What does the Second Amendment really mean?

Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares a "well regulated militia" as "being necessary to the security of a free State", and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms. "My take is "if you want a armed militia, you need armed people and they should have the right to own arms." But others say it is a rule only for armed militias.

Who is right and why? Asked by Gary4books 49 months ago Similar questions: Amendment Sports & Recreation > Outdoors.

Story At the time it was written, the Second Amendment referred to militias that were organizations of private citizens who could be (and often were) called up on short notice for the common defense. They were expected to bring their own personal weapons (muskets, bayonets, etc. ) and supplies for short term service. The organizations themselves often owned more sophisticated weapons like cannons that could be manned by the private citizens when they were called up.

When the Brits marched on Lexington & Concord they were attempting to confiscate the artillery and supplies held by local militia units like the Minutemen. The Founders considered militia units to be necessary (and they were right at the time) both for defense against local enemies (Indians, and the French and Spanish powers on the borders) and against oppressive local government, then the Brits, but they had a deep suspicion of local government's tendency to become oppressive as well. Those guys were genuine revolutionaries after all.

They had first hand experience in overthrowing an oppressive government by armed force and they believed that the ability to do that was a good thing. Note that the gun control types often claim that the Amendment was never intended to apply to military weapons and that the Founders could not have meant that the citizens were to be allowed to hold high tech weaponry like Stinger missiles or heavy artillery.In fact, high tech (for the time) weapons were precisely what they meant, although in those days, that meant black power cannons, mortars and small warships. Taken literally, the Amendment allows for citizen militias to organize and to hold everything from machine guns to nukes.

If they could have looked a couple of hundred years into the future the Founders might have phrased the Amendment a bit differently. Militias were common and necessary in the days before large standing armies and high tech weaponry. They mostly died out after the Civil War when it became obvious that amateurs were just massacred when they went up against highly trained and well supplied professionals.

They were replaced by State sponsored, trained and supplied military units like the Reserves and National Guard, which are not citizen militias in the traditional sense. The Constitution doesn't speak to private ownership of firearms for personal defense, subsistence hunting and sporting use. Probably because it simply wasn't considered.

In those days virtually everyone (except maybe in the urban areas, and there weren't many of those) owned firearms as a matter of course and nobody ever expected that they wouldn't in the future. They wouldn't have felt the need to guarantee the right to hold weapons for personal use any more than they would have felt the need to guarantee the right to own an axe for chopping firewood. Short answer: Citizen militias are obsolete and no longer exist.

BUT the Second Amendment is still there and the Constitution provides a mechanism to amend itself. The "solution" is to amend the Constitution, and, if there isn't enough political support to do that, then maybe the people think there's a very good reason not to. And that, after all, is precisely the way it's supposed to work.

This is probably unanswerable, but I'll try. The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) was passed to allay fears that the national government could become too large and powerful. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill... The text of the Bill of Rights is set forth below: Amendment I fn2 Annotations Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II Annotations 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. Amendment III Annotations No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV Annotations The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V Annotations No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI Annotations In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Amendment VII Annotations In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII Annotations Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment IX Annotations The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X Annotations The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendments.html Scholarly analysis and until recently, judicial opinion, has held that the right to keep and bear arms was a collective right belonging to the states rather than an individual right. Much has been made of the somewhat awkward phrasing of the Second Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms With all due respect to the most learned judges and legal commentators who have discussed this matter at length, they overlook one glaringly obvious matter.

The Bill of Rights is a listing of individual rights, not state’s rights. Except for the mention of the states in the Tenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights is silent with respect to the states. This makes sense since the Bill of Rights was a set of restrictions upon the federal government with respect to the citizenry.

Logically, does it make any sense to think that the in the second amendment, the drafters would have inserted the guarantee of the right of a state. The only intellectually honest conclusion that one can reach was that the drafters were conferring an individual, not a state right. However, the Liberal Orthodoxy that citizens don’t really have this right has been the law of the for since the thirties.

Since the Supreme Court has agreed to be hear a case on this point, there will some action in this area by next summer. In all honesty, there are several fringe groups out there that have non-mainstream positions that should be discussed. One camp holds that the Second Amendment protects the right to wear sleeveless attire.

