What was the Founders intent, when they wrote the 2nd Amendment?

Question

Soon the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether the District of Columbia’s bans on possession of handguns, even in the home, and on having long guns functional for self defense violate the Constitution.

As the Court sees it in D.C. v. Heller, the issue is whether those bans “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.” The federal appeals court for D.C. held that it did.

What say you?

Answer 1

There is little doubt that the 2nd was written for self defense AND defense of the state.

I wonder how the ruling will affect the king of Chicago, Mayor Dailey.


==> note: Someone stated "The second amendment protects the rest of the Constitution" yet the same people who claim this do NOT care about Bush trampling over the 4th amendment.

This is what slogans do to people. They quote them yet do not fully appreciate what they are quoting.

Answer 2

First of all, the Bill of Rights enumerates restrictions on the Federal Government to PRESERVE the rights of the people (individuals and groups).

There are several references in the Federalist Papers (I don't have time to look them up and post them, look them up yourself) to the arms questions. The most moving and explicit references are to a pre-existing and natural (or god-given) right to self protection and the ability to ENFORCE their INDIVIDUAL and COLLECTIVE rights as free men.

The reference to "a well-regulated militia" was to show the intent of the founders that, in order to maintain a free society, that society needs to be able to defend itself against "all threats, foreign and domestic" which includes the oppression of our own government should the need arise.

The FDR administration was responsible for the first infringement with the National Firearms Act of 1934. It was passed very quietly and was touted as a revenue tool after the repeal of prohibition.

The first constitutional challenge was in 1939 and was the only case directly challenging the constitutionality of the act. Since the defendant had been released and charges dropped, there was no brief filed nor did anyone appear to defend the defendant. Hence the Supreme Court ruled according to the brief filed by the U.S. District Attorney's office.

The Attorney was prepared to lose the case and wrote of this after the hearing. He believed that if anyone had showed up to argue "against the act" it would have been overturned on the spot as unconstitutional.

The Supreme court has escaped another hearing on the issue ever since.

The 2nd amendment is the "teeth" in our Bill of Rights and in deed, the Constitution et. al.

I believe the court will figure out a way NOT to hear the case. Spinning it would be to difficult for those familiar with the subject. There are millions of us who are and we're ALL watching!

Answer 3

The Right to bear arms must be understood in context. In the understanding of the foremost political philosophers of the time, Locke and Hume there emerged the idea of the social contract, this contract is the basis for the US constitution, along with libertarianism. The social contract states that existing between ruler and the ruled there is an implied contract that means the ruler must protect his people and insure their prosperity, in the bargain, they give up some of their rights. The right to bear arms ensures that the social contract is maintained, it ensures the populace is armed so that if the social contract is broken, and the leader is no longer holding up his side of the bargain, or the leader is replaced by a foreign monarch or dictator- the people have the power to enforce the social contract.

It's a great idea, but it forgets how bloody stupid and irresponsible people can be!

Answer 4

My take on it is simple; the 2nd amendment does state a well regulated militia which gun control advocates hang their hats on, but the "Bill of Rights" are individual rights and the 2nd amendment is one of those - hence I believe the right to own a firearm is an individual right. Nevertheless I expect the high court to rule opposite of that and begin the long and potentially violent task of ending personal gun ownership.

Answer 5

would desire to or no longer it is because of the fact our founding fathers have been smart adequate to make that area of the form till now the bill of Rights even existed? "The judicial power shall enlarge to all situations, in regulation and fairness, bobbing up decrease than this shape, the regulations of the US, and Treaties made, or which would be made, decrease than their Authority..." you already know there is greater to the form than the 2d exchange, magnificent? the reality there's a 2d exchange means that possibly there replaced right into a 1st and doubtless there are greater. Then there is the different unique stuff it somewhat is easily getting amended and the place the beef and potatoes of our government device is defined. Be very careful because of the fact by ability of questioning the reason of different factors of the government defined by ability of the form opens it as much as question the 2d exchange. that's a slippery slope. besides if the court docket device replaced into no longer the physique who desperate the constitutionality of regulations, who would? Congress? The President? widespread vote?

Answer 6

Just going by the wording: 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 2nd amendment guarantees the right of individual people to keep and bear arms. the 1st and 4th also use the phrase 'the right of the people', and they also refer to individual rights. In the Constitution the government does not have rights, it has powers and authority, only the people have rights.

Answer 7

The intent was that the citizen should be armed so that they could do what the founders did,,, overthrow a tyrannical government. They meant that the Federal government was not to by any means restrict or outlaw any ownership of weapons and that the states could not ban weapon but could make rules. It has been misconstrued because Congress is enabled to raise and fund a militia that that was what was meant. It was not, they were separate thing and documented under separate powers, one to the citizens and one to Congress.

Answer 8

The answer is pretty clear, it was to secure the *right* of the private citizen to own firearms.

It was not to legalize government ownership of firearms, that was already legal. People have *rights* and governments have *powers and authorities*.

Liberals enjoy flip flopping on the Bill of Rights, claiming The People as it appears in the First Amendment refers to them, and The People in the Second Amendment refers to the National Guard or other official government franchised police force.

Answer 9

If only we could bring back from the dead "The Founders" and ask each one what their true intent was. I have a hard time believing that, given the nature of today's firearms and weapons, they would agree that there should be NO control over some types of weapons. Sadly, all they had to work with back then was the black powder musket, and had no idea what future generations would develop in the way of weapons.

Answer 10

The slippery part of this case is that D.C is not a state. If it was a state I would say that the 2nd amendment would be upheld for sure. But in this situation I do not know.