A well regulated militia.....right of the people to keep and bear arms....???

mongoose's picture
Rank: King Kong | 1,233

"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."

I'll give my interpretation of this:

When this was written down, people were afraid of crazy Brits invading their homes, so a militia composed of armed men could defend against them.

But it does not give anyone, and everyone the right to bear arms.

We do have a well regulated militia: It's called the National Guard. And their right to bear arms is not infringed.

Does not sound like it meant to give non-militia members the right to bear arms though.

Comments (19)

Dec 14, 2012

So the second amendment is the only one not guaranteeing individual liberties? How strange.

You are ignoring this "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It sounds like to me that the right is given to the people, namely because we'd just fought against the Brits and our founding fathers were concerned about government run amok. Their concern is legitimate today and perhaps even prescient.

Dec 15, 2012

Besides the right to own a firearm for self-defense, hunting, or whatever else, the Second Amendment is about giving the people a last line of defense against tyranny so that they can protect "the security of the free state." Three times in the past century, tyrannical governments have disarmed the people and then systematically exterminated the ones they didn't like. I'm talking of course about Germany, China, and Russia. So, whether or not you agree that people should be able to own guns for self-defense, remember the defense against tyranny part.

Also, the National Guard is not a militia. A militia is not controlled by the government, the NG definitely is.

Dec 15, 2012
Texas Outlaw:

Besides the right to own a firearm for self-defense, hunting, or whatever else, the Second Amendment is about giving the people a last line of defense against tyranny so that they can protect "the security of the free state." Three times in the past century, tyrannical governments have disarmed the people and then systematically exterminated the ones they didn't like. I'm talking of course about Germany, China, and Russia. So, whether or not you agree that people should be able to own guns for self-defense, remember the defense against tyranny part.

Also, the National Guard is not a militia. A militia is not controlled by the government, the NG definitely is.

Amen.

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
-Adolf Hitler, dinner talk (April 1942), in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, pp. 425-426.

Every communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. Yet, having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China. We can also create cadres, create schools, create culture, create mass movements. Everything in Yenan has been created by having guns. All things grow out of the barrel of a gun.
-Mao Zedong, "Problems of War and Strategy", 1938.

Dec 15, 2012
Texas Outlaw:

Besides the right to own a firearm for self-defense, hunting, or whatever else, the Second Amendment is about giving the people a last line of defense against tyranny so that they can protect "the security of the free state." Three times in the past century, tyrannical governments have disarmed the people and then systematically exterminated the ones they didn't like. I'm talking of course about Germany, China, and Russia. So, whether or not you agree that people should be able to own guns for self-defense, remember the defense against tyranny part.

Also, the National Guard is not a militia. A militia is not controlled by the government, the NG definitely is.

First of all, that "last line of defense against tyrannical governments" rationale no longer applies. Me and my neighbors' firearms are useless against the weaponry of our armed forces.

Second, a militia IS controlled by the government. In the Constitution, do you know who has the authority to call up and organize the militia? The United States Congress (U.S. Const. Art. I, SS 8, cl. 15). In the Constitution, do you know who has the authority to direct the militia? The President of the United States (U.S. Const. Art. II, SS 2, cl. 1). The government calls up, organizes, and directs the militia.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitu...

Dec 15, 2012
ThaVanBurenBoyz:
Texas Outlaw:

Besides the right to own a firearm for self-defense, hunting, or whatever else, the Second Amendment is about giving the people a last line of defense against tyranny so that they can protect "the security of the free state." Three times in the past century, tyrannical governments have disarmed the people and then systematically exterminated the ones they didn't like. I'm talking of course about Germany, China, and Russia. So, whether or not you agree that people should be able to own guns for self-defense, remember the defense against tyranny part.

Also, the National Guard is not a militia. A militia is not controlled by the government, the NG definitely is.

First of all, that "last line of defense against tyrannical governments" rationale no longer applies. Me and my neighbors' firearms are useless against the weaponry of our armed forces.

Not sure if you are aware of this, but you can own a semi-automatic weapon just like the military. I am aware that the military has access to full-automatic firearms, but you would be surprised at how ineffective FA actually is, and how many soldiers actually opt to use SA instead. When the government comes knocking at my door, I am going to feel a lot better having a few AR-15s at my disposal than my granddaddy's hunting rifle.

Just my $0.02

    • 1
Dec 15, 2012

You're partially right when you say that the constitution doesn't give anyone the right to bear arms. It doesn't. But that's because the constitution doesn't give any rights...it serves to reaffirm that they exist and cannot be "given" or "taken away" by anyone

Dec 15, 2012

Written in 1791 when ordinary citizens needed protection from Indians and Brits. We live in a different era now. There is something called the police.

Dec 15, 2012
JamesHetfield:

Written in 1791 when ordinary citizens needed protection from Indians and Brits. We live in a different era now. There is something called the police.

What are the chances that you sleep with your front door locked at night or avoid the 'bad areas' of town...even though there is something called the police?

Regards

Dec 15, 2012
cphbravo96:
JamesHetfield:

Written in 1791 when ordinary citizens needed protection from Indians and Brits. We live in a different era now. There is something called the police.

What are the chances that you sleep with your front door locked at night or avoid the 'bad areas' of town...even though there is something called the police?

Regards

Just read about the Koreans defending themselves in the 1992 LA Race riots. Damn, I am conflicted on this issue.
You might be right. I don't have an answer.

Dec 15, 2012
JamesHetfield:

Written in 1791 when ordinary citizens needed protection from Indians and Brits. We live in a different era now. There is something called the police.

Did the police get to that school in Connecticut in time to stop the shooter? Do you really think that if someone breaks into your house with a gun, that you will be able to stay safe for 5-10 minutes until the police show up?

Some people believe that the police can protect them. Those people are wrong. I for one want to be able to protect myself and my family in case something bad happens. I don't want to have to rely on anyone else, especially not the police.

Dec 15, 2012
Texas Outlaw:
JamesHetfield:

Written in 1791 when ordinary citizens needed protection from Indians and Brits. We live in a different era now. There is something called the police.

Did the police get to that school in Connecticut in time to stop the shooter? Do you really think that if someone breaks into your house with a gun, that you will be able to stay safe for 5-10 minutes until the police show up?

Some people believe that the police can protect them. Those people are wrong. I for one want to be able to protect myself and my family in case something bad happens. I don't want to have to rely on anyone else, especially not the police.

I don't know man. I am so conflicted on this issue. The guard needed to have firearm training and have guns to defend the school against such an invasion.

It was the argument that we need to arm teachers that was making me mad.

Dec 15, 2012
Texas Outlaw:

...Do you really think that if someone breaks into your house with a gun, that you will be able to stay safe for 5-10 minutes until the police show up?

Some people believe that the police can protect them. Those people are wrong. I for one want to be able to protect myself and my family in case something bad happens. I don't want to have to rely on anyone else, especially not the police.

I think the average response time for police is just over 10 minutes...which is going to feel like an eternity when you are locked in the bathroom, hiding in the tub.

As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."

Regards

Dec 15, 2012

If someone has decided that they would like to shoot up a school, then gun control or not they are going to do it. There are plenty of industrialized countries with strict gun control laws, but they simply don't work or are not effective. The only thing gun control laws will do is disharm the citizens who will use them for defense. The criminals and gangs will still have their guns no matter what the government does.

Dec 15, 2012
Comment