The Right To Keep and Bear Arms

[Tigermike 3,717]

Amendment II

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.

For some reason I thought there would be more of a discussion of the 1st amendment than there was. So now lets look at the 2nd amendment. Are you for or against gun control?

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant the pre-existing right of individuals, to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia let alone a well regulated one, is not required to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd amendment just as the 1st is under attack from the left.

Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.   The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

While proponents of gun control will attempt to tell you the 2nd amendment is only for maintaining the militia, there is no indication of that in the writings of the men who wrote the constitution or the bill of rights. The gun control people will attempt to spin their BS in a way to make legal gun owners appear to be the bad guys. When in fact it is the criminals who are breaking the law. Yes there are people killed by legal gun owners and legal guns every year. But if a person (man or woman) is in a state of rage and mad enough to shoot someone, don't you think they would just as easily kill with an automobile? A knife? A baseball bat? Poison? Are you planning to ban any and all objects that can kill? What about the criminals? How do the gun control folks plan to get all the illegal firearms? They don't and they have no idea! Do the libs advocate taking away the firearms of their bodyguards? Until they do, they should shut up! Even after they do, they should shut up!

[MDM4AU 338]

[rexbo 104]

The middle phrase set off by the commas stands out pretty clearly regarding the people's rights. The last phrase 'shall not be infringed' is not referring to the Militia, nor to the security of a free state, it can only be referring to the phrase 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'. In addition, the word 'people' is used in many of the other Bill of Rights, and everyone agrees there that it is an individual right, and so they must agree with this one too.

This one little sentence is not hard to understand. I have never understood why there would be a debate, unless of course you do NOT believe that the right of the people to bear arms is necessary for the security of a free state, and you want to infringe on that right...

[Ranger12 53]

In simple terms, it means that the government is not the only institution that has the right to bear arms and have sole control of all arms. It means the citizens have the right to their individual protection also. This is also a safeguard that if the government was to ever become a monarchy or dictatorship, it would not have sole ownership of all weapons. With the citizens of this country being able to own their own weapons, that helps keep things in balance and makes any wannabe dictator think twice about overthrowing the government.

[DKW 86 7,899]

This is THE right that sets us apart from all other countries. The right to a "Possible revolution if the government gets out of hand.

[Tigermike 3,717]

It also means that should the US military somehow be eliminated or defeated, it would be extremely hard to take over the nation if the majority of the populace was armed. It would be much easier to take over an unarmed country than to have to take and hold an armed populace. I understand that thought was much more valid in the 1700's. But it is still valid today.

Presidential candidates views on gun control:

John Kerry on Gun Control

Democratic Party shouldn't be for the NRA. (Nov 2003)

Supports assault weapons ban & Brady Bill. (Oct 2003)

Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)

Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)

What has John Kerry said, how has he voted?

George W. Bush on Gun Control

If gun laws are broken, hold people accountable. (Oct 2000)

First, enforce the law; then keep guns from wrong people. (Oct 2000)

Restrict lawsuits against gun makers. (Sep 2000)

Government should pay for voluntary trigger locks. (May 2000)

Project Sentry: juvenile gun laws & school accountability. (Apr 2000)

Avoid Columbine via gun control, values & character ed. (Apr 2000)

Would sign, but would not push, gun restrictions. (Apr 2000)

Ban automatic weapons & high-capacity ammunition clips. (Apr 2000)

More laws & enforcement on juveniles with guns. (Apr 2000)

Best gun control is more prosecution & certain jail. (Dec 1999)

Supports gun ownership for protection and hunting. (Dec 1999)

Raise legal age for guns to 21; ban certain ammo. (Aug 1999)

No child-safety locks on guns; concealed carrying ok. (Jun 1999)

Arrest for guns in school; track juvenile offenders. (Jun 1999)

No city lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jun 1999)

Gun restrictions OK within basic right to own guns. (May 1999)

Gun show checks OK; ban guns near schools & kids. (Apr 1999)

Assault weapon OK; waiting period not OK. (Apr 1999)

What has President George W. Bush said, how has he voted?

[MDM4AU 338]

First, enforce the law...

DING-DING-DING-DING!!!!!!!! Johnny, tell 'em what they've won!

[rexbo 104]

It means the citizens have the right to their individual protection also. This is also a safeguard that if the government was to ever become a monarchy or dictatorship, it would not have sole ownership of all weapons.

Actually, I believe the only intent of the Second Amendment is the second part of your statement, there is no wording talking about individual protection, the words are pretty clear "...being necessary to the security of a free state".

I do not buy arguments that the justification for the Second Amendment is to protect your right to hunt, or have a handgun in your house for personal protection, the verbiage is just not there; but I would buy the argument that you should have a M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank in your backyard to protect against a Kerry run Government...

[Ranger12 53]

It means the citizens have the right to their individual protection also. This is also a safeguard that if the government was to ever become a monarchy or dictatorship, it would not have sole ownership of all weapons.

Actually, I believe the only intent of the Second Amendment is the second part of your statement, there is no wording talking about individual protection, the words are pretty clear "...being necessary to the security of a free state".

I do not buy arguments that the justification for the Second Amendment is to protect your right to hunt, or have a handgun in your house for personal protection, the verbiage is just not there; but I would buy the argument that you should have a M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank in your backyard to protect against a Kerry run Government...

But, think about this, if the government goes askew, then it is a matter of individual protection sort of. I agree that the second amendment is about bascially keeping the government in check which is why I made that issue the majority of my post. However, given what we know about our forefathers, I think there was intent for personal protection also to a degree.

[AUloggerhead 2,516]

Well, I'm in favor of the right to keep & bear arms but Dang! From a sentence diagramming point of view, the sentence structure of the 2nd Amendment leaves a lot to be desired. Quick, someone tell me what the subject of the sentence is -- well-regulated militia or right of the people? (It's tricky, isn't it?)

I've had people insist to me that the phrase "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, ..." refers to a state's National Guard. I know, I know -- the Guard could be called up anytime by the Army or Air Force. But, these people also insist that becasue a state's Guard can be called out by the Governor, then the reference to a well-regulated militia must translate to mean the Guard and not the individual gun owner per se.

It doesn't help that the 2nd Amendment is worded the way it is. I've had others try to convince me that the founders wrote it this way (confusing) on purpose.

[rexbo 104]

Well, I'm in favor of the right to keep & bear arms but Dang! From a sentence diagramming point of view, the sentence structure of the 2nd Amendment leaves a lot to be desired. Quick, someone tell me what the subject of the sentence is -- well-regulated militia or right of the people? (It's tricky, isn't it?)

I've had people insist to me that the phrase "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, ..." refers to a state's National Guard. I know, I know -- the Guard could be called up anytime by the Army or Air Force. But, these people also insist that becasue a state's Guard can be called out by the Governor, then the reference to a well-regulated militia must translate to mean the Guard and not the individual gun owner per se.

It doesn't help that the 2nd Amendment is worded the way it is. I've had others try to convince me that the founders wrote it this way (confusing) on purpose.

There was no such thing as a formal "National Guard" in those days, the militia was the armed people themselves. The National Guard of today is much more formalized and state (gov't) controlled than the Militia of the late 1700's. I do believe the 2nd Amendment meant for the State governments to regulate the armed people, I do not believe it meant for the formal uniformed National Guard, subject to Federal control, that we have today. A State's 'militia' should be wholly separate from the Federal government.