CDZ The 2nd Amendment

[Picaro]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Jefferson didn't mean that to include slaves or the 'urban rabble' he detested, so he isn't very useful as an appeal to higher authority. One needs to consider who Jefferson considered 'real citizens' when they run around quoting him; he was not an egalitarian in any way, shape, or form. Jefferson said a lot of stuff in dreaming up propaganda for support the revolution, none of which he ever actually supported after the war was over. And, there is no source to any of his known writings for this cite in any of Jefferson's own writing, anyway, not any that I own; I'll do a search for this 'CommonPlace Book' later and see what it is. I never heard of it.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...(Spurious Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

This statement is not something Jefferson wrote, but rather comes from a passage he included in his "Legal Commonplace Book."

In any case, unfortunately for many NAMBLA logic types on the Right, nothing any Founder said means you get to have a nuclear missile in your backyard or carry your new homemade flamethrower to the Mall with you, along with that bag of grenades and the bazooka.

And for the record I'm all for concealed carry, I just don't need some dead guy to tell me it's okay, is all.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Heh heh. I edit wiki all the time.

Anyway. With regard to use by the States of force, that is the use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.

Best to review those discussions for meaningful backdrop. As it is, The Federalist is rather the blueprint(s) to the Consitution.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The Founders seem to disagree with you....

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

Yep. Great post. I tossed Federalist 28 in with 46. I didn't see your post.

 

[Natural Citizen]

When questions arise with regard to our Constitution, one need seek no further than The Federalist papers.

Though, the Kentucky Resolutions and the Virginia Resolution are great reads, too.

 

[Picaro]

When questions arise with regard to our Constitution, one need seek no further than The Federalist papers.

Though, the Kentucky Resolutions and the Virginia Resolution are great reads, too.

Original Intent no longer applies to anything. The use of original intent died its final death with the Civil War and Lincoln. Oligarchy is now the law of the land, has been since 1862. In any case, most people would hate 'Original Intent' being in force anyway, especially right wingers; they hated the Wall Street types a lot more than they hated aristocrats, which is obviously why the 'Founders' set themselves up as part of an aristocratic class. If they were 'egalitarians n stuff', there would be no Senate, for instance.

Most common people much preferred the Jeffersonians, not the Federalists. The Federalists were mostly swindlers and pirates. The Jeffersonians largely boycotted the Constitutional Convention.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Original Intent no longer applies to anything. The use of original intent died its final death with the Civil War and Lincoln. Oligarchy is now the law of the land, has been since 1862.

Yeah. It sure seems that way.

A lot of people don't know that the Union was voluntary before Lincoln.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

 

[Picaro]

When questions arise with regard to our Constitution, one need seek no further than The Federalist papers.

Though, the Kentucky Resolutions and the Virginia Resolution are great reads, too.

Madison was probably the most honest and consistent Federalist; most of Jefferson's writings are aimed at whatever political goal he had a the moment, and mostly unreliable as indicators of what he really thought, even though he was the most important in the early years than Madison.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you have a point to make?

I believe I made it.

Ah, my favorite word: believe.

Believe means you think something you just made up that doesn't have that much basis in reality.

In this case, it seems to have no basis in reality.

OK...I MADE it.

Fine, and I'm telling you I didn't get it.

So, two choices. Be proud and pretend you made it and everyone can get it, or explain it again so people can get it.

Leo's point is actually quite obvious, if one can put aside bias, and see through the poor choice of wording....

No one ever claimed that the 2nd was not about self defense.

Really? I've claimed it.

The Supreme Court's claimed it.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Now, drilling or parading with arms, would be carrying arms. If carrying arms were protected by the 2A, then drilling and carrying arms would also be protected. They're not.

The NRA also says the this is not the case.

If there's a protection for carrying arms, then there's no need for carry and conceal laws, as it would already be protected.

The NRA’s dream bill could soon become law after quietly moving through Congress

"
NRA bill requiring all states to recognise conceal carry permits set to pass through Congress"

So, why would the NRA support such a thing if there is already a right to carry arms around as one wishes?

 

[Picaro]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

they needed the 2nd in order to get states to ratify the Constitution, the same reasons they needed the other limitations on Federal power, so you're pretty much wrong; the states could decides their own regulations and form their own militias. While it's true we ended up having to implement a full time military anyway, that in no way invalidated the 2nd; it would have been absurd for the Feds to try and enforce gun control in any practical way, and a waste of time.