Now this is such a goofy position that no one would pay attention to it, except that they have a slick advertising campaign. Below is a picture of their spokesperson.

?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=C06051C8BA2A5A2CD237793BDC38A1C5A55A1E4F32AD3138 Her good looks coupled with her sweet voice and the sultry background music have made the TV ads quite successful in getting men to sign up for the group, the SCLU-- the Sleeveless Civil Liberties Union.

They say that when their next ad with the lady in short shorts on a Harley is displayed during the Superbowl, they’ll recruit ten million additional members--all male. There is also a fusionist group that isn’t sure what the Second Amendment really means , so this group favors bare armed people bearing weapons. Their avatar looks like a recruit for our new Askville calendar.

The other group, which has caused a turmoil within the scientific community, insists that the original text meant something different entirely. Conservationists and ecologists warn that if it is adopted, the balance of nature will drastically shift. Below is a cautionary poster from a group that has taken out some time from its crusade against global warming to warn us all of this even greater danger.

Algore is going to be writing his next book about the grave and imminent danger of arming bears. It will undoubtedly be hyped for a Pulitzer, even though its premise is based on upon dyslexia more than anything else. When brought to his attention, she just shook his head and said, "Its the Supreme Court’s fault!"

Sources: cited above and personal opinion Snow_Leopard's Recommendations Right To Bear Arms, Second Amendment Mug The Torch with No Flame - A Second Amendment Message For The Generations Used from: $3.67 In Search of the Second Amendment Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5 (based on 6 reviews) Right to Bear Arms, Second Amendment Car Magnet Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can't End the Battle over Guns (Inalienable Rights) Amazon List Price: $19.95 Used from: $9.99 Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5 (based on 1 reviews) The Seven Myths of Gun Control: Reclaiming the Truth About Guns, Crime, and the Second Amendment Amazon List Price: $16.00 Used from: $5.39 Average Customer Rating: 4.0 out of 5 (based on 43 reviews) The Second Amendment: Preserving the Inalienable Right of Individual Self-Protection Amazon List Price: $5.95 Used from: $1.90 Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5 (based on 2 reviews) The Second Amendment Primer: A Citizen's Guidebook to the Sources, and Authorities for the Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Used from: $5.90 Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5 (based on 3 reviews) The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary story of the Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government & an Armed Populace 1787-1792 Amazon List Price: $30.00 Used from: $20.00 Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5 (based on 3 reviews) .

The Supreme Court is about to decide this In taking on the case of the DC Handgun ban. I think the second amendment means that everyone who is not a felon and has not been committed to a psychiatric hospital has the right to own and use handguns, rifles and shotguns as the wish as long as they don’t infringe on anyone elses rights with them. Lawful use includes protection of self and others, hunting and target shooting.

I hope the handgun ban will be struck down. It certainly has not reduced crime in DC or anywhere else. A militia can be able-bodied armed citizens, not just the National Guard..

You are correct Though many make the argument that this is not a personal right there is nothing to indicate that. As with most of the BOR the intent is to limit government and keep rights in the hands of the people. In order to ensure that tyranny by government can be defended against it was viewed by the framers as critical for the people to have access to the means to defend themselves and the principles they believe in and that involved the people having the responsibility to protect their rights, as armed citizens if necessary..

I believe we need to look back at the mindset of the colonies to answer that question The purpose of the second amendment was so the state could defend itself against an overbearing federal government. During the times of the colonies, every white landowning man possessed a weapon and could be called up to serve in the state militia. Therfore, the militia, especially a well organized one, would be the state national guard - although not under the control of the president or DOD but the governor.So, unless you belong to the state militia, you should not have the ability to own a gun - I think if the US ever gets a supreme court to hear the case with judges who understand the constitution, this will be the end result - no more gun ownership by private citizens and only by those people in the state militia.

" (14 answers) "Second amendment of the constitution question.

Looking for a clothes tree for drying them outdoors.

What do you think Obama really believes about our second amendment rights.

Second amendment of the constitution question.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.