2nd Amendment Unapologetic Meaning

[BasicHumanUnit]

It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.

It is the 2nd Amendment that safeguards the 1st Amendment.

US History 101

 

[danielpalos]

Not in our Second Amendment. The People are The Militia. Well regulated militia are expressly declared, Necessary, not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.

You fool. You have NO CLUE what the US Constitution is all about. Shocking.

People with totally fucked up thought processes like you should NEVER sit on the Supreme Court.

Thanks for the verification and reiteration.

The only one who is Clueless and Causeless, is You.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Shame the Founding Fathers didn't give them the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, isn't it?

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.

The ONLY well regulated militia is the Federalized National Guard and a few States have their own militias.

Yes, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You conveniently left out the part that mentions "The right of the people". There are also the subsequent writings of the Founding Fathers that affirm the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.

Not in our Second Amendment. The People are The Militia. Well regulated militia are expressly declared, Necessary, not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.

Your opinion, now here are a few opinions on the subject of a individuals right to bear arms. You might recognize some of these people/

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"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

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"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 Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 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

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.

It is the 2nd Amendment that safeguards the 1st Amendment.

US History 101

It is the 2nd Amendment that safeguards all of our rights as law abiding US citizens.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.

The ONLY well regulated militia is the Federalized National Guard and a few States have their own militias.

Yes, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You conveniently left out the part that mentions "The right of the people". There are also the subsequent writings of the Founding Fathers that affirm the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.

Not in our Second Amendment. The People are The Militia. Well regulated militia are expressly declared, Necessary, not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.

Your opinion, now here are a few opinions on the subject of a individuals right to bear arms. You might recognize some of these people/

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"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

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"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 Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 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

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

so what; our Constitution is Express, not Implied.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.

Well, there were reasons for ALL of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment protections were to stop the government stifling people criticizing the government, so it would help prevent tyranny.

But also the separation of powers was designed to make sure no one man could get his hands on power and abuse it.

However the 2A was considered the ultimate safeguard. If all else failed, then the people could make that decision.

Actually not.

The First Amendment is the ultimate safeguard against tyranny – it guarantees not only the right of the people to freedom of expression and a free press, but it also guarantees the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the right to participate in the political process, and the right to participate in the judicial process should the political process fail – none of which can be discarded or circumvented by a minority through force of arms.

And again, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to enshrine an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘deter crime,’ and not to ‘combat tyranny’ by means of armed rebellion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.

It is the 2nd Amendment that safeguards the 1st Amendment.

US History 101

Also wrong.

In this and scores of other threads on the topic, no advocate of the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment is a ‘safeguard against tyranny’ has provided any evidence, any lawful citation, any reading or ruling concerning the Second Amendment that identifies when government has become ‘tyrannical.’

Advocates of this wrongheaded notion have provided no lawful, Constitutional process that authorizes an armed minority to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

Advocates of this wrongheaded notion have provided no lawful, Constitutional process that by which the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are suspended, denying the people their right to participate in the political and judicial process.

Advocates of this wrongheaded notion have provided no lawful, Constitutional process that garners the consensus of the people that government has become ‘tyrannical,’ where the majority of the people support ‘armed rebellion’ against a government having become ‘tyrannical.’

Indeed, what is the process by which the Constitution itself is abandoned, the rule of law discarded, and the will of the people ignored justifying ‘armed rebellion’ against ‘tyranny.’

The simple fact is that there is no evidence, no lawful citation, and no reading or ruling concerning the Second Amendment that identifies when government has become ‘tyrannical’; such evidence simply doesn’t exist – it’s nothing but contrived mythology and baseless inference on the part of the political right desperately trying to ‘justify’ the possession of firearms other than the right to self-defense.

 

[danielpalos]

It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.

It is the 2nd Amendment that safeguards the 1st Amendment.

US History 101

Also wrong.

In this and scores of other threads on the topic, no advocate of the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment is a ‘safeguard against tyranny’ has provided any evidence, any lawful citation, any reading or ruling concerning the Second Amendment that identifies when government has become ‘tyrannical.’

Advocates of this wrongheaded notion have provided no lawful, Constitutional process that authorizes an armed minority to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

Advocates of this wrongheaded notion have provided no lawful, Constitutional process that by which the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are suspended, denying the people their right to participate in the political and judicial process.

Advocates of this wrongheaded notion have provided no lawful, Constitutional process that garners the consensus of the people that government has become ‘tyrannical,’ where the majority of the people support ‘armed rebellion’ against a government having become ‘tyrannical.’