 

[Picaro]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

Jefferson was an avid sportsman and a good shot; he highly recommended shooting as a sport and great exercise, as well as for self-defense. And yes it is nice, even if it upsets Democrats and criminal gangster thugs that law abiding white people have rights to defend themselves from your Party's hirelings.Another thing you need to get used to that there is nothing you and your ilk can do about it, since few are ever going to give you their guns no matter what laws you pass.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

Jefferson was an avid sportsman and a good shot; he highly recommended shooting as a sport and great exercise, as well as for self-defense. And yes it is nice, even if it upsets Democrats and criminal gangster thugs that law abiding white people have rights to defend themselves from your Party's hirelings.

Another person who makes the assumption there is only Republican and Democrat. You're one or the other, and there is nothing else.

Sorry to disappoint you, I'm not a Democrat.

 

[Picaro]

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

Jefferson was an avid sportsman and a good shot; he highly recommended shooting as a sport and great exercise, as well as for self-defense. And yes it is nice, even if it upsets Democrats and criminal gangster thugs that law abiding white people have rights to defend themselves from your Party's hirelings.

Another person who makes the assumption there is only Republican and Democrat. You're one or the other, and there is nothing else.

Sorry to disappoint you, I'm not a Democrat.

It's a two Party system; your fantasy that you're 'Speshul' just means you're nothing at all. Unless you're a foreigner, you're going to vote to help Democrats and left wngers, whether or not you LARP as something else on the innernetz.

 

[danielpalos]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Our Second Amendment has absolutely Nothing to do with the concept of natural rights, or it would express it in the first clause.

 

[Picaro]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Our Second Amendment has absolutely Nothing to do with the concept of natural rights, or it would express it in the first clause.

Yes. All of the so-called 'natural rights' evolved from Judeo-Christian theology and the culture wars against pagans, and Greek social philosophy. The 'Enlightenment' atheists and Deists merely tried to steal them as their own, especially Locke's fans. Never mind Aquinas, Augustine, or anybody else.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment codifies a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right to self-defense:

…the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

And that case law holds that the Second Amendment recognizes a right to self-defense, along with an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

That was the original intent and understanding of the Framers of the Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Conservatives have contrived this ridiculous myth that armed private citizens act as a ‘safeguard’ against ‘tyranny’ – the quote in the OP is an example of how conservatives attempt to propagate this myth by taking primary source materials out of context, exhibiting their ignorance of that material.

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes a minority of citizens who subjectively and incorrectly perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully and Constitutionally elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people, and ‘overthrow’ that lawful government in a complete disregard for the will of the American people.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

The Second Amendment does not take from the people their right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process; and government cannot be ‘overthrown’ or violently replaced absent the consent of the majority of the people.

Indeed, it is the First Amendment that safeguards the people from tyranny, not the Second; it is the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press that keeps government excess and overreach in check, preventing the manifestation of tyranny – not private citizens with guns.

The Second Amendment ensures the people have ample means to defend themselves from violent crime, prohibiting government from denying the people access to handguns as a means to self-defense, and recognizes the right of the people to carry concealed firearms for the purpose of lawful self-defense:

“[The Second Amendment] protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” Heller, ibid

Clearly the original intent and understanding of the Second Amendment was to guarantee the people their right to personal self-defense, not to defend against ‘government tyranny.’

 

[frigidweirdo]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment codifies a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right to self-defense:

…the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

No, it clearly does not.

That's the Heller majority opinion. A very political piece of writing designed to not be too far from the meaning of the 2A, but pretending to give the right wing what it wants.

I knew a guy who helped on this case. He didn't believe that it gave the right to self defense until he got on this case. They pulled up some stuff from England and used it, while complete ignoring half of what happened in the US. Why? Because that's what they wanted. They wanted to make it about self defense.

No, the 2A NEVER, EVER meant self defense, the right are trying to make it so.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

And that case law holds that the Second Amendment recognizes a right to self-defense, along with an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

That was the original intent and understanding of the Framers of the Second Amendment.

No, it was NEVER, EVER the original intent of the Framers. It's the DESIRE of the right.

Find me one piece of evidence from before 1950 that says the 2A gives a right to individual self defense. I bet you can't.