many claim that Nazi Germany began when the government started limiting who could own guns.

Answer 6

In the post-colonial days, there was no formal Militia; the people were the militia (remember the "Minutemen?"). Thus, the people had the right to protect themselves and their country against foes, both foreign and Indian.

However, the Supreme Court had determined that once each state had implemented the formation of a State Militia, or National Guard, the need for the people to protect themselves and their country was no longer necessary.

Thus, the Second Amendment's interpretation was that it is unnecessary to arm the people for defense of country, and the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right for people to bear arms.

Answer 7

As currently interpreted by most federal courts, it prevents federal regulation of firearms.

It has not been incorporate against the states (in the same way the 7th Amendment and the Grand Jury clause of the 5th Amendment have not been) so it does not limit state regulation of firearms.

With the exception of the 5th Circuit and the DC Circuit, all other federal appellate courts have interpreted as providing a collective right (on the part of the states) to allow state militias (what we call the national guard nowadays) to be armed.

The 5th Circuit and the DC Circuit have interpreted to be an individual right of private citizens to have firearms, but again still subject to unrestricted state regulation.

That's the current legal interpretation. If you want my personal opinion, it's obsolete.

Answer 8

It's open for interpretation still...some suggest it's only for an army to have arms...but there is reference to the "people" to keep and bear arms.
Which means ordinary citizens.
Shall not be infringed is also for interpretation....does this mean laws banning arms for criminals is unconstitutional..it could be interpreted as such if you use the 9th amendment...it's all complicated stuff and that's why there is always arguments and hearing and stuff to get judges on the bench that will interpret the constitution the way they view it.

Answer 9

This simply states that congress shall pass no law that prevents states from forming things like the National Guard. Many people believe that this ammendment allows people to have guns. This is a common fundamental misconception. "bearing arms" in the time of the constitution, didn't really mean holding a gun. If anything, it meant more of having an army, or a military group. The ammendment was really created so that in the case of a tyrannical government take-over (not unlike Great Britain in America), then the people reserve the right to defenf their states.


You guys are getting this wrong, it doesnt mean "you can own guns" because if it did, then banning felons from owning firearms would be unconstitutional.

Answer 10

It means that congress cannot make any laws that will keep people from owning guns, and/or from forming a militia should the country be attacked from enemies outside or within the country.

Answer 11

Not sure if this question is sarcastic or not but, the second amendment states that the US has the right comprise a well regulated military, and for everyone to be entitled to a gun.