Indeed, what is the process by which the Constitution itself is abandoned, the rule of law discarded, and the will of the people ignored justifying ‘armed rebellion’ against ‘tyranny.’

The simple fact is that there is no evidence, no lawful citation, and no reading or ruling concerning the Second Amendment that identifies when government has become ‘tyrannical’; such evidence simply doesn’t exist – it’s nothing but contrived mythology and baseless inference on the part of the political right desperately trying to ‘justify’ the possession of firearms other than the right to self-defense.

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses the security of a free State, as the Intent and Purpose.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.

It is the 2nd Amendment that safeguards the 1st Amendment.

US History 101

It is the 2nd Amendment that safeguards all of our rights as law abiding US citizens.

Subjective opinion, not fact of law.

See post #187, respond with objective, documented legal evidence authorizing abandoning the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the people to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully installed government through ‘force of arms.’

 

[frigidweirdo]

It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.

Well, there were reasons for ALL of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment protections were to stop the government stifling people criticizing the government, so it would help prevent tyranny.

But also the separation of powers was designed to make sure no one man could get his hands on power and abuse it.

However the 2A was considered the ultimate safeguard. If all else failed, then the people could make that decision.

Actually not.

The First Amendment is the ultimate safeguard against tyranny – it guarantees not only the right of the people to freedom of expression and a free press, but it also guarantees the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the right to participate in the political process, and the right to participate in the judicial process should the political process fail – none of which can be discarded or circumvented by a minority through force of arms.

And again, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to enshrine an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘deter crime,’ and not to ‘combat tyranny’ by means of armed rebellion.

I would disagree.

The First Amendment is at the forefront of defense against tyranny. It's something that happens day in, day out.

Every day people are able to criticize the government, protest the government etc.

The Second Amendment is something that happens when the First Amendment has broken down, when people can't criticize the government openly, when they can't protest, that's when you take up arms, that's why it's the ultimate.

That doesn't stop the First Amendment being hugely important, more so than the Second Amendment, because it is working day in, day out, whereas the Second Amendment's power may have had an impact on US politics, but that's hard to judge.

Again, no, the Second Amendment is NOT there fore self defense at all. There's no evidence this is the case other than a bunch of right wingers going to a right leaning court and saying it's so.

Not one single document relates the Second Amendment to self defense.

The right to keep arms was there to protect individuals owning guns so they could fight in the militia, which is the right to bear arms.

Otherwise the Second Amendment doesn't make sense.

"A well regulated militia..."

Who would start an amendment about personal self defense with "A well regulated militia..."?

That makes no sense at all.

If you're going to write an amendment protecting the Militia, start it with "A well regulated militia...", if you're going to start one about self defense, you'd write "self defense.", wouldn't you?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.

Well, there were reasons for ALL of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment protections were to stop the government stifling people criticizing the government, so it would help prevent tyranny.

But also the separation of powers was designed to make sure no one man could get his hands on power and abuse it.

However the 2A was considered the ultimate safeguard. If all else failed, then the people could make that decision.

Actually not.

The First Amendment is the ultimate safeguard against tyranny – it guarantees not only the right of the people to freedom of expression and a free press, but it also guarantees the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the right to participate in the political process, and the right to participate in the judicial process should the political process fail – none of which can be discarded or circumvented by a minority through force of arms.

And again, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to enshrine an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘deter crime,’ and not to ‘combat tyranny’ by means of armed rebellion.

I would disagree.

The First Amendment is at the forefront of defense against tyranny. It's something that happens day in, day out.

Every day people are able to criticize the government, protest the government etc.

The Second Amendment is something that happens when the First Amendment has broken down, when people can't criticize the government openly, when they can't protest, that's when you take up arms, that's why it's the ultimate.

That doesn't stop the First Amendment being hugely important, more so than the Second Amendment, because it is working day in, day out, whereas the Second Amendment's power may have had an impact on US politics, but that's hard to judge.

Again, no, the Second Amendment is NOT there fore self defense at all. There's no evidence this is the case other than a bunch of right wingers going to a right leaning court and saying it's so.

Not one single document relates the Second Amendment to self defense.

The right to keep arms was there to protect individuals owning guns so they could fight in the militia, which is the right to bear arms.

Otherwise the Second Amendment doesn't make sense.

"A well regulated militia..."

Who would start an amendment about personal self defense with "A well regulated militia..."?

That makes no sense at all.

If you're going to write an amendment protecting the Militia, start it with "A well regulated militia...", if you're going to start one about self defense, you'd write "self defense.", wouldn't you?

The Militia was the cops as well back then.

 

[Auld Phart]

Shame the Founding Fathers didn't give them the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, isn't it?

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.

The ONLY well regulated militia is the Federalized National Guard and a few States have their own militias.

Yes, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You conveniently left out the part that mentions "The right of the people". There are also the subsequent writings of the Founding Fathers that affirm the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.

Not in our Second Amendment. The People are The Militia. Well regulated militia are expressly declared, Necessary, not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.

The People are The Militia.

only the people in the military

not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.

only those between the ages of 18-45, NOT in the military.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.

Well, there were reasons for ALL of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment protections were to stop the government stifling people criticizing the government, so it would help prevent tyranny.

But also the separation of powers was designed to make sure no one man could get his hands on power and abuse it.

However the 2A was considered the ultimate safeguard. If all else failed, then the people could make that decision.

Actually not.

The First Amendment is the ultimate safeguard against tyranny – it guarantees not only the right of the people to freedom of expression and a free press, but it also guarantees the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the right to participate in the political process, and the right to participate in the judicial process should the political process fail – none of which can be discarded or circumvented by a minority through force of arms.

And again, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to enshrine an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘deter crime,’ and not to ‘combat tyranny’ by means of armed rebellion.

I would disagree.

The First Amendment is at the forefront of defense against tyranny. It's something that happens day in, day out.

Every day people are able to criticize the government, protest the government etc.

The Second Amendment is something that happens when the First Amendment has broken down, when people can't criticize the government openly, when they can't protest, that's when you take up arms, that's why it's the ultimate.

That doesn't stop the First Amendment being hugely important, more so than the Second Amendment, because it is working day in, day out, whereas the Second Amendment's power may have had an impact on US politics, but that's hard to judge.

Again, no, the Second Amendment is NOT there fore self defense at all. There's no evidence this is the case other than a bunch of right wingers going to a right leaning court and saying it's so.

Not one single document relates the Second Amendment to self defense.

The right to keep arms was there to protect individuals owning guns so they could fight in the militia, which is the right to bear arms.

Otherwise the Second Amendment doesn't make sense.

"A well regulated militia..."

Who would start an amendment about personal self defense with "A well regulated militia..."?

That makes no sense at all.

If you're going to write an amendment protecting the Militia, start it with "A well regulated militia...", if you're going to start one about self defense, you'd write "self defense.", wouldn't you?

The Militia was the cops as well back then.

Maybe it was. Doesn't have any bearing on this.

Look, just because it says "militia", that doesn't mean it protects all things the militia might like to do.

 

[Jerico]

The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.

Uh huh.

Our military can't even beat third world monkeys using 40 year old guns and no capability to make their own ammo.

Pretty sure the US population, which purchases more guns and ammunition each black friday than would be required to fully equip the entire USMC would absolutely never succumb to the military.

The idea that a conventional war against the population, by its own military, would involve anything more powerful than conventional weapons is missing the point.

Any attempt to "take over" a country means to seize its wealth, not destroy it. The military would be forced to occupy and subjugate. Good luck with that in a country where private citizens own half of the entire world's guns and more than 2/3 of its ammo.

There is no scenario where our military, or any military, benefits from scorched earth tactics on that scale. Nobody would nuke the cities of this country, nor kill off its population. What would be the gain?

The citizen militia has orders of magnitude more resources of war than the military does. They would lose by attrition alone.

There is no force on this earth more feared than the US public. It is far more powerful and more capable than the military. The gun control nuts know this which is why they try their damnedest to disarm us. Their dream dictatorship is impossible so long as the citizens have their constitutional mandate to be the hard counter against such authoritarianism.

Our military keeps the world honest. We keep our military honest.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.

The ONLY well regulated militia is the Federalized National Guard and a few States have their own militias.

Yes, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You conveniently left out the part that mentions "The right of the people". There are also the subsequent writings of the Founding Fathers that affirm the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.

Not in our Second Amendment. The People are The Militia. Well regulated militia are expressly declared, Necessary, not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.

The People are The Militia.

only the people in the military

not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.

only those between the ages of 18-45, NOT in the military.

The People are the Militia under the common law.

 

[Jerico]

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

It's incredible how authoritarians try to twist the meaning of this phrase, but alas, it is very plain and obvious what it states.

First, it should be noted that the 2nd amendment ( and all amendments in the Bill of Rights) is addressing the government not the people. It isn't granting people any right. Rather, it is reminding the government of an infringement it has not the power to impose.

Everyone, by natural law according to the core constitution, has inalienable rights. All such rights imaginable, listed or not, are available to the people so long as they do not impose upon the rights of others. These rights are not granted by the government, and so cannot be removed by the government. Furthermore, they are inalienable and thus can never be revoked or overwritten by the states either.

This means that the 2nd amendment can never be revoked, nor can it be overwritten. It is not, in any way, a limitation or a granted privilege upon the citizens. Like the rest of The Bill of Rights, it is merely a reminder to the government of its own limitations, and those limitations are not exclusive to that list. The government is restricted from all things unless explicitly stated otherwise. For the people, it is the opposite, they have every right, unless it infringes on the rights of others.

The above is important, because sometimes I think us pro 2nd amendment people set ourselves up for a weakened position by relying too much on the amendment itself. It's easy to fall back on, but it's important to realize that the right to bear arms is not just one asterisk in the document. It is a fundamental right that no man, nor government of man can EVER remove or infringe upon.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

This is merely context. It's stating an objective, not a requirement or a restriction.

",the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"

This is the object of the sentence. It mentions nothing of a militia. It refers merely to the people and their right to bear arms. No restrictions are built into this object. It doesn't say "right to bear small arms" or right to "bear arms on tuesdays". It is quite succinctly, the right to bear arms without any conditions attached.



, shall not be infringed.

This is the directive. As such, you'll note that it is not directed toward the people. It is directed towards the government. The reader, in this case, isn't the people, it is those elected to run the government.

There is absolutely no ambiguity. The location of the commas is very important. Every attempt I've seen to bastardize the meaning of the 2nd amendment involves either eliminating or moving the commas or claiming that the amendment itself is granting the right, when in fact, it does not.

We could talk day in and day out about things the Founding Father's didn't know about- like pocket nukes or grenades that are often used to debate these principles. My goal here is not to argue for or against such debates. What I can tell you is that simply put, the right to bear arms can't be infringed. It's pretty simple.

The Founding Fathers lived in a time where it was fine and reasonable for any person to own the most sophisticated military tech of the time. If you wanted, you could have the newest gun or war galley. There was literally no restriction. Would they change their tune if they saw a bazooka, or a grenade, or an A10? I don't know, but honestly, I doubt it. They were tough sons of Bitches who thought the best way to live was to throw the dice and go with the results.

We are seeing a similar trend with nukes anyways. As more countries get them, the world becomes more peaceful. You could consider this the country sized version of armed against tyranny. Can you blame North Korea for wanting nukes? No, you may not like it, but for them, it's the same insurance policy against imperialism that our AR 15s are against tyranny.

So really, I don't know where to draw that line. If I had to choose between everyone having literally any weapon or nobody having any weapon, I'll take the former. To remove weapons from the equation is to return us to the days of governance by force rather than reason.

 

[danielpalos]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

This is merely context. It's stating an objective, not a requirement or a restriction.

It is the legislative Intent and Purpose. No amount of Judicial activism, can change that.

 

[Jerico]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

This is merely context. It's stating an objective, not a requirement or a restriction.

It is the legislative Intent and Purpose. No amount of Judicial activism, can change that.

, shall not be infringed.

This makes it quite clear that the only legislative intent is no legislation at all. It is after all the only part of the statement directing any action, and that action is no action.

 

[danielpalos]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

This is merely context. It's stating an objective, not a requirement or a restriction.

It is the legislative Intent and Purpose. No amount of Judicial activism, can change that.

, shall not be infringed.

This makes it quite clear that the only legislative intent is no legislation at all. It is after all the only part of the statement directing any action, and that action is no action.

Our Second Amendment is about, the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.

 

[Jerico]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

This is merely context. It's stating an objective, not a requirement or a restriction.

It is the legislative Intent and Purpose. No amount of Judicial activism, can change that.

, shall not be infringed.

This makes it quite clear that the only legislative intent is no legislation at all. It is after all the only part of the statement directing any action, and that action is no action.

Our Second Amendment is about, the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.

It's about neither of those. The entire Bill of Rights is merely an addendum reminding the government of things that it cannot do. It's not an inclusive list, and it doesn't grant any rights to the people. The core constitution makes it clear that the people have a right to do all things which do not directly infringe on the rights of another person.

The Bill of Rights is a list of examples of restrictions on the federal government. Nothing more.

The Bill of Rights (including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights)

The Bill of Rights adds nothing to the core constitution. They are merely clarifications and declarations of intent. They do not modify, in any way, the fundamental rights inalienable to the people as prescribed by the constitution itself.

At the time, the anti federalists didn't trust that future governments would interpret the constitution honestly (how wise they were). They wouldn't ratify it without first having these clarifications placed in the document. Since they do not violate or modify the core constitution, they were added to the end as an addendum.