Do Republicans want to follow the 2nd amendment exactly as it's worded?

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."

Wouldn't the way it's worded mean that anybody who wants to bear arms must be a member of a well regulated militia? So are all you gun owners in a militia? Doesn't the "well regulated" part mean that the government can regulate which arms people can bear, and which citizens can bear them? Is this how the government can justify banning weapons like stinger missiles and automatic machine guns from the people, and they can ban criminals and people with mental illnesses from owning them? If the government can make it illegal for me to own a stinger missile can they also make it illegal for me to own a handgun? What if they want to ban all guns and only allow swords?

No militia means militia, as in a state militia. The people are ordinary citizens but when they report to their militia they have to follow orders like any military unit.

What do you mean playing with words? I'm just going by what our founding fathers wrote.

So if all able bodied men between 17 and 45 are in the militia, should they be the only ones to have guns? Also, if they are to be "well regulated" how are they regulated?

Answer 1

Each article of the Bill of Rights specifically denotes "people" or "government". If the writers meant the right government of government to bear arms, they would have written it that way.
Article 1, section 8 already gave the Congress the power to establish and Army and Navy, and to declare war.

Answer 2

NO! Here is what "Militia" means, as defined in Title 10 of the U.S. Code (U.S. Law):

"TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(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. "

Basically almost all males ages 17 to 45 who aren't on active duty and women members of the National Guard! So any 17 year old male who is not part of the National Guard or on active duty is part of the militia under this law according to 311 (b)(2) above - the "Unorganized Militia".

I have no problem with limiting ownership to the classes defined in 10 USC, since retired military are part of the retired reserve. I think a lot of men over 45 and most women might not like it, since only women in the National Guard would be able to own guns. I would love to see what the ACLU would do in that case (since this law has already been determined to be Constitutional). Just it's mere existence is the regulation you are looking for. The law IS the regulation, just because you don't know aout it doesn't mean it's not a regulation that affects you.

Answer 3

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms is an individual right for each American , not a collective right only given to the police or the government, or to the National Guard. The basic reason for the 2nd Amendment is to provide the right of the people to resist a terrorist government, or at least give them hell.
As to the Republicans standing for the 2nd Amendment, the Republicans have become just like the Democrates, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, they have no respect for the rights of the individual American, just the group and the collective.

Answer 4

Well, not exactly. The first 10 amendments to the constitution are not a laundry list of our rights. They are limitations placed on government. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Is a limitation on government not a limit on the rights of individuals.

The right to life is contingent upon the right to self defense and as John Locke put it about 500 years ago. Self defense requires the ability to bear arms because any defense without weapons is an imaginary one and will always end the same way, in favor of the attacker.

Gun control isn't about guns its about control. Like the comic says if guns kill people ink pens cause forgery.

Answer 5

There has been a ton read into what that means. So much read into it that the supreme court has refused to hear 2nd amendmant cases for a long time. Our current supreme court is hearing a case from a gentleman in Washington DC where it is illegal to have a handgun in the city limits unless you are a retired police officer.
Since washington dc passed that law their number of murders has increased substantially.
So we will see what the supreme court decides.

Answer 6

To answer your question;

A Militia is a normal citizen who is called to arms no training required, and no group to join. Militia in the 1700's were farmers, bankers, and workers who had a rifle and could be called upon to fight any invader that threatened the US usually under a military officer. Once the threat was dispatched then the militia was disbanded and they returned to their everyday jobs.

That being said, I do wish to have the right to defend my country as did the militia of old, by having the right to bear arms.

Answer 7

yes..except the Militia is "the people",not some National Guard...read Jefferson's writings...you ramble a lot in your "question",mentioning several different topics that cant all be answered in one paragraph...it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide anyway..something the NRA and gun owners have been hoping for for quite awhile...the friend of the court briefs being filed will contain the writings of many of the framers of the constitution and will show what they meant....that "THE PEOPLE" are just that...citizens of this country....The High Court hasnt ruled in many years on a firearms possession issue...the DC gun ban will be the first in a long time...

Answer 8

You play with words as does the ACLU and the mindless/ignorant liberals who all believe that Jefferson meant for a separton of church and state (ie: freedom FROM religion instead of freedom OF religion).

Answer 9

We already have our Supreme Court's definition. We certainly do not need some lib's definition. I think they studied it in depth and decided it meant we have the right to have guns.

Answer 10

Republicans aren't concerned with the Constitution.
They want to replace it with the Bible and set up a theocracy.