Do you support the second amendment as much as I do?

Question

I absolutely believe that the Federal Goverment may not infringe on the right of any State to arm those citizens it chooses to in order to form a "well regulated militia." Are there those of you who are so misinformed like the newest version of Rudy Guiliani, who think the amendment actually says something else?

Answer 1

I believe the operative word is "regulated," especially the "well-" part. Americans don't do well with supervision or restrictions, both of which are implied by that statement. If the constitution were written today, there's no possibility that the 2nd Ammendment ever would be included; there's no need for it. The intention of that ammendment is to keep the government in check and keep open the possibility of revolution under tyrrany, and while it could be argued that we're in such conditions now (the Patriot Act, etc.), the national mentality is no longer one of unsteady emergence.
Do you really support state governments arming their citizens just in case something happens?
God help us...

Answer 2

Yes, agree!

A "well regulated militia" means a well armed populace of honest citizens in modern lingo, for the necessity of security as the amendment indicates.

We must bear in mind that the 2nd Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which was written EXCLUSIVELY for the rights of INVIDIDUALS, so for this reason alone, the 2nd Amendment cannot be construed to mean something else.

In addition, it specifically says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Answer 3

I think you got the wording wrong, wikipedia has this:

"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."

Or

"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 latter was ratified by the states. It specifically says the people have a right to keep and bear arms in both versions. It says nothing about any State arming citizens it chooses, and very clearly states that citizens have a right to bear arms and this right shall not be infringed.

Answer 4

Giuliani, during his time as mayor in crime-ridden New York City, apparently believed like a lot of "big city" mayors that stricter gun laws would help control violence.

As he seeks to grow into the Presidency of the U.S., he appears to be realizing that more restrictive gun laws work AGAINST law-abiding citizens and AGAINST law and order.

All of his serious Democrat competitors for the Preidency (Hillary, Obama and Edwards) all want far stricter gun laws, including the return and augmentation of the oppressive Clinton Gun Ban, now sponsored by Caroline McCarthy (D-NY). The renewed bill would re-classify and ban more guns than ever before. This would include ALL semi-automatic shotguns, including the Remington sporting shotgun that hypocrite John Kerry posed with, trying to win sportsmen's votes, even though he was trying at the time to ban the gun.

Answer 5

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is a justifier included as support for the all important part of the second ammendment you chose to leave out.

Answer 6

I believe in the second amendment, but I'm not sure what Guiliani's current position is..

Answer 7

the second amendment grants any law-abiding (no felony convictions) citizen of the United States the right to "keep and bear arms". it is an individual right-period.

Answer 8

The 2nd Amendment is the ONLY thing that gives us the ability to protect all of our rights.

Nobody will ever take my guns.