2nd Amendment Question for Gun Control Advcoates?

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."

The comma in question is to separate militia from personal right to bear arms, correct?

Well going with these ideals, the militia part would still be intact, no? And with a militia, who provides the fire arms? Isn't a militia a SELF-ARMED organization of people for defense and/or emergency para-military service?

Anyone see the problem?

Mike1942F:

It says required, but it does not say anything about me having additional weapons in my home. I actually have 2 Muskets, and probably closer to 25lbs of Smokeless and Black powder.

Like I said, it does not say anything about additional fire arms.

Also, with the same ideals of Mike1942F, then we could take our whole country back in time where abortions were unheard of, & gas prices were of no concern.

Atavacron: Just because they DID supply, does not justify that a militia isn't self-armed.

Atavacron:

No, we don't have to be entirely self-armed, but that is part of the definition of militia. Just because a military supplies you with weapons does not mean you lose your rights, as they are aiding you, aide them in the fight. At the time they had more weapons than soldiers, so it only made sense to better arm people on your side.

To be a top contributor in Law & Ethics you seem pretty ignorant.

Answer 1

When you provide fact and logic to the anti-gunners, you get nothing but rhetoric and insults.
------------------------------...
Here are some quotes from people who actually wrote the Constitution...

"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, THAT ALL POWER IS INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE; that they may exercise it BY THEMSELVES, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed"- Thomas Jefferson 1824

To me that seems like Thomas Jefferson (one of the framers of the Constitution) believes in having an armed populace of THE PEOPLE.

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms"- Thomas Jefferson 1776.

Pretty self-explanatory.

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans* possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison *Note that he says Americans, not militia men.

"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. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."- Noah Webster 1787

If you spend just five minutes researching the history of the Second Amendment, it is abundantly clear that the writers of the Constitution intended on having the citizens of America armed in order to preserve Liberty and defeat invasion. The argument that the founding father's could have never imagined fully-automatic assault rifles is moot. The intent of the Second Amendment was made to fight a corrupt government or invading army. So it is obvious that citizens should have access to the same arms a typical soldier himself would have access to. I am not in favor of being able to own missiles and WMDs, but I think that any law-abiding mentally fit American should have reasonable access to any personal small arms of their choosing. It is my opinion that The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986, the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the Gun Control Act of 1968 are all un-Constitutional, as they all inhibit my, and all American's, right to arms.

Answer 2

People who argue that the 2nd Amendment is only applicable to militias have NO idea what a can of worms they're opening. Because a militia in the modern world would need things a LOT nastier than a couple hand guns or deer rifles. Would you rather have your neighbor own a pistol as a private citizen, or packing 2 AK's and a grenade launcher on his way to Militia drill?

Our founding fathers knew that the best check on domestic and foreign aggression was a well armed populace. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for some people to grasp. I can understand if you want to change gun laws, but STOP claiming the Bill of Rights supports your cause.

Answer 3

If your opposed to the second amendment then don't own guns. The reason people have firearms ranges from personal protection to to recreation. Whether you like or not peolpe have these rights. I imagie someone who has been the victim of 2 violent crimes would be more sympathetic to the right to bear arms. Another thing to consider is not everybody lives in a major city where police respond quickly. In rural areas guns are both a tradition and a necessity. I too used to live in NYC, so I can relate to some of what your saying. However, living in a rural Southwestern area, wild animals are now my biggest threat, and on accasion using a firearm has been necessary. What people don't seem to understand is, that no matter how many gun laws you pass, you can't legislate what people are going to do with them once they purchase one.

Answer 4

I see no problem with the second amendment. In the state of mass. there is a law on the books that requires all men to bring a rifle to church on sunday. ( this law no longer is enforced for those wo actually care) this was so that militia training could be conducted after church on sunday, since it was the only day that every man in town had the day off from work.

Answer 5

The musket law of 1777 required that each household have 10 pounds of gun powder, 100 musket balls, and a gun. The militia was required to train under the guidance of an officer appointed by the state to maintain standards. The state reimburses the citizen (male only remember) for powder and shot actually used in training or battle.
A musket weighs between 10 and 20 pounds and shoots a ball the size of my thumb.
Ready to go back to those days, or do you want your light weight semiautomatic shotgun or rifle?

Answer 6

Not necessarily. The Colonial government DID supply arms to the militia in the Revolutionary War.

Sorry to burst that bubble.

EDIT:

Point being that they were not ENTIRELY self-armed. They were armed by the government. Which also, by definition, allows for the possible legal interpretation that it should be the government's responsibility to arm. That ruling could also preclude an individual from owning arms of their own.

EDIT: 2

And my point vaults past you at the speed of light. The above facts make such an interpretation POSSIBLE when your posts make it clear that you don't believe that's the case.

The problem is that how YOU see it is how you think everyone in the judiciary WILL see it. When clearly there are sufficient gaps in your logic to allow a differing view using the same facts.

That's ignorant...and arrogant.

Not surprising since almost all your posts I've seen so far display both qualities to one extent or another.

Answer 7

The only problem I see is we don't have a national Militia to protect us from the government or upcoming police state. I think the NRA should start recruiting, legal, law abiding citizens into The US Militia, dedicated to protecting the states, by Constitutional rights. This would give the honest, law abiding citizen, hope, that someone has his back. The National Guard has become a puppy of the government, we need an organization of protection, separate of government.

Answer 8

The purpose of the second ammendment is as much to defend us from our OWN government as it is to protect us from criminals and foreign militaries